Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate. He often brings vital debates to Westminster Hall, and I am always glad to come along and support him in his requests. I welcome the Minister to her place. She is a busy lady. She responded to the Adjournment debate last night, and as if she never slept, she is back in Westminster Hall this morning. We wish her well in her role.

Building safety remediation is required to fix serious safety defects in residential buildings where those defects could put residents at risk. At the end of July ’26, more than 4,500 residential buildings in England measuring 11 metres or more in height had been identified as having unsafe cladding that requires remediation. The figure had increased by some 228 in just one month, so there is a growing problem, unfortunately. That demonstrates that the demand for essential remediation works is continuing to outpace the rate at which works are being completed.

We need to remember that behind those stats are real people. Sometimes we think about the buildings, but what matters is what happens to the people living day to day in them with constant uncertainty about the safety of their own home. The pressure and the stress are almost overwhelming. Many report facing significant financial pressures due to insurance premiums and difficulties in selling their property. We have seen reports of some leaseholders in London losing around £100,000 on the value of their flat as a result of a five-year delay in remediation plans and works.

Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, we have seen the potential for fatal consequences because of failures and delays in building safety remediation, and I believe that lessons must be learned from that. I will quickly give a Northern Ireland perspective. More than £2 million has been paid to managing agents under the cladding safety scheme. However, despite that support, hundreds of people in Belfast are still living in high-rise buildings with cladding that has raised serious fire safety concerns, including buildings that contain some of the very same material that caused the Grenfell tragedy. I understand that it is early days for the Minister in her role, but has she had the opportunity to talk to the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to give them details of what is being done here in Westminster, perhaps to help us to do things better back home?

While the overall number of high-rise residential buildings in Northern Ireland is relatively small compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, that cannot mean that the standard of protection afforded to residents in Northern Ireland should be any lower. Every resident deserves to know that their home is safe, regardless of where they live. Does the Minister therefore agree that more must be done to accelerate the remediation of unsafe cladding in Northern Ireland and to ensure that residents are supported throughout the process?

I am coming to the end of my remarks, Dr Murrison; I am very conscious of your comments about time. Residents deserve safe and secure homes. They should not be left in limbo, facing rising costs and uncertainty while they wait for the building they call home to be made safe. It just is not fair.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Commendably brief—thank you very much indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. He highlighted examples of various developments in his constituency, including Drayton Park and Highbury Gardens, underlining the fact that innocent leaseholders have continued to pay exorbitant fees for many years. It is really important that we get to grips with this, especially for new buildings. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be discussing the matter in respect of the national planning policy framework and some other areas, and I will continue to discuss it as well. On the specific issue of backdating, it is important for us to look at clear insurance procurement—the pricing, the cover, the prescribed timeframes for providing information and the mechanism for challenging any future delays.

Together, the measures the Government have outlined are intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help to ensure that residents have a clearer understanding of insurance costs. There is a lot of jargon and hidden figures. We need to make sure that the costs are clear and that when residents challenge them, they get the right information back so that they can assess what they are being asked to pay for.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her answers; she is giving a comprehensive and detailed response, as I knew she would. Ever mindful that she has been in place for only a short time, I have a specific question about what is happening here compared with the situation back home. We have an outstanding problem with many properties in Belfast. It would be helpful if we were able, perhaps through the Minister, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in particular the relevant Minister there, to ensure that what is learned here can be passed on to those back home in the Assembly.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a valid point about what lessons can be learned from what happens in the UK. As he has outlined, buildings right across the UK need to be safe. Every home needs to be safe; it does not matter where a person lives. I am very open to looking at areas of best practice, which we can share as we develop legislation.

Several Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, outlined the big issue with EWS1 forms, which has caused many homeowners a great deal of stress. The Government recognise the difficulties in selling and remortgaging homes, and the concerns for residents living in buildings impacted by building safety issues. We have continued to work with major mortgage lenders to improve access to lending for affected buildings and support the functioning of the housing market while remediation progresses.

The hon. Gentleman referred to concerns about the validity of certain EWS1 forms. I can confirm that my Department is aware of those concerns, which relate to a fire engineer who was removed from his professional accrediting body and is, as I understand it, no longer operating in the field. Although I cannot comment on individual cases, it is important to reiterate that the EWS1 form is not an official Government form but an industry tool used by lenders and valuers to help them to understand the remediation status of participating buildings.

My officials continue to engage with the mortgage lending industry to encourage it to take a proportionate approach when using EWS1 forms. The Government consider that lenders should be moving away from the forms, but there is still an over-reliance on them. The hon. Gentleman highlighted an additional bill of £4,500 because of the delay in getting an EWS1 form. We understand that EWS1 forms continue to be used by individual lenders, and the Government will continue to stress loudly that lenders should move away from that requirement.

A number of Members highlighted the issue of cost and who pays for historical remediation. The Building Safety Act puts the responsibility for undertaking, and in most cases paying for, remediation on the building’s landlords, while making it very clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they have developed or refurbished even if they no longer own them. Courts have new powers to extend liability to associated companies, thereby stopping complex corporate structures being used to dodge responsibility. This was not fair and took a mental toll on many homeowners.

Where a developer cannot be identified or has not yet agreed to pay, public funding is available to address life-threatening cladding risk on residential buildings over 11 metres high, so that no leaseholder in those buildings will face cladding remediation costs. Many holders of qualifying leases are protected in full from non-cladding and interim measures—for example, where the landlord or its group meets the contribution condition or where the property value is below the set threshold.

Other qualifying leaseholders have their costs firmly capped and spread over 10 years, with costs already paid out since 28 June 2017 counting towards the cap. For obvious reasons, in Greater London the cap is £15,000 and across the country it is £10,000. That rises to £50,000 for properties valued between £1 million and £2 million, and to £100,000 for properties valued at more than £2 million.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned the building safety levy, which will come into force on 1 October and will raise funds to pay for the remediation of cladding on residential buildings where the developer cannot be held responsible or identified. That is a key element for ensuring trust.

Under the work started by the previous Government, 53 developers signed the developer-led remediation contract with the Government. The contract covers more than 2,000 buildings in England that are over 11 metres high and have life-critical fire safety defects. Developers have contributed and committed to pay or fix the matter, at a cost of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that fails to comply with the remediation obligations faces significant commercial consequences, including the imposition of statutory prohibitions, effectively preventing them from building new homes in England. We expect all developers to accelerate their remediation work without compromising safety.

Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I give great thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for raising this matter. Both he and the Minister know that the Minister is not responsible for housing in Northern Ireland, but I always wish to give a perspective, as an MP for Strangford contributing to debates in the House and in Westminster Hall, on what we have done back home.

Although I understand the need for increased housing development, as the MP for Strangford, a constituency covered by vast stretches of countryside, I am most concerned for the protection of our rural communities. I support the Government’s aim of 1.5 million houses. That figure will not be achieved, according to comments in the paper yesterday or the day before from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Whatever the figure may be, it has also been indicated from the stats that, in its totality, the United Kingdom faces a shortfall of some 4.3 million homes.

I want to share some of what we have done in Northern Ireland and in my constituency, just to give a flavour. There is a need to build adequate, affordable homes, to give people a chance to get on to the housing ladder. I remember that one of our former Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher, always said she wanted to make sure that people had the chance to buy their home. As a young person—I was much younger than I am now—I thought that was an admirable policy, and I certainly supported it. What did we all want to do? We all wanted to own our home.

That reminds me of a story—I want to give you an idea of prices back in 1971. I was only 16 at the time; I had just left school when a man came to buy my dad’s coal business. It was Mr Dowds and, being 16, I always called him “Mister”, never by his first name. When he came down, he told me he had bought a house up the Dunover Road in Ballywalter. I said, “Mr Dowds, how much will that cost you?” He said, “£3,750.” My words to him, as a 16-year-old, were: “Mr Dowds, how will you ever pay it back? My goodness—£3,750!” If he had had the intellect, ability or money, he would have bought four of them, sold them later and made his fortune. The fact of the matter is that housing is not £3,750 any more—it is much more. I support the Government’s policy of giving people access to affordable homes, ensuring that they have the opportunity to secure their retirement and future through owning their home.

The UK faces a shortfall of some 4.3 million homes compared with other western European countries. In the United Kingdom, we are falling far behind when it comes to housing being provided or built across the country. The housing shortage has worsened housing affordability, growth and living standards as a result. In recognition of those issues, the Government introduced grey-belt land, which would permit certain areas of green-belt land to be considered for property development where they are deemed to make a limited contribution to green-belt purposes.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam has set the scene incredibly well and has expressed both his own and his constituents’ concerns—he knows his constituency much better than I do. I hope that the Minister can give the assurances that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been seeking.

I have always been supportive of development on brownfield sites—land where businesses have closed or factories have become derelict. As a councillor for 26 years from 1985, and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years before coming to this place, I recognise that there have been opportunities in my constituency of Strangford. Rather than letting land lie derelict in the centre of town, why not use it for housing developments? The right hon. and learned Member will no doubt know of brownfield land that could be used for that purpose. I suppose one question for the Minister would be: how are we ensuring that all opportunities for brownfield sites are used? I should have welcomed him to his place; apologies for not doing so. It is always nice to see him and he always endeavours to answer the questions we pose to him, and he does it incredibly well, so we look forward to his answers later.

Brownfield sites offer an opportunity to deliver most of the needed housing development, but grey-belt land that is a good, productive agricultural land should be retained for food production. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam illustrated this very well in his introduction, as did the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), who spoke just before me, but while I believe there are opportunities where these things need to be considered, my concern is that we are no longer sustainable when it comes to food production. We cannot feed our whole nation, but we need to be able to do that.

There are some negatives with grey belt—the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to them, and he did it incredibly well. Green-belt land is generally protected from development, so the development of grey-belt areas raises serious concerns about the potential loss of farmland, woodland, animal habitats and public access to nature, for example. Proposed developments of grey-belt land have also been assessed as posing a greater flood risk and increasing car dependency in what are often poorly connected areas. There are also other issues that have to be considered in grey-belt areas. With respect, I do not believe that this is sustainable development. Indeed, the proposals have faced significant public opposition, with thousands, and maybe even tens of thousands, taking part in protests in April alone.

I live on a farm in the Ards peninsula. In my constituency of Strangford, the rules are very strict. Anyone with a farm business number—anyone who does more than just work the land—is allowed one site on their land every 10 years, whether it be for their farm labour or their family, or as a retirement home. The conditions are strict, but they are strict for a purpose. Fortunately, I do not think we will have the issues with the grey belt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised—we will not find ourselves in that position—but through the years we have had other opportunities to develop land.

Although grey-belt land is not applicable to Northern Ireland, there are still protections in place for development of the countryside. A key issue in Northern Ireland is our infrastructure capacity for housing development. This always has been, and must be, addressed before consideration is given to larger developments in countryside areas. In my time as a councillor and as an Assembly Member, and now as the MP for Strangford, there have been a number of developments on fairly good agricultural land on the edge of the town that lent itself to development.

A proposal has been agreed for some 700 new houses in the east of Newtownards. Importantly, the developer has committed himself, under the very conditions in the planning application, to ensure the infrastructure—the roads process, sewerage and water, playgrounds, green areas, and access to infrastructure, whether that is health clinics or schools. The developer has to do a lot of things, and that is right. The developer should not throw everything on to the present infrastructure, but should have a responsibility to ensure that the development is sustainable.

As an example, I think of Rivenwood, a lovely development in Newtownards—they are finishing the third phase and are going to the fourth. It is connected to Movilla Road, over to Donaghadee Road and then ultimately over to Bangor Road—they developed the road infrastructure. Again, that was the way to do it. In Comber, Enler Village is another development where, again, there was an opportunity on the edge of the town on land that was not productive. That is an example of where the development was acceptable and did not cause any problems. Does the Minister agree that grey-belt land should not be viewed as the whole solution to the housing crisis—this is a simple question, and I am sure that he will give me some response to it—and that greater consideration should be given to building up the infrastructure that we already have?

What do we need to do? We must find the right balance, and I believe that there is a balance to be found. It is a question of making sure that people have access to affordable homes and that sustainable development can happen, while protecting the environmental value of our countryside. I love where I live. I am fortunate always to have lived in the countryside, and I am fortunate to live on a farm. I go out my back door and I am in the fields—I love the countryside; I always have—and my sons have opportunities to do that as well.

Grey-belt land may remain a grey area, but I believe that development and environmental protection are not irreconcilable aims. The question to the Minister is this: do we have the balance between retaining the environment and providing houses? Those are two things that we are all committed to—every one of us in this Chamber today—to ensure that people have opportunity, but we have to be committed to ensuring that our environment is protected as well.

I do some country sports, and I always think about the fact that we have a responsibility to ensure that what we have now is there for those who come after us. That is our responsibility today. As someone who is 71 years of age, I am very conscious, now more than ever, of what I will leave for my sons and my grandchildren. I want them to have the same opportunities—the chance to have a house, but at the same time the chance to enjoy what we enjoy now.

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

That question is in line with a number of other questions that have been asked about youth experience accommodation. I have committed to go away and look at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Many of my constituents in Strangford and people across Northern Ireland travel to the United Kingdom for a home-based holiday. The weather is almost as good as it is in the Mediterranean. They pay for their flights or they take their vehicles on the ferry, already paying a high fee to support tourism in the United Kingdom. Why should my constituents—British constituents—be penalised twice for supporting and buying into a British holiday? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those in Northern Ireland are not discouraged from contributing to having a home-based holiday in England?

[Jim McMahon]

Everybody will pay the levy, and they will benefit from the improved experience, not only in the immediate area, but in the types of events and activities that might draw in people. Where local leaders decide that the levy is right for their places, we believe that people will enjoy the wider benefits.

Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is an honour to lead this Adjournment debate. Let me say at the start that another colleague wants to speak, and I will take two very short interventions from Members I have had conversations with before the debate.

Next month, on 4 October, thousands of people from east London will be marking the 90th anniversary of what is commonly known as the battle of Cable Street, when the Jewish community and allies stood together to march off Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts. The victory is held up today as a high water mark for so many causes, including anti-fascism, grassroots Jewish activism and cross-community solidarity. It echoes from 1936 to the present in so many ways.

Antisemitism and hate crimes are again on the rise in Britain. Just last week, a man was charged after making a Nazi salute outside a synagogue. Of course, we must never forget the victims of the recent antisemitic attacks in north London—including the stabbings in Golders Green earlier this year—and the abhorrent Heaton Park terrorist attack a year ago, which took the lives of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. We are also seeing the return of far-right and racist agitators who seek, much like Mosely, to exploit the struggles of working-class people in this country and sow hatred, intolerance and division.

In the UK, migrants and asylum seekers are a sharp target. The anti-migrant pogroms in Belfast were just one among many chilling incidents of racist violence in recent months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is indeed important that we remember this occasion: 90 years ago, a fascist march was prevented from passing through Cable Street in London.

Northern Ireland has been especially afflicted by deep divisions running through our community, and the Peaceplus action plan has tried to address those issues. Does the hon. Lady agree that expanding and supporting cross-community initiatives across the UK and Northern Ireland can help strengthen relationships between communities? Remembering such events help us to do just that.

[Apsana Begum]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that communities must work with one another to deal with the challenges of our time—particularly the rise of racism and fascism, which we see across the world.

Far-right parties are winning elections across western Europe, so we must look seriously and carefully at our own history and how we overcame those challenges in the past. Fascism was not defeated in Britain in a single day, but no day contributed as much as 4 October 1936. I am pleased that the Minister, a fellow London MP, is here, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), in whose constituency Cable Street is now situated after the boundary changes in 2024. We are here to debate the 90th anniversary and understand how the battle came to be.

By 1934, the British Union of Fascists was concentrating its efforts on building a menacing street movement in inner-city areas. In east London, the BUF had four large branches. Thousands of supporters were based in a diverse and economically struggling area, where the largest minorities were of Irish Catholic and east European Jewish heritage. About 100,000 Jews lived in east London, where shop signs were written in Yiddish and more than 100 synagogues and shtiebels were established. Fascists attempted to set Irish Catholic and Jewish communities against each other, accusing Jews of taking English jobs, smashing their market stalls and attacking and beating Jews returning from synagogue or from shopping.

On 26 September 1936, Mosley announced his intention to march provocatively right through those Jewish neighbourhoods and hold rallies with his supporters, but within two days 100,000 signatures were collected by the Jewish People’s Council—a local grassroots campaign formed only that year—to petition the then Home Secretary for a ban on the march to

“retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London’s population.”

Local mayors and local MPs including one of my predecessors, the great Labour MP George Lansbury, handed in the petition, yet shockingly the then Home Secretary refused and instead decided to send 7,000 police officers to protect Mosley and the blackshirts. Just hours after the refusal was issued, the Jewish People’s Council began to distribute leaflets calling on citizens of London to make sure the fascist march would not take place.

Far from being a spontaneous uprising, it took an extraordinary amount of effort to organise east London’s resistance. The Jewish People’s Council worked frantically to mobilise Jewish and non-Jewish communities locally, while Communist party, Independent Labour party and trade union branches all mobilised the area’s textile workers, dockers and railway workers.

Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I agree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that matter in a moment, because there are two very specific areas that I think require attention.

Cognatum does not get off scot-free because of one doggedly determined constituent, Peter Wintle, who lives in Home Farm of Iwerne Minster. He has cogently and sensibly asked questions over the years of Cognatum, only to be met with very little in reply. The issues that Peter has raised with me on behalf of those residents, which are echoed by others, is the absence of management transparency—a key and important thing—and accountability of the companies involved, as well as a lack of clear communication that sets out in easily digestible form information that residents require and openness on finance, explaining why service charges go up and why repairs or maintenance are being done in a certain way. There is a lackadaisical and tardy attitude in responding to issues and complaints raised by residents—all things that should not be expected. The complaints system is not worthy of the name. In the case of Cognatum, because of the way it organises itself, there are also unaudited accounts, which make it incredibly hard for anybody to follow the line on the balance sheet.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, without whom no Adjournment debate would be complete.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Vulnerable retirees in Strangford are facing experiences and anxieties that mirror those he has referred to. While we do have the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, it lacks a statutory cap on ground rents and it is not possible to regulate the runaway management and event fees levied by private firms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our elderly population, including elderly constituents in Strangford, deserve uniform financial protections and safety from predatory management practices, regardless of which corner of the United Kingdom they reside in?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree. That goes back to the point I made a moment ago that too many of these companies see their residents as a soft or easy touch. They think that their residents will just suck it up and simply write the cheque.

Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for setting the scene incredibly well. It is good to see another supreme example of her fighting for her constituents, as she always does.

As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I am acutely aware of the challenges that face those in our rural communities. I know the Minister is not responsible for that, but I am here to support the hon. Lady as she puts forward the case on behalf of her constituents, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is nice to see him back in his position again—he was a Minister before and then an active Back Bencher, and he is back again as a Minister. Well done to him for all his efforts.

There are growing concerns about the level of support being provided to upper-tier rural authorities in England. England’s largest councils are expected to receive just 2p in Government funding for every £1 of their rising costs over the next three years. This comes as funding is increasingly being directed towards urban areas, leaving local rural authorities facing an estimated £11 billion funding gap. The consequences could be significant, with rural councils in particular likely to have to reduce and make cuts to everyday services such as libraries and community social care. Other hon. Members have spoken about those issues, as will others after me.

Analysis by the County Councils Network shows that county and large rural councils will face an additional £7 billion a year in service costs by 2029. This follows its warning at the beginning of last year that Government cuts are being severely felt in rural areas, with around four in five rural local authorities stating that they felt they were in a worse position following the autumn Budget and the local government finance settlement. The network has called for a reinstatement of “remoteness” in the local government funding formula. There is perhaps a case to be made—as the hon. Member for North Shropshire did exceptionally well—that remoteness must be a priority and part of the scoring card when it comes to funding, to properly recognise that the delivery of services across sparsely populated areas costs considerably more, and the impact on rural communities.

As always, I give a Northern Ireland perspective, not because the Minister has any answering to do for it, because he does not, but to give examples of where some of what the hon. Lady and others have said relates to the situation back home in Northern Ireland. While Northern Ireland does not have a two-tier local government system—our 11 councils are single-tier authorities—our rural councils face many of the same challenges. One is that our councils play a much wider role than simply delivering standard local services. That is why it is of great concern that local community initiatives in rural areas are increasingly vulnerable to having their funding withdrawn.

Some of the things that affect us in Northern Ireland also affect the hon. Lady’s constituency here on the mainland. In March, concerns were raised about the potential closure of a youth forum in the Londonderry area due to funding difficulties. The forum highlighted that rural isolation and social exclusion are precisely the types of issues that these services are trying to address—the very things that the hon. Lady and others have specifically requested.

I was elected as MP for my constituency of Strangford in 2010, and in 2015 the Ards and North Down rural partnership was established to act as the administrative and financial lead for the Northern Ireland rural development programme, an excellent programme that did great work in my constituency and indeed across the whole of Northern Ireland. The programme was completed in 2022, but that work must not be allowed to stop there. We must build on that success with sustained investment.

The Ards and North Down rural partnership is still working and doing good things, and the Government back home have recognised that rural isolation and rural needs are specific. The Ards and North Down rural partnership demonstrates the difference that targeted investment can make in our rural communities, from improving the local play parks, green spaces and the harbour areas, to supporting community centres.

Does the Minister agree that equality does not always mean treating every area the same, and that rural areas should receive funding that recognises the additional cost of delivering services across the countryside and in rural communities? In the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—which we all welcome, by the way; it would be churlish for anyone not to welcome it—he set a positive scene and laid out his vision for the United Kingdom. He mentioned hope, which was one of the words that I took from his statement—I was there for his statement but not for all the answers to Members, because there were other things to do. We must ensure that policies are rural-proofed. My real fear is that we are not doing so and that the losers are the most vulnerable and isolated communities. Economies of scale and isolation issues must be weighted when balancing the books.

I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to address this issue for each rural area, and thank him for his response to the debate. How will the Government deliver support for upper-tier local authorities? That is the question the hon. Lady put forward, and it is the one I am asking as well.

Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I would bounce that back at the hon. Member and ask him why he never came to me or any of the other Huntingdonshire MPs to ask about proposing an option that would split Huntingdonshire in two. The hon. Member told the BBC last summer:

“A Mid Cambridgeshire council would allow rural areas across East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and parts of Huntingdonshire to form an authority that can deliver effectively on residents’ priorities, while a Greater Peterborough council encompassing the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire could better regulate and plan that growth.”

Nonsense. I am fascinated to know how an almost entirely rural Mid Cambridgeshire county council is supposed to thrive when it has no basis for economic growth. The Greater Peterborough council would encompass

“the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire”.

I wonder which authority the hon. Member’s constituency is within.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland some 10 years ago, we had local government reorganisation that promised significant savings and more efficiency. Unfortunately, on neither of those two occasions were they delivered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when looking at what others have done, as he has outlined, perhaps it is time to see where things went wrong and learn lessons from what we did and did not do right?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely an opportunity here to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that they are not repeated when we drive this forward in the new year.

In early July, news began to leak out from the Local Government Association’s annual conference that Peterborough city council suddenly seemed to be aware that option D was going to get the nod. Word spread quickly among Cambridgeshire senior executives that option D was going to be selected. Who was leaking that information, and why was I left to announce it on ITV News Anglia so that people could see for themselves that the process under this Government was on the cusp of selecting the Labour-proposed option, as has happened in local authority areas across the country? Strangely enough, the response received on Friday to a freedom of information request to Peterborough city council was not able to be answered. I eagerly await the response to my own subject access request in a few days’ time.

It is simply a disgrace that the Government would treat Cambridgeshire residents with this level of contempt by leaking the outcome of a decision that appears to have been almost certainly predetermined to a privileged few, allowing those who have been given the information to achieve a head start and for favoured businesses to gain a competitive advantage, and affecting decisions on employment and education opportunities and future investment decisions.

Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for introducing a topic that, as he said and as we all know, touches the very core of human dignity, equality and basic compassion. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) as well; I thank her for her contribution.

It was also a pleasure to hear the story told by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) of how he was approached by his constituents and how, as he rose up the ministerial ladder, he used his position to ensure that the very things that his constituents had asked for were delivered. I wish to put on record my thanks to him for using his position for his constituents and all our people, because ultimately, we all benefit from that £50 million to which he referred.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am not sure what is going on, but whenever she turns up, I seem to turn up as well. Westminster Hall has been well used this week on numerous occasions by both of us, and by many others as well. However, we seem to be featuring in similar debates.

When it comes to the welfare of vulnerable people, I will knock on any door and speak in any Chamber to ensure that they are not forgotten. That is why today is so important. I secured a debate just a few weeks ago about stoma care facilities and public toilets, but today we are talking about something slightly different: Changing Places toilets. We are not talking about standard disabled toilets; we are talking about life-changing essential facilities that provide an adult-sized, height-adjustable changing bench, a tracking hoist system, a centrally placed toilet and room for two carers—the physical room for them to be able to help.

Without those facilities, thousands of our fellow citizens cannot leave their homes for more than a couple of hours without facing the horrific, unsanitary and utterly degrading reality of being changed on a dirty public toilet floor. I would not like that, which is why I am here to speak up. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his moving contribution and his personal story. We all agree that personal stories carry weight. Today, he shared his with us all, and I thank him for doing so.

The Government previously announced magnificent capital funding pots for Changing Places toilets across England. But as the Member for Strangford, I will tell the story from Northern Ireland—it is not a great story but a disappointing one; maybe not for my constituency but certainly across Northern Ireland—to ensure that capital funding reaches the places that are falling desperately behind.

An estimated 7,000 people across our province rely entirely on Changing Places facilities to live a normal life, yet the figures show that Northern Ireland has historically been one of the worst-performing regions in the entire United Kingdom for provision, with a shocking lack of options outside major city hubs. Campaign groups have highlighted that four out of five hospitals in Northern Ireland—it almost makes me cringe to say this—still have no registered Changing Places facilities, leaving vulnerable patients, staff and visitors completely stranded in the very places that are meant to care for them, which leaves me incredulous. I followed up with the Northern Ireland Minister in relation to the stoma debate, and I will do the same now to reinforce the need for change.

I am very fortunate that my constituency of Strangford and the borough of Ards and North Down have been able to record the data: out of nearly 40 publicly available toilets across the borough, only about a dozen are standard accessible toilets. When looking for true, fully compliant and registered Changing Places toilets, the list shrinks even further. I commend—and I mean this, because I know that it has been doing many things—Ards and North Down borough council. I had the distinct honour of serving on it for some 26 years, and it has shown real leadership: it was the first council in Northern Ireland to ensure that all council accessible toilets were stoma-friendly. That is the good news story I shared in the stoma debate in this place about four weeks ago.

The council has successfully put standard Changing Places facilities into key hubs like the Bangor Aurora Aquatic and Leisure Complex, the Comber Leisure Centre and the magnificent Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex. My council has moved mountains to make sure that those things happened, but local councils cannot carry the weight alone on strained ratepayers’ money.

If a family want to enjoy the beautiful shores of the Ards peninsula where I live, or visit Ballyhalbert, Portavogie or Cloughey, the facilities simply do not exist. Those places are nearly off-limits for those who, as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, want to take their family out, even if it is only two hours down the road and back again. Families are forced to cut their days short and rush back to Newtownards or Bangor just so a loved one can use a bathroom in a dignified manner—we are talking about dignity here—which is a crying shame in this day and age.

While Northern Ireland has introduced legislative changes to building regulations in recent years to mandate these toilets in any new major public buildings such as shopping centres—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred to that—the Department of Health and local authorities back home are facing severe financial constraints and have explicitly stated that they lack the central capital budget to retrofit existing hospitals, transport hubs and some town centres.

I am ever-mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities and that she always tries to give helpful answers to our questions, but will she take up this cause with the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that regional capital funding formulas allow for dedicated, ringfenced resources to expand their Changing Places network? The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton can tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I presume that the £50 million earmarked for the project had Barnett consequentials.

[Rishi Sunak]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

So we got some, but we need that to be ringfenced. Minister, if moneys are coming through Barnett consequentials, let us ensure that they are used for those purposes. We need central capital funding that can be accessed by local councils like Ards and North Down borough council to retrofit our coastal towns, tourist hotspots and community centres; I believe that many are ready.

A civilised society is always judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. This is not a political issue—we all know that—it is about personal dignity, equality and what is right. It is about independence, inclusion and the basic right to go out for a cup of tea or a walk by the sea without losing your dignity. I urge the Minister to work hand in hand with the devolved Administration to ensure that capital funding flows to where it is needed the most, so that no child or adult in Northern Ireland is ever forced to use a public toilet floor again.

National Planning Policy Framework

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I will suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes to pursue a policy of building on land that will almost certainly flood, we need to put those buildings on stilts. That is not impossible, and there is certainly one very beautiful house on the levels that sits on stilts.

Yatton, the village subject to the decision, sits within the North Somerset levels, barely 2 km from the Bristol channel. On Friday 12 June, the High Court handed down its judgment permitting the development of 190 homes in this flood-prone area, on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. The judgment follows the NPPF exactly, as the judge had to, and prioritised building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not only the new homes—I should explain that the judge said that homeowners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the floodwater reached them—but the homes and businesses in and around the Yatton site. The impact of flooding does not disappear just because people can get away safely. This is about property as well as people. The damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as does the damage to property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace.

I would not want the Minister to think that this is a case of nimbyism and anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the Government’s desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country. There are 12,800 people on the Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch, and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre on the Flood Re scheme, which was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas were not astronomical. The scheme comes to an end in 2039, and the Government have been very clear that it will not be extended. As set out in legislation, homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmortgageable. The consequences for developers and those who have already bought the homes will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the NPPF in allowing the need for home building to override common sense.

To press the point, it is very likely that residents of new homes built on floodplains, such as those in Yatton, will face flooding damage in the coming years. Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim, but any new buyers will likely struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell a home that might cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. The Minister knows the weather experts say that what we are experiencing now is the most stable weather that we are ever going to see.

I mentioned that the current neighbours would also be affected due to the simple fact that the floodwater must go somewhere. If developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop, the floodwater may well not hit those homes precisely, but will cause the existing homes and businesses in the area to be flooded more greatly. I have a lovely set of photographs of the land I am speaking about, which I will send to the Minister, showing exactly how it floods every year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for the ambition she has put forward. Does she not agree that there is a risk of severe regulatory divergence? If the English planning system undergoes massive deregulation and introduces a faster, rules-based yes by default to major projects, capital will do what it always does and flow through the path of least resistance. The Government and the Minister need to ensure that the possibility she outlines for her constituents does not happen elsewhere.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point I would like to make to the Minister is that, if developers choose to raise the level of the land on which they wish to build, we make a complete mockery of the Environment Agency’s work in relation to the LiDAR data that it uses to measure flood risk. There will be little pockets that are no longer in flood zone 3a, for example, but everybody else is then in a more problematic area for flooding. The current neighbours would be affected, because floodwater has to go somewhere. In the event of flooding, if the properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses.

The Association of British Insurers has been clear that, while it supports the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding, which is precisely the kind of decision we have seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which it points is sobering.

The Environment Agency’s national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk shows that 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone. In just the first quarter of this year, insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather-related claim reaching £6,040—the highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims, often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to £17,820. Research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding, and that figure is projected to rise to one in seven by 2050, once climate change is factored in.

That is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with UK Finance and flood campaigners, has written directly to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise the alarm. The message is simple: rather than weakening the sequential test, the Government should mandate sustainable drainage systems, finally implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That legislation has been in the ether, unimplemented, for nearly 16 years. It is telling that 66% of the public already say that they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. Ignoring the industry that pays out when floods happen is really not the way to change people’s minds.

I put it to the Minister that Somerset council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. To repeat something that one of my colleagues on Somerset council says, it has taken since the dawn of time for the population of the Somerset council area—not including the North Somerset council area—to reach 560,000. I am keen to know why the Minister and his Government believe that the population will grow by more than 75,000 people in the next 20 years. That is a 13% increase, when it has taken centuries to get to 560,000. It is a ridiculous population increase, and it is not realistic in the slightest. For context, the Office for National Statistics projects that the entire population of the United Kingdom will grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period—a rise of just 2.8%.

I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live—actually the best—but, even allowing for that huge appeal, I struggle to understand why the Government believe that such a disproportionately rural area will see growth at almost five times the national rate. The NPPF changes will affect much more than just flood risk—our area and its green spaces will be under pressure.

It seems especially disproportionate when I look at Bristol, my local city, which I love dearly. Its population is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national average. It seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset will be asked to take a huge number of new residents. I do not know where they are coming from, and I cannot quite see how the Government have come to those figures. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption.

The last matter I would like to raise is that farmers run factories. Those factories are the agricultural land—it is just that we do not have roofs on them. That is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. Farmers use fields, and they do not have roofs, so it is quite hard for people to spot the fact that they are food factories. In the interests of an honest debate, I acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new NPPF, but that comes with real caveats. It is worth the House hearing what they are.

A lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation, yet large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. My colleagues will need no second invitation on this point: food security is national security. I am really glad that the Government recognised that in February. Ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is of critical importance in what is a very unstable world.

Will the Minister consider the points that I have made and write to me about the population figures? I want to make absolutely certain that he does not misunderstand me; this is not a sentimental case for nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that is happening to Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I will try to cover four aspects of the NPPF in just short of four minutes. The first is what the NPPF says on intentional unauthorised development. I welcome the move towards stronger wording in that area. I should stress that I am not talking about a house extension or somebody accidentally not complying with regulations, but entire new dwellings and wilful non-compliance. I welcome the move from material consideration, as it is known, to substantial weight, but I fear it does not go far enough. As I said in my submission to the consultation, it should be set out very clearly that

“wilfully ignoring planning consent requirements will not result in retrospective planning permissions being granted”,

and that this cannot in normal circumstances be overridden by personal circumstance arguments. Other things could be done in support, such as making sure that stop notices are easier to issue, and restrictions on things like delivery of construction materials and mobile homes to unlawful sites.

The Minister and I have discussed the NPPF housing formula many times across this Floor. He is a very diligent Minister and, although he always robustly defends the Government line, which is kind of annoying, he always does it with great courtesy. I thank him for that. The problem is that this formula has meant a massive increase in housing numbers for the countryside. It is not a north-south thing; it is an urban to countryside shift. Whereas the numbers have gone up by 50% for the country overall, in East Hampshire they have doubled. When that happens overnight, no one has a five-year land supply that can deal with it, so we get speculative developments.

That has been brought into sharp relief by the issue of water supply, which has particularly come to prominence since South East Water’s submission to the Basingstoke and Deane local plan. The Basingstoke area that it talks about—zone 4, as it is known—extends to Alton and around my constituency. The Environment Agency has stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen because of the degradation of that globally rare site of special scientific interest. I met South East Water recently to discuss this. There are questions outstanding, particularly regarding parts of my constituency. Clearly, action should have happened before now, but a doubling of the housing target hugely exacerbates the issue. Large- scale development should not go ahead unless and until this issue is resolved.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on his speech. I know that the Minister is not responsible for my constituency across the water, but does the right hon. Gentleman feel that recommendations and good things learned on the mainland should be shared with us back home to ensure that we do not have the same problems that seem to be repeating over and over again here?

[Damian Hinds]

I agree. There is no practical limit on what we can learn from one another in the home nations of the United Kingdom.

I want to come on to what is known as policy L3, which concerns the minimum density requirements for areas around train stations. I have written about this in my submission to the consultation. I fear that a policy that is, on the face of it, sensible—“Let’s have people living close to train stations where they can commute to work or whatever it might be”—is really designed for urban town areas. But it will also have an impact on market towns in places like East Hampshire and in villages that just happen to have a train station. The sorts of densities discussed in the NPPF would be wholly inappropriate for market towns like Alton in East Hampshire and rural villages like Bentley or Rowland’s Castle.

Finally, I want to address how the NPPF interacts with local government reorganisation. I am totally opposed to the Government’s top-down reorganisation of Hampshire local government for multiple reasons, including the fact that it splits up an area with an identity—namely, East Hampshire. It puts the lower parts into a new Portsmouth super-council area and the rest of East Hampshire into this vast new Mid Hants unitary. Local plans have been built around existing district council geographies. For councils that are part-way through the process and about to have this enormous reorganisation thrust upon them, what is the guidance from the Government on how they should proceed?

Estate Regeneration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for highlighting this issue.

Many of us can be guilty of forgetting that a house is not just a unit on a spreadsheet, but the anchor of a family’s life. I see it that way, as do others, including the hon. Gentleman. Our historical, post-war social housing estates across Northern Ireland possess an incredible and undeniable community spirit, but are too often choked by generational underinvestment, outdated design and structural neglect. As always, I will give the Northern Ireland perspective on this topic to support the hon. Gentleman in his challenge and focus, and in what he wants to achieve, as it is what I want as well. It is nice to see the Minister in her place again—she is becoming a regular in Westminster Hall. I look forward to hearing her contribution.

I stand here to speak up for the thousands of families living in social housing across my constituency. Those estates were built decades ago, and although they were built with the best of intentions, time, by its very nature, has taken its toll. We are dealing with ageing housing stock that suffers from chronic dampness, poor insulation and completely outdated heating systems. In an era where energy prices remain painfully high, it is a tragedy that our lowest-income families are living in the hardest-to-heat homes and are forced to choose between heating their homes—or even just their front rooms—and feeding their children.

Considered estate regeneration is about so much more than putting a new lick of paint on a building, replacing a roof or putting in insulation; it is about having a holistic blueprint for community renewal. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for highlighting the community aspect, because I want to focus on the community drive as well. It means looking at the layout of our estates to eradicate the poorly lit alleys that breed antisocial behaviour. It also means investing in community infrastructure: the playgrounds where our children can play safely; the community hubs where our elderly residents can find a reprieve from chronic loneliness; and the green spaces that support mental wellbeing and social interaction.

True regeneration must be considered, meaning that it must be done with the community, not to the community. As the hon. Gentleman outlined incredibly well, our local communities must be the co-architects of their own future. We must empower local tenant associations and community groups to lead the design process. If they are drawn into that project and focus, it will make a community and a family atmosphere, and it will bring people together. That is what I would love to see.

To know how to fix a troubled estate—I say this respectfully—just ask the grandmother who has lived on that street for 40 years. She knows exactly where the problems are and exactly what the neighbourhood needs to thrive. Her love for that estate—the place she stayed in for 40 years of her life—should focus us all in the future.

Although housing policy and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are devolved matters managed by the Minister for Communities in Stormont, the fiscal reality is that our devolved Administration cannot deliver the scale of transformation needed on their own. That is why the Barnett consequential and what the Government give the Northern Ireland Assembly to dish out are so important. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive faces a multi-billion-pound maintenance and investment deficit over the next decade, just to bring its current stock up to a decent standard. That is why we need a joined-up, UK-wide approach to funding capital infrastructure. The UK levelling-up and building frameworks must ensure that Northern Ireland receives a fair, proportionate share of macro investment specifically earmarked for social housing regeneration.

This subject means a lot to me. Back in 1985, when I was first elected to a council, the social, bread-and-butter issues were about housing; it is still one of the biggest issues that my constituency office receives in the mailbag every week. Today’s debate means a lot to me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke on securing it and look forward to hearing what the Minister can do to encourage him and us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

You’re playing catch-up!

[Nesil Caliskan]

Yes, and I have a long way to go.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in.

There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem.

An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas.

The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people.

In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building.

Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration.

It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided.

Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.