Chetwynd Bridge

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for Chetwynd Bridge.

It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in Westminster Hall this morning, Ms McVey.

Unfortunately, I have to start with a bit of an admission and some bad news. Unfortunately, “Chetwynd bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down; Chetwynd bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down”. I will not punish hon. Members in the Chamber with a full rendition of a rewritten nursery rhyme, nor will I be singing. Unlike London bridge or indeed another bridge in our capital, further down the river, Chetwynd bridge is not especially famous, and it is unlikely ever to be the subject of a song or a nursery rhyme.

But that is why today’s debate is so important: for me and, I am sure, some colleagues sitting behind me, to take the opportunity to impress on the Minister the vital significance of this bridge to communities in Staffordshire and South Derbyshire, and to remind him that, just like in that song:

“Wood and clay will wash away…Bricks and mortar will not stay”

and iron and steel have been bent and bowed. I promise that will be the last bit of nursery rhyme that I bring in today.

What we know is that Chetwynd bridge needs a replacement, and I will cover more of that shortly. For a number of months, colleagues and I have been arguing for the Government’s structures fund to be used to fund that replacement. As I said to the Minister last night, it is good to see him for one last dance on Chetwynd bridge.

A little background for those who are unsure about where Chetwynd bridge is: it crosses the River Tame in Staffordshire, very close to the Derbyshire border. One end of it sits in my constituency and the other in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). It is also very close by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). It is the oldest cast-iron bridge in the country. It is older than Hammersmith bridge, and also longer—not that it is a competition, but we are older and longer. It was completed over 200 years ago in 1824, so this year we will see its 202nd birthday. It is grade II* listed for many of those reasons. Since 2019, it has been closed to heavy traffic.

Options for patching up the structure have been exhausted over decades and decades. Without a weight limit, the bridge would be at risk of further damage, which could lead to its complete closure, with all the real economic problems that that would cause for my part of Staffordshire.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Robertson]

How could I say no to the hon. Member?

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to raise the issue of historical infrastructure such as the grade II*-listed Chetwynd bridge he refers to, which is suffering under heavy traffic and weight restrictions that isolate communities and hurt local trade. Does he agree that, when local authorities or county councils step up with significant multimillion-pound funding bids to protect our heritage and build modern bypasses, the Government must also ensure that the structures fund delivers for those vital arterial routes, so that small businesses and local commuters do not fall through the cracks?

[Dave Robertson]

I had not even primed the hon. Member to say that, but I very much appreciate his intervention. Later, I will talk about some of the businesses and the real importance of this crossing as an arterial route in Staffordshire. If I can beg his indulgence to hang fire, I will get there shortly.

The current partial closure of the bridge means that it is open to small vehicles. However, because of the protections that Staffordshire county council has had to put in place to prevent heavy goods vehicles from using it, it is currently signalised and one way. That leads to delays even for small goods vehicles; for heavy goods vehicles it is even worse, because the nearest detour is an 18-mile journey through the already congested centre of Burton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his work, and I am proud to support him on this campaign. He is right that it affects my constituency—both businesses, which have to get goods through the key arterial route, and residents. The campaign has support across parties and from the local authority. Does he agree that the structures fund should be put towards it?

[Dave Robertson]

I appreciate the intervention from my hon. Friend and neighbour. The issue is really important. It is economic, social and cultural. When I say that the detour goes through the middle of Burton, it really does go through the middle of Burton. It is not just going close to the town; it goes through the middle of one of the biggest towns in, I think, Britain’s fourth biggest county. That 18-mile diversion is really significant. It is not just a bit of an inconvenience. It is significant for anybody just trying to get around Burton, because there is a huge amount more traffic on those local roads.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant speech about a campaign that we have been trying to run for a long time, and I am grateful that the Minister is present to hear us. Farmers in my patch have complained about the cost that the diversion is adding to their businesses, because sometimes they need to use an extra 20 litres of red diesel. Given the cost of living crisis and the challenges facing businesses, that is not acceptable, and it is also an environmental problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we get this bridge? We have been promised it for 20 years now, and it is about due.

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is a real advocate for Chetwynd bridge, as are all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. It is a really important piece of infrastructure for a huge part of the country, affecting at least four constituencies and likely others much further afield. I completely agree with her, and we are all eager to see the outcome of the structures fund.

On the impact of different vehicles using the bridge, I will start with the emergency services. Ambulances are currently able to traverse the bridge, being below the weight limit, but they get caught up in the queues that form because it is signalised and one way, where it should be two lanes. A modern fire engine, however, weighs upwards of 12 tonnes; fill it with water and it weighs even more. Those vehicles are not allowed to cross Chetwynd bridge, which results in an 18-mile detour to go north via Burton, or south all the way down to Elford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire.

This year we saw the devastating impact that wildfires can have, including the terrible situation in Stourbridge over the summer. Every single pump that Staffordshire fire service could activate was out fighting wildfires. The service dealt with well in excess of 1,000 outdoor fires just this summer. Getting those pumps to where they need to be is vital. The 18-mile detour means minutes lost, time wasted, property damaged and potentially lost and, really worryingly, lives at greater risk.

Fire engines not being able to get around that part of England is probably the most extreme example of the disruption, but for businesses in our region—to come back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—its impact is daily and serious. In the last couple of decades, Lichfield has experienced significant growth, because we are part of the golden triangle of freight and logistics in the midlands. I think Lichfield and the A38 corridor are within a three-hour drive of 90% of the population of the UK.

In the Lichfield constituency, more than one in 10 jobs depend directly on road haulage. Next door in Tamworth, the figure is 7.3%. Significant numbers of jobs rely on road haulage being able to get things around the country quickly. Those retail and wholesale sectors, which are heavily dependent on road haulage, are our largest employers. This is not just a “nice to have”; it is essential to the local economies that are the beating heart of the entire national economy.

Chetwynd bridge is just a few miles from Fradley Park, an important logistics hub spread over 173 acres. As a result of the partial closure, HGVs incur additional time and cost to their journeys, not to mention increased polluting impact—18 miles for an HGV is a lot of carbon footprint. I am pleased that the terms of the structures fund placed special emphasis on road haulage, recognising the significance of the sector. The impact on businesses at Fradley Park is serious and ongoing. I thank the Minister, in his previous portfolio, for his engagement on the construction of the structures fund, specifically looking into whether replacements would be considered. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and I last wrote to him about that in May.

Beyond that, I have already stressed the knock-on impact on haulage, which is felt acutely at Catton estate, which is just up from the bridge on the Tamworth side in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. Catton estate hosts numerous festivals, including Bearded Theory, which has a capacity of 15,000, and Bloodstock, the UK’s largest metal festival, which has a capacity of 20,000—I assume you have been at least once, Ms McVey.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

A date for the diary.

[Dave Robertson]

Festival organisers and the estate all support the urgent replacement of the bridge, which is the primary access route to the estate. They have told me and my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Tamworth about the serious impact on the events set-up of not being able to bring lorries across the bridge and having to use the detour. They are really concerned about what a permanent closure might mean. If we do not get this replacement, a permanent closure is inevitable—it is a case of when, not if.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his incredible leadership and work on campaigning to get this bridge sorted. He knows Ollie Neilson, who runs Catton Hall and who shared with me that just three festivals run at the estate in the last 20 years have brought £20 million to the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about emergency services or people having a fun time at festivals, but about the local economy?

[Dave Robertson]

I could not agree more. The Government want to talk about growth in every postcode: well, here is some growth for our postcode. Lifting the restrictions will make it easier for people to move around our parts of Staffordshire and Derbyshire, which will directly impact the ability of businesses to invest internally, to grow and to continue to drive our local economies. It is really important.

Before I come to my conclusion—I have a couple of minutes—I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire, for Burton and Uttoxeter and for Tamworth for all their work and support on this matter. The bridge does not affect just one constituency; it affects at least four, and its effects go much further afield, into Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.

[Sarah Edwards]

I know time is short, so I thank my hon. Friend for indulging me one more time. The bridge is essential to all our constituencies, so closing it is not an option. We have already spent £14 million to try to fix it, and it did not work. It is a heritage bridge. Does he agree that we need a new bridge and that we must have support from the Minister to ensure that it will help all our constituents?

[Dave Robertson]

I 100% agree. The bridge is essential. It is a big piece of infrastructure.

I understand that the Minister will not be able to give me a yes or no from the Dispatch Box today—I am aware of how this works—but my hon. Friends and I are eager to hear a timeline for the progress of the structures fund. The Chetwynd bridge scheme is effectively shovel ready. Staffordshire county council is prepared to commit just over £6 million to the project and is asking for just over £40 million from the structures fund to support that. It wants this bridge open in 2029. This is a shovel-ready project that can be driven really quickly. Using the structures fund to invest in communities like ours is a great opportunity for the Government to show growth in every postcode—to show that politics can work, that big Government can work for people and that we can get investment into the places it needs to go. Can the Minister set out a timeline for the structures fund, and will he or the relevant Minister meet with me and my hon. Friends to discuss that timeline further?

Indices of Deprivation: England

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Webb]

I absolutely agree, and that is why my hon. Friend and I, along with many others, have been pushing for a coastal communities Minister to address that need and bring in all corners of Government to tackle the problems we face in those communities.

Put simply, when Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds. The IoD’s income deprivation domain measures the proportion of people reliant on means-tested benefits. It captures not just poverty but how close people are to crisis. In Blackpool, income deprivation is deeply entrenched and a daily reality for many, such as Leanne, who contacted me after having her benefits sanctioned. Despite keeping in touch with her work coach about her father’s illness, she missed an appointment when he passed away and was dealt a second blow. It took two months and intervention from me and my office to get her benefits reinstated. In the interim, she was denied a hardship payment and had no food or heating. That is what income deprivation looks like in the real world—not poor budgeting, but families with no safety net when life throws them a shock.

Of course, income deprivation overlaps with employment deprivation, and Blackpool is one of nine local authorities in England ranked among the most deprived on both measures. The IoD’s employment domain measures people who want to work but cannot, due to a lack of opportunities, caring responsibilities, disability or ill health. Employment deprivation is more pronounced in Blackpool, where our labour market is seasonal, insecure, tourism-reliant, low paid and low skilled.

Blackpool council, alongside our tourism industry, has worked hard to extend our offer beyond the summer months, as is visible on our promenade today, with our fantastic Christmas By The Sea festival. But more must be done for people like Noreen, whose autistic son regularly reaches interviews but never secures work, and Rob, who was self-employed when he had a serious accident and faced a 13-week wait for financial support. These are the real lives behind our employment deprivation scores.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the stories of real lives into the debate. When we talk about deprivation, indices and statistics, we can so easily forget that behind every number are people’s lives—lives that should have promise and that deserve the support of this Government. I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for making sure that we do not lose sight of what we are really talking about: people’s lives.

[Chris Webb]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I think we all know it across the parties in this House. We see it in our mailbags every week, in our casework and from the thousands and thousands of individuals who reach out to us for help when they have nowhere else to turn.

Aspiration is not the problem. In February, I hosted Blackpool’s biggest ever jobs fair, welcoming 4,000 jobseekers and over 100 employers, with more than 1,500 roles on offer. Five hundred positions were filled on the day and another 500 positions were filled later on. The indices highlight a lack of good jobs, not a lack of work ethic.

Meanwhile, the IoD’s education domain captures how disadvantage reproduces itself in Blackpool. Residents are concerned about access to quality education, SEND support, post-16 pathways, adult literacy, mental health in schools and workplaces, and the impact of deprivation on learning. These are the mechanisms by which neighbourhoods remain at the bottom of indices for generations.

This February, I will host my jobs fair again, with a sharper focus on career pathways and quality employment, showing what local employers, community partners and political will can achieve. But even with the greatest opportunities on our doorstep, residents are on the back foot from childhood, with disadvantaged school pupils falling furthest behind. Just over half of Blackpool pupils achieve expected standards at key stage 2. At GCSE, Blackpool’s average Attainment 8 score is among the lowest in the country.

Fewer than half our young people achieve a strong pass in English and maths, compared with nearly two thirds nationally.

The indices’ health deprivation and disability domain measures premature deaths, hospital admissions, disability and mental ill health. Some 58.5% of neighbourhoods in Blackpool fall within the 10% most deprived nationally on this measure. Men in Blackpool have the lowest life expectancy in England, with our current toddlers, my son included, not expected to reach the age of 74—a decade less than their peers in Hampshire. I am not going to let that stand.

Severe mental illness rates are shockingly high: in 2018-19, more than 500 people were admitted to hospital for intentional self-harm, and suicide rates among men were the second highest in the country. By 2022-23, Blackpool had the highest prevalence of GP-diagnosed depression in England, and 6,300 people are now claiming personal independence payment for psychiatric disorders—the highest level in Lancashire and in the top 10 nationally.

Health services are at breaking point, and there is a clear human impact—like there was for Jamie Pearson, who tragically took his own life in Blackpool hospital, after waiting nearly 24 hours in A&E during a mental health crisis. Every day I deal with constituents battling to access not only mental health support but a dentist, a GP or hospital care.

People turn to me when there is nowhere left to turn to—people like Steven, himself a mental health nurse, who contacted me after developing serious neurological symptoms. Despite repeated warnings, his first neurology appointment is scheduled for October 2026. This case of a frontline worker who wants to work and support our NHS, but is being failed by it, demonstrates how poor health, economic inactivity and deprivation reinforce one another.

The indices of deprivation crime domain shows that crime and antisocial behaviour are concentrated in areas of multiple deprivation. Similarly, a recent report by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods notes that crime persists in areas facing persistent poverty, under-investment and neglect. In such places, residents report concerns about antisocial behaviour, illegal drugs and safety, and feel less connected and optimistic—people like Chantelle, who endured two years of threats and antisocial behaviour in Bloomfield, a neighbourhood ranked 12th out of 33,755 neighbourhoods of the indices of deprivation. Despite repeated police involvement, she and her neighbours felt unsafe, but could not move because of financial barriers.

We also know what works. In Brunswick ward, which is within the ninth most deprived neighbourhood nationally, Blackpool’s multi-agency youth antisocial behaviour working group reduced youth-related incidents by 45% through targeted interventions, alongside the work of the brilliant PACT—police and communities together—meetings led by Brian Robinson. Scaling up that approach, with co-ordinated, cross-Government strategies and devolved funding, can make deprived neighbourhoods safer, stronger and more connected.

Perhaps the biggest problem that this Government could tackle to improve life for my constituents is housing, which directly impacts poverty, health, education, employment and so much more. The IOD’s barriers to housing and services domain captures affordability and access, while the living environment domain measures housing quality, air quality and road safety. More than one in four cases that my office handles relates to housing or the living environment, because poor housing and unhealthy environments reinforce disadvantage at every turn.

Blackpool council has done some good work building new council houses in areas such as Grange Park, where my grandparents, Dougie and Maggie, were some of the first to collect their keys when the post-war estate was built. Now, new generations of families have the same opportunity to have quality, secure homes, but we still have a huge shortage: a stock of only 5,000 social homes and 12,000 people on the waiting list. More than 20,000 households privately rent, many in properties well below standard, and thousands live in damp and unsafe conditions.

Chelsea was seven months pregnant when she was served with a section 21 notice. She could not raise a deposit for other private rentals, and her bid for social housing was unsuccessful. Saleem lost a leg and was forced into a care home, separated from his family for almost a year because there were no adapted homes available. Meanwhile, Tia and her two young children were placed in a B&B with no cooking facilities, where her baby’s health deteriorated. I see these situations every day.

Investment in homes and streets is not a luxury; it is the foundation for better lives, safer communities and opportunities. Recent Pride in Place funding offers hope but, as I told the Secretary of State just the other week, one scheme is not enough. Blackpool is suited to multiple, targeted, place-based interventions to address housing, the environment and opportunities. It is also exactly the kind of place that should have benefited from the Government’s new fair funding formula. Instead, the local government finance settlement will potentially harm some of the most deprived communities further.

My council also informs me that the new formula disproportionately penalises deprived northern and coastal towns. We need a fair, progressive new system if we are to radically change lives. I will work with the Department further in the run-up to February to see what more can be done.

Overall, 82% of neighbourhoods in the most deprived decile in 2025 were also there in 2019. Only a handful of constituencies have shifted position at either end of the scale. It is clear from these statistics that we must do something different to tackle entrenched deprivation. We must put our money where our mouth is with targeted, long-term, place-based investment, guided by the indices. Moving beyond short-term pots to multi-year investment, tied to measurable outcomes like better jobs, improved health, higher educational attainment and a narrowing of the life expectancy gap, is essential, and that must be done on a scale that meets the extent of the problem.

Blackpool has enormous pride and potential. Despite the challenges captured in the statistics, people in our town will not be defined by them. Our communities are strong, our young people are ambitious, and our organisations drive change every day. This spirit of resilience and determination is the foundation on which renewal can be built. With the right support, investment and political will, that local energy can be harnessed to transform opportunity, improve lives and rewrite the story of our town. The people of Blackpool are doing their bit and, by showing us where the need is greatest, the indices have done theirs; now the Government must do their bit, too. With enough political will, Blackpool does not have to be a poster child for deprivation; it can be the poster child for renewal. If the Government can turn around Blackpool, they can turn around the country, and if Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds.

I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, alongside all the staff in this place, but especially the staff in my office—Wendy, Holly, Antonia, Kate, Luke, Grace and Amber—for all their work. I wish all staff and all Members across this House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Property Service Charges

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for bringing this debate before the House, and to the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for it. From the number of Members present in the Chamber today, we can all see that property service charges are a problem across the entire country, but they certainly are for people in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages.

In the time I have, I will focus on just one of the estates where these charges are an issue: the Roman Heights estate in the village of Streethay, on the edge of Lichfield. The people who live on that estate know just how difficult managing agents can be. I have had dozens of households get in touch to tell me about the appalling service they have received from their managing agent— I will not name it, but I am sure it is the first name we would think of. Over the summer, I held a town hall with residents, at which I heard the same thing over and over again. Bills for management were coming through completely irregularly, sometimes with three bills for three years being received in the space of three months, which is interesting. There was absolutely no transparency about the level of charge, with demands to come up with huge sums of money at a moment’s notice. All the while, basic maintenance such as cutting the grass just was not being done, leaving residents wondering what exactly they were paying for.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is also from Staffordshire, for giving way. A constituent has got in touch with me to say, “It genuinely feels like they are stealing money from us.” Another said, “I just feel like we are a cash cow for these companies.” Does my hon. Friend agree that if managing agents and companies want to continue operating these services, they must increase transparency and make things more regular for their customers?

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend is right. She is a very good friend, and often she has seen speeches before I give them, but she has not seen this one, and she gives me the perfect segue into my next point.

Transparency is so important. When I surveyed residents in the affected estate, 85% told me that billing was either poor or very poor. Some 79% have told me that the management of the estate was poor or very poor. I have written to that management company, and I am looking forward to meeting it, because its written response is simply not good enough.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Much like my hon. Friend in Staffordshire, I have constituents who are under the same management company. Even when trying to use mechanisms to see things, such as by a section 21 request under the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985, they have been ignored and dismissed, or often are given incorrect information. Does my hon. Friend hope, like I do, that when the Minister sums up, he will talk a little bit about the technical measures for holding these organisations to account and why they are not working so well? Enforcement of the existing rules should be enough. Whether or not those should be changed, there are mechanisms available that my constituents are trying to access that are simply not working.

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend is well apprised over the specific issue. Part of the issue we may be facing is that he refers to an Act of Parliament that is older than either of us. There may be significant space for an update in this area.

It is clear from my hon. Friends’ comments and from everything we have heard this afternoon that this situation is all too common. Up and down the country, managing agents are just letting people down. The long-term solution has to be councils taking on the management of these estates themselves. It is an absolute travesty that we have a bizarre situation where some people are being charged twice for the same service.

Last week, other Labour MPs and I met the House Builders Federation to discuss this issue, and I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for organising that. The message that came out of that was clear that adoption is holding up those companies, too. They want to see adoptions happening faster. There are massive issues with how they are approached for things. We heard one story of a particular local authority that demands semi-permeable paving as part of its planning process, but its highways department will apparently never adopt anything with semi-permeable paving. That is a totally bizarre situation. It is a case not of two councils but of one organisation where the different parts are not talking to each other.

Councils need to work harder on this issue. They need to ensure that they are working with residents and companies to get it right, but they also need to have the money and expertise to be able to do so. Fourteen years of cuts, freezes and austerity on councils have left planning departments hollowed out, and we need to ensure we are rebuilding that capacity so that things can be done correctly. It is important that we take this issue seriously, so that residents in my constituency and across the country get the service they so deeply need, for which they apparently are paying through the nose.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Ending Homelessness

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it. Last week, my hon. Friend and I had the privilege of speaking at events hosted by Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse and the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance. It is so important that we bring domestic abuse into this conversation, because it is the leading cause of homelessness for women in this country.

However, the real reason I am here today is my constituent Caitlin. Caitlin is a survivor. She was in a relationship that turned abusive, and unbeknown to her family she was coerced into co-signing a lease for a flat with her abuser, naming herself as guarantor. Four days after she signed that lease, he was arrested, charged and later convicted. Caitlin has never lived in that flat, but despite her former partner’s conviction, there was no way to release her from that contract. He refused to pay rent, as another way of exerting control over her, and that put Caitlin at huge financial risk. It took until last week to resolve the issue, with months of back and forth from my office, and eventually the threat of legal action, before the agent backed down. There was no compassion and no understanding, and Caitlin knew things could have been much worse if she did not have a supportive family.

I am proud that the Renters’ Rights Bill will take us a step closer to solving that problem by doing away with shorthold tenancies, but there is a lot more we need to do. Standing Together and DAHA have pioneered the adoption of what they call the whole housing approach, and last week they published the findings of a trial in Cheshire East. It was astonishingly successful, preventing 98% of the women involved from becoming homeless, up from 63% before the pilot began. What consideration is the Department giving to expanding that approach across the country?

Under that approach, Standing Together and DAHA have also developed a new accreditation targeted at the private rented sector, and I want to see a trial of that new accreditation fully funded. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would love to hear from the Minister what the consideration the Department will give to funding the next stage of that pilot.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Amendment 21, also in the name of the noble Lord de Clifford, is about creating the framework whereby a landlord can evict a tenant in order to create space for someone who would then care for them. The reasoning that we heard from the Government Front Bench just now was quite shocking—that the only people who might be interested in putting this forward would be Members of the other place, with the implication being that they have large properties and it is all about self-interest. The argument was that there is only a small number of people that this might be relevant to and because they are small in number we can ignore them. It is an interesting political philosophy that small groups of people can comfortably be ignored by Governments. That is certainly not the politics I want to put across.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the shadow Secretary of State said that my hon. Friend did not need to pay any attention to the people in his inbox who had contacted him. Was he not advocating exactly that—we should not listen because it is a small number of people, and we should accept these amendments so that this legislation can be watered down? Is he not arguing both sides of the same coin on this?

[Sir James Cleverly]

If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating—

[Dave Robertson]

rose—

[Sir James Cleverly]

No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.

The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s move to empower tenants. For too long in this country, owning property has been seen as a way to create additional wealth, rather than the intention being to provide a safe, secure and warm home for tenants. Not all landlords are bad, but there are some bad apples out there, and all those who are unable to get on to the housing ladder, or who actively choose to rent, deserve security of tenure, and confidence that they will not be evicted at the whim of a landlord, which often means being forced to move out of the area, and uprooting children from schools.

I declare an interest, because my younger daughter has spent four years renting in London, and for the last two, she has been living in horrific, mould-covered flats. She had to move out of the last one early, because the mould crawling up the walls was so bad that it was affecting the health, and ruining the belongings, of her and her flatmates. In 2025, that is simply not acceptable. For the thousands of people living in unsuitable accommodation, we must ensure that local authorities can take action against negligent landlords. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats do not support Lords amendment 26.

I support Lords amendment 39, which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation. In my constituency of South Devon, the prestigious Britainnia royal naval college brings a large number of military families to the town of Dartmouth, some of whom live in MOD housing. Those families, who commit to a life of service—the whole family is involved when one member serves our country—deserve, at the very least, a home that is safe, comfortable, warm, energy efficient and decent. I am not sure that I agree with the security argument offered by the Minister, given that much MOD housing is located outside military bases. It is not beyond possibility to find a way to ensure that local authorities can access that housing. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for decent homes for military families, who deserve exactly the same standards and legal protection as other renters, and I urge the House to support Lords amendment 39.

Turning to pets, a friend of mine recently failed to move back to Devon because she simply could not find rented accommodation in her price bracket, and her search was severely hampered by the fact that she has a much-loved family dog. Being told that she was not eligible even to look at properties because of the dog was discriminatory, and it made a difficult search impossible. We are in an area that is short of houses available to rent. If we take the average rent in the south-west of £1,181 per month, the proposal to allow landlords to request pet damage deposits of up to three weeks’ rent equates to an additional £817 up front, which is simply out of reach for most tenants. The current rental deposit cap of five weeks’ rent is sufficient to cover any potential pet-related damage, and nobody should be priced out of pet ownership simply because they do not own their own home. I therefore do not support Lords amendment 11.

Finally, I turn to agricultural workers. Agriculture is one of the largest industries and employers in South Devon, which is a predominantly rural constituency. Many of those working on farms as dairy workers, relief milkers and tractor drivers are required to live on site, as they have to work incredibly unsocial hours, and living on site makes the job slightly more manageable. I support measures in the Bill that allow repossession when a property is required to house agricultural workers, whether they are employed or self-employed. Farmers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find housing for farm workers, with many having to rely on caravans and cabins that are not suitable for long-term living. As it is increasingly common in farming for workers to be self-employed, we must ensure that they, too, are covered by the grounds for repossession, so I support Lords amendment 55.

[Dave Robertson]

I am glad that I managed to sneak in this speech, and I hope I will finish it. There have been many speeches made by Members on both sides of the Chamber, many of which have focused on the many things that the Bill will hopefully achieve. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) does have two very cute cats.

Coalfields Regeneration Trust

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

How lucky are we to have my hon. Friend’s experience and background on these Benches? I defer to her both in terms of her commitment to the cause and her experience of standing up for the very people that we on the Government Benches are here to speak up for this evening.

If these themes sound familiar it is because they closely align, as my hon. Friend has said, with the priorities of this Labour Government: to improve our national health; to get Britain working again; to improve our skills provision; and to ensure that people can get and stay in stable, well-paid and fulfilling work.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Adam Jogee]

I will happily give way to another Staffordshire man.

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend from the great county of Staffordshire. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust does great work in my constituency, working alongside some charities in Chasetown to employ a counsellor to support people back into work. Does he agree that much of the work that we need to do on regeneration is not about buildings, but about the people who work in those buildings? It is about respecting the contributions that those communities have made and making sure that they have the support they need to be able to contribute in the future.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend,, who has a much better head of hair than his predecessor—and it is his. He makes a very good point. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, pride, power and people must drive us as we move forward.

Despite 15 years of Conservative-led Governments failing the CRT and, by extension, our coalfield communities, the CRT has still managed to create an asset base worth £55.5 million, supporting almost 3,500 jobs.

High Street Rental Auctions

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this debate. It is an important debate, because when we talk to people in towns such as Burntwood in my constituency, they see their town centre—their high street—as a physical representation of how well the economy is doing. For obvious reasons, much of the conversation in politics at the moment is about growth, which the Government have placed at the heart of what they want to do, but the line about growth being felt everywhere needs to be demonstrated through a revival of our high streets and town centres.

I look around at hon. Members present in this debate, and we are town MPs by and large. It is town centres that have really struggled over a number of years of Government inaction, as well as the bluff and buster about levelling up that failed to do anything. When I talk to my constituents about what levelling up means, it is very difficult to tie down, but if growth is to be felt everywhere in the country, it needs to come back to those high streets and town centres.

I am pleased that the new Government are giving councils the powers to act on the issue and revitalise our high streets, such as the power to take an empty shop and get a business in there, so that somebody can visit and buy something, or they can spend their time and invest themselves in their town. Within that, I am particularly pleased that Lichfield district council is an early adopter and will be acting quickly to use those new powers to ensure that landlords are leasing those properties in Lichfield city centre and Burntwood.

Lichfield is lucky to have a thriving city centre, and we are fortunate to have great cafés and a wonderful set of pubs and restaurants, including the only Michelin star ever awarded in Staffordshire. Although my constituents are happy to have that café culture, they would also like to go into town and buy more than a vape. They are happy to support charity shops, but they would also like something that did not have the word “charity” before “shop”. Hopefully, the introduction of this new policy, as well as the district council following it through, will change the economics to support those traditional retailers, such as clothes retailers, to come back to our cities so that people can patronise those shops.

Up the road in Burntwood, it is a different story. Burntwood is a town of around 35,000 people. It developed from a number of villages growing into each other during the last century, but it has been starved of investment for decades. The town centre in Burntwood, which is almost ready to go, is great and there are wonderful businesses at Sankey’s Corner, but it has not had the investment to make that really kick on. This new Government policy is a wonderful opportunity to ensure that, where there are great shops, the gaps in the middle are filled.

People in Burntwood are sick and tired of being told to wait their turn. For too long, under the previous Government, that was the policy for such places: “Wait your turn. Keep bidding for these £20 million pots, and one will come to you eventually, but we can’t tell you when. It might come down the line”—but it never came. People in the town do not want to wait for a handout. They do not want someone to ride in on a white charger and say, “I am bestowing upon you your £20 million. It will solve everything for you!” That is not how our economy works. We do not have a planned economy in the UK—it is not Soviet Russia.

We want to support genuine, real local businesses to start up and deliver services for our residents. I looked forward to coming to this debate to discuss this issue and say how important this policy is for councils to make sure that people have venues to access.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on securing this excellent debate. The good people of Lichfield and Redditch share a lot of common themes, particularly the pride in our town centres and high streets. My businesses, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), have spent so much money on doing up their shops, and they have worked with the Redditch business improvement district and the council to do all they can to bring people in. They have been let down because we do not have the powers to support them by closing those vacant shops and getting more people in. I strongly welcome these powers, but does he agree that we can make the difference that our high streets and towns deserve if the Government work together with our excellent councils—such as the newly Labour-elected Redditch borough council, which is about to reopen the outdoor market for the first time in five years under the leadership of Councillor Joe Baker—instead of pitting town against town?

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend from the end of the railway line for his intervention—it is a long railway line and the busiest outside London. He is right that towns should never be pitted against each other. Far too often, even in my constituency, which has two towns of around 35,000 people, it is sometimes felt that one of them gets the cheese and one of them does not. That is unfortunate for the town that is considered to have got the cheese, because everyone deserves the support, but it is really unfair for the town that feels like it does not have it. Every single town deserves that kind of town centre; every single high street deserves that vibrancy. They deserve to thrive, and the people who live there deserve to have that centre—a place they can invest themselves in in their local area.

On that basis, I am very happy to support the policy that the Government are introducing. However, that absolutely cannot be the end of this. I will keep fighting for Burntwood town centre. I will keep fighting for high streets, and not just in towns—I could get on to village high streets, but somebody will punch me in a minute. I will continue to fight for more for Burntwood and continue talking to developers, working with the council and working with any stakeholder that I can to drive investment into our town centres. This is a great start from my Government, but there is always more to do.

English Devolution

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

That question was raised earlier, and I apologise for not addressing it. The Government will provide capacity to enable both devolution and local government reorganisation through discussions with local authorities. Some of that might be funding, and quite a lot might be support through workforce development. Last week, we launched the workforce development group —a joint project between MHCLG, other Government Departments and bodies such as the Local Government Association—to make sure that we are addressing the workforce issues. Even before the reorganisation, we know that many counties are struggling to recruit to jobs like adult social care and many districts are struggling to recruit to jobs like planning, so there is a bigger issue here that we are looking to address.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which lists me as a member of Lichfield city council and Lichfield district council.

I want to touch on the future of parish and town councils, as the White Paper talks in two places about stronger engagement between the new authorities and parish councils. Can the Minister go further by saying how that will work, particularly given their importance in places like Staffordshire? Staffordshire has almost 1 million people, is 3% of the length of England, and has real centres of community and a lot of population centres that are not currently reflected in their district councils but are very much reflected in their town councils in places like Burntwood.

[Jim McMahon]

Again, we say in the White Paper—I also referenced this in my opening remarks—that it was a Labour Government who introduced quality status for parish councils to recognise that that tier of government has a very important role to play and can do far more if trusted and given the power to do so.

We see that town and parish councils have an important role to play but, in the end, that is notwithstanding reorganisation. Reorganisation will need to take place in many areas, and parish and town councils could or could not do more, but I would say that that is a slightly separate issue.

As to the proposal for individual areas to take account of issues like identity, belonging and the different units of government, we are happy to have those conversations on a one-to-one basis. I can assure the House that there will be ample opportunity to meet me and my fellow Ministers on a one-to-one basis, as well as for drop-in sessions, to make sure that matters that are not picked up on the Floor of the House can be picked up later.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Dave Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am delighted that the tractor beeps have stopped, partly because anyone watching the debate might have thought that the beeping was in case I swore pre-watershed. I assure people that it was the tractors outside.

I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. I will pick out a few, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and then address a number of issues raised by Members around the Chamber. My hon. Friend made several important points, which many Members understand because we go through the same things. As in his constituency, there is an excessive amount of development in mine, where it is being led by the Liberal Democrat local authority. We know there are similar cases around the country, and we know that developers do not always stick to the standards that we need them to and that consumers are entitled to when buying something as big as a property that they expect to live the majority of their lives in.

My hon. Friend also mentioned early consultation, which is an important concept, and talked about local plans. It is important that the new Government take a strong line, like the previous Government, to ensure that local authorities deliver a feasible local plan. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the Minister for Housing and Planning, will reassure us that she will stick to the importance of neighbourhood plans. Local people know what they want in their area, and they deserve the Government’s protection from excessive and speculative development.

It was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about their constituencies and housing. I worry that many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley will be exacerbated by some of the policies announced by Ministers. I am worried that the centralising zeal of the new Government will take power away from local councillors. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said that he wanted planning decisions made closer to the ground, and by people who know their local area. Unfortunately, the policies announced this week will take planning decisions away from locally elected councillors, who act on behalf of his constituents.

The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) wants a bolder and more ambitious offer in his area, which I know well because he is my constituency neighbour and we served on the same local authority together. He might want a word with his ministerial colleagues who have reduced housing targets in his city from 1,450 to 1,100, while doubling or tripling targets in neighbouring more rural areas. If he wants bold and ambitious plans for his area, perhaps he should speak to his Government about taking targets away from Labour areas and putting them in Tory and Liberal Democrat ones.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned hedges and local features of his constituency. I am sure it is beautiful, but I say the same to him: if he wants more resources for planning departments across the country, he should have a word with his Ministers, who are taking power to say yes or no away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Residents of Watery Lane in Lichfield know fine well that these powers already exist. There was significant local objection to a 750-home development right on the edge of the city. It went through every single possible stage of objection from the local authority and local residents, and it was still just signed off by a Minister in Whitehall. These powers have existed for a long time, so will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he does not make the point that some type of new power is being brought in?

[Paul Holmes]

That is not what the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the Chamber on Monday. He said that local authorities and councillors can make decisions about their area as long as the Minister is able to call applications in. It is a bypassing of locally elected councillors and a bypassing of local authorities, and the Government need to look again at the power that they are taking away from people at the grassroots and putting into the hands of Ministers at their desks in Westminster. The last Government would never have done that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley also mentioned section 106 agreements. It is really important that we make sure that section 106 funds are allocated to local areas as much as possible. Experts have criticised systems such as section 106, with Professor Christian Hilber of the London School of Economics describing them as “inefficient—even counterproductive” and arguing that they potentially drive up house prices instead of delivering the affordable housing and public goods that they are meant to provide. Research by the Home Builders Federation highlighted that, troublingly, local authorities in England and Wales are holding on to £8 billion of unspent developer contributions. Those funds could transform communities: 11,000 affordable homes could be built, 12 million potholes could be repaired and 126,000 new school places could be created.

We agree that it is time for policies that empower local councils and deliver tangible benefits for residents when it comes to the standard of developments. It is vital that local authorities have up-to-date local plans to ensure that people have a say in shaping the vision and framework for their communities over the next few years. That is why I am concerned about the centralising structures that this Government have introduced. They are bringing forward planning reforms before the revised national planning policy framework, which we think will be released tomorrow, has been published. That does not seem transparent, and it does not seem like joined-up government. They really need to look at bringing in wider reforms together.

There are also fears that the Government’s ambition to build on the green belt could extend to undermining local democracy itself—that even includes hedges. In their reform of planning committees, the Government are planning to strip back the democratic role of local government and impose top-down reforms at a later stage. How will the Minister ensure that the local voices of elected councillors are heard in this process? Her constituents and the constituents of every Member in this House elect councillors to represent them, and I do not understand why the Government seem not to have confidence in local authorities, even those controlled by the Labour party—because its local authority leaders have said that these plans are not deliverable—to make decisions themselves.

We must ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor services from developers, especially when it comes to the management of their homes and estates. The Government must work hard to ensure high standards among managing agents and hold them accountable for their actions. It is essential that any reforms under this Government enable our communities to take positive steps towards building more homes, regenerating local areas and supporting economic growth. The last thing we want is for these reforms to inadvertently create barriers to progress or leave communities disempowered.

I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley about the fees charged to maintain estates, particularly where communal areas remain under construction. The law is clear that service charges must be reasonable and the work or services paid for must be of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders have the right to ask for a breakdown of these charges and the evidence supporting them, such as receipts, and it is a criminal offence for a landlord to withhold that information. If leaseholders believe a charge is unreasonable, they have the right to apply to the tribunal.

I say to the Minister that we will work together on leasehold reform. The last Government made great strides in making sure that leaseholders are looked after and that they have protections under the law. The Minister has announced further measures. Will she confirm when she will bring those proposals to the House? Another Minister in her Department said that extra leasehold protections may not take effect for the lifetime of this Parliament. We ask the Government to move faster than that and to introduce those powers as soon as possible.

On infrastructure, I encourage councils to make use of the powers available to them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their communities. However, I do not believe in imposing overly prescriptive mandates from the centre. There are instances in which a more tailored approach may be necessary.

Finally—many Members may be happy that I am winding up my contribution—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley again. One thing I will say about this debate is that despite our political disagreements, everybody around the Chamber has the best interests of their constituents at heart. They want their constituents to have accessible housing of a good standard, whether that is private housing, socially rented housing or housing for affordable rent. All of us in this Chamber have a responsibility, across parties, to ensure that the houses built across this United Kingdom are fit for purpose, and that they are ones that are wanted by local people and not imposed by central Government.