New Housing: Environmental Standards

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) on securing this debate, and I congratulate other Members on their contributions. The issues raised in the debate have helped to illustrate the complexities inherent in housing environmental standards. We know that the UK has probably—or certainly among—the oldest housing stock of any developed country, and we know about the complexity of housing tenure in the United Kingdom. Freeholder-owned buildings that are often occupied by a combination of leaseholders and tenants continue to be a challenge to Governments of all parties, when it comes to introducing the required updates and retrofits. In the context of housing development—1.4 million units of new housing already have planning consent in the United Kingdom—developers’ feedback on, for example, the cost of solar panels as a barrier to bringing forward new housing remains an active part of the debate.

Governments of all parties have made strenuous efforts over the years to improve the quality of housing, including several aspects of its environmental impact. The 2018 update to energy performance certificates, with a view to setting a deadline of 2025 for all rental properties placed on the market to meet a certain minimum standard, was an example of a Government intervention that aimed to raise standards. Some of the challenges for which the housing retrofit and building sectors have advocated have led Governments to feel that it was necessary to think again. No issue illustrates the complexities more clearly than the point that has been made about nutrient neutrality, something for which decision-making is essentially delegated to a third party under legislation that goes back to the mid-2000s. Central Government’s desire to minimise the environmental impact of development on surface water and waterways has led to significant delays in the delivery of new housing projects. I was going to quote the former leader of South Norfolk council—previously in the Public Gallery—who, in his capacity as a councillor, challenged the impact that that was having on the ability of local authorities to deliver new housing through the planning process, because of the delays in getting decisions made and permissions agreed. As the local authority bringing forward housing, if a site is not viable because of its environmental impact, it is clearly necessary then to be able to make a decision to move forward with other sites. It is clear that the planning process does not always support that decision making.

It is also noteworthy that the Innovate UK study, which looked at the real-world emissions of properties versus the intended emissions and those expected from the design estimates, identified that emissions were on average between two and three times higher than those that would have been expected from the design. I appreciate that Ministers in the new Government, like Ministers in previous Governments, face the challenge that we can do things that sound brilliant in theory, only to discover that how they operate in the real world does not meet the aspirations we all strive for.

I know the hon. Member for North Herefordshire previously served as a Member of the European Parliament. It is worth referring to the recent decision, outlined in a written ministerial statement, that from this period the intended deadline by which all building materials had to meet UK standards updated in 2018 would be set aside, and that products that met the CE standard would instead remain able to be sold into the UK market for an indefinite period. That may be an issue for fire standards; because the European Union standards on fire performance were last updated in 2015, they form part of that regulation, whereas the UK standards were updated in 2018.

Those standards also draw on a wide range of different studies and regulations in respect of performance, from damp resistance to energy efficiency. Again, it would be helpful for the Minister to set out for the benefit of Members present his expectation that those standards will meet the aspirations set out in the 2018 update of UK standards—I have confidence that that will be the case. Then we can be confident that the products sold into the UK market will meet the energy efficiency aspirations that Members have set out, and ensure that those products and materials contribute towards creating high-quality homes that fulfil the important expectations of warmth, absence of damp and the accessibility of fresh air that have been set out.

The national planning policy framework updates in prospect afford a further opportunity to consider how those requirements can be better enshrined in planning law. I appreciate that Ministers have a difficult challenge: the national planning policy framework has something like 19 chapters of detailed guidance. Each local authority is then required to put together its local plan, following public examination, in detailed conformity with each of those 19 chapters. The impact of that, its interaction with local environmental impacts such as surface water runoff, and any requirements for the design and nature of the materials used, in conformity with established local practices, all combine to create a significant challenge.

If the aspirations set out by Members are to be seen in practice, we must make it as straightforward as possible for local authorities to exercise their community leadership role. Rather than having to go through lengthy and expensive processes to demonstrate in planning law that that conformity is present, we must ensure that the standards can be implemented as quickly as possible.

I know the Minister, and other Members who have been in office for some time, will be aware that past Government initiatives, such as those around green homes, although sensible in principle in seeking to make Government funding for retrofit available to households as quickly as possible, have led to significant challenges in their administration. That is especially true where, for example, a business that has been licensed and approved to carry out the retrofit of those initiatives then loses that licence between the time when it has done work on a constituent’s home and the point when the invoice is paid.

The rules and regulations around that area need to ensure that it is as straightforward as possible for all constituents to make the right choice in buying a home, knowing that it meets the highest possible environmental standards, or in deciding to invest in their home in a way that will genuinely reduce running costs and improve the quality of the insulation. In practice, that must fulfil the aspirations the Government set out in allocating the funding.

Finally, it is a source of pride that under Governments of all parties, the UK has seen the biggest per capita carbon reduction from its residents—our constituents —since the carbon reduction target was first brought forward in the 1990s. It is very good that we have managed to achieve that. We have done it through a variety of measures, not just in the housing sector, but, given the significant part that emissions from the housing sector play in our carbon emissions, there is a clear opportunity for the environmental standards that have been thoroughly aired in this debate to play a significant role in how we address this challenge in future.

I can undertake that the Opposition will work constructively over this Parliament, where we can see the opportunity, with Government and other parties to support the implementation of standards and measures that will help to deliver that agenda.

Short-term Lets: Regulation

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). It is good to see her following in the footsteps of her predecessor, who secured a number of debates and made many contributions on the impact this issue has on that constituency and others. May I also commend the work that London councils have done on behalf of local authorities in the capital to highlight the impact of this issue and bring forward constructive policy suggestions?

There is a high degree of commitment to cross-party working on this issue. As we have heard, it has an impact on constituencies across the country, not just here in the capital, and it was much debated in the last Parliament, particularly during the era of the covid pandemic. We saw many of our constituents who wished to go on holiday or needed to travel for work unable to use hotels, and they therefore made the best possible use of providers such as Airbnb to secure accommodation that met the covid regulations in place at the time.

Many of us worked on the assumption that post-covid there would be a return to the market as we had seen it before, which clearly has not been the case. At the same time, longer-term changes, driven partly by Government but also by wider issues in the market, have seen reducing profit margins for those in the buy-to-let market and people facing higher costs for the standards of the buildings that they maintain. They have also seen the introduction of significantly increased checks on tenants as a result of the need to crack down on unlawful lettings and market changes more generally, as the big players such as Airbnb and Booking.com have sought to create a greater supply of this type of accommodation for commercial reasons.

Clearly, the regulations introduced in 2015—particularly in the capital, with the 90-day limit and the requirement that somebody had to be paying residential council tax on accommodation for it to be let, as well as ensuring that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) would not be able to let out his parliamentary office should he wish to do so—are examples of measures taken by Government with a view to ensuring that this market played a positive role in local communities. However, as has been highlighted by many Members, significant issues clearly remain despite those measures and that high degree of cross-party consensus.

As with many things, I put it to the Minister that there will be an opportunity in the Government’s review of the planning system to consider points about the use classes that would apply to property, in particular to introduce requirements around planning consent being sought for those properties that could create a nuisance because of their proximity to other types of residential development, and to ensure that powers that may be enforced are available to local authorities through the planning system.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning authorities can barely wash their own faces, let alone take over the enforcement of thousands of holiday lets? Does he not think that that could be a huge challenge, which could perhaps be better funded through taking money directly from the holiday let operators?

[David Simmonds]

I started my political career as the chairman of a planning committee in London, and I am very aware of the challenges faced by planning authorities—not just in the capital, but elsewhere.

The design of the system around enforcement is clearly intended to ensure that it is financially self-sustaining; we have seen some examples of that with local authorities, including those that have entered into contracts with the private sector specifically to ensure higher levels of enforcement funded by fines and charges levied against those abusing the system. Not all local authorities have reached the stage where they are prepared to undertake that work, but clearly both the available market in providers and the powers and freedoms that local authorities have enable them to do that if they feel that it is an appropriate and proportionate solution to the level of challenges and concerns that they face in their local community.

We know that the current situation reflects a long-standing determination on the part of Governments of all parties to ensure that there is an increase in the accommodation available. Measures such as Rent a Room tax relief, which was introduced many years ago, were intended to ensure that there was a greater supply of flexible accommodation, so we need to ensure that we strike the right balance in this market.

I finish with some observations about the context of the housing market in which this debate is taking place. The UK has the most intensively used housing stock of any major developed country in the world. We have very few derelict or empty properties, so given the level of demand in comparison with other major economies, it is clearly important that we ensure as far as possible that accommodation is available to those who need it.

An element of that will be short-term lets, which play an important role in the economy, but with many people looking to secure longer-term and permanent housing that clearly needs to be a high priority. In taking forward their planning reforms, I urge the Government to consider the fact that there are already an additional 1.4 million new homes in England with planning consent already granted by our local authorities. Priority should be given to ensuring that those consents are fulfilled and those homes are built, rather than prioritising, for example, the deregulation of the green belt.

I also want to bring something else to the attention of those present. In some respects the previous Government’s record deserves criticism, but on measures for net additional dwellings and new homes per calendar year—both major measures on housebuilding—development under the previous Government hit record levels; in fact, in recent years it hit the long-term record for as long as the statistics have been gathered. Indeed, during the last Parliament, a net additional 1 million new homes were built in England alone, in fulfilment of the manifesto commitment.

Many hon. Members have highlighted lots of issues that need to be dealt with effectively. I would encourage the Government to consider how, through their review of the planning system, those issues can effectively be brought forward. They should also consider how existing measures that have been highlighted, such as enforcement powers and the means of recouping costs, which are already available and used widely by some local authorities, could be put into action more swiftly.

Planning Policy: Traveller Sites

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. The contributions of all hon. Members have helped to illustrate both the complexity of this issue and its importance at community level.

Every local authority has a quasi-judicial role as a planning authority, in that it has to follow planning law and the relevant statutes, and my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have called for everyone to be treated equally before the law for the purposes of the planning process. That is clearly a complex challenge for our local authorities, which also have various statutory duties as housing providers. When considering an application, the local authority has to ensure that planning law is fully upheld, but it also has a role in designating sites on which Traveller pitches and other development may take place. Most of us will have experience of that matter—the situation at Jackets Lane in my constituency is almost identical to that described by my hon. Friend. Like many Members, I am fortunate to have two local authorities with full housing revenue account, local authority-maintained Traveller pitches, as well as privately designated sites.

However, it is understandable that, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—I have experienced this in my own home—the sites can cause a great deal of community concern, given some aspects of the behaviour of individuals associated them. We cannot simply say that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community is one community. In my constituency, there are settled Travellers, who have chosen to occupy a bricks and mortar home and may require family members who are travelling to be able to stay close to them at certain times of year. There are people with much more ancient lifestyles, particularly among some of the Roma and traditional Gypsy community, whose requirements are very different. All our local authorities need to be flexible, and communities need to be aware of those distinctions, so that the responses that we put in place are appropriate.

We all accept that provision will be inadequate for some individuals, and that there may not be a spot on a local authority-provided site when they arrive. Indeed, the behaviour of some, who may not even be UK residents but who can arrive in large numbers and undertake unlawful and illegal incursions, can significantly affect the reputation of other members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked an important question in the context of parliamentary proceedings: how can something that is either unlawful or, in some cases, specifically illegal in planning law be rendered lawful by other considerations? If a property developer were to purchase the field and seek to build a mansion, there would be rigorous enforcement against them. If a developer sought to build family homes, or a care home, there would be rigorous enforcement against them. Why is it, therefore, that other elements of our law allow one individual to bypass the statutory planning process and rules, especially when the site may subsequently be sold to another occupier? How can we ensure that those elements do not create a back door to flouting the planning rules? I have personal experience of a developer who cited diplomatic immunity as a reason why the local authority could not carry out enforcement action against structures built on agricultural land.

Given the enormous remediation costs associated with abuses of the planning process, it is not surprising that many local authorities are extremely concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, with his experience as a local authority leader, described. We can all think of examples. A site may be used for housing development after illegal occupation, or it may, for example, be used for waste disposal. Buckinghamshire council, on the border of my constituency, was faced with having to clean up a site that a group of Travellers had purchased from a farmer and then used to dispose of asbestos and hazardous waste, which was removed at enormous cost—a multimillion-pound cost—to the taxpayer.

In all such cases, there is a common issue: the local authority’s inability to use swift and robust enforcement powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, once a site is occupied and the use becomes established, it is very difficult to change that in the way the community would expect. During the recent general election campaign, I delivered leaflets to properties that formed part of an illegal encampment— because those individuals had been there for so long, they were on the electoral roll. Other residents in the community asked, “How is it that all these processes that are designed to make sure everyone follows the law can come together in a way that enables those rules to be flouted?”

On behalf of the official Opposition, I extend an offer to the Minister, who has taken an incredibly constructive approach to all the issues in his portfolio. Members on both sides of this debate have made constructive contributions and have set out ideas about how we can more effectively address the broad sweep of concerns that arise from this issue. My constituents are affected by an unauthorised encampment in the Hog’s Back, and have expressed great frustration that the local authority planning notice that applies to the site has effectively been bypassed as the individuals have moved to another part of the site. Those kinds of things understandably create a public backlash, as people feel that the law is not working effectively and is not on their side.

It is one thing for local authorities to have to resort to section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with illegal and unauthorised encampments that are causing a nuisance, but activity that can become established through the passage of time needs to be dealt with differently. I suggest to the Minister that, as we work together on that, we should also consider the operation of things such as the planning conditions that apply in national parks. My hon. Friend has the North Yorkshire Moors and the Yorkshire Dales national parks near his constituency. It is common to apply to national parks specific planning conditions that do not operate in other areas, such as conditions around the occupation of new homes by agricultural workers. Again, that provides scope for abuse of the planning system. For example, a developer could build a property purportedly for agricultural worker use and then say they wish to convert it to a holiday let or an extended family home.

There is also the wider issue of ancillary uses, which my hon. Friend referred to. When a piece of land is in the green belt, perhaps with agricultural designation, there are always opportunities for a prospective applicant to say that they need a barn for their farming business or a sports pavilion because they hope to use the land for sporting activity. That potentially enables a property footprint to be established. In planning terms, conversion of that—legalisation of the occupation—follows later, to the dismay of local residents, who then question the effectiveness of the planning system. The scope for the use to become established and the property to be sold on for profit in a way that is not available to developers who seek to work within the system remains a significant cause for concern.

I thank all Members who have contributed to this balanced debate, which has highlighted many angles to the way in which this policy interacts with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller and settled communities. I urge the Minister to make the best use possible of the expertise of Members across the House and ensure that, as we move to update planning law, we have effective enforcement powers in place so that all our residents—all our constituents—have confidence that they will be treated equally before the law in the way that Parliament expects.

Building Safety and Resilience

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I would like to open by sharing the commitment of His Majesty’s official Opposition to supporting the Government in ensuring that, in particular, the legislation brought forward in the previous Parliament, broadly with cross-party support, to address the issues that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and colleagues have outlined following the Grenfell fire, takes full effect through regulation and implementation across the sector. It is absolutely clear, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition during the Prime Minister’s statement last week, that we share the Government’s determination to ensure that everybody in our country is able to feel safe in their home, and that risks, whether they are known or might emerge from the continuing research into this field, are properly addressed. We will do our very best to work with her and colleagues in a constructive manner to ensure that that happens.

Today’s debate is also an opportunity to consider many of the broader issues around building safety that will come into play as we consider the Government’s plans to reform our planning system, increase our housing supply, bring in new forms of building into the United Kingdom and reform building regulations. A great deal of the report from Sir Martin into the Grenfell incident focuses on the role played by building regulations and their operation in the market for materials and design in the terrible disaster that took the lives of 72 people.

However, we should not waste an opportunity to consider more broadly how other parts of our housing system and our planning system can ensure that risks that might emerge in the future are dealt with effectively. For example, we are aware when a planning application comes forward that the safety and resilience of a building is not simply down to its construction and materials; it is also affected by its location, its proximity to other sources of risk and its design from its very inception. They all have a part to play. We know from points that have been made in the past by Members from across the House about the role that housing plays in the context of public health that, in the capital, for example, air quality is often worse indoors than it is outdoors as a result of buildings designed with poor ventilation and poor mechanical systems. That creates a long-term health and safety burden for residents which can be alleviated by giving due consideration to better design and resilience at the initial stages.

I encourage the Government to consider, as they embark on this process, how to manage some of the very complex interactions when seeking to improve the safety of buildings where there are freeholders, leaseholders and tenants all occupying some of the same space. I am aware, from experience in a local authority, that Hillingdon council had to go to court on 16 occasions to gain access to council properties to undertake basic maintenance and servicing work to installations against the will of the occupier, even though that work was being carried out at no cost to the tenant. That demonstrates some of the practical difficulties that that complex relationship can create in ensuring that local authorities and others are able to fulfil the duties that this House and the legislation place upon them.

It is also clear, from both the Grenfell report and other research, that the drive towards building efficiency, in particular energy efficiency, has created a risk of a loss of focus on safety. We know that this has been part of a global move to recognise the need to address climate change through better quality insulation and the more efficient construction of buildings. Increasingly, we see buildings being brought forward with modular construction of different types. Hotels arrive in a shipping crate: pre-constructed rooms are simply stacked up and then given a brick skin. Frame-constructed homes are a significant part of the delivery of the housing market. These provide an opportunity to make the available funds go further and create more homes more quickly. That is extremely welcome, but we need to ensure that the risks that might be associated with some of those forms of construction, especially where they take place at scale, are properly considered. I would like to hear a little more from the Government in due course about how the broader context of building safety and resilience will take those matters into account.

[Mr Betts]

Would the shadow Minister like to reflect on the fact that around four years ago the previous Government set up a committee to look at modern methods of construction, but the last investigation showed that it had not actually met? It is important that we get this right. We can see the problems with timber-framed homes and all the difficulties they caused in the 1980s. It is important we get the techniques and construction right, but there was a bit of a gap in the previous Government’s approach, was there not?

[David Simmonds]

Of course, it is embarrassing to hear that. Again, from experience of local government, I know that a great deal of work has been put in to ensure that modern methods of construction are put forward for Government consideration. Often there are exemplars around the country of how new estates and new homes have been delivered. There is certainly no lack of evidence on the opportunities available.

We also have an opportunity to reflect on the many challenges in our current housing stock, and in other types of buildings such as schools and hospitals. Once upon a time, aerated concrete and asbestos were regarded as wonder materials, and house builders and Governments would have been considered inefficient if they had not ensured their use. We now know that they have created problems and risks that require significant levels of expenditure to remediate.

That brings me to another important point: building resilience is not just about homes. The BBC recently did an excellent piece of work commemorating the original Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was implemented by Government following a number of quite appalling incidents, mainly in factories, where significant loss of life occurred because the design of buildings meant that, in the event of a fire, for example, it was difficult or impossible for people to get away.

We know that school buildings have been destroyed and that thus far not a single school has been fitted with sprinklers where fire has resulted in total loss of the building. The cost of installing that equipment at the design and construction stage is relatively modest compared with the impact of retrofitting it, so there is an opportunity for the Government to reflect on how, as we take forward their strategy on investment in new schools, we ensure that that resilience is, as far as possible, built in and that the full cost to the taxpayer that occurs when a hospital or a school is lost is considered. We must reflect also on how we ensure that office buildings and factories under construction meet the highest possible standards, especially as they often face many of the same challenges around new materials and new forms of design that are intended to make them more efficient but potentially bring in risks that it is our duty to foresee and prevent as far as we possibly can.

We will shortly consider the Renters’ Rights Bill. That will have a wider impact, especially on the build-to-rent sector. We have seen new forms of developer coming into the market with the specific intention of constructing, from the outset, long-term rental homes.

[Emily Darlington]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments about working cross-party. One thing we need to do is establish the facts, the reality of what is going on, and the confusion left by the previous Government. People are being told by mortgage providers that they need an EWS1 form, but by freeholders that they do not. They are stuck, going back and forth for years. Would he like to take this opportunity to recognise the confusing legacy left by his Government and apologise to all the thousands of people who are stuck in places feeling that they have no place to go?

[David Simmonds]

Given the broad cross-party consensus in the last Parliament about the importance of the new forms of legislation and the regulation that follows from it, I think we should seek to maintain that consensus as far as possible, but as somebody who in a previous life worked in banking and as a mortgage adviser, I know that the challenges around the mortgageability of properties, especially properties of novel construction, go back many decades. For instance, a very limited number of lenders will provide for properties located above shops, because of that particular sets of risks. EWS1 was a similar example; despite apparent clarity from Government, there clearly was a lot of debate within the sector and some lenders preferred to go belt and braces, demanding the provision of something that was not required by law or regulation before making a lending decision—and the then Government did significant work in the previous Parliament to bring clarity and address those problems.

That is a helpful introduction to a point that I want to touch on briefly: the role of the insurance industry, both in the challenges that will follow from Grenfell and in the wider experience of our constituents. Many people find themselves significantly challenged because, owing to a lack of clarity or to uncertainty about the construction of their building, they face significant insurance costs, sometimes to the point where only one insurance provider is available. Others face very significantly increased costs because of the behaviour of a landlord who seeks to apportion the insurance costs across all the properties in their portfolio, rather than according to the risks of a specific property that a particular tenant or leaseholder inhabits. It would be helpful for the Government to give some consideration to how they can work with the insurance industry to ensure that those who are paying for insurance are paying a fair price and that it provides the necessary cover that mortgage lenders, for example, will expect.

It is clear that, as well as the strong commitment we on the Opposition Benches can give to support the Government and the Minister in taking forward the regulations and ensuring that they address the concerns that have been expressed, we must also make the most of an opportunity to consider wider issues of building safety. In London, for example, there are significant numbers of Bison blocks, constructed with pre-stressed concrete—at the time, it was considered a wonder material and a means of delivering significant numbers of new homes efficiently and at a low cost—which have particular structural risks around them that local authorities across the capital and the wider country have had to address. We have also heard a little bit about the role of the fire service in carrying out inspections and prosecutions where properties are found not to meet the fire regulations.

All those points are indicators of risk across the system, and there is an opportunity for Government to ensure that Ministers have a clear line of sight so that such indicators can be effectively addressed. If there is a role for we politicians to play in local government and here in Westminster, it is to ensure that all these other people are doing their job. I promise that the Opposition will support the Government as they seek to achieve that, and I hope that together we will be able to take this work forward effectively, so that all our constituents can sleep safely in their beds.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

With the leave of the House, I will close this debate for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

It has been a very constructive debate, with a wide range of contributions from Members. I congratulate all Members who made their maiden speeches. It was striking that they covered a huge range of different issues which have been debated and will be debated in this Parliament. I was particularly struck by the expertise shown in areas as diverse as local government, housing, electronics and support for refugees, all of which, I am sure, will play a significant part in the future. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for his very entertaining maiden speech.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made some observations about the Hackitt review and the liability of construction material manufacturers for the consequences of significant problems in the buildings in which their materials are used. As the Minister said, the £5.1 billion building safety fund, which was put in place in the previous Parliament, is a significant step towards addressing those concerns, but it is clear that that is just one example of the many issues that need to be addressed. I have a list of points to put to the Minister, and I hope we will be able to work constructively together as we take forward a variety of legislation.

A couple of Members touched on personal evacuation plans. A consultation took place in 2022, in which a wide variety of stakeholders were invited to express their views. A key concern raised by the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as a parliamentary vice-president of that organisation—was that current legislation implies that there is a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to anticipate, without having to be asked or informed by residents, the needs of those who may require special arrangements for evacuation in the event of an emergency. It is clear from feedback across the sector that, where there is no expectation that a tenant or an occupier will advise a particular individual or authority, that presents a significant challenge. I suggest to Ministers that as they bring forward the Government’s response, that issue is addressed with a high degree of clarity, so that everybody knows their responsibilities and where they stand.

I was struck by observations made by a number of Members about particular challenges, including issues with fire doors and latent defects in buildings, which may not be spotted at the time of a building regulations inspection. I have personal experience of working in a local authority that commissioned a school; we discovered afterwards that the fire doors, which looked robust and solid, only went up as far as the suspended ceilings that had been installed by the contractor. In such an example, the individual doing the building inspection may need to have a significant part of the building taken apart so that they can carry out their duties and see what needs to be done. We need to ask ourselves how we can ensure that that enforcement is seen as reasonable by contractors and can be resourced effectively by local authorities, so that latent defects in items such as fire doors and fire stopping do not arise and create risks that simply cannot be effectively managed for the future.

A number of Members made reference to the longer-term history of the current set of building safety challenges. I am well aware, having been in local government throughout that period, that the approach taken by the previous Labour Government was to create arm’s length management organisations for housing. Some Members, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), made particularly positive references to the last Labour Government’s retrofitting programme. I simply urge Members, as they begin to think how they would wish to resource some of this work in the public sector building stock, to ensure that we do not see a return of that approach: “Let’s create arm’s length management organisations, load them with the debt so it isn’t on the Government’s books, and then expect them to carry out the work.”

The number of arm’s length management organisations has diminished. There was a time, under a previous Labour Government, when local authorities could not access that funding unless they set up an arm’s length management organisation. A small number of those organisations remain, but the vast majority of local authority areas have determined that it is more efficient to do this work directly and in-house. Having a higher degree of control, visibility and accountability for that work is a step forward, so I urge those who might be tempted by the view that arm’s length bodies are the way to leverage additional funding into the sector without it appearing directly as a cost to Government to avoid that approach. We should be absolutely clear about the route for the provision of those resources, and about the accountability for them.

In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) made reference to flooding as an example of an additional issue that gives rise to building safety and resilience challenges. Although it was not touched on in today’s debate, we also need to reflect that this House has in the past had to get to grips with issues such as the impact of legionella and the significant building regulation changes needed to ensure that very vulnerable residents are not placed at risk by a failure to carry out the proper inspection of building safety systems, and has had to ensure that building regulations and installed systems are functioning as they should to keep people safe from that particular risk.

This wide-ranging debate has touched on many different elements of the building safety and resilience world, and I hope that that will inform Ministers’ thinking. However, I have a particular question on which I want to press them for an answer. At the beginning of the debate, we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), about the decision to return to, or enable, the use of the EU standards relating to construction materials. I know that mention of EU standards has a triggering effect on some Members; it does not have that impact on me, because I am a strong supporter of close co-operation with our neighbours.

I think that the Minister was probably referring to the written ministerial statement of 2 September, in which the Government announced the decision to remove the end date that had previously applied—the date by which CE-marked construction materials could be sold within the UK market—and to allow those products to continue to be supplied to that market with no end date. That strikes me as a reasonable decision, but I should like to have a specific assurance on one point. The EU regulations on the fire safety of construction products date from 2015, and those are the relevant regulations applying to products that meet the CE-marked standard. That was, of course, before the Grenfell Tower disaster occurred. UK regulations were updated in response to the disaster by the previous Government, in 2018, and took account of the specific risks relating to construction materials that were identified in the initial phases of the report.

May I ask the Minister to assure the House, from the Dispatch Box, that following the Government’s decision to set aside the end date by which only the CE mark was required and to allow UK standards to be effectively set aside, the standard of the products that are imported to the UK meet at least the 2018 UK post-Grenfell fire safety standards? Otherwise, there is a risk that products that we would not be satisfied to see installed in buildings and that have given rise to serious concerns in the past may continue to be supplied to the market because they meet those EU standards, even though they may not meet the new UK standards.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are extremely concerned for their safety. They are living in constant fear because of building safety and resilience issues. I am sure the shadow Minister agrees that the pace of remediation has been too slow in the seven years since the Grenfell tragedy. Does he also agree that firm action needs to be taken by developers, freeholders, manufacturers and other organisations, and that the Government must push to ensure that the pace of remediation is quickened?

[David Simmonds]

I entirely agree about the need to ensure that this work happens apace. During the debate, the contributions from the likes of the hon. Members for Sheffield South East and for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury) demonstrated the complexity of some of the issues with which Governments of all parties have wrestled over the years. I have the insulation material that was identified in the Grenfell report in my own home, because in certain applications it is considered to be within building regulations. We know that this is not a straightforward process, and we need to ensure that building regulations have the absolute clarity that local authorities require. That is why I press the Minister on this point: can we, as a House, be confident that the consequence of that written ministerial statement will not be a risk of materials that do not meet the standards that we imposed in 2018 being imported and sold into the UK market?

It is clear that there will always be a debate, not just in the context of housing but in the context of any complex public service in this country, between those who think that the best approach for regulation is to specify the outcome that we want to see—we want the resident to be safe in their home, we want the child to be safe in the children’s home and we want the patient to be safe in hospital; that is very similar to the approach taken in the aviation sector, which was mentioned earlier—and those who argue that the best approach is for Parliament and other relevant authorities to specify the precise safety features that we wish to see installed.

Each of those approaches has strengths and weaknesses. The previous Government, particularly in the early years, were keen to focus on the safety outcome that was being pursued rather than to specify individual measures that had to be taken, partly out of concern that those individual measures might not be as effective in practice as they needed to be. It is clear from the contributions by Members of all parties that they understand the complexity of this debate. The Minister will have to make decisions as we consider the future of building regulations. Does Parliament specify that there has be a sprinkler system in one building, but a mister system in another? Are we going to specify that there has to be a dry riser in one type of building, and a wet riser in another type of building? Or are those simply matters that we prefer to leave to local building control services, while specifying the level of safety that we expect to achieve? All of these are important elements in this complex debate.

As I said in opening for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we are determined to carry forward the work that we did in the last Parliament, largely in partnership with Labour Members, on fire safety and building safety. Those pieces of legislation inevitably require the current Government to provide guidance to local authorities, building control services, builders, construction firms and other parts of the sector. By working together constructively to support the effective implementation of those measures and provide absolute clarity on the expectations, we will achieve our shared aim of ensuring that all our constituents know that the buildings in which they live and work, and in which they are educated and receive medical treatment, meet the relevant safety standards and are environments and places in which they can safely go about their daily business.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that kind offer. Of course I will readily accept a visit to Burnley—perhaps through the lens of my role as the local growth and towns Minister. We could have a very interesting visit and I would be glad to do it.

I am conscious of the time; I am going to run out of it, unthinkably. We may have to pick up any further interventions in a different form, because I want to get to the points about buildings insurance, lending and service charges raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), for Eltham and Chislehurst and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).

One thing we know is that there has not been enough change in this space over the past seven years, but there has been change in the insurance bills that many leaseholders have been facing. We understand the financial and emotional impact that extreme insurance premiums have been having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying too high premiums for too long. I assure colleagues that we are working actively to reduce premiums for leaseholders, and we are reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs and push for fair premiums for leaseholders in buildings with fire safety issues.

Colleagues have talked about buying, selling or remortgaging homes. We have seen improvements in that space, but we remain vigilant. We will continue to hold particularly the 10 largest lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even where remediation is not yet complete. They must keep that promise.

On service charges, by law, variable service charges must be reasonable. As colleagues have raised, that has been stretched significantly by some of the practices we have seen. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains measures to ensure that leaseholders get key financial and non-financial information so that they can scrutinise and hold to account the organisations that they are working with on service charges. Not all of that legislation has been commenced; secondary legislation is required, but we are working on that actively. We just want to get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) talked about the pace of remediation. Again, we accept that the pace is too slow; we have said that throughout, and what we have seen in Dagenham and Slough are horrific reminders of the risk that unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people. The Deputy Prime Minister has been very clear on her intention to drive that forward—again, there is that political will—and to get more action out of manufacturers, freeholders, developers and organisations with responsibility for making sure that buildings are safe. Too many building owners are still not acting quickly enough, so we will investigate, pursue the most egregious actors who are creating unacceptable delays, and hold them to account. The message from this Dispatch Box and from this Government is clear: “Use the routes we have created to get your buildings fixed, and get on with it.”

I now turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) about the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern that the report would be shelved, and the hon. Lady was concerned that it would just be words, so again, let me make the commitment—this speaks to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—that the report’s recommendations must be considered with the seriousness that this tragedy deserves. We will look at all 58 recommendations in detail; there will be a debate on the Floor of this House; we will respond in full within six months; and we will be listening to the community throughout the process. We will update Parliament annually on our progress so that we can be held to account, but we will also get on quickly with the things we can do, whether that is speeding up remediation or reforming construction products. The change has not been at the pace that it ought to have been, but it will get better. I can commit that the report will not, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, just be shelved—far from it.

The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned buildings under 11 metres. Our approach to cladding remediation has been to prioritise the risk of loss of life. It is generally accepted that the risk to life is proportional to the height of buildings, so the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation. Building safety remediation works may be required in a very small number of those buildings, but so far, our casework as a Department over the past couple of years shows that of the more than 160 cases that have been raised, only three have fallen into that category. As such, we think that is an appropriate distinction to draw.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a point about RAAC. This issue is different in Scotland than it is in England: Scotland has its own responsibilities, which the Scottish Government must work within, and as I said to my hon. Friend, we will work within the best practices too. It is the duty of building owners, including local authorities if they are the owner, to fulfil their duties to manage building safety and performance risks of all kinds—including RAAC—in a proportionate manner.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), talked about personal evacuation plans, or PEEPs. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. On 2 September, through a written ministerial statement, the Government announced that the Home Office will bring forward in the autumn proposals to improve fire safety and the evacuation of disabled or vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings in England. Those proposals will be called residential PEEPs. Through them, residents with disabilities and impairments will be entitled to a person-centred risk assessment to identify the appropriate equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation, as well as a residential PEEP statement that says what vulnerable residents should do in the event of a fire. The Government have committed funding next year to begin that important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver PEEPs for their renters.

The shadow Minister also mentioned product hallmarks. We stand by what was said in the written ministerial statement—I would have hoped that gave enough confidence —but for clarity, this is about stronger standards, not weaker standards. I hope the hon. Gentleman can take confidence from that.

[David Simmonds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

Very briefly.

[David Simmonds]

I would just like to press the Minister for the assurance I am seeking: that the Government have taken steps to ensure that all products that meet the 2015 European standards, and therefore are within the scope of what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said in the written ministerial statement, will also—as a minimum—meet the 2018 post-Grenfell UK standards.

[Alex Norris]

My colleague and hon. Friend, the Minister for building safety, has heard that intervention. As I say, everything that we have said is about higher standards, not lesser standards, but my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman about the issue he has raised. Again, I hope that I can assure him that this is about greater standards, not lesser ones.

To conclude, as the Prime Minister made clear, the Grenfell Tower tragedy was the result of unacceptable, inherent and systematic issues and decades of failure from both industry and Government. It is going to take political will to change that, and we offer it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered building safety and resilience.

Exempt Supported Accommodation

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on securing today’s debate. I must draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because, like the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), I am also a member of the LGA’s parliamentary team of vice-presidents.

I recall from my work on the Kerslake review into the governance of Birmingham city council that it has the highest proportion of residents needing to access social care during their lifetime of any local authority in England. The level of need is patently particularly acute, which is why one of the five pilots introduced following the “Supported housing: national statement of expectations” in October 2020 was in Birmingham.

Anybody with local government experience will be familiar with these challenges, which go back many years. They often result from reforms, such as those in the 1980s with care in the community, those in the late 1990s with the fair access criteria, and the introduction of extra care housing supported living. They all had a high degree of cross-party support based on the idea of improving the level of independence and autonomy that could be provided to people who need extra support through a combination of housing and social care.

All Members’ inboxes will contain at least some examples of concern about abuses in the market; some examples where the quality of care provided is not reaching the appropriate standard; and, of course, some examples where the quality of care is exceptional and supports our constituents to enjoy the fullest, most autonomous life and the greatest degree of independence in pursuing their interests. As we have heard, in response to the abuses that were identified in the market, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), brought forward a private Member’s Bill, which was adopted by the Government and enjoyed cross-party support in the last Parliament, with a view to bringing a clear legislative and regulatory focus to the sector.

As we know and have heard in the debate, the combination of challenges around resourcing the implementation of that measure—for example, the ability of local authorities to make good use of feedback from residents who may be extremely vulnerable, and ensuring that that new regulatory environment is enforceable when it sits outside of the planning system to a great degree, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston identified—remains significant.

When we consider recent work, it seems that the Minister has a great deal to build on. As has been highlighted, there has been a good degree of cross-party support for improved measures to address the issue, and, following the publication of the “Supported housing: national statement of expectations” and the implementation of the five pilots, an evaluation was published in the last Parliament, around April 2022. A written ministerial statement from the then Minister, Eddie Hughes, set out the future plans and funding aimed at implementing the regulation that those pilots had identified as being necessary. That work led to and fed into the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 and interacted with the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. The issue was also the subject of a Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee inquiry in 2021.

The debate and discussion in Parliament has significance only in so far as it can be implemented at a local level. Both the Select Committee inquiry and the learning from those pilots was very clear that local authorities need to have sufficient resource and flexibility to implement it at a local level. I welcome the fact that, in the previous Parliament, the Government provided a £20 million fund to begin ensuring that all local authorities could learn from that and had a degree of resource. However, it is clear from the level of wider need, and in particular, from the emerging evidence of market abuse not just in this sector but in areas such as children’s homes and care homes, where significant rip-off fees are being charged by some providers for a service that is simply inadequate to meet the needs of those residents, that further work is needed. Clearly, the Minister has taken office at a time when the Department has accumulated a high degree of evidence as a result of the pilots, the debates and the work done in the previous Parliament. I hope that that will be enormously useful in ensuring that the expectations set out in that Parliament can be fulfilled.

I would like to add my support on this matter. I do not think that this Minister is responsible for planning, but the point that was made about how we support the identification of exempt accommodation through the planning process is important. I think we all recognise that this is a marketplace in which we have a combination of local authority providers, private providers, charities and voluntary organisations, and we do not wish to place undue impediments in the way of those who wish to convert existing buildings—for example, houses in multiple occupation—to provide additional support to residents who may be able to make the most of it. At the same time, in all communities, in order to avoid the problems we have seen—with particular settings, for example, requiring a high degree of police and law enforcement input—there needs to be that earlier identification process.

As the Government bring forward their proposed review of the planning system, I hope the Minister and her colleagues will give some consideration to how changing the use classes that relate to exempt accommodation or making that part of a wider review—for example, of change of use of residential accommodation to become children’s homes, houses in multiple occupation, care homes and so on—would enable the earlier identification of sites and input to be gathered from the likes of police and NHS services. That would then influence the planning committee in deciding whether a location was appropriate in order, for example, to avoid the clustering of problem locations. As we have seen in the past with local authorities at the coast, we may find a combination of bail hostels next to children’s homes next to asylum accommodation, all of which can create a very challenging social mix for a local authority and other local authority services to deal with.

This has been a very helpful debate. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston. I hope that the Minister will be able to build on the constructive work done in the last Parliament and that we will see that feed into a significant change in the experience of the most vulnerable people, who need to access exempt accommodation, but also in the communities in which it is located and their experience of it in the coming years.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We share the ambition of seeing a big increase in the supply of housing, and of social housing in particular. Given that there are around 1.4 million new homes with planning consent already granted in this country, what process led the Government to prioritising the removal of green-belt protections rather than building the homes for which our councils have already given consent?

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are doing both. We are making changes to the national planning policy framework to encourage the release of the right kind of lower-quality grey belt land within the green belt, and we are taking action to ensure that those sites across the country that have received consent but which are stalled or are not being built at the pace required, are moved along with additional support from the centre.

[David Simmonds]

The previous Government made new measures available to local authorities to encourage borrowing against the housing revenue account to enable the creation of new council housing. What measures do the Government have in mind to increase the take-up of this approach by our local authorities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are committed to working with councils, including with the signatories of the recent report on securing the future of council housing, to address the many challenges they are facing, including in connection with the housing revenue account headroom as many of them are feeling lots of pressure on that front. As a first step, we have given councils more flexibility to increase the delivery of council homes using right-to-buy receipts, and allocated an additional £450 million to councils to secure homes for families at risk of homelessness. We will set out plans at the next fiscal event to give councils and housing associations the rent stability they need to borrow and invest in new and existing homes.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The amendments tabled by the Government —new clauses 30 to 32 in particular—will offer my constituents some hope and a quicker means of redress on many of the points raised in the House’s discussions. I will press the Minister on some concerns raised by my leaseholder constituents and by all colleagues on the whole issue of remediation of defects, and transparency and accountability.

At one development in my constituency that opened in 2019—now a significant period of time ago—the residents experience a shocking case of misery and distress. The problems include water ingress, damp and mould, with children getting sick as a result, which is unforgiveable. There are also: damaged sprinkler systems; defective and non-compliant fire doors, which is unthinkable in this day and age; inadequate insulation—we have heard about water pipes and the lack of heating and cold water; roofing issues; damaged gates; and poor grounds maintenance. On top of that, when someone raises a complaint, guess what happens? Nobody does anything about it. However, whenever constituents get a letter, it is about their service fees increasing—it happens all the time. That is not acceptable.

The residents seek redress, but it just does not happen. Not only are they frustrated but we see a clear issue with buck passing; that is shameful and must be addressed. This property was a permitted development, and we should pause for thought on that. I am pro such developments—we need more of them—but we must ensure that charlatans do not come along and exploit people who are desperate to buy their first home, with all sorts of things happening in the building. I have had reports from residents who have purchased their property more recently, and guess what? They were not informed of all the defects and the problems going on. That is simply scandalous.

I want to mention again FirstPort—this should be a topic of wider debate in the House—and management companies. I am meeting FirstPort at the weekend. Again, why do these companies feel that they can be let off the hook? They will not engage effectively. In one case, leaseholders of a site in Stanway were not notified of a change in management company for about half a year. Every single colleague in the House will have cases of that nature.

FirstPort has refused requests to hold annual general meetings and has been lacking in visibility. If I may, I will praise Councillor Kevin Bentley, my county council leader, who is a divisional member for the area in question and has secured a public meeting for the weekend. It will be the first point when we have been able to get in the room with these people to seek redress. Contractors come in, and people are charged for monitoring works that never take place—it goes on and on.

I am grateful to the Minister for how he opened the debate, and spoke frankly about the issues and concerns. I have a suggestion to put to him. Yesterday it was announced that the Competition and Markets Authority will look into the practice of house builders and whether there has been collusion in pricing and the development of schemes. May I suggest that it might be worth looking into management companies? Many of those house builders come part and parcel with the management companies. The house builders do the negotiations with the management companies, and there is a lack of transparency. Should we be looking at more open book contracting around management companies, with details of how they are brought on board by the developers published, so that there is greater transparency for the purchasers? That is really important. As the Minister’s Department has already enlisted the CMA, he may wish to ask it to look at that important area as well. I hope that he can respond to some of those points when he sums up.

All hon. Members are grateful for the chance to raise these points, which speak to the totality of what we are seeing—a sense of a lack of fairness for many of our constituents, which the Government are clearly pressing in the right direction and seeking redress.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Bill, which addresses the frustrations expressed by a great many leaseholders in my constituency. I thank Suzy Killip from the Pembroke Park Residents Association and Jo Tapper at The Sigers, both of whom have faced significant challenges while representing their communities and taking forward issues arising from the management and lack of services often provided to them under their lease arrangements.

I would particularly like to thank Ministers, because this legislation takes into account the way that the market has changed. Many years ago I started my career as a financial adviser, dealing with people taking out mortgages. One stark change is the extent to which leaseholds are seen as an opportunity to extract money from people as investments to be traded by freeholders, on the basis of extracting the maximum possible amount rather than ensuring good quality of services. I was involved in cases as a local authority councillor, where part of the planning agreement was that roads, parks and open spaces would be brought up to an appropriate standard to be adopted by the local authority. Once the development was completed, an opportunity was spotted by the developer and, therefore, people who had moved in on the understanding that the local authority would take over—because the roads were built to adoptable standard, for example—found that it did not happen because it was seen as an investment opportunity. That is very much in line with the rip-offs referred to by Members across the House.

I commend Ministers on taking a balanced approach on the need to recognise a link between the arrangements in the Bill and our housing supply. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe. The ability of freeholders of larger developments to regenerate sites where properties that have been rented are falling vacant over a period of time could be inhibited if there is a proliferation of small freeholds on those types of sites. If we are to ensure that the quality of our housing, in particular energy efficiency, is brought up to a good standard, it must still be possible for larger sites to be regenerated. We must not inhibit that completely while addressing a different concern about the rights and freedoms of leaseholders.

I mentioned some constituents earlier; the situation in particular at Pembroke Park is a good example of why the reforms in this legislation are so important. The development was constructed on a former military site by Taylor Wimpey, and handed over to be managed by A2Dominion housing association, with a mix of social housing tenants and private leaseholders. There are umpteen issues still more than a decade after the completion of that site, and issues simply getting A2Dominion to respond to problems including insulation that was never installed in buildings to the building regulations standard, a complete failure to ensure that proper ventilation was installed in the buildings, and drains that are completely inadequate. There has been progress, but I would add A2Dominion to the list of companies raised by other Members.

I commend A2Dominion’s relatively new chief executive, Ian Wardle, on the progress that he is making, but it remains a huge challenge to my constituents, and a huge frustration, that as opaque charges rise and rise, the actions of that organisation make it incredibly difficult even to understand whether the basic legal protections that they enjoy under existing legislation are being observed, including how insurance costs are apportioned across a very large property portfolio.

I strongly support the points made around forfeiture provisions. A number of constituents have come to me with significant challenges and justifiable concerns about the rising service charges on their properties. It is completely unacceptable that they would forfeit a significant amount of value that they have paid for and earned—potentially to fall to the developer. That is another opportunity for the shamelessly greedy to rip off our constituents. I am very glad that this legislation and the comments made by Members across the House today will represent a significant step towards ending that practice.

[Richard Fuller]

Thousands of homeowners in my constituency and millions across the country who face estate management charges will have their rights substantially increased thanks to the provisions in this Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Minister and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for including estate management charges in this Bill.

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is an old saying that we can tell the state of a civilisation by the condition of its public toilets. It is often one of the services that the wider public and voters associate with local government, alongside potholes. However, as has been well reflected in the debate, local government finance is a huge part of overall Government and public sector expenditure. The vast majority of it—around 75% of the average local authority’s budget—goes not on public toilets, libraries or potholes, but on the care of the most vulnerable people in our society. All of it is hugely influential on the quality of life of our constituents, because it affects everything from education to the built environment, and things such as parks and sports facilities, which are incredibly important in people’s day-to-day lives.

In that context, it is important to start by recognising the positive news in the statement: the recognition by Government that on the core statutory services around adult and children’s care, cost pressures are becoming unsustainable. That has been acknowledged with a significant injection of extra cash. There will be a huge debate about whether that money is sufficient to address the concerns, but it demonstrates that the Government recognise the impact that unsustainable cost pressures are having, and are addressing them. Of course, it continues to create pressure that legislation on the setting of council tax requires local authorities to consult with residents in the autumn, around October, before council tax is set by law the following February. It is quite late in the day for us to be factoring in the additional funding announcements, welcome as they are.

I reiterate the calls from both sides of the Chamber that the earlier we can get any of these announcements into the system, and the more they can be structured into a multi-annual financial settlement, the more efficient the use of those resources and the greater the benefit to our constituents will be. It is always immensely challenging to run around trying to get road contractors to mend some extra potholes at the tail end of the financial year, but if we know that extra money is coming down the tracks we can invest in such things as jet patchers, which have been used in both Hillingdon and Harrow for many years, as a means of proactively getting out there and dealing with pothole repairs before the condition of the roads deteriorates any further.

I will pick up on a couple of issues in a little more detail, some of which have been touched on and some of which I hope will be fresh to the Chamber. The first is the impact that deficits on the dedicated schools grant high-needs block has on the funding announcement that we are debating. For many years, not just before 1991 and the setting of the council tax bands but since the earliest inception of business rates, the funding of education has been based on the business rate take from a given education authority’s area. That carries through today in the form of the dedicated schools grant, and it is why we see such differential funding rates for education from local authority area to area. However, around half of local authorities now have significant deficits on the dedicated schools grant.

While the dedicated schools grant, and the education budget generally, sits with the Department for Education, for the purposes of local government law it has to be covered by the annual balance requirement that is covered when council tax is set by the given local authority each February. If there is a substantial deficit on that budget, which is pretty much entirely under the control of the Department for Education, then significant savings have to be made in the general fund, which today’s statement covers, to make up for it. That has been dealt with in recent years by an annual renewal of a disregard, which essentially says to the accountants and monitoring officers in local authorities, “You simply have to allow the DfE to carry this forward, and don’t allow it directly to impact on your council tax every year.” However, there is no absolute certainty about the long-term position with the impact of the dedicated schools grant.

While the efforts being made by local authorities, borrowing against their own revenue budgets to fund an expansion of capital investment to create more SEND school places—the subject of a Westminster Hall debate by my constituency neighbour, hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) this afternoon—will begin to have an impact in bringing those costs down, it remains a significant financial risk to local authorities. It would be helpful to hear, from the Minister today if possible, but certainly from the Government before too long, that that will be addressed and there can be some certainty for local authorities on that long-term position, not least because of the impact it has on the balances held by local authorities around the country.

It was great to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) refer to public health, which remains a key responsibility of local authorities. The covid pandemic rather brought that into the light once again, and the capacity of local authority public health team test, track and trace services, which have been there for many years, was critical to the national response to covid. It also highlighted the fact that, as a country, we went into that pandemic with a population that was, on the whole, a bit less healthy than in many comparable countries. Continued investment in that public health function, to ensure that our children in particular are able to enjoy a better degree of general health in the future, will make us much more resilient as a country in the face of future such challenges.

Turning to the local government funding formula, it is important to recognise that, as all hon. Members reflect, one major challenge in its impact on our constituents is the enormous historical inequity in the way the formula operates. That has a number of different manifestations. Many Members have talked about rural versus urban and suburban impact. Having served, alongside several other hon. Members in this Chamber over the years, at the Local Government Association, that was a pretty much annual subject of lobbying to Ministers, and a number of studies were done on the rural/urban/suburban differential.

The reason that many of those studies did not see the light of day is that the conclusion was that there was not, in the end, much difference—that the challenges that arose from high degrees of density, particularly the consequences for the delivery of all kinds of public services, were pretty much in balance with the equivalent challenges that arose from a greater degree of geographical sparsity in rural areas. Those studies tended to look at the costs of a whole variety of public services.

What is also clear, however, is that the move to significant rises in council tax will raise significantly different additional amounts in different parts of the country. I represent a constituency in a relatively prosperous London suburb, covering two local authorities. However, even in London, with 33 local authorities, we see a differential. When the last calculation was done, a 2% rise in council tax would create, for the local authority that generated most of its money from council tax, which at the time was Richmond, an additional 1.8% increase in its revenue budget, or disposable money to spend. In comparison, the City of London, which was largely dependent on Government grants, would see an additional 0.02% increase in its disposable income as a consequence.

Across the country we see that effect magnified. The ability to raise money of a local authority with a large number of band A properties will be much less than that of a local authority with band G and H properties, such as the constituency I represent. While it will help, therefore, it will not be a long-term solution, and we need to find a way to address the differentials for the long term.

I want to express my strong support for Ministers in the Department and for our Prime Minister, who came in for a bit of criticism for saying he wanted to get to grips with the way the funding formula has historically divided up funds. I spent my time as a councillor during all but one year of the last Labour Government and then for most years of the coalition. Every year was challenging, but there was enormous frustration during those years of Labour government. Most additional funding was not placed, as we are debating today, within the core funding settlement; it came in the form of additional grants that were routed to local authorities based on needs that were not reflected in the statutory obligations of the local authority.

A local authority for a seaside town with lots of elderly people to whom it had a statutory obligation to deliver adult social care, or a local authority in an outer London suburb with many children with significant care needs to whom it had a statutory obligation, got no extra funding at all. However, cities in certain parts of the country—although there was perhaps genuine poverty and housing need that had to be address—often had more money than they could possibly spend.

Many local authorities would have spent every single one of those years having to make cuts to statutory services while being given additional grants for things that were less of a priority. It is enormously welcome that the Government are beginning to get to grips with that by saying that the way in which the money flows must first reflect the legal obligations that Parliament has placed on local authorities. If we in this House say that adult and children’s social care must be delivered to a certain standard and driven by certain costs, we must ensure that the money is flowing in that direction.

Let me gently push back on the couple of Members who mentioned equalities. I had the joy of being a peer reviewer for the equalities standard for local government during my time as a councillor. There has been criticism, or perhaps an implication, that councils are wasting money in that area. One reason that councils do things such as equalities impact assessments is to avoid expensive legal challenges of the kind that used to be extremely common, that cost taxpayers huge amounts, and that obstructed reform, particularly of social care services. If officials at the town hall are ensuring that contracts are tendered in a way that reflects the diverse needs of a community and means that they will not be tangled up in years of legal challenges based on the Human Rights Act 1998 or any other element of equality legislation, that increases the efficiency of service delivery by that local authority. We should be cautious about assuming that if it comes with an equalities badge, it must, in some sense, be a waste of money.

Funding reform will be enormously welcome across the country. Let me set out the key things on which I ask the Minister to reflect as he embarks on that process. First, the work that has already started, to ensure that local government funding reflects the cost drivers arising from legislation passed by this House, is critical. If we say, “This must happen and must be done by local government,” we must ensure that the resources are there for the delivery of that thing, otherwise we create an unsustainable and unbridgeable gap between our constituents’ expectations and the available funding.

As the bigger picture of reform is taken forward, I suggest that we look at the role that planning gain will play in how local authorities are funded. Despite economic development being an enormous priority for our Government and our country, most forms of development remain a net cost to local authorities. In Hillingdon, we certainly had that spelled out to us starkly in respect of Heathrow airport, the campaign for expansion and the national debate about whether that was an additional benefit to UK plc. However, it was extremely clear, especially because the business rates all went to central Government, that the expansion of Heathrow airport simply created significant additional cost to the local authority. A recent study estimated that each new citizen moving to a city represented an additional cost of £15,000 per annum to its public services, after all the benefits, including the tax that they pay, were accounted for.

As development proceeds, we must ensure that our constituents see a real benefit, so that local authorities, and Members of Parliament—instead of standing up in this House and saying, “We want more housing and more economic development,” before appearing on leaflets in the constituency opposing it all—can look their voters in the eye and say genuinely, “If we get this new factory, it will be disruptive, but the money from it will mean that we get a new bus service or an improved GP service.”

The Minister will be looking at a lot of detail, but I ask him to reflect in particular on the impact of funding temporary accommodation costs from local authorities’ general fund. The housing revenue account is ringfenced, and we know that that comprises both the rents that are paid by local authority tenants and several other funding streams. However, the fact that it is ringfenced and often significantly in profit has encouraged Governments in the past to look at it as, for example, a source of funding borrowing to invest in housing. The temporary accommodation challenge that we face—especially because of the large numbers of people arriving in the UK over fairly short periods of time, exacerbating some pre-existing challenges—is significant and acute. I urge the Minister to look at whether some additional flexibility around the housing revenue account could begin to relieve some of the pressures on the general fund referred to in the motion.

I finish my remarks by thanking the people who serve in all local authorities, in particular those who serve as councillors in my constituency and lead my two local authorities. The feedback that I receive from constituents, despite all the potential gloom and doom about local government, continues to be extremely positive and is often improving: people see that their streets are becoming cleaner and their environment is being cared for. That is incredibly important to them—often far more important than the issues we are debating in this House—and we owe those councillors a huge debt of thanks as fellow elected politicians.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

There is about £70 billion of local government spending in the UK, which is a very significant economic factor. It is entirely right that, in a context where local authorities have their remit within the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and the most advantageous tender rules, introduced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, they are able to ensure that that money is spent in a way that fully expresses their ambitions and the aspirations and views of their local communities. Clearly we need to ensure—and this is why I support the Bill so strongly—that we have appropriate limits when there are risks that that will stray into causing real, serious division and interfere with what is more appropriately national policy.

During my time at the Local Government Association, I engaged in a good deal of effort working with the local government friends of Israel group and observing the massive amount of BDS lobbying of local councillors. I must pay tribute to our local government counterparts. Overwhelmingly, despite that pressure, they took the view that this was not an appropriate course of action, and that in fact they should ensure that the concerns and aspirations of their residents were front and centre rather than engaging with international campaigns that were both beyond their remit and at risk of conflicting with the more broadly expressed objectives of the country.

We should not forget—this is why what the Secretary of State said about retaining the capacity for freedom of speech is so important—that we have counterparts in local government who are specifically elected on an international platform. For example, many will recall Justice for Kashmir, later the People’s Justice party, which became a significant force in the politics of Birmingham City Council. It was specifically elected on an international law issue. Later, its members joined the Liberal Democrats. Clearly, communities felt that the issue was so important that they were prepared to elect local councillors on that platform.

As a Member who represents a diverse constituency and who has heard a lot from people on both sides of this debate, I want to finish by saying that the incredibly bitter divisions that have arisen about the Bill and other issues are not seen and felt by my constituents in day-to-day life. When a local Muslim charity wanted a base, it found one in St John’s church. When it wanted to raise funds to purchase its own permanent base, the local synagogue spoke out in support of that. There is a real sense of solidarity among our communities, regardless of faith or any other element of diversity in their backgrounds. We need to ensure that BDS, which solely targets the state of Israel, is restricted from inflicting any further damage on our communities.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

Amendment 3 would amend clause 4 to lift the effective ban on criticism of this legislation by other elected individuals. Again, the proposals in the Bill strike at the very heart of what we try to achieve at every level of our democracy in this country, which is a sense of ethical and moral conduct, and that people should be able to express their views.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Like me, he has spent a lot of time in local government. Does he agree with the point I raised on Second Reading that a key issue is that our local elected brethren—for example, those specifically elected on a foreign policy platform, such as the 17 councillors who served at one stage on Birmingham City Council on behalf of the “Justice for Kashmir” party—may have a specific democratic reason for being there to express that foreign policy view? There will be circumstances in which councillors, including those who sit in the House of Lords and who sit as part of international bodies, such as the congress of the Council of Europe, benefit from parliamentary privilege in expressing their views. There is therefore a risk that this gagging order is not simply gagging what people should expect as freedom of speech, but is also ineffective in the objective it sets out to achieve.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend speaks with experience, and he puts it extremely well. To assume that councillors are merely elected on the basis of their attitude towards potholes and refuse collection is completely erroneous; they are elected for all sorts of reasons. Many councillors and Members of the devolved Administrations who campaign on social, moral, ethical and, indeed, foreign policy issues would say that they have a mandate, and not even to be able to express opposition to the law while still complying with it seems very un-British, extremely illiberal and unnecessarily draconian. We have lots of laws in this country to which councillors and, indeed, other elected officials of opposing political persuasions can express opposition. To have an exception on this basis seems faintly ridiculous.

On amendment 4, I declare my interest as a member of the local government pension fund, which I understand is the only pension fund affected by the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is unfortunate that, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, my accumulated savings are being put under the control of the Secretary of State. If, in pursuit of this control, my pension diminishes in value because I am forced to follow the decisions made by the Secretary of State, what will be my compensation in retirement?

Amendment 5 is about exempting universities as public bodies. There is a technical reason, as well as a principled reason, for this amendment. I outlined my objection on Second Reading, not least because we had just appointed a free speech tsar and legislated for free speech on university campuses, but here we are busily curtailing free speech through this Bill.

The technical issue is about universities being classified as public bodies. As the Secretary of State will know, there has been a flurry of activity in the Treasury because further education colleges have been classified as public bodies, which means all their debt comes on to the public balance sheet. This is another step towards universities, with their even greater levels of debt, coming on to the balance sheet, about which the Treasury ought to have a say. I hope and believe that, when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, the Treasury will want to have a look.

Finally, amendment 6 is about international law. I know that the Secretary of State, like every member of the Government, is extremely keen on international law and wants to ensure it is followed in all circumstances, and particularly in this current horrific conflict in Israel and Gaza. One of the great benefits of our more flexible system is that, as the Government called for boycotts of Russian businesses and Russian individuals following the invasion of Ukraine, other parts of civic society were able to move extremely quickly to comply, whereas under this legislation they would have to wait for the Government to issue some kind of regulation, which would have to go through this House and be debated. That could possibly take weeks, if not longer, particularly if the House is in recess. Amendment 6 proposes that if the Government declare that a country or situation is in breach of international law, other organisations can immediately respond by issuing their own sanctions or disinvestments.

I honestly believe that the amendments I have tabled—I understand that only amendment 7, which is probably the most important, will go to a Division this evening—represent an attempt to improve the legislation, rather than necessarily picking a side. Although this debate has, I am afraid, been positioned as a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine debate, I am primarily pro-Britain. I want to get the legislation right for this country, for the Jewish community and for every community in this country so that we can live with the consequences for years to come.