Affordable Rural Housing

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. She has only been in the House a relatively short time, but she has already established a reputation as a doughty champion of her constituency. Those she has the privilege of representing should be reassured by the fact that she has already assiduously conveyed their views and concerns to Ministers on a range of matters, including the one we are considering today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and others who have made contributions to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire raised a number of distinct issues on the provision of affordable rural housing and I will seek to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. Before I do, I would like to make some brief remarks about planning reform and the role of the planning system in delivering homes of all kinds and meeting identified need for affordable housing, as a means of providing some important context.

It is not in dispute in this Chamber, I do not think, that the Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, or that significantly boosting the supply of homes of all tenures is essential to tackling it. That is why we acted decisively to overhaul the national planning policy framework last year, to revise the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of pro-growth measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. I think it is true that all of us would like to see more affordable housing delivered for our constituents, but does the Minister agree that top-down housing targets for all areas of the United Kingdom are not always suitable? I am thinking of my own constituency on the Isle of Wight, where on average we deliver 300 homes a year and are committed, through our local plan, to deliver 450. The Government are asking us to deliver 1,000. Does the Minister agree that there have to be some areas of the United Kingdom where the standard method does not apply?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We think the changes we have introduced and the revised standard method are appropriate. Every part of the country will need to play its part in achieving our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes across the country. That is the scale of ambition we need commensurate with the crisis we face, and that crisis affects every part of England.

The Government believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. Local plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system and we are determined to progress towards universal coverage. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local plan or how her local planning authority may interpret national planning policy due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but there is merit in me making some general comments on plan making in local authority areas that overlap with national landscapes, as is the case in her own area.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, taking into account a range of considerations. That includes fully exploring the role of planning conditions and developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development or support infrastructure provision as appropriate.

When it comes to plan making, local authorities are expected to use the revised standard method to assess housing needs. However, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, but also protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt. They are then expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local planning consultation. An examination of their approach will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and the plan is sound.

I turn to the focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks—namely, the case for supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people, and in particular for boosting the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government are committed to doing so, and it was a pleasure to have the chance to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend last month. It cannot be right that, as a number of hon. Members said, young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages in which they grew up. That harms not only them and their families but the vibrancy and long-term viability of rural communities.

English Devolution and Local Government

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. We will work with councils to deliver better services: that is what it is about for North East Derbyshire, along with all other areas that are coming forward. I have been in North East Derbyshire and understand the issues around potholes; our Government have been investing in delivery to end the pothole scandal that we saw under the previous Government.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Isle of Wight council is already a unitary authority. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister is postponing our elections, can she confirm that that will mean the future reorganisation of the council is on the negotiating table? Otherwise, why would she be cancelling our elections?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know that the fact that it is an island produces limitations, but nothing has been taken off the table. We want to deliver reorganisation and deliver for the people of the Isle of Wight, and we will continue to work with him, as well as local leaders, to deliver that.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

The right hon. Lady speaks powerfully for her constituency, which I know has a specific issue.

We mentioned housing developers, and one housing developer has put its head above the parapet to support the Bill. I am grateful for the support of Thakeham, and it is to be applauded for supporting the measure. Developers should support the Bill for sound business reasons. There is a clear market preference for homes with solar panels, and a relatively small proportion of the price will be rewarded with a decent payback, and customers want them.

Politically, there is demonstrable cross-party support. In the last Parliament, 79% of Members were found to be supportive, and I suspect the percentage is higher in this new Parliament. The climate barometer tracks support for mandatory solar panels on new builds and found a clear majority of support among all parties’ voters, so doing this would place us at the centre of political gravity. Some 80% of Conservative voters, 89% of Labour voters, 92% of Liberal Democrat voters and 63% of Reform supporters responded to the survey in favour of mandatory solar panels for new build homes. Those same constituents rightly look to us to make the right and logical decisions on these matters. They back the measure because all the evidence points to clear benefits at every level, including the Government’s positive agenda on energy and climate.

MCS Foundation research has found that mandatory solar panels on 1.5 million homes would be the equivalent of two additional Sizewell C nuclear power stations, which should give us all pause for thought. For a country that struggles to build infrastructure, we must not look past these easier, small-scale wins.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. He talks about the nuclear power that may not be needed if we have solar panels on houses. Does he have a view on how much pressure we could take off demand on green land for solar farms, because many people have concerns about that use of green land, if we had solar panels on new builds?

[Max Wilkinson]

My strong suspicion is that the market will help to decide the answer to that question, but it is inevitable that if we produce more energy from some sources, it will lower demand in other areas. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I visited Hinkley Point on a school trip as an 11-year-old and was told, very excitedly, that a new Hinkley C was on the way. I regret to tell the House that I am now 40 and, on current projections, Hinkley C is not expected to generate any power until I am at least 44. On the point of time, the new homes built today will outlast us all. If we can make them work better for the planet, they will be a lasting testament to this House’s efforts to tackle climate change, and they will offer protections against the energy shocks we have all endured too. That is what we have the chance to do today, if Ministers are willing to support the principles of the sunshine Bill. We cannot and should not let this opportunity pass us by, and it is our duty to build a political consensus here to match the consensus among members of the public.

So to paraphrase the great Morecambe and Wise in the song that shares the informal name we have given to this Bill, let our arms be as warm as the sun up above, and let us think about how much joy we can give to each brand new bright tomorrow—if only we can lower people’s energy bills and help to tackle climate change too.

Local Government Reorganisation

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We certainly accept, particularly in the case of Woking, where the debt is significant, standing at over £2 billion, that the question of debt has to be addressed through the process, but it is for the process to address it. We cannot say up front how we will treat debt in different areas, because every area is different. I do not think that any Member would expect us to do that.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Residents of the Isle of Wight are expecting full elections this May. The no-overall-control unitary authority has asked the Government to be part of a priority devolution deal with Hampshire, but not local authority reorganisation, which is not on the table. We are not being asked to do that because we are already a unitary. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that there is no good reason to delay elections when the Isle of Wight council’s future and viability is not under discussion? That is an accepted point. Why should a democracy have to have elections when the council will continue?

Employment Rights Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the contribution from small businesses to my election campaign earlier this year.

History is repeating itself. Labour’s antipathy and lack of understanding for business, and small business in particular, is rearing its ugly head again. This legislation will have ruinous results for those who desperately need a job and hope. The Federation of Small Businesses says:

“This legislation is a rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”

The federation goes on to say that the Bill will increase economic inactivity. That is a rather sanitised way of referring to the ruined lives, dashed hopes and huge waste of human potential that the Bill will bring about. At the end of the debate, we need to hear from a Minister how the Bill will be changed so that it supports rather than undermines the 4 million additional jobs created since 2010 under the Conservatives.

The economic impact assessment, so rudely provided so late in the day, shows that the costs of the Bill will fall disproportionately on small businesses—something that we have heard no acknowledgment of from Government Members. Five out of nine measures will have that effect. Do Ministers have any plans to change that?

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that provisions that are bad for small business are also bad for workers, bad for taxpayers, and bad for those who rely on welfare payments?

[Graham Stuart]

I entirely agree, and places like the Isle of Wight, with so many hospitality businesses, will pay a particularly high price. We should celebrate and support our wealth creators, not burden them with excessive taxes and regulations that kill the drive to work, invest and create wealth. Yet that is the destructive path that Labour is taking, with a jobs tax planned for every worker’s national insurance contributions in the Budget in a couple of weeks, and this Bill to deter SME employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today and spoken with such passion for and about their communities.

There is much in the Bill that I support, and I support the sentiment behind it. I am sure there is common ground in wanting to improve conditions and rights for workers, but there is a balance to be struck, and I have grave concerns about some provisions in the Bill—those that increase burden and red tape on employers and on employees, and those that are a threat to and a drag on economic productivity.

My first concern is the unnecessary introduction of a new concept of statutory probation. As the law currently stands, workers get protections against things like unfair dismissal. Those long-standing principles have survived different Governments, and indeed survive in this Bill. The debate has been about when those rights are accrued—whether it is after two years of employment or one—and there has been a fluctuation. This Bill attempts to introduce those rights from day one, but then to row back on them by introducing a statutory probation period, during which, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s own words, there is only a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal. It creates a new concept that is vague and unclear, and it will increase the glut of litigation in the employment tribunal. Indeed, it will need to do so to create case law so that employees and employers can understand what a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal means.

My second concern is the increased burden on smaller employers. Indeed, that is contained in the Government’s own analysis, and much has been said about that, so I will turn to my third issue: specific burdens in specific sectors, such as social care. The Government’s own analysis says that the Bill will increase costs for employers, but employers in social care cannot bear any more cost. The Government have said they will bring forward reform of social care; that must come first, before this law is brought into force.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the issue is that the Bill is lacking in detail? The issues he is discussing have been identified and indeed referenced in the Government’s own economic analysis, and we cannot get into the detail of this debate without having that level of information on the face of the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Bill lacks detail. It also contains a lot of powers that are intended to come about through secondary legislation. For example, we do not know how long that probation period will be, because it is not set out in the legislation.

Turning to the NHS, we understand that the Chancellor will increase the money to the NHS in the Budget but, as an employer, the NHS will have increased costs through this Bill. If national insurance contributions on employers are to be raised in the Budget, it will have that cost as well. That means there will be less money available to cut waiting lists. I urge the Government to delay this Bill, get the detail right and put some detail into it, and ensure that sectors such as health and social care get the support first so that, as employers, they can deal with the increased costs from this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members for making their maiden speeches. As I have said before, I am a geographer, so it is a real pleasure to hear about our great United Kingdom and the different constituencies that we all represent.

Entrepreneurs in the towns and villages I represent across Broxbourne are working hard to take risks day in, day out to get our local economy growing and to create jobs, but I fear that the Bill could put all that at risk. Security in work should be available to everyone, but above all else it is getting the job in the first place that is the first vital step. Regrettably, the Government’s plan will only make it harder for businesses to hire new employees. Small business owners in my constituency cannot call on large human resources departments to make sense of these new rules. Increasing the number of day one rights will see them hesitant in making hiring decisions. As the Federation of Small Businesses has said, plans to give unfair dismissal rights from day one

“will inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people”

by raising the chance that new recruits will take their employer to a tribunal simply because they turn out to be unsuited to the role.

The principle of qualifying periods for workplace rights is sensible and fair. The Government must recognise that, because they have chosen not to include in the Bill a reform of the qualifying period of two years for statutory redundancy pay. A balance must be struck to avoid the burden falling too heavily on either the employer or the employee—especially for small business employees, who need the security and confidence that the qualifying period provides. It is clear that the Government’s plans do not strike that balance.

One thing I agree with the Government about is that we must get our economy growing faster, but this Bill, on which the Government have not consulted, is not the right way to achieve that. In this place, we should talk more about how to encourage firms to create growth.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend talks about growth. Does he agree that growth for small businesses is good for workers and that what is good for small business is therefore good for workers? Small business needs better protection in this legislation.

[Lewis Cocking]

I absolutely agree. If we do not create the next generation of entrepreneurs in this country through the education system, which the Government should be focusing on, rather than placing burdens on them—we have yet to hear the Government’s new Budget, which could increase taxes and put more burdens on small businesses—there will be fewer jobs in the market and fewer jobs for the people we are trying to represent and protect in this place.

It is Opposition Members who are standing up for small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of my local economy in Broxbourne and the country at large. If we do not ensure a fair balance between workers and small businesses, small businesses will close and people will lose their jobs. I do not think the Government want that, so will they please reflect on the Bill, have a proper consultation and come back with something more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses across the country?