Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

I thank the Minister for his engagement on this matter. I also thank the other House for taking parliamentary scrutiny so seriously that it tabled Lords amendment 1, but I have had enough reassurances from the Minister to be convinced that the Select Committee corridor is being treated with the respect it deserves. I just hope that in his summing up, he can reiterate those points and answer the questions I have asked.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House terribly long; I just want to cover three matters, if I may. The first is Lords amendment 38, which deals with chalk streams. As the Minister knows, because I have told him before, my constituency is chalk stream central—as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour. The River Test, the most celebrated of chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency. We also have the Anton, which flows through Andover, and most famously the Bourne rivulet—about which books have been written, such is its beauty and importance. I know the Minister appreciates the importance of these incredibly rare ecological environments, which are almost unique to southern England.

I heard what the Minister had to say about the appropriateness of spatial development strategies for protecting chalk streams, but he will know that those of us who are concerned about this issue have been disappointed by the seeming reduction of enthusiasm for protection of chalk streams since this Government came to power. Obviously, the chalk stream recovery pack, which had been hard-won in negotiations with the previous Government, was abandoned. In May, amendments to this Bill that sought to protect chalk streams further were voted down. The Minister is a good chap—he and I get on well—and at every stage he has reassured the House that he wants to do more for chalk streams, but we have yet to see the beef. Even today in his opening remarks, he said that he is minded to take further steps elsewhere to protect chalk streams. Given the Government’s record over the past 12 months or so, I am afraid that that is not terribly reassuring, so when he sums up, I would be very grateful if he could be a little more detailed about what exactly he intends to do.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

The right hon. Member will know from his own constituency that there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect chalk streams. In my patch, I have the River Chess Association, the Mend the Misbourne project, and the Chiltern Society. Does he agree that it should not be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it needs a statutory underpinning?

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In my constituency, I have groups of volunteers who work very hard, including on the Anton river in Andover, and do a fantastic job. In fact, that river flows through part of the town centre, but gets lost, and it is about to be opened up with a new riverside park running down Western Avenue. I am pleased to say that I played a small part in that scheme obtaining a levelling-up grant from the previous Government.

People in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns such as Whitchurch, Overton, Andover and other villages in my patch and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would take the protection of those chalk streams almost as seriously as the protection of their children. Many Members—not just me—have campaigned for such statutory protection, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not entirely accept his argument that spatial development strategies are completely inappropriate. As he knows, they can flag up areas of planning constraint and discuss corridors and green infrastructure. If there is a green infrastructure corridor, it is a chalk stream. Certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured such that a new mayor—if we have one next year—would be required to look at them as protected corridors and say as much in their plan.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.

For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.

The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.

The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?

[Kit Malthouse]

I sort of agree. We should be pushing developers towards brownfield—that is absolutely right. Brownfield first was the policy of the previous Government, and it makes lots of sense. The key thing, which I am sure the Minister accepts, is that if we are to overcome this problem with the generational contract—that we who are housed will build houses for those who are not—there has to be a compromise. For me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister’s nodding—that is great.

I have often said that in my constituency—for Members who do not know, it is 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland—if developers would build thatched cottages, we would have thousands of them. People would be more than happy for developers to build villages such as St Mary Bourne all over the place, if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country. We need to crack that. The other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister will try to preserve that principle in the Bill.

My third point, briefly, is about an omission in the Bill that the Minister and I have discussed before, which is the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern is that the Bill will stimulate the land promotion industry and stimulate lots of applications. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, when the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, when interest rates remain stubbornly high because of Government borrowing, and when the development industry is crippled by taxes, we will not get the level of development that the Minister aspires to—certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target and 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. Instead, we will see a stacking up of consents, as we have seen in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. The industry will bank them. In the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for times when hopefully things will come good.

Similarly, I am afraid that we will see some of the large infrastructure projects going through the process—the Minister and I are keen to see them accelerated—but people waiting for more propitious economic times to bring them forward, notwithstanding the lack, therefore, of the facility to the British public. I urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he will do on undeveloped consents. I think I have said to him before that the Government should force local plans to have a 10-year housing supply that also takes into account granted consents. Then, developers can see a 10-year horizon, as can local authorities, but they also can see that if they want a life beyond 10 years, they will have to start developing that which they already have. If we deal with that issue, we will also deal with quite a lot of the resentment people feel when they see particularly large-scale planning applications coming forward. They ask, “We’ve already got 400 down the road that haven’t been built. Why do we have to take another 400?” Of course, the local council has to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that it might already have a five-year supply that has been consented but does not count toward the future target.

This is a problem that Governments, including my own, have struggled with for some time, and it is one I struggled with when I was Housing Minister, but I hope the Minister will give some thought to at least giving councils the option of having a 10-year supply in which granted consents count. He might well find that he gets a lot more houses built.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the undertaking the Minister is giving, but he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech.

In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made.

On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system.

On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature.

I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system.

I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.

Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.

Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities.

Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.

To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House.

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We could talk with the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) about making such amendments to the legislation as it passes through Committee.

I have other questions. Is Natural England sufficiently resourced to carry out its work? How long will it be before these plans are in place? Have the Government taken into account the inevitable delays due to judicial reviews of the environmental delivery plans? Is it not the case that the habitats regulations remain in place beneath this new system, so if a development does not show the overall improvement test for each identified environmental feature, as referenced in clause 55, the system will not apply and the developer will still need to build those bat tunnels and fish discos? Indeed, Sam Richards of Britain Remade states that it might set the bar even higher by requiring a net gain for that species. If an EDP covers one element of environmental impact but not others, the developer might have to pay into the levy and build the bat tunnel.

Have the Government also considered changes to section 20 of the Environment Act 2021, which this legislation is subject to? I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections. Overall, we believe that it will take at least two to three years from Royal Assent for these EDPs to have meaningful effect. I am very happy to seek assurances from the Minister if that is not the case.

There are also understandable concerns about whether the route chosen will even deliver on its objective to protect the environment. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has stated that the Government’s approach means that our natural capital assets will be destroyed immediately, and it could take decades for any improvement.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, nature can be effectively compensated for only in certain circumstances, but landscape can never be replaced: once it is gone, it is gone. Does he think there should be scope in this Bill to recognise the special status of protected landscapes—what are now called national landscapes or national parks—to ensure that development in those areas is appropriate and does not permanently damage our precious landscape for future generations?

Local Government Reorganisation

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

That is exactly what this is about. This is the most ambitious reorganisation in England for at least 50 years, maybe longer. We need to avoid the sense that this is just rearranging the local government deckchairs. It is not about that. The devolution White Paper is ambitious, and that ambition is about wresting power from Westminster and Parliament and putting it in the hands of communities up and down the country. For far too long, power has been held in a very narrow way by a handful of people, at the exclusion of millions of people in this country. Frankly, people have had enough, so we have to find a different route.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am fortunate to work with two local authorities, Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Test Valley borough council, which, after many decades of careful stewardship, are debt-free and have significant assets on their balance sheets, to the benefit of their residents. What will the Minister do in this local government reorganisation to protect that legacy? Would it not be profoundly unfair if those many years of careful stewardship were wiped out by amalgamation with more profligate neighbouring councils?

[Jim McMahon]

It is not my intention to set one council against another. When areas begin to look at what new unitary boundaries might look like, they will need a view on identity, scale and achieving efficiency, and, ultimately, what construct will deliver good public services, be it adult social care, children’s services or those neighbourhood services that, in many places, have been eroded to the point where people wonder if they exist at all.

We have to rebuild from the ground up. This process, regardless of a council’s debt or financial status, is part of that rebuilding. Let us be honest: nobody in this Chamber, or in this Government, can put a number or this. We do not know what the outcome will be. If this is genuinely about local areas self-organising and presenting to Government their view of what a good outcome would be, we need to be open about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We are working constructively with Medway council as part of our framework to support councils in the most difficulty. This Government are clear that the process will be collaborative and supportive and, on that basis, we are more than happy to meet to discuss it further.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Councils up and down the land, but particularly in the south-east of England, are frustrated by the high levels of undeveloped consents. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State will find that, come the next election, her target has been consented but is nowhere near built. Will she consider allowing councils to have a 10-year housing supply number that includes undeveloped consents, so that when the number is reached, developers have no choice but to build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We took steps, in the proposed reforms to the consultation on the national planning policy framework, to encourage build-out—not least through encouraging mixed-use development. However, we are reflecting on what more can be done to encourage that and to ensure that sites are built out in a timely manner.

Employment Rights Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know what the hon. Member is getting at. Maybe he is getting at the former Conservative Transport Secretary, who referred to them as pirates of the high seas or weasels—I do not know. I have just said clearly to all businesses in the UK that I want to work with them to ensure that we value their employees. Many of them are onboard: they recognise that it is good for business, good for growth and good for their employees.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

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

In relation to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I understand that the right hon. Lady believes she is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, and we have to respect that. However, I hope she recognises that while these regulations will apply across the whole of the economy, the dynamics within small businesses and—in particular—microbusinesses are very different from those within large businesses. For example, if a business only has four employees and all four apply for flexible working, as the Bill provides for, it becomes not just a logistical and administrative nightmare but a personal nightmare for the person who is trying to run that business. I hope that as the Bill progresses, the right hon. Lady will look at what has been a customary carve-out for small businesses and consider whether that might be appropriate for specific measures.

[Angela Rayner]

Some of the measures in the Bill do recognise the difference between large employers and smaller ones, but we also have to ensure fairness and clarity of purpose in this country, and I think this Bill strikes the right balance. As I have said to other hon. Members who have raised issues regarding small and medium businesses, we are working with those businesses. We have already listened regarding probation periods: the Bill now creates a new statutory probation period so that employers and employees can check whether a job is a good fit. If it turns out not to be right, the Bill allows for a new lighter-touch standard of fairness for employers to meet when they dismiss someone, so I think we are striking the right balance. We have worked very hard on this piece of legislation. If workers are dismissed unfairly, everyone deserves the right to protection, however long they have been in post. With Labour, they will have that right.

Turning to statutory sick pay, no one should feel forced to struggle through work when they are not well. Our view is simple: everyone should be entitled to sick pay from the first day that they are sick, regardless of their earnings, yet 1.3 million employees are currently excluded because they do not earn enough. That means that lower earners, including carers, go to work when ill because they cannot afford not to do so, risking infecting the vulnerable, the elderly, and others with whom they come into contact. No one should want that. Under this Bill, all employees will be entitled to sick pay however much they earn, and that sick pay will be paid from their first day of being ill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Sorry, though I think the Prime Minister is guilty of similar; I do apologise. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses. Really? The Federation of Small Businesses said not only that the Bill will

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

but that it is a

“rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned”

and that the Government are guilty of shallow engagement. So much for the “strong horse”. Several representatives at this morning’s meeting said that they have been talked to but not listened to—including those representing the hospitality and retails sectors some of the most labour-intensive in our economy, which is acknowledged in the impact assessment.

[Kit Malthouse]

Alongside the many negatives relating to the Bill that my hon. Friend has laid out, does he recognise the strong possibility that, particularly in small and micro businesses, the legislation could inject quite significant resentment among the staff body itself? For example, just to amplify my previous point, if you have six members of staff and three of them apply for flexible working, that has an immediate impact on those who do not have flexible working. The ability of the business to offer flexible working to future workers is also reduced, which turns the whole thing into a massive negotiation between six or seven people. That could have a significant impact on morale and sense of fair play within businesses themselves.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There speaks somebody who has actually run a business and understands the impact on a small employer. That is why we say there should be a carve-out, certainly for small and micro businesses.

We have to ask ourselves this: if the Government are not listening to businesses who “pull the whole cart”, who are they listening to? I think we all know the answer to that. A consultation is not five minutes inside No. 10 and a photo opportunity. Proper consultation is working with business, listening, taking your time and not rushing things—the exact opposite of what the Government have done. We know why that is. The Deputy Prime Minister made a misguided promise to Labour’s trade union paymasters that legislation would be introduced within 100 days. Despite 100 days of gloom and doom, talking the economy down and wrecking business confidence, they managed it—just.

The Government are not even listening to their own legal experts. Only last week the Attorney General said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Because the Bill is such a rushed job, it takes swathes of delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, meaning the final policy will be decided later at the Secretary of State’s whim—not now by Parliament. Legislating that way is causing real concerns for businesses today. The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues preach stability, yet in the same breath they are causing instability, uncertainty and falling confidence at a cost of jobs and investment today. There are already 58,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Labour took office. Confidence levels at the Institute of Directors on future investment intentions have dropped from plus 30 in June to minus six today. The Government are planning 30 consultations on the measures in the Bill. They should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, so the legislation could be precise about what it will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister please confirm that where a rural community has taken the time and effort to produce a neighbourhood plan, that plan will be respected for its lifespan, notwithstanding new housing targets for the local planning authority?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government do not intend to require local planning authorities to amend neighbourhood plans in the future. Communities will continue to be able to choose whether they review or update their neighbourhood plan.

Building Homes

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Could the Secretary of State confirm two things? First, could she confirm that where local residents have complied with her mandatory targets through a neighbourhood plan, rather than a local plan, the neighbourhood plan will reign supreme and will not be trampled over by planning inspectors subsequently? Secondly, could she confirm that protected landscape—what used to be called an areas of outstanding natural beauty, which comprise 80% of my constituency, but is now called national landscape—will still have significant protection within the planning system?

[Angela Rayner]

Yes, I can confirm that neighbourhood plans and the protections will remain, which is really important. Again, we are saying that the release of grey-belt land has to be for the benefit of local natural spaces. We want to see areas where people are within walking distance of such spaces. Many people do not have access to green-belt areas, but we will protect them, as we have always done. There is no change to areas of natural beauty, parks and so on.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her point. Again, I stress that this is about Government engagement. Although she or I might agree or disagree with an individual or group, we respect their right to free speech and free association. The points she makes about the LGB Alliance are well made. It is right that there should be debate on gender and sex questions, and I commend the Government for the steps they have taken to ban puberty blockers. Therefore, in this debate, it is right to have a degree of respect and concern for the different and heartfelt positions held by everyone. Her consistent championing of a particular position, though sometimes unpopular with others, is commendable and brave, and she represents the very best of her party.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I share, along with many other Members, some alarm at the emergence of this new definition, and I have two questions for the Secretary of State. The first is further to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms): is there really to be no appeal process in this branding of particular groups as unacceptable? I ask that not least because, as I am sure the Secretary of State will intend, putting them on a Government blacklist will have a chilling impact more widely on their place in society; from financial services to the media, who is likely to engage with them? At what stage in the process will those groups that he decides are worthy of examination be able to present evidence in their defence?

My second question is: if a Member of this House disagrees with the view of the Secretary of State or the Government, and decides to invite that group into the House or to be a member of that group, will the Government refuse to engage with the Member of Parliament?

[Michael Gove]

Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and commend him on the work he did in the Home Office during his time there. He will have known that there was an already existing definition, with which there was an obligation on Government not to engage with certain groups. He will also know that while he was there Sir William Shawcross pointed out that that definition needed to be updated and those engagement principles reinforced. We are simply continuing the work that my right hon. Friend did so diligently and effectively while at the Home Office. Organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, which I mentioned, are ones that I hope no Member of this House would want to deal with. Obviously, however, each individual must look to their own conscience about the organisations with which they engage. This is purely about Government; Parliament is, quite rightly, sovereign.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Again, as I said on Second Reading and on Report, I speak with a heavy heart and in some dismay, but I tell those on my Front Bench that I will be voting against the Bill this evening.

This Bill obviously comes at a dreadful time, as we mourn the deaths of so many Israelis in heinous circumstances on 7 October and the deaths of so many Palestinians subsequently, many of whom still lie under the rubble. The fact that we in this House would seek to legislate against non-violent protest in such an illiberal and draconian way seems to me tragic at this particular point in time.

As the Secretary of State knows, there are broadly three areas in which I and other colleagues attempted to amend the Bill and have concerns. The first area is, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, the separate identification in the Bill of Israel, and its conflation with the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. We believe that contravenes our undertakings at the United Nations and, indeed, in international law, which of course means that the Bill will spend a lot of time in the courts, if it eventually sees the light of day. At the same time, that is a cause of great dismay to our allies in the Arab world, who of course we need at the moment more than ever to join us in seeking peace in the dreadful conflict taking place in the middle east. That we should undermine our own status as fair dealers, as it were, in that part of the world seems to me an unforced error.

The second area of serious concern is obviously the impact on free speech. Again as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, it seems to me incredible that we are putting elected officials and others in a position where if they just stand up in certain circumstances and say they disagree with the law, they will be committing a criminal act. It seems to me an incredibly illiberal and backward step that we would strike a blow against pluralism in that way. The Bill could stand without those restrictions on free speech, and as the Secretary of State will know, we attempted to amend it to remove them, but that attempt was rebuffed.

The third area is the sheer scale of the Bill’s impact and the number of organisations that will be drawn into it. It is not just the local government pension fund, of which I am a member, but also every university in the land and private sector companies that perform a public service of some kind and are contractors to the Government that will be drawn in. That is important because, as the Secretary of State will know, this subject is very litigious. There are lawyers sympathetic to Israel and those sympathetic to Palestine. From the Secretary of State’s speech, it seems that the Bill is aimed squarely at that particular conflict in this world. Lawyers on both sides will gear up, and an industry will arise to attack, defend, analyse and scrutinise every decision, and all these bodies will have to take significant internal legal advice to deal with it as well. Subjecting them all to this enormous burden seems to me disproportionate to the problem that the Government are trying to address.

Finally, my greatest concern is for the impact on British Jewry. As the Secretary of State has said, he is trying to bring this Bill in to deal with the growth in antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but my view is that the Bill will play entirely into the hands of the antisemites. I imagine that this Bill will be manna to those rotten social media groups and WhatsApp groups that espouse conspiracy theories about Israel and the Jewish community. They will see this, as Jonathan Freedland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call the SNP spokesperson, with no time limit.

Housing Associations: Charges

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) not only for raising this important issue but for the way in which she did so. I described her as my right hon. Friend; she is also a friend and near constituency neighbour in a neighbouring county, so it is a real delight for me to make my Dispatch Box debut responding to her debate this evening. I, too, congratulate her colleague Councillor Nick Adams-King for the work that he has been doing on this issue, along with my county neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

The first question that my right hon. Friend asked was how we can help. She was right to point out in her concluding remarks that such issues can often get passed from pillar to post—different names with different acronyms, with everybody trying to, Pontius-Pilate-like, wash their hands of it. My Department will not do that. Of course, her constituents are perfectly entitled to seek legal advice. That would come at a cost, and it may well be that the conveyancing at the time of purchase is worth a re-exploration.

Pausing there, my right hon. Friend presented to the House some pretty horrible and frightening figures. We are all conscious, particularly those of us who represent predominantly rural constituencies, of the fierce hit that the cost of living has had on many families, so we can only begin to wonder at the fear generated in the homes of the families and individuals who are being presented with these body-blow bills. The idea of their having to incur legal costs to try to seek a remedy, which is likely to be a long time coming, would not be a particularly welcome solution.

I have an invitation for my right hon. Friend to take up, together with her councillor colleague should she wish to. This is a rhetorical invitation; I think that she will bite my hand off. My noble friend Baroness Scott, to whom I have spoken, as it is her portfolio that would look at this, will convene a meeting in the Department to be attended by Aster and my right hon. Friend, picking up on the point that she alluded to in the letter of 4 September this year from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which he addressed to the chief executive of the Aster Group.

Again just pausing there, I am not entirely sure this is still the situation, but I know that at the time when I introduced my Adjournment debate, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North referenced, the chief executive of the Aster Group was the highest paid chief executive in the housing association sector. It is not just our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is taking a personal interest in how the organisation continues to deliver its responsibilities; so too is my noble Friend Baroness Scott and so am I, because what the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North have been presented with is indefensible and, frankly, bizarre.

From what my right hon. Friend has told the House in her powerful and persuasive speech, it seems that the housing association has spent little if any money investing in these local sewage plants, has understood the need now for investment—in some sort of a Damascene conversion to the need for housing providers to invest in maintenance and other repairs—realises that the costs are eye-wateringly high, and decides to reduce them for tenants and to pile on the costs to those who have merely, through the sweat of their brow and hard work, striven successfully to exercise their right to buy their former council house. And they are now being clobbered with above-inflation costs, subsidising those—one can see the argument for this, potentially—in the social rented market, and the housing association is then having the magnanimity, in this almost-upon-us season of good will, of defraying the costs until death. That seems to me not exactly in the spirit that we would expect people to be operating in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—no Adjournment debate would be complete without his presence—hit on an important point that occasionally this House has overlooked: the general transition over time of housing associations. When housing stock was transferred from local authorities, most if not all of the housing department went into that organisation, often a new organisation, and they took with them the mindset of supporting some of our most vulnerable constituents and the mindset of our public sector housing. Over time those people have retired and over time housing associations have grown very big; that does give them resilience in a fluctuating market, but it also means quite a lot of that local knowledge and empathy and understanding has been lost, and they are now operating in exactly the same sphere as our major private house builders. That is producing a change of ethos; my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has brought this situation to the House, and I have to say that that is not a change for the better.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is great to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box for the first time and I congratulate him. I am grateful to my constituency neighbour my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for raising this issue and I have the same issue in the village of Hatherden in my constituency and want to make two points about what my hon. Friend the Minister was saying.

What was of course lost in the transfer he was talking about was councillors and the sensitivity that local councils would have to their residents in the way we are trying to give effect to this evening; that has been the biggest disconnection in housing. Also, one of the arguments that is put—I have had this with other issues of maintenance of stock in my constituency, where Aster is a large landlord—is a purely mathematical one: the housing association says, “You’re right, we haven’t really maintained this for 20 years, but we also haven’t charged you for it for 20 years so all we are doing is catching up on the charges,” and it fails to reflect on the economic hit to residents when an accumulation of charges is levied in one big blow.

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether Aster and others presuppose that merely the fact that a family or an individual has recognised that right to purchase their home suddenly makes them as rich as Croesus, I am not entirely sure. However, we can only imagine the very real anxiety that seeing these sorts of bills creates—particularly when this issue has come as a bolt from the blue, as I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North to say. People were being told that everything was fine, that those local sewage works were absolutely up to scratch and that one could sell ones home in perfect confidence that there would be no extraordinary item for potential new purchasers to pick up.

Maybe it is a lack of investment, coupled with misleading those former tenants, that Aster will be questioned about at the departmental meeting—and they will attend; of that I am absolutely certain. We will make them attend to talk to Ministers and to make clear what they are going to do, because their current suggested modus operandi is neither sufficient nor acceptable.

Although it is in the future, I also point my right hon. Friend and her constituents to the leasehold and freehold Bill, which will be published later this month. That Bill is intended to drive up transparency of the estate management charges that homeowners have to pay, as well as giving homeowners the right to challenge the reasonableness—that is the key word, because after the Wednesbury case, reasonableness has a status in law—of those charges in the appropriate tribunal, which of course in England is the first-tier tribunal. The Bill will also include measures to help leaseholders to challenge service charges, including improved transparency requirements and scrapping the presumption that leaseholders should pay their landlord’s legal costs when challenging poor practice.

This Government are committed to providing the framework, but it is vital that potential homeowners have access to the right information before they buy. That information should, of course, be set out as part of the conveyancing process. I mentioned at the top of my remarks that, if a current homeowner such as those identified by my right hon. Friend is unhappy with the service they have received from the conveyancer or their solicitor, and the internal complaints process cannot resolve the issue, the legal ombudsman may be able to help.

In conclusion, I thank my right hon. Friend again for raising this issue in her inimitable style. The House always listens to her, because when she speaks she has something to say. She has spoken on behalf of her constituents very clearly and the Secretary of State, the Department and I share her concerns. She was right to quote directly from the Secretary of State’s letter to Aster of just a few months ago. My Department stands ready to work with her to ensure that her constituents, as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, are not—and here I will close by using the word my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North used in her speech—rinsed.

Question put and agreed to.