Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for all his hard work? He is an incredibly decent and polite man. He may be misguided at times, but we cannot agree on everything. I thank him and his team for all their work, and I thank my shadow ministerial team who did a fantastic job of subjecting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, the other Front-Bench teams, the Committee and the Clerks. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions.

We are told that this Bill is about accelerating house building, unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in England alone in this Parliament. On the face of it, those aims are worthy, but what price are we prepared to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition? Make no mistake: what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is.

This is not an attack on new homes—I am unashamedly pro-business and pro-development. Unlike the Secretary of State, the Minister and half the Cabinet, I have never objected to a housing development in my constituency. Let me be clear: we need homes. We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers and for the next generation, but we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. Instead, we are being offered a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central diktat. The result is soulless settlements, identikit developments and rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are built in.

Crucially, in the Government’s “centralising zeal”—as the excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), calls it—local voices are being sidelined. Local councillors, and those who live in, love and understand their communities best, are being cut out of the process, with their role reduced and their judgment overlooked. The individual has been subordinated to being a cog in the machine. The Bill in its current form is not just flawed, but dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and the governed.

The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national planning policy framework. The Government’s approach of shifting housing targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate. While I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle, raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed. Their grey belt policy—presented as a few disused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts—is a con. What they have actually done is remove important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns.

Of course, there is also the matter of the environment. Anyone who cares about our natural world knows that once a habitat is destroyed, a woodland torn up or a biodiverse landscape bulldozed, no cheque can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensue through the environmental delivery plans. That is why we propose that they be delivered locally through local or strategic plans.

The truth is that we cannot concrete our way to community, we cannot meet our housing needs by overriding the very people we are building for, and we cannot call it progress if the Bill leaves our countryside degraded and our communities disempowered.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Residents in Bexley village in my constituency—it is one of London’s outer villages—are particularly concerned about the erosion of their green areas around the village. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that, when the outer London green belt issue was discussed in the London Assembly last week, Reform backed Mayor Khan in building over the green belt? Reform backed Khan against the interests of Bexley residents.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not a surprise is that Reform would take the further step of supporting the London Mayor in the pursuit of Labour votes.

We have grave concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers for councils, mayors and even Natural England, without hope value or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of our economy: property rights. Not only is this unfair, but it will face legal challenge after legal challenge in the courts.

During the passage of the Bill, we attempted to work with the Government to make sensible changes to make it fit for purpose, but to no avail. Let us not be seduced by false choices. We do not have to choose between development and democracy, between homes and heritage, or between ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build, but we must do so in a way that listens, respects and safeguards.

I urge the Government, yes, to be ambitious, but also to think again. They should rethink the Bill, and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart a path to progress that honours our need for homes, our obligation to communities and to the environment, and our duty to future generations. In its current form, we cannot support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Chinese Embassy Development

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this very important urgent question. Question after question, and letter after letter, the Government have consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. They have stonewalled legitimate inquiries about national security, ministerial discussions and warnings from security bodies. I get that the Minister is compromised, in that he has a quasi-judicial responsibility here, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office do not, and they could answer these questions.

As the Government know, their own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. The Wapping telephone and internet exchange is surrounded on three sides by the new embassy, and there are fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said yesterday that these matters could be dealt with in the planning process, but the inquiry has ended, so they cannot. If the Government are considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will that cost? I recently sent yet another cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 59 parliamentarians, urging him to pause and reconsider. Since then, the US and Dutch Governments have both sounded the alarm.

Have MI5 and GCHQ been able to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, which the Chinese Government have refused to make public? Have the Government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, given its role in cyber-security regulation in the City? Why will the Government not follow the example of the US, Australian and Irish Governments, who vetoed similar embassies that threatened their national security? The Government are on the verge of making a decision that will lead to a huge risk that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate that the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks were written before he listened to my response, but I could not have been clearer about the fact that no decision has been made on this case and no application is yet before the Department—[Interruption.] It was a question. He is pre-empting a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not before the Department. I have been very clear that, should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations—they may, in this case, relate to safety and national security—before a decision is made, these will be taken into account. But again, as I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), on matters of security it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On specific issues such as cables, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and, as I have said, the case is not yet before the Department.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

Let me start by thanking all the members of the Bill Committee, the Clerks, and the officials whose joy at receiving our 78 amendments I can only imagine to have been unbounded. The House will be pleased to hear that I will now be focusing only on those that we have prioritised for this debate.

On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru were the only parties to vote against the Bill. All the others were content to support it; Labour and Green party Members nodded it through, while the Conservatives—the official Opposition—abstained. I hope that they will all consider their position more seriously on this occasion, and reconsider supporting some of the measures in the Bill, but if today the Liberal Democrats are again the only party to vote against the Bill—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Tomorrow.

[Gideon Amos]

Tomorrow, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded me. If, tomorrow, the Liberal Democrats are the only party to vote against the Bill because of the harm that it does to the rights of communities and local people, to fairness and to nature, all three of which are cornerstones of what liberals believe in, we shall bear that standard proudly—and we shall do so again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State has said, Saturday marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy. As she knows, I can confirm to her that I will work constructively with her and her colleagues to deliver remediation, building safety and the best outcomes for local communities. The previous Government committed over £5 billion for remediation; will the Secretary of State confirm that the spending review will continue to provide such financial support? Will she also confirm that she will meet the previous Government’s pledge to co-fund with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea the renovation of the Lancaster West estate, and that the £85 million from central Government needed and promised to finish the works will be provided?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has approached this issue. We all remember what happened at Grenfell and the work that the previous Government did, and we are continuing that work, as outlined in phase 2 of the recommendations. The buildings Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) has been meeting—as I have—members of the community, RBKC and others to make sure we continue on that journey. I hesitate to say, though, that the previous Government made a lot of promises that are challenging. We will always put safety first, and we are working to ensure that we deliver on that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know that the Secretary of State has had some difficult negotiations this weekend with her colleague the Chancellor. The spending review is critical for the funding of the affordable homes budget. In the past, the Secretary of State has praised the Chancellor’s generosity, as she puts it, not least for providing the extra £2 billion for the affordable homes budget, but will she admit today that that budget is decreasing from previous levels under our Government? Will she say—even if it is after the spending review—exactly how many affordable and social homes she expects to deliver during this Parliament?

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Secretary of State has been called a bit later than the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for whom I outlined the reasons we have not put an exact figure on that and confirmed that we will build the biggest increase in affordable and social housing in a generation. I say gently to the shadow Secretary of State that we are delivering for working people by banning no-fault evictions and introducing groundbreaking protections for renters, which the Conservatives promised but did not deliver. We are introducing major planning reforms to build 1.5 million homes; they promised 1.6 million homes, but could not get anywhere. We are also delivering the largest ever single package of devolution measures, pushing power out of Westminster. We are delivering where the Conservatives failed.

Local Housing Need Assessment Reform

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The system is working almost to the reverse of what was intended.

In my constituency of Horsham many people either work for London businesses or perhaps have traded down from a more expensive London property. From their point of view, Horsham represents excellent value. The official affordability ratio does not reflect real working conditions in Horsham for locals, and therefore overstates local targets.

Local councillors all strive to get the best for their communities, but the way we receive targets under the standard method destroys our negotiating position with developers. Developers are not stupid. They can work out as well as anyone else how many sites are needed to meet our targets. They have no need to concede on civil amenities or on affordable housing because they know that, at the end of the day, they have got the council over a barrel.

I have no issue with a private developer seeking to make a profit—what else do we expect them to do?—but do not rely on them to do social planning. In areas like Horsham, years of free market ideology have turned councils into mere editors of private developer proposals. We build on greenfield sites because they are the only ones that get presented. There is literally nothing else to choose from in Horsham. The free market approach to affordability does not work for the housing market. Competition has driven prices up, not down. In Horsham we would arguably be better off if we granted a monopoly to one single developer and let them push down local land prices.

To add insult to injury, we also have the standard method’s bullying friend, the housing delivery test. I am not sure whether there ever was a carrot in this process, but the HDT is definitely the stick. Failure to meet targets can ultimately result in losing local control over planning altogether. It is a Catch-22 situation: the developer controls the rate of delivery, but the council pays the price if targets slip. Heads they win, tails we lose.

In fact, the single biggest factor that influences prices has nothing to do with house building. It is availability of credit. If interest rates were to double tomorrow, the price of a mortgage would soar and we would see a house price crash, yet all that would happen without a single new home being built. A succession of policies under the Conservatives only served to make the problem worse, not better. Subsidies such as Help to Buy or stamp duty holidays simply inflated prices further, like a giant Ponzi scheme. The market adjusts, and the subsidy ends up in the pockets of developers until the next upward turn in the spiral.

Therefore, any analysis of UK house building must take into account the key role of finance. Since Thatcher, houses have come to be seen not simply as homes but as investments. In line with that, the explosion of the buy-to-let market in the 1990s correlates suspiciously closely with overall house price inflation. Older generations benefited from decades of property asset inflation, but today it is getting harder and harder to board that train. Putting all that together, it is clear that the standard method is getting its social sums all wrong.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He mentioned some of the incentives for first-time buyers. Through the stamp duty discounts, we saved the typical first-time buyer around £6,000 on their purchase, which helped about 640,000 young people get on to the housing market. Is he saying that he is not interested in that and that it was the wrong thing to do to help those first-time buyers on to the housing ladder?

[John Milne]

For the individuals who benefit, no one can argue with it. It is the same with the sale of a council house—if you are the family that gets it, it has clearly given you a massive uplift. What I am saying is that we have a national societal problem to solve in the housing market in general. We have a certain amount of money to put towards it. That was a subsidy. There are far better things to do with that subsidy that do not inflate prices further, as that simply eats up the subsidy.

As I was saying, putting all that together, it is clear that the standard method is getting its social sums wrong. The affordability ratio is actually a lousy proxy for actual housing need. What we need to do is factor a proper analysis of local housing conditions back into the system. That should include an assessment of local homelessness rates, the need for social housing, pensioner poverty and all the other factors that make communities tick. We also need to find a clear role for neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood plans started as a great way to bring local consent and local knowledge into housing, but from the day the standard method was introduced, they have been effectively overruled. In the latest planning reforms, they were completely marginalised and were not even mentioned.

How can we change the standard method to do the job it is supposed to do? I suggest at least two inputs: a local needs calculation, which focuses on helping local people into the homes they need, and a national needs top-up. Having a separate national needs figure will help us to focus on the delivery of new towns. When our housing needs are as great as they are, new towns are essential. In contrast, the standard method spreads targets indiscriminately across every area. It leads to endless incremental add-ons to existing settlements until they begin to lose their identity altogether. In rural areas such as mine, the standard method has an inherent tendency to create low-density suburbs. Not only do they tend to be more expensive houses, but they use two or three times as much land as they strictly need to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for bringing this timely debate for all of us to consider. Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should say that it is universally accepted that, irrespective of the Government in power, over the past 20-odd years hardly any housebuilding has happened. The last time there was a proper housebuilding programme in place was in the ’70s, ’60s and ’50s. I am going back in time, but it has not happened in a number of years. It does not matter which political party has been in charge.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way. By way of correction, during the period of our last 10 years in office, there was an average of 207,000 net new home additions every year, which was higher than in the 1970s.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I know, but that is still not a sufficient amount. Some of those houses did not come through. There was an amount of housing that needed to be done and was not done. It was done in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, which cannot be denied. We need to build more homes, including more affordable and social homes. This is an important debate because it asks Government and builders to look at how to assess local housing need.

In Bolton, more than 20,000 individuals are on the social housing waiting list. Families face an 18-month wait for a three-bedroom house, with 800 to 900 applicants for each available home. Many are referred to the private sector, where of course the rents are very high, increasing the financial strain on already struggling households.

The current methodology for assessing local housing need fails to capture the realities on the ground. It overlooks income disparities across our country, the availability of affordable housing and the specific needs of our communities. That disconnect results in inadequate housing provision, leaving many without suitable options. There are homes out there that could be used to reduce housing waiting lists, but they need substantial work to bring them up to standard.

In my constituency recently, I hosted a roundtable with housing providers as well as homelessness charities, and one of the things that they asked for was a ringfenced fund to help social housing providers to make their stock fit for purpose, release more housing and give more people the homes that they desperately need. In the private rented sector, what is called affordable housing is often not affordable, because many of my constituents are on the minimum wage or living wage and they are not able to afford homes that people in the south or in other parts of the country might think are reasonably affordable. They are not affordable for those living in Bolton and the surrounding areas, because “affordability” is based on market prices, not what people are earning locally. It is all about the central, national figure, whereas we should be looking at local wages and what is affordable to people there, as opposed to somebody in a more prosperous part of the country. Of course, the current system also allows landlords to charge higher rents and make profits because they are taking advantage of the fact that the need for homes is greater than the availability.

We have to understand that housing is not merely about shelter; it is about dignity, stability and opportunity. It is not a coincidence that often the people we find in the criminal justice system have come from an economically and socially deprived background, and housing is a big part of that. We saw during the covid time that in poorer areas, where many people live in one house, there was a higher rate of covid being spread among them as opposed to people who lived in large houses, where they could properly and safely quarantine themselves. In a lot of the smaller houses where many people were living, they were not able to do so.

There are a lot of reasons why a decent home is important for everyone. What I ask is that we all work collaboratively, and certainly I try hard to ensure that individuals and families in Bolton South and Walkden have access to safe, affordable and appropriate housing. I therefore welcome the Government’s plan to create 1.5 million homes. I wish them luck and hope they will be able to achieve that. It is a welcome—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton may laugh, but at least it is an initiative. It is a great initiative, a great thing to work towards, a great aim to have, because if we do get there, that should hopefully alleviate a lot of the challenges.

I wish the Government great luck on this and hope it will happen. In the meantime, could we have some additional funding, especially for social housing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and congratulate him on securing this important debate.

I am afraid this is just another example of the two-tier society that this Government are presiding over. We have had two-tier taxes and two-tier justice and now we have two-tier targets. That is the reality, and it militates against the basic British principle of fairness. I will go through the numbers in a second, but Labour’s own council leaders have called the Minister’s targets unrealistic and impossible to achieve. The leader of West Lancashire council used exactly those words: “impossible and unrealistic”. The targets are unachievable.

I am in no way, shape or form a nimby. Unlike 15 of the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, I have never objected to any developments in my constituency as a Member of Parliament or as a member of the public. I am absolutely on the side of young people who want to get on the housing ladder and those on lower incomes seeking affordable homes. The only way to deliver that is to deliver more homes. I am not against the Minister’s 1.5 million target, but it will be very challenging. We should look at the data: over the last 10 years we were in office, average net housing additions were 207,000 a year. That was the highest level for 50 years—even higher than in the 1970s, because we were knocking down an awful lot of houses back then.

The targets have been driven by the change from assessment of housing formations to a measure of stock already delivered in an area, with a multiplier on top for affordability, but they are totally unfair. London has seen an 11% decrease in its target, Leicester a 32% decrease and Birmingham a 38% decrease. Coventry has seen a 55% decrease in its housing target, yet the neighbouring authority of North Warwickshire has had a 123% increase. That is despite the fact that North Warwickshire, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said of his authority, has over-delivered on its housing targets. Nuneaton, another bordering authority that is over-delivering, has had a 75% increase in its housing target compared with Coventry.

I am trying not to be too parochial but in my neck of the woods, York, which has been under-delivering massively against its housing target for years and years, and had not had a local plan since 1956—it has just got one in place, thank God—has seen a 19% increase, yet neighbouring North Yorkshire, which is my local authority, has had a 199% increase, despite significant over-delivery.

Of Members who have spoken in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has had a 100% increase in his area; the hon. Member for Horsham a 48% increase; the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) a 63% increase; the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) a 72% increase; and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) a 66% increase. I like the Minister and we get on very well, but his authority in Nottingham has had a 32% decrease. How can that be fair? It is against the basic principle of fairness. Yes, there is a 50% increase in delivery across the board, but why have some targets been decreased and others massively increased? That is simply unfair.

Those are not anecdotal cases. Based on information from the House of Commons Library, across the board, mainly rural areas are seeing an average 71% increase and urban areas an average 15.6% increase. On top of that there is the duty to co-operate and strategic planning, which is likely to see even more houses going into rural areas. There is no justification for that unfairness. It also sits against the principle that the Government say they adopt, as we did, of a brownfield-first approach.

Brownfield development is the least controversial approach, and it is what we would all like to see, but it is complex and costly, particularly in a world of increased costs of delivery. Over the past few years, developers have seen a 40% increase in costs of building. On top of that is the building safety levy, the Building Safety Regulator, biodiversity net gain, the future homes standard, section 106, the community infrastructure levy and the remediation of brownfield sites. Those things, and the Government’s policy on grey belt, will mean that more and more development will be pushed from urban areas into greenfield and green belt.

What the Government are doing with the national planning policy framework cannot be divorced from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Trojan horse that they called grey belt. What they sold to the public as being a few former garage forecourts or wasteland is far from that. It is greenfield and green belt. The Minister cannot shake his head. There used to be protections between villages to stop them merging, and they have gone. There used to be protections to stop villages merging into towns, and they have gone. This is not about grey belt; it is a fundamental change to green belt.

Of course, this is not about targets. It would be pointless to have this debate and just talk about targets—we have to talk about delivery. The 1.5 million homes are a huge ask. The reality is that to hit that target for England, for the rest of this Parliament, delivery will need to hit not 207,000 a year, which we averaged, but 375,000 a year. That is a 180% increase—a doubling.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Mrs Hobhouse, on your chairmanship and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate, which has been well-mannered and thoughtful on all sides. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is giving a fighting and boisterous speech, but I remind him that we both stood on manifestos that contained numbers of new homes that we would build. In fact, his party’s number was bigger than the Government’s: it was 1.6 million. If we are going to talk about facts and how we deliver these things, let us talk about sense and pragmatism, and not rhetoric, because, unfortunately, what he is saying now is not what he said at the election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Good for the hon. Gentleman for reading our manifesto—not enough people did, I am afraid. He is right: we did set a more ambitious target, which I am not against. As I said right at the start, I am in no shape or form a nimby. However, I am for honesty and fairness. The point is that the housing targets have been moved away from certain types of area where people tend to move. They tend to move from rural to urban to take their first job or start their first business, as I did, but the targets are going from urban to rural.

The Minister faces many challenges alongside the huge number he has set himself. The Office for Budget Responsibility and Homes England have said that the number targeted is impossible. Let us see. I wish him well for delivery, although not on the skewed figures that we have discussed today. There are real challenges here, as the Minister knows: things such as the Building Safety Regulator; the skills issue; small and medium-sized enterprises, which build a far smaller proportion of homes than they used to; and making sure that we get first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.

We have tabled a number of amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will solve all these problems, and I very much hope that the Minister will look at them. One of them proposes no solar on any best and most versatile land. I am sure that the Minister will look at that, because it would potentially leave space for more British farmland to produce fantastic food. We have also tabled amendments on protected landscapes—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has a significant section of protected landscape in his patch, which is bound to constrain supply, but no recognition has been made of that—and on ensuring that there is no plus or minus beyond 20% in any of these targets, which would be fairer. We will also seek to amend the national scheme of delegation, which disgracefully removes votes from councillors, and restore the protections for the green belt. As some in this excellent debate have said, we need a better mix that is more suited to demand in local areas.

I very much hope that the Minister will support those amendments, but, because I feel that he will not, I will make one plea to him: please, look at the Building Safety Regulator. There is a queue of 18,000 homes with planning consent that are waiting six months or more for an answer from the Building Safety Regulator. That is a huge bottleneck in supply. I hope that the Minister will at least touch on that point.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I know that the Minister has quite a lot of time, but I ask him to leave two minutes for the Member in charge to wind up.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate; the strength of feeling from the people speaking has been strong. Companies such as FirstPort should take note of that when it comes to the services they offer.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will keep my remarks brief to give the Minister plenty of time to respond—the ball is very much in his court, as he knows—but I also might give time for interventions from Members who have not been able to make speeches in the main debate. It is safe to say that I will not mention every speech by name, as that would take too long, but I very much agree with the essence of all the contributions today.

I have come across these issues in my constituency, in estates in Malton and Easingwold. FirstPort was invariably the managing agent causing many of these difficulties. The best regulator is always competition. We need to make sure that it is easier for people to manage their own freehold estates and to swap between different managing agents. The speeches today have had in common references to high and sometimes spurious charges, as well as poor and obscure service. That is something I certainly recognise.

I also recognise, and am frustrated by the fact, that local authorities have moved to the model of granting consent for what have become known as fleecehold estates. It seems that residents on these estates do not understand why they have a two-tier system, paying council tax and for the management of the freehold estate, when other people in their locality do not. It is time look at this in more detail and to act. I am happy to have a cross-party conversation with the Minister on how we might work together to make sure this situation does not become worse. We should all note the excellent work of the Competition and Markets Authority on making sure that the default position is to have adoptable standards.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for highlighting a point I do not believe anyone else did: the work of conveyancers. Conveyancers have moved towards a shed-based service. It used to be there was a local, friendly solicitor who would give good advice on a buy and the implications of it, but much of that has gone. We need to make sure our conveyancers are doing the right thing in terms of pointing out to someone buying a fleecehold property the potential problems for which they might have to take responsibility.

As has been mentioned, we legislated in this area in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. This gives the potential to challenge charges, makes the right to manage easier, and opens the door to first-tier tribunals on charges and to an ombudsman scheme. This is where I would like to ask the Minister some questions. He has a role in implementing the provisions of the Act, which will require secondary legislation. As I think was stated in his White Paper, consultation may also be required, both on right to manage and on potential access to ombudsman oversight of the companies managing these estates. He needs to approve an ombudsman scheme and publish guidance. To what timescales does he expect implementation to take place? For the residents Members across the House have discussed, there is clearly a pressing need.

Regarding the White Paper and the potential of the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill, I am interested in which specific further steps the Minister intends to take on oversight of these fleecehold situations. We also need to be clear on exactly where he is going with leasehold reform. The manifesto the Minister stood upon said very clearly that Labour would

“finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end”.

If that is his intention, is he talking purely about new leases or about existing leases? Clearly there are difficulties around those.

Finally, there is talk about a cap on ground rents. We have previously talked about a peppercorn charge. Where exactly is the Minister going with that? People need to know exactly what his intentions are.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the disruption to waste collection and the deployment of the military in Birmingham.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

Before I start, may I recognise, on his passing, the significant contribution of Pope Francis? Also, as the Minister for Local Government in England, I wish everyone a happy St George’s day for tomorrow.

Members across the House will be aware of the continuing disruption caused by industrial action in Birmingham. The Government have repeatedly called for Unite to call off the strikes and accept the fair deal that is on the table. The commissioners and the council are undertaking the necessary reforms in the context of a challenging financial situation, with the legacy of equal pay, when women workers were systematically paid less than their male counterparts in similar roles. Though the council must chart that course itself, our actions speak to our determination to ensure the welfare of the citizens of Birmingham.

We have been providing intensive support to the council in its efforts to address the backlog of waste that has been building up on the city’s streets, and significant progress has been made in the last fortnight through a concerted effort and with the assistance of other councils, private operators and the endeavour of many hundreds of determined workers, who have worked extremely long hours. The result is that 26,000 tonnes of excess waste have been removed and levels are now approaching normal. More than 100 bin trucks are out every day and regular bin collections have resumed. The council continues to monitor the situation closely to ensure that waste does not build up again.

This is a Government who stand up for working people. The industrial action is in no one’s interest because the deal on the table is a good deal. The council has worked hard to offer routes to maintain pay through transferring workers to comparable roles and, in some cases, to upskill those workers in scope. There may of course be details to iron out, but that is why talks are so important. As we have repeatedly made clear, Unite should suspend the strike, accept the deal and bring the dispute to an end. The Government will continue to be on the side of the people of Birmingham and to support the council in creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that its residents deserve.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is astounding that the Secretary of State, having had to resort to calling in the Army to cover her blushes for her failure to resolve the situation, was not intending to make an oral statement to the House and had to be dragged before it by means of this urgent question. She is failing—failing to stand up to the unions, failing to protect the residents of the UK’s second city and failing to protect the reputation of our nation—and now resorting to being bailed out by our brave armed forces, which I note the Minister did not even mention. It is a national embarrassment.

I realise that the Minister and the Secretary of State were not born until 1980, but many in this House and in the wider country remember very well the 1970s and the winter of discontent. It is clear that with this Government we risk going back to those days. To prevent that from happening, I offer the Minister and the Secretary of State our support, if the Minister will clarify and confirm the following. What is the projected cost to the taxpayer of the military’s involvement? Will he rule out the humiliation of service personnel ever having to collect refuse? Will he commit to using provisions in the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to ensure that residents receive a basic level of service, and to reinstate legislation that would allow the council to commission agency workers to clean up the city until the strike is resolved?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The effects of the Birmingham bin strike have been declared a major incident, they are a national embarrassment, and with 21° temperatures forecast for later this week, they will become a public health emergency. While Labour Members in Birmingham are busy campaigning for an airport in Pakistan, the Secretary of State is unwilling to visit the city or take on Unite. Is that because of the tens of millions of pounds that her party receives from Unite, or, indeed, because of the £10,000 that she received for her own election campaign?

[Angela Rayner]

I thought the shadow Secretary of State was better than that, but heigh-ho.

This is a local dispute, and it is right that the negotiations are led locally. We have made it clear that both parties should get round the table, and I am pleased that that happened on Sunday and talks continue today. Birmingham city council did declare a major incident last week; we expect the rubbish to be cleared, we expect the parties to get round the negotiating table, and we expect this to be sorted out.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady still has not explained why she has not visited the city to look at this issue at first hand.

The right hon. Lady’s manifesto sets out the issue of preserving the green belt. In this very House, she said that she would transform grey-belt land such as wasteland or old car parks, but also that she would protect the green belt. In its report accompanying the spring statement last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility stated that most of the additional homes delivered—up to 500,000, according to her—will be built on the green belt. Is it not the case that she has conned the public with her grey-belt policy, and that she has unintentionally misled this House?

[Angela Rayner]

I thought the hon. Member was going to do better, but he did not. The Minister for Local Government was in Birmingham on Thursday, and I am always happy to visit Birmingham. It is a great city and has always been a fantastic place, and I have probably been there more times than the hon. Member has. Under the Tories, the number of homes approved on green-belt land increased nearly tenfold since 2009, so I will not take any lectures. We have said that we will develop on brownfield sites first, and we are taking action to make sure that we deliver the homes and infrastructure that people need. He could learn a lot from me.

Birmingham City Council

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I am sure that the fact that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I tabled an urgent question on this issue played a part in the Minister coming to the House today. He has said nothing on this matter for the 20 days in which it has been a live issue. It is shameful—a national embarrassment—that one of our nation’s great cities, our second city, finds itself in such a bleak situation.

As the Minister admits, the problem is of the council’s own making. It is a result of the flawed deal with Unite back in 2017, which led to legal action over equal pay, but it is the people who pay the price. We have had mountains of rubbish blighting the streets of Birmingham for more than 20 days, and there is no end in sight to the dispute with Labour’s union paymasters, Unite. Almost every area is plagued by overflowing bins, rats the size of cats, and opportunistic fly-tippers exploiting the chaos to turn open spaces into dumping grounds. That is the reality of Labour in local government.

From Edgbaston to Sutton Coldfield, from Yardley to Erdington, and from Balsall Heath to Sparkhill, the piles of waste grow even higher. This is a public health emergency, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) has conceded. Even the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands has said that he is “fed up” with waste piling up and the streets being filthy. That is why we call for a Cobra-led response. This issue demands a co-ordinated effort across local and national Government, harnessing the expertise of public health officials, civil contingencies professionals and emergency services.

We call on the Government to cut councillor allowances for the cabinet members who got Birmingham into this mess, and we urge the Government to appoint binmen from the private sector to clear up Labour’s mess. Where are Labour’s MPs today? I can only see one on the Government Benches. [Interruption.] Okay, there are two here, out of 10. While they have been campaigning for an airport in Kashmir, we are proposing workable solutions.

The Minister talks about the calm leadership of Councillor Cotton. What local residents need is action, not buzzwords, both from the local leadership and from central Government. He says that Ministers cannot legally intervene in this industrial action. Is he honestly saying that he has no influence with the union involved, Unite, which is complicitly holding the city hostage, and which contributed £10,000 to the Deputy Prime Minister’s election war chest? Surely she is now duty-bound to pick up the phone and speak truth to the real power behind the Labour throne, the unions.

Incredibly, Unite is calling on central Government not to live within its means, but to make hundreds of millions of pounds available to the council. Is that something that the Minister is considering? He talks about an increase of 9.8%, or £131 million, in the council’s core spending power for the forthcoming year. Will he confirm that a significant part of that is being raised by means of a council tax increase of 7.8%, and that that is a clear breach of the Prime Minister’s pledge to freeze council tax this year?

I pay particular tribute to Councillor Bobby Alden and the Birmingham Conservatives who, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coalfield, have been doggedly holding the council’s incompetent leadership to account. They have clear solutions to this crisis. Now that Birmingham has today declared a major incident, leading to the availability of new mechanisms, can the Minister confirm that he will meet them to ensure that those mechanisms are considered?

I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that Birmingham city council has not yet requested national support. Will he not insist that it do so immediately? He also said that he would meet local leaders and commissioners. Given that this crisis has been ongoing for 20 days and counting, why has he not already met those local leaders, and when will he do so? Will it be this very week?

[Jim McMahon]

Well, well. No one listening to that response would think that the Conservative Government had been in government for 14 years, and were in office when Birmingham had to come to them for financial support. But Birmingham was not alone, was it? Councils were falling like dominoes because of the last Government’s chronic underfunding. The Conservatives talk about Kashmir; they left a cash crisis that affected every council. Every single council, whether it was Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, was let down by the Conservative Government. The Conservatives cannot even look their own councils in the eye. When it comes to reorganisation, local leaders who are doing what is needed for their area and showing local leadership have been being undermined by the national leadership. They are lions led by donkeys.

Beyond the party political nonsense that has been deployed, surely we can all agree that we care about the people of Birmingham and want this vital public service restored. Surely we all agree that given the last Government’s intervention in Birmingham, the journey of improvement is fragile. Yes, improvements have been made, but we have to maintain our course. The Conservatives must also accept that one of the biggest barriers to settling the council and giving it long-term stability was the storing up of equal pay liabilities. Resolving this issue is critical, not just for the council but for the people of Birmingham.

I can assure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that regular conversations have been taking place. That includes a meeting with the council leader a couple of weeks ago, and there will be a further meeting this week. We have said that we will do what is needed to help the council achieve what it needs to achieve, and to get the service back on track. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the right approach, with local leaders showing local leadership and national Government providing the support that is needed.

Bizarrely, the hon. Gentleman referred to council tax increases. The council tax increase in Birmingham last year, under the last Government, was higher than this year’s increase. Why? Because this Government have a clear eye on looking after taxpayers and ensuring that any increases are contained. How did we do that? We did not do what the last Government would have done. We did not say, “Just go to the wall and see what happens.” It was this Government who provided nearly £40 million of new money through the recovery grant for Birmingham, to ensure that it did not have to pass that increase on to local taxpayers. That is genuine partnership, with national Government and local government working hand in hand. Is it not time that the previous Government accepted their failings over 14 years in office and accepted that the foundations of local government were left weaker, not stronger, when they left office? Will they now start putting the interests of the people of this country ahead of political interests?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank their noble lordships for their diligent further consideration of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill and for the new amendments they have passed to address their concerns with the legislation. These changes shine a spotlight on Labour’s muddled priorities, exposing an approach that punishes aspiration, squeezes business, and increases the cost of living for consumers and the cost of doing business.

This very week, we will see the new jobs tax introduced and business rate hikes. The Employment Rights Bill is coming down the line, which is of great concern to many private sector businesses, and consumers will consequently see higher prices and lower wages. Tomorrow, we will also see a hike in council tax, energy prices, water bills, broadband and the BBC licence fee.

I will address the four primary groups of amendments in turn. First, Lords amendments 1B and 7B tackle the proposal to levy a higher multiplier on medical, dental and other healthcare settings. The amendments would prudently protect all healthcare premises—occupied or vacant—from the higher multiplier, addressing a glaring flaw in Labour’s Bill. For too long, we have cautioned against their detachment from practical governance, but now it is undeniable: rather than targeting the untaxed profits of internet giants as pledged, they are heaping costs on to hospitals and GP surgeries. It is baffling that Labour’s so-called reform of the rating system would burden healthcare at all, let alone doing so while they plan to hike national insurance on jobs tomorrow to fund the NHS—only to claw it back today by taxing those same health services.

Just yesterday, the Government pledged to funnel more cash into the NHS by taxing jobs through national insurance hikes, yet today they turn around and tax the NHS itself via business rates. It is a fiscal farce—a two-faced assault on healthcare that undermines their own rhetoric. As Conservative Members have mentioned in recent debates, Labour’s obsession with revenue grabs over sensible relief is choking the sectors we need most.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there seems to be a disjointed approach, where the Health Secretary is asking for more healthcare in the community, whereas we will be asking anybody who moves from a central location into the community to pay these additional taxes and rates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member is right; there is no logic to the Government’s approach. They are giving with one hand and taking with the other, and they are making the kinds of decisions he talks about ever more difficult.

Lords amendments 2B and 8B address the ratings regime for anchor stores on our beleaguered high streets. We echo the words of the John Lewis chief executive Nish Kankiwala, who warned that Labour’s Budget is a “two-handed grab” at retailers that piles on national insurance increases while refusing to reform business rates as it promised to do. Retailers face a £7 billion hit from these policies, with consumers braced for higher prices as a result.

These amendments exempt anchor stores—the vital engines of our town centres—from the higher multiplier. It is a lifeline that Labour seems determined to withhold. Unoccupied anchor stores would also escape this punishing rate, preventing empty shopfronts from becoming permanent scars on our highstreets. Setting the threshold for the higher multiplier at £500,000 is a blunt instrument, as the Minister concedes. I can assure the Government that this will have consequences for businesses that are not big tech giants. It will hit large supermarkets, supermarket delivery and large department stores, showing that the Labour Government have not thought it through.

Conservative Members have rightly decried Labour’s neglect of retail, and they are right. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly highlighted that Labour’s rates multiplier fiasco is killing off the high street while real reform is dodged. Businesses face a double whammy of higher taxes and no certainty thanks to a Government who are more interested in punishing aspiration than powering growth.

--- Later in debate ---

On the review of the £500,000 threshold, we have already said that there are provisions in the Bill to address that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister says that the solution that he has alighted on meets his manifesto commitment, but his manifesto says,

“This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.

That is not what the provision does—not exclusively. He knows that it levies extra taxes, extra business rates, on high street stores, large department stores, supermarkets, football stadiums and many others. They are not online giants.

[Jim McMahon]

The rating system adequately reflects the scale of properties. Less than 1% of properties in the business rates system will use the higher multiplier. That will fund the tax break for those on the high street that will use the lower multipliers. In the evidence session —the hon. Gentleman was there—we heard retailers say, “Of course, that will have an impact on our distribution centres, but we have so many stores that are below the threshold.” That allows national retailers with multiple locations to benefit; in the round, they find themselves better off as a result of this policy. As for rebalancing the situation for online retailers and those on our high streets, that is exactly what this measure does. Big distribution centres will pay for that relief.

I once again thank hon. Members for their contributions, but for the reasons set out, I respectfully ask this House to disagree with the amendments before us.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

The House proceeded to a Division.