Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
Debate between Lee Rowley and Meg Hillier(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
I work closely with the Building Safety Regulator. Its first job is to make sure that the rough number of buildings we are expecting to register have done so. For the past couple of months I have received data weekly, and slightly less frequently before that. The numbers are in the ballpark of how many we expected to register, so the first test has been passed. Now, it is a case of, over six years, working through the buildings, making sure that data is collected and used in a satisfactory way, and helping owners to make sure they are managing in a way that works. A substantial sum is going into the Building Safety Regulator, and from having worked closely with it, I think the indications so far—things may change—are that it is moving in the right direction.
To pick up a couple of other points, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch highlighted the very important point about disabilities and making sure that appropriate consideration is given to that issue. That is vital and it is a core part of our approach, but it is separate from the regulations before us, which are about a record of buildings, not of people who live in them. We have already consulted and we will bring forward separate measures on PEEPs—personal emergency evacuation plans.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Does he have a rough timescale? I am asking not for a precise date, but for a range of dates when we might see that, because it is critical. I have a constituent who is particularly concerned about that issue.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that. When I speak to a number of the cladding groups, it is one of the areas that is, quite rightly, at the centre of the points that they raise. I am afraid that I will do that rather annoying thing and say that I do not have a date, but we hope it to be very soon.
Lee Rowley
I hope that would be the case. The Secretary of State sees this as a priority; we are in deep conversations with the Home Office on it, and I hope that we will bring it forward as soon as we can.
I will conclude with a couple of additional points. On the point about review, I reiterate that I am keen to receive any information or data from colleagues where they see problems or, indeed, good behaviour, so that we can feed that into the BSR. I will be happy to do that as soon as these things go in, because at that point we will be able to start to gather the body of data that indicates whether it is working in the way that we hoped or needs to be looked at.
As for the final few questions, data sharing is a difficult area to get right. All data that is collected will be shareable with the Building Safety Regulator—otherwise, there is no point in having the regulator in the first place. Almost all data will be shared with the fire and rescue services—otherwise, again, there is no point in having it. There is a much more delicate interaction between the entity and the leaseholders. Obviously, the entity will need to collect the data, but a series of provisions in the guidance will try to manage that. Again, we will need to review that as we go through to ensure that it works.
On the point about older buildings, it is absolutely right to point out that whether we like it or not, ideally or not, there will be a paucity of data in certain places. Some data will need to be replaced—otherwise, there is no point having the regulations and collecting it in the first place if the questions of the fire and rescue service cannot be answered. People must be able to answer them—otherwise, it is not advancing the cause of safety.
The usual reasonable principle test is in all the regulations; therefore, the objective is to ensure that the data is available for when it is necessary. However, if people have gone through a reasonable process of trying to get it and they cannot get it until x day or they need to wait until a point in a cycle, or whatever, that will be for the usual processes of tribunals to judge. However, a reasonable test is brought into it, which is a proportionate way of saying, “You need to do this, but it may take a little bit of time”, or, “We need to work that through”.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had a question about schedule 2. For obvious reasons, it will not be the case that residents moving in who have not made some kind of contractual arrangement to purchase the property will have access to all the data—otherwise, basically anybody would have access to it. However, they would be given that information at the point of a contract being signed, naturally. We would then hope and expect—I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate this, as someone from a similar ideological view to my own—that it will be difficult to put rules around the level of data available in advance of that, but I expect that, through the sales process, responsible entities will want to provide a sufficient level of data to assure those seeking to purchase or take an interest in a property to be able to do so. If the data is not available or obstructions are found, it may signal an indication of the responsibility of those managing the building.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister is making some helpful points. It is clear that he is very much on top of this matter, so I echo the comments made earlier. It has been helpful to meet him to discuss issues at times.
On the issue of information, a lot of the properties in my constituency are tenanted—as I said earlier, the leaseholder is often living overseas or elsewhere—so we are reliant on the whole tenancy arrangement for information to be shared with the tenant. As far as I am aware—the Minister may want to have an exchange of letters about this—there is no absolute requirement on landlords to provide that document. Landlords must now provide 13 different documents to a tenant. The Minister has made general comments about fire safety and so on, but I do not recall anything specific about that document. Is there any further change in the rules or guidance for private landlords—they are the ones who would be in scope—that needs to happen as a result? It seems that there may be a small gap that is important and significant. What the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said was helpful.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to be absolutely certain that I have understood the point. We will get officials to write to her with that information. My understanding is that the combination of clear requirements; a clear, responsible entity that needs to respond to those requirements, whoever it is in the hierarchy and however complex the hierarchy is; and forms of redress that ultimately fall back to the Building Safety Regulator to say, “No, that is not acceptable” should cover everything. However, if it does not, we can work that through in an exchange of letters.
I think that covers what colleagues have said, and I thank them for their constructive comments. I look forward to making progress on this issue. Adding additional regulation is always challenging, and there are different views on that on different sides of the House, but even for someone like me, who tends to favour relatively low regulation, it is a reasonable and proportionate thing to do. We now need to ensure that it is right, and I am keen to get feedback from colleagues to ensure that that is the case in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Affordable Homes Programme
Debate between Lee Rowley and Meg Hillier(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for instigating the debate. We may have disagreements about the methods by which we ensure that people can enjoy the fruits of home ownership and have a roof over their heads, but I think we would all, collectively, irrespective of what side we are on in this Chamber, agree that it is absolutely vital to have a housing sector that supports those who need it and provides the platform for people to be able to aspire to move into home ownership. That has been the case for the past century, and it has been such a success within this country.
I start by acknowledging the underlining point made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members, which is that there are challenges at the moment, including those that have grown in the immediate term, such as inflation, the cost of construction and materials and labour challenges, which all create issues in ensuring that we can make progress on our shared objectives. If we are truthful, that is also set within the context—I am not seeking to make a particularly political point, as it has developed under successive Governments of all colours over the past 30 or 40 years—of the number of houses that are built in this country and, flowing from that, the number of people who can have access to them, and the number of people who can enjoy home ownership in general. I think we have made progress on that as a Government, but I know there is a keenness to go further in the years ahead.
The Government support ensuring that people have a place to live, a place to thrive, a place to grow and a place to bring up families, which, in many instances, will be through affordable housing and social rent, but we also inherently believe in the importance of home ownership as a moral end in itself, providing the ability for people to make choices, grow capital and pass assets on to their family over their lives. The comments in today’s debate have underscored the need for more homes of all tenures, whether to rent, to buy or to part buy, on the way, hopefully, to fully buying in time.
On the specifics of the affordable homes programme, the whole point of the programme, which has nearly £12 billion of taxpayer subsidy—we are taking money from people that they would otherwise be able to spend themselves—is that we recognise the importance of some of the points made in the debate. Launched in 2020, that nearly £12 billion support—£11.5 billion—represents a significant taxpayer subsidy for affordable housing and a clear commitment to delivering tens of thousands of homes for sale and rent throughout the country.
Social rent has been raised by a number of colleagues, and I will come to their specific points in the moment. We brought social rented homes into the scope of the affordable homes programme in 2018 and we affirmed our commitment to increasing the supply of social rented homes in the levelling-up White Paper, which was published last year, as well as to improving the quality of housing across the board, in both the private and rental sector. I will come on to that point in a moment, when I respond to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). We have changed the parameters for the affordable homes programme to support that commitment, which enables further increases in the share of social rental homes that we plan to deliver.
Furthermore, the affordable homes programme is committed to funding a mix of tenures, enabling developers to deliver mixed communities that will ensure that people can buy, part buy and rent where they need to. That is why we have kept a commitment to delivering homes for affordable rent, where rent is typically capped at 80% of the prevailing rate. Yet it is home ownership that we want people truly to benefit from, and we want people to benefit from it as much as is possible. We understand the difference that an increased sense of security can make to all aspects of someone’s life and the lives of their families. That is why home ownership is a fundamental part of the affordable homes programme and why there is a significant element of homes for shared ownership, which can help people staircase up.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister said some warm words there about the need for social housing. In response to the Public Accounts Committee report, the Government indicated that local authorities would have more say over the mix of tenure in their area. In areas like mine, where the real need is for social rented housing, that requires more Government grant compared with areas where low-cost home ownership is genuinely an option. In Hackney, with the price as it is, home ownership will be very difficult to achieve. Can he flesh out how local authorities can deliver what they know is needed in their area and how Government grant will follow those decisions?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She is an assiduous follower of this issue. I know of all the fantastic work that she and her colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee do on this area and elsewhere. I fear I might not be able to give her an absolute answer, but I will try to provide as much information as I can. There is obviously a challenge, broader than the specifics of this debate, about the amount of money that the Government have; that is not particularly newsworthy. If I may make a tiny partisan point: the Labour party, if it ever gets into Government, will have to make more choices than Opposition spokesmen indicate when they respond to such debates. There will always be a challenge around how we prioritise funding, and what the trade-offs are to do that. The commitment from the Government is here, with the £12 billion contribution that has already been indicated for allocation.
When we come forward with further information about the affordable homes programme 2021-26, I hope we will be able to give greater clarity for those authorities that seek a particular mix of housing and to expand the number of affordable homes of whichever tenure. I also hope that some of the changes coming through in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will take effect, although that needs to complete its progress in the other place. We will have to see what the other place does to that Bill, which I hope will give local councils some ability to flex their approach in the area of housing.
Lee Rowley
I will not detain colleagues to that extent, but I am grateful for the confirmation that I can continue. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) is keen to make a comparison. The fundamental thing that we are trying to do at the moment is weigh up a series of very challenging economic circumstances, recognising the context of housing supply, which has been a challenge for the entirety of my life. We recognise that we have to make progress for the very reasons that right hon. and hon. Members have outlined over the course of the debate. It is so important to do so, given that housing supply affects and impacts the lives of real people.
Let me comment on individual contributions. The hon. Member for Slough, opening the debate, emphasised the importance of the property-owning democracy, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I hope we can make progress on that and also address some points made by other hon. Members. He also said that there should be greater clarity on the affordable housing programme going forward. Although I am not able to give that in today’s debate, we have said that we will come back in the spring with further clarity about what is happening; there is not a huge amount of spring left, so I hope it will not be too much longer before my housing colleagues in the Department will do so. I anticipate the Department being able to provide further information to the hon. Member and others in the coming weeks.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) raised a number of points about the inherent challenges in the housing market and of trade-off. During my brief tenure as the Housing Minister back in the autumn, we had a debate in this very place about some of the issues, and she spoke then with regard to Coventry specifically. I cannot talk about Coventry individually, but I will put on record, if hon. Members allow me, the progress that has been made in the past 13 years. I realise that many colleagues will not necessarily want to point to that, but it is important for balance that we do.
Two million homes have been built in this country since 2010, and almost 1 million people—over 800,000—have been helped into ownership through schemes such as help to buy. Some 630,000 new affordable homes have been built. Last year, the registered supply of new homes increased over the previous year by approximately 10%, and I believe that the last five years have seen some of the highest rates of property building for 30 years.
A number of colleagues raised home ownership. Crucially, after a pretty linear fall from the mid-2000s under Governments of all parties, home ownership has started to increase again for the first time in a number of years. The increase is incremental—the rate is up from 62.5% in 2016-17 to 64.3% in 2021-22—but it is a movement back in the direction of empowering people to own their own properties and obtain all the consequent benefits.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister talks about home ownership increasing, but that incremental increase can hardly be seen as a victory. His is the party that introduced right to buy to increase home ownership. I wonder what the percentage is for anyone under the age of 35. Will he acknowledge that the Government have totally failed that generation in this respect?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is not enough, but the whole point of trying to build more properties and of using programmes such as the affordable housing programme to bridge, where that is necessary, into home ownership through rent and part ownership is to boost those numbers. My point is not that there are no challenges—I acknowledged such challenges at the very top of my speech. It is to try to insert balance, if only into the record: some progress has been made over the last 13 years. A substantial number of properties have been built over that time—for home ownership, for rent and in the affordable sector—and most importantly, after a relatively clear-cut decline under Governments of all parties, the decline seems to have been arrested. There is a long way to go and there is absolutely the need for growth. I want everybody who wants to own their own home to have the opportunity to do so, but I hope that this is at least an indicator that we are moving, to an extent, in the right direction.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and would never dream of reading my phone when he is speaking. I was specifically texting—this is both the benefit and the tyranny of having mobile devices in a debate—about the point he had raised. I regret to tell him that I have been unable to get an answer in the 40 minutes since he spoke, but I will ask the Department to write to him. I will be honest with him: I do not know whether the Department has purview here, and I do not know any of the details of the problem that he highlighted. It is always a challenge for local communities when developers are unable to complete the properties that they have indicated they will. I know that causes issues. I have a similar one in the village of Tupton in North East Derbyshire, where the developer unfortunately went out of business and the site is now mothballed. North East Derbyshire District Council is working hard to try to move that issue on. I will endeavour to write to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale either way, and will see whether the Department can provide any advice or information about the point that he raised; I am grateful for his doing so.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised a number of incredibly important and detailed points, to which I will ask the Department and the Minister responsible to respond in detail. Part of the answer to some of her questions will, I hope, be answered by the further details that come forward in the next stage of the affordable housing programme, but I will ask for a letter to be provided to the hon. Lady with more detail about the specific questions that she highlighted.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made an extremely powerful intervention about the challenges of temporary accommodation—an issue that we all are aware of. We all want standards, quality and conditions to improve. As a former councillor in central London, albeit a number of years ago, I am under no illusions about some of the challenges of temporary accommodation. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has been clear that improvements are needed in this area and has indicated that further legislation will be forthcoming. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for highlighting her concerns, and I hope the Department can make progress in the coming months and years.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a very important point about the challenges of access to labour, particularly in rural areas due to geography and topography and the like. I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are experiencing. While housing is a devolved matter, it is important, and I am grateful that he has put on record those issues and the work he is doing to address them. He will be aware that, at least from an England perspective, we are seeking to legislate as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in order to offer councils the opportunity—which they do not have to take up; some will choose to, some will not—to vary council tax for second homes. That will hopefully put an additional tool in the arsenal of local authorities to respond, in England, to the local challenges he has raised.
The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, raised an important point about capacity in local planning authorities, which is an issue that the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and I are both involved in. Within planning, nationally significant infrastructure projects fall under my aegis. That is different from the debate we are having today, but there are very live conversations within the NSIPs and major infrastructure realms. I know from my colleague the Housing Minister that it is the same with regard to capacity in local planning authorities and within the appeals process, where a number of applications end up in their final stages.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised a number of important points about green homes. We need to make progress on multiple different imperatives and initiatives. The part L uplift, which we brought in in the summer of 2021, constituted a 30% increase and improvement in standards. That is in place now and has been for almost a year. The transition period for the part L uplift ends shortly, meaning that all houses built from now on will be 30% more efficient than previously. That is a massive increase compared to a number of years ago. However, there is a trade-off here, and we are trying to work through the issues and make progress in all aspects.
The Labour party has spent much of this debate—reasonably, in my view—saying that we need more houses, and that they need to be affordable to own and rent. We agree, which is why we are trying to make progress in this area. We also need to make progress on the environmental agenda, but those things must be brought into balance. Every single time an hon. Member stands up in this place and says, “We just need this one thing added in”, we need to understand that there is cost involved. That is where we have to make considerations. The part L uplift is a great example: we are trying to make progress environmentally, while also trying to answer the question reasonably posed by hon. Members across this place as to how we increase housing supply in general. We hope we are striking the right balance.
Draft Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022
Debate between Lee Rowley and Meg Hillier(2 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
A number of industry bodies were consulted, including Build UK and the Construction Leadership Council, which try to take a holistic look at the views of the industry as a whole. In my other role, as construction Minister, I work with them very closely and know that they try to ensure that they prioritise the views of all across the industry, not simply those who may speak with a louder voice, for whatever reason.
Let me turn to the other two points, which are important and I am happy to address them. We hope that the special purpose vehicle will be a tool that can be used to bring forward significant infrastructure improvements in the future, but the ultimate decision about how it would be set up in the one, two, three or n number of cases where this happens will be down to the organisations that want to go into those SPVs. The hon. Gentleman asked how likely the first-tier contractor is to be part of the SPV or its entity, but I cannot give him a number, a percentage or an expectation, because ultimately that will be down to the market to determine. However, experts and officials have indicated that, given historical precedent and what companies that play in this space are likely to do, they would expect those companies building this infrastructure, such as pipes or sewage improvements, to take an early interest in the discussions and the transactions. It is not unusual for such companies to be in similar financial structures early on in the SPV process, but that will ultimately be down to them.
That leads on to the second question, which is how do we make sure that there is not a problem of payment further down the supply chain. There are two broad answers to that. First, for those who are not first-tier suppliers, the same requirements apply around payment as they do today. The contracting that would be undertaken for tier 2 suppliers would be undertaken on the basis of the construction Act, and that Act and the scheme of construction contracts contain clear clauses about payment upon delivery, not payment when other organisations or entities choose. That is not changing.
What is changing is, in effect, the box before that. The SPV and the first-tier operator will need, either through being a group of one or through the SPV contracting to a tier 1 operator, to price in risk appropriately and organise themselves appropriately. They will also need agreement with their funders to ensure that they have cash available at the point at which they will need the working capital to pay tier 2 suppliers or whoever they are contracting, to ensure that the output is delivered.
That is fully transparent at this stage, and that is exactly what the DPC is designed to do—to allow private companies to go out and seek investment to cover the build element, including tier 2 suppliers, and then recognise that they will start to get a revenue stream at the point when the infrastructure is delivered. That is entirely the point of it. The revenue coming from the water companies will not start until delivery. That means that if this works, and we have confidence that it will, the risk to the public purse is minimised because companies pay on results, not on proposal, and because a set of companies and individual actors will be entering into a contract to ensure that they price the risk of delivery appropriately and deliver it to get a long-term revenue source from the Government. I hope that those answers resolve the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful for his contribution.
To conclude, I reiterate that the creation of any exclusion under the construction Act is the exception.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Before the Minister finishes, I note that it falls to Ofwat to monitor this legislation. Obviously, the very long-term timescales of some of the projects will be such that they may outlast our time as Members of this House. How is he going to make sure that Ofwat’s monitoring feeds back into Government if there is a problem in the future? If there is a problem, that could be significant. On the other hand, if the model works well, it could be used for other infrastructure projects.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for that question. I had a long discussion with Ofwat yesterday about the importance of its monitoring role. The first stage is to make sure that this works. Obviously, given that we have not yet changed the rules—this order has not gone through yet—we do not have a clearly working example in progress. I am very open about that. There will be a number of pathfinder projects, and they will have to be reviewed. Ofwat has been clear that it will review and, if necessary, suggest changes. It would be entirely appropriate for the relevant Committees and Ministers to remain close to that process over the months and years ahead. The fact that two parties are interested, as well a third in one of the other three nations, should give us clarity about what we hope will happen in the coming years—namely, that this will be a successful model that will balance the kinds of things that we have spoken about.
From the perspective of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I accept that this will need to be monitored closely. I encourage all the relevant Committees in the House of Commons to do that. We want this to work. We want to learn from the challenges and make sure that it does not fall into the problems that have resulted from other types of financing structures, with which I am familiar from my time serving on the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. We hope that that will not be the case in the future.