Building Homes

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Mark Francois.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and good luck in your new role.

It is possible to have successful development, but from experience it has to be something done with people and not to people. This policy is the latter. These pernicious top-down targets have the practical effect at ground level of setting one town against another, one village against another and one local community against another; and given the Chancellor’s statement on public spending yesterday, who will pay for the tens of billions of pounds-worth of infrastructure that would be required to make all this work? All experience shows that, on development and house building, the man or woman in Whitehall really does not know best. Why then, is the Secretary of State going back to the old, failed way of doing it, which will not work?

[Angela Rayner]

I am shocked to have to tell the right hon. Member that the NPPF was an NPPF before we came into government. National targets have always been there; this is not something that I have dreamt up.

The important thing is that our new method is clearly based upon the housing stock, the affordability and the need in an area. That need has created a housing crisis in this country, and that is why the electorate gave the Labour Government such a mandate, because we said that we are going to fix the housing crisis that we have inherited. Again, this is about local plans. I implore the right hon. Member to get with his local authority, to get a local plan, to engage with local people and to listen to those who are waiting desperately—probably thousands in his constituency—for a home that they know will never come.

Long-term Plan for Housing

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in charge of St Albans City and District Council since 2019. That is four and a half years of opportunity to put a local plan in place. It is on the Liberal Democrats for failing to do so. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could explain whether, as part of that local plan, they will take their share of the 380,000 homes that their conference said they needed to build in the future.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister for a very clear answer on the controversial matter of housing targets? Basically, there are two ways of doing it: we can have mandatory targets, where the man in Whitehall knows best and hands down to local authorities a target with which they have to comply whether or not it is sensible, or we can have advisory targets, where the Department can recommend a target, but if the locally elected councillors and the people whom they represent know that it is too high and can give strong reasons why—for instance, if their district or borough has a large amount of green belt—they can legitimately push back in their plan and offer a lower number. So there is the mandatory option, which is the Labour option, and the advisory option, which is the Conservative option. Is my understanding correct?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. For the first time ever, the NPPF says, at paragraph 61:

“The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point”.

Then there are potentially exceptional circumstances that can be discussed with a representative of the Government—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—and the case can be made and then discussed. If that is accepted, an alternative approach can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Minister should meet the district leaders as well.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his new job. Several months ago, Essex MPs met his predecessor to talk about the possibility of a combined authority for Essex. We were overwhelmingly against it. The people of Essex do not want this ridiculous white elephant; there is no demand from them. This is all being brought about by some highly ambitious Essex county councillors and some officers who think they would do well out of it. As most people in Essex do not even know that it is going on, will he and his boss meet me and other Essex MPs to hear our objections?

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. This legislation applies to housing associations and social landlords in England, of course, but in my other role as Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, I have talked to Ministers and officials in the devolved Administrations about some of these building safety questions. We all have a shared interest in getting those right. Of course we respect the nature of devolved competence, but we also want to make sure that some of the insights, particularly about how we deal with developers, can be operationalised UK-wide.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Post what the Secretary of State rightly described as the absolute tragedy of Grenfell, if he were to be presented in this debate this evening with evidence that a housing association continues to take a complacent attitude to the fire safety of its tenants, would he regard that as a very serious matter indeed?

[Michael Gove]

I certainly would. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that housing associations and other social landlords have to take safety incredibly seriously. This legislation is intended to ensure that they do. If housing associations or other social landlords are not taking safety, and particularly fire safety, seriously, I would be most grateful if he and others would share such information with me. He has been a uniquely assiduous constituency MP and his concern for the vulnerable and voiceless is such that he will raise his voice on their behalf. We will do everything we can to act.

Before going on to the meat of the Bill, I should say that, as a number of Members have rightly pointed out, a range of issues need to be tackled in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy. As well as legislating on building safety, we need to make sure that there is action, particularly from some of those with direct responsibility for fixing the problems that they helped to create. I am grateful to the two Secretaries of State who succeeded and preceded me here, my right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). In office, both accelerated the efforts we were undertaking to ensure that developers who were responsible for buildings that were not safe accept the responsibility for remediating those buildings.

There have been some indications from some speaking apparently on behalf of developers that, because of the global economic headwinds we are all facing—there may be an impact on supply; there may be an impact on their bottom line—they feel that the weight of obligation that has been placed on their shoulders should perhaps be lessened somewhat. Let me make clear from the Dispatch Box that it cannot be the case that economic conditions, which affect us all, are being used by developers, or anyone else, to shuffle off their obligations.

Similarly, there are freeholders who have direct responsibility to the leaseholders in the buildings they ultimately own to remediate those buildings—that is their legal obligation. This Parliament passed laws to ensure that they fulfil that obligation. There are some freeholders—organisations of significant means—that are, again, trying to delay or dilute their responsibilities. That is simply not acceptable. I hope that across the House we make it clear that, yes, these are tough economic times, but they are very tough economic times for the most vulnerable in our society, and there is no way that plcs and other organisations with healthy balance sheets and surpluses, and CEOs who are earning handsome remuneration, can somehow use global economic conditions as an excuse for shuffling off their responsibility. That just will not do. All of us across the House will work to ensure that the work of remediation is done and that there will be no hiding place for those responsible.

In bringing forward the Bill, I want to thank, first of all, all colleagues in the other place who contributed to improving it while it was there. I am sure that in Committee there may well be amendments from Back-Bench colleagues across the House that can contribute to improving it. My colleagues in the other place were grateful to those noble colleagues who contributed to the enhancement of the Bill. In particular, I want to thank Lord Greenhalgh, who, as building safety and fire safety Minister, introduced the Bill and served with such distinction in the Department.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North for all the work he did, and not just on this Bill but on legislation on the private rented sector and on homelessness. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his work, when Secretary of State, on the White Paper that preceded the Bill. In particular, I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Her actions in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, along with the moral leadership she has shown, set in train a programme of reform to ensure that those in social housing got the full attention of the Government. That has ensured the Bill is before us today.

I also want to thank two campaigners who, in the course of the last year, have shone a light on some of the worst conditions in social housing, and have reminded us all how important it is to ensure that our regulator has teeth. First, Kwajo Tweneboa is a young man who I think all of us in this House have seen campaigning with eloquence and passion. Having grown up in social housing, he has acted as a voice for those who may have been overlooked and underserved in the past. Secondly, Daniel Hewitt for ITV News has worked with Kwajo and others to ensure that registered social landlords who have not been performing their duties adequately are held up to proper scrutiny.

It is of course important to acknowledge that there are a number of different aspects of the social housing debate that the Bill does not cover. It does not cover the whole question of future supply. We will have an opportunity to debate that in this House in the weeks and months to come. It is also important to stress that the overwhelming majority of those who work in social housing are doing a fantastic job. The overwhelming majority of those who work in housing associations and in all the arm’s length management organisations that help to provide social housing are dedicated professionals. They have nothing to fear from the Bill and, indeed, everything to gain. It is the case, however, that some 13% of homes in the social rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard, and that is simply too high a figure. We need to make sure action is taken to deal with that. I should say, by contrast, that the proportion of homes in the private rented sector estimated not to meet that standard is 21%, which is why legislation to improve conditions in the private sector is so important and, again, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North and others has been so critical.

A series of steps are taken in the Bill to ensure that we can more effectively regulate the sector. First, the Bill makes sure that what has been called the serious detriment test no longer applies. In the past, a very high bar had to be met before the regulator could investigate complaints. We are removing that test, lowering the bar and making it easier for tenants to feel that their concerns are being investigated.

The second significant measure is that we are ensuring that the cap on fines under which the regulator hitherto operated—just £5,000—is lifted so that unlimited fines can be levied. I know that the regulator will take account of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and others to ensure that fines are targeted and proportionate, but the potential for the regulator to levy unlimited fines will concentrate minds as few other things will for some of the significant players in the sector that need to up their game.

We will also shorten to two days the period of time for inspections, which was hitherto four weeks, to ensure that tenants who have concerns can feel that they are being addressed more quickly. We will require performance improvement plans from housing associations and others that are found wanting. Critically, safety will become a fundamental objective for registered social landlords and a named individual in each RSL will be responsible for health and safety, thereby making sure there is clearer accountability where it has been fudged in the past.

Thanks to amendments tabled in the House of Lords, we are introducing a new standard for competence for people who work in the field. There has been a lively and important debate about the need for higher professional standards in housing. I completely agree; evidence from what happened in the run-up to Grenfell showed that some of those who were responsible for safeguarding and improving social housing did not have the basic standards of professionalism that are required.

We need to proceed with sensitivity, because the standard of qualification and degree of professional training required for someone at the heart of a major registered social landlord may of course be different from that for someone who is operating a small alms house or other charity provider, but there is a clear need for greater professionalisation. We will work with colleagues to ensure that we have fit-for-purpose legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities back to his role. I thank him for the understanding that he previously showed and continues to show of the importance of social housing issues, and for the kind remarks he made about me.

I welcome the Bill, which has been a long time in the making, but which, critically, responds to the concerns about social housing, the attitude of some social housing landlords and the interaction between social housing tenants and landlords. Those concerns have existed for too long, but they were brought into sharp focus by the terrible tragedy of the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017.

In the immediate aftermath of the fire at Grenfell Tower, one of the things that became very clear to me in talking to people from the estate, survivors and others was that the people responsible for managing the homes in Grenfell Tower—not just the council, but the tenant management organisation—simply failed to listen to the comments, remarks and concerns that tenants were raising about safety issues. It was not just a one-off comment that a tenant might have made; it was comments, remarks and concerns being raised time and again by the tenants, and no action was taken.

Of course, that was not confined to Grenfell, or even the wider North Kensington estate. Particularly when Housing Ministers were listening to tenants across the country, we saw and heard that that experience was mirrored up and down the country. As has been referred to, my Government published the social housing Green Paper in 2018 and launched a call for evidence as part of a review of social housing regulation. That led to the social housing White Paper in late 2020 and now, at last, we have the Bill.

What was clear throughout that process was that, while many tenants had a positive experience to report, there was a problem at the heart of our social housing system. That is why I welcome the Bill as a means of strengthening the regime of social housing regulation. By the introduction of the new consumer regulatory regime, which will be more proactive, and in enhancing the economic regulatory role and providing new enforcement powers to strengthen the regulator’s role, it aims to ensure that landlords do not just listen but, critically, act when problems are raised. Crucially, the Bill puts the emphasis on making the tenants the focus of landlords’ work, with a particular priority rightly given to safety issues. By enhancing transparency and accountability, the Bill will help to set a different balance between the interests of the tenants and those of landlords, and emphasise the delivery of services to the tenants.

So far, all well and good, but there is an area where I hope the Government will accept there is a desire from many that they should go further. It is an area that the Secretary of State has already referred to: the question of the professionalisation of the sector. I am aware that the Government introduced amendments to address this issue in the other place, and that an amendment from Baroness Hayman of Ullock to go further was narrowly defeated, but I am not convinced that the Government’s proposals fully address the issue.

The Government have introduced requirements for the social housing regulator to set regulatory standards on staff competence and conduct. Once in force, the regulator, in the words of the Minister in the other place, would

“proactively seek assurance that providers are meeting them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1029.]

That was an alternative to the other approach, which has been supported by Grenfell United and others, of the Government mandating professional qualifications.

I have looked at the Government’s arguments. The Government have said that the sector is so diverse that mandating a set of qualifications or a single qualification would be too restrictive, that there is no single qualification that would meet the diverse needs of the sector—the Secretary of State referred to that—and that landlords need to have the flexibility to determine what qualifications their staff need. It was also argued that this would make it harder to recruit staff and that there was a risk that it would lead to staff who did not have the right attitudes and behaviours. I find all those arguments extraordinary. Social housing is provided for those in need. Why is it that in other social professions staff are required to be suitably qualified and to be prepared to accept an ethos, a code of ethics or values, yet we are not willing to require that of those employed to manage the homes, particularly the safety of homes, that social housing tenants are living in?

What is more, it is all very well saying that professionalisation would lead to the wrong attitudes and behaviours, but the very reason that we have the Bill today and that we are discussing it is that there are too many people managing social housing with the wrong attitudes and behaviours. I fail to see how making the management of social housing professional—requiring people to have qualifications, saying it is a valuable and worthwhile career, ensuring people have the knowledge and skills needed to do the job—leads to worse outcomes. Professionalising social housing management would, over time, mean that the perception of the role would change. It would come to be seen as a worthwhile career, and would attract more dedicated people interested in what would be seen as a valued profession.

As for the argument that one qualification could not cover all the roles, I am sure the Secretary of State, with his intellect, will soon be able to destroy that argument. There are many ways that that can be approached. We can limit the role that we initially set the qualifications for—to, say, senior management—and allow further qualifications to be developed. We could set up a range of qualifications. They are many ways in which that issue can be addressed; it is not insoluble.

Behind these arguments lies something critical to providing a better future for social housing and social housing tenants, and it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes): we need to remove the stigma of living in social housing. Those who live in social housing should be able to feel proud of where they live, and not feel that people are judging them because they live in social housing. Ensuring the professionalisation of the management of social housing would send a clear message of the value that Government attach to social housing, and the importance of ensuring that those charged with looking after the homes of others have the skills necessary to do that. If we do not care who manages social housing, it is easy to think that we do not care about those who are living in social housing. If we care about those who manage social housing, we show that we care about those who are living in social housing.

[Mr Francois]

I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. Friend has done in relation to Grenfell, which has been of great importance. I declare an interest as someone who grew up in a council house. I have great sympathy with the argument she makes. Does she agree that as well as qualifications a key thing is attitude, and that people who run housing associations need to have a positive attitude to their tenants and not, as is sometimes the case, a negative one?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree. The problem we have seen, and that we saw at Grenfell, was that the attitude was that negative one of just ignoring tenants and not listening to what they were saying. It is essential that people have the right attitude, and see social housing tenants as people who are living in those homes. If people have concerns about their homes and their safety, those concerns should be listened to.

Another objection has been raised about the possibility of professionalisation requiring qualifications for those managing social housing: it would lead to the reclassification by the Office for National Statistics of all social housing providers as public bodies. None of us wants that to happen, and I know the angst that the issue causes in Government, having been there when the last change in the classification of social housing took place. However, no one knows definitely that the ONS would reclassify it in that way, and no one seems to know where the tipping point is regarding how much extra regulation would move such providers into the category of public bodies. Can the Government achieve professionalisation in a way that does not lead to reclassification? Can the regulations be rebalanced to ensure that professionalisation can be brought in and that tipping point is not reached? I welcome the commitment that the Secretary of State made in his speech to work across the House to find solutions and see whether we can find a way through this. I hope that, during the remaining stages of the Bill, the Government will have that conversation with the ONS and will actively seek to table amendments that allow for proper professionalisation of the sector without reclassification.

This important Bill aims to deal with inequities that have been there for too long. It should lead to deeper concern for the needs of social housing tenants, and a greater willingness of all those who are managing social housing to listen to their tenants. However, we should also all aim to remove the stigma that is attached to social housing. That would be of real benefit to all involved. I believe that the professionalisation of social housing management would be a real legacy for the 72 who sadly lost their lives on that fateful night in June 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State back to his position. He was once described as a member of the Notting Hill set. I will be saying a lot about Notting Hill Genesis housing association this evening, but—to paraphrase Emperor Hirohito—not necessarily to its advantage.

I am grateful to have been called to speak on this new Bill to improve the regulation and safety of social housing, not least because I have raised concerns about the issue before. In reiterating them, I declare an interest of sorts as someone who grew up in a Basildon council house in the 1970s and 1980s.

In my experience, registered social landlords such as housing associations vary greatly in quality. Some are really rather good, with sound management, attention to detail and a commitment to pay close attention to the welfare of their tenants. Others are very different. As a constituency MP, I have had some very poor experiences—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), it would appear—of how they have treated my constituents, their tenants.

In fairness, regulators vary in quality, too. Some of them—such as Ofsted, which inspects schools, and the Care Quality Commission, which inspects hospitals, other medical facilities and care homes—are clearly taken seriously and even respected by those whom they seek to regulate. I believe that we need an organisation that displays equal rigour in the regulation of social housing. It must be a good thing to have a tougher regulator with greater powers to hold to account housing associations and the people who run them, some of whom are extremely well paid, for the service that they provide. That is why I am happy to support the Bill tonight.

The military have a concept called ground truth. In simple English, the term describes what goes on in reality—on the ground—rather than on a general’s PowerPoint presentation, perhaps thousands of miles away. In other words, it is what really goes on in practice, rather than in abstract policy or theory. I will illustrate my argument by sharing with the House three examples of ground truth from my constituency that relate to social housing.

The first example concerns the quality of housing maintenance, or rather the lack of quality. Basildon Borough Council, including the town of Wickford in my constituency, has a relatively large social housing stock, including several thousand properties that were transferred across when the Commission for the New Towns was dissolved in the 1990s. In 2016, the council signed a highly valuable contract with Morgan Sindall, a major corporation, for the maintenance of its social housing stock. According to its latest annual report, the group chief executive of Morgan Sindall, Mr John Morgan, received a total remuneration package last year, including a bonus, of some £2.7 million.

Morgan Sindall’s housing maintenance arm, Morgan Sindall Property Services, has been maintaining the properties for about six years with relatively few complaints. A year or so ago, however, I suddenly started to receive a torrent of complaints from Wickford constituents about the timeliness and quality of their repairs. In some cases, it has taken Morgan Sindall many months and multiple visits from numerous employees to carry out even basic repairs for social housing tenants.

The situation is clearly completely unacceptable. I have received complaint after complaint from constituents over the past year or so, particularly about the poor response from Morgan Sindall to requests for assistance. The principal reason appears to be that Morgan Sindall restricted its visits to undertake repairs during the covid-19 pandemic to emergency or highly urgent cases. That has allowed a considerable maintenance backlog to accumulate, totalling thousands of cases, which it is obviously now struggling to clear—hence the massive increase in tenants’ complaints.

In fairness, last week I met Mr Alan Hayward, the managing director of Morgan Sindall Property Services, who personally assured me that the company is negotiating an improvement plan with Basildon Council to return its service to something more akin to its pre-covid performance. We agreed that in future I would report all complaints directly to him and copy in the council to seek much swifter redress for aggrieved tenants. We will have to wait and see how the situation pans out, but clearly things cannot continue as they are. My rent-paying constituents deserve a much better service from Morgan Sindall; I am seeking to ensure that they receive one, including by raising the matter this evening.

Secondly, on competence, I have raised in the House the very poor management provided by Notting Hill Genesis—a housing association that needs much tighter regulation or, ideally, to be taken over by someone else who knows what they are doing. Notting Hill Genesis is run by a chief executive who, according to its annual report, earns total remuneration, including pension emoluments, of more than £300,000 per annum, which is almost twice that of the Prime Minister. Some housing association chief executives earn considerably more than that.

In particular, I have highlighted the poor management of a sheltered housing unit in Rayleigh named Sangster Court, which has been nicknamed “Gangster Court” by locals because of the way in which Notting Hill Genesis extorts money from its tenants for what they believe—as residents have told me—is a very poor service in return. On my last visit, I was especially concerned to hear complaints from the residents about fire safety—so much so that I wrote to our very proactive police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, to urgently request a fire inspection by Essex County Council Fire and Rescue Service. The results of the subsequent inspection, which I will send to the Secretary of State, were damning, with multiple serious deficiencies identified that Notting Hill Genesis has had to rectify and comply with.

One of those deficiencies included having to replace inadequate fire doors in the building. The company has just written to me to confirm that that will take some 16 weeks. Post the Grenfell tragedy and with the subsequent Grenfell inquiry drawing to a close, I would much rather that those vital safety improvements were undertaken in 16 days. That illustrates the tin-eared approach that, in my experience, is characteristic of Notting Hill Genesis and its senior management. I wonder whether the non-executive directors of that organisation are content with the lacklustre and complacent reply that I received, especially concerning the fire safety of their residents. I am intrigued to know what, if anything, they intend to do about it and what the Secretary of State is minded to do about it.

I hope that the tougher social housing regulator that is envisioned in the Bill will prove much better at holding failing housing associations such as Notting Hill Genesis more firmly to account; or, even better, will help to encourage someone more competent within the sector to take them over and materially up their game as a result.

Thirdly, again on safety, the Secretary of State will appreciate that a facet of substantial modern housing developments is that they now often include a sizeable portion of social housing, usually administered by housing associations. One such development is the new Bloor Homes development, off Ashingdon Road in my constituency. That has a highly complex and controversial history, which I shall not attempt to recount here in detail, as it could take literally all evening. Suffice it to say, Bloor won on appeal despite intense local opposition, including from me as the local MP. Although it has planning permission, it is seeking to fell a 100-year-old oak tree to create an entrance to the new estate directly opposite both an infant and a junior school, which between them, accommodate more than 500 staff and pupils.

As clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill relate directly to safety, including, presumably, that of the tenants in the new development whose children would be likely to use the schools that are just opposite, the House should know that the headteachers of both schools issued a joint letter last Thursday that included the following statement:

“We experienced a frightening glimpse into the future, when on Friday 21st October the pavement access was reduced in readiness for the tree removal. The situation was carnage, and it was only through our dedicated teaching staff actively marshalling pedestrians and on-coming traffic that there was not a serious accident.”

Safety must be paramount. With the tree occupied by protesters and the local community up in arms, the whole sorry episode is rapidly degenerating into a public relations disaster for Bloor Homes, which is repeatedly described by my constituents as “arrogant”, or often far worse, and which appears to have desperately little regard for the feelings of the local community, its locally elected councillors or, indeed, its local MP.

Despite its uncompromising attitude, I genuinely appeal to Bloor in the House of Commons tonight, even at this 11th hour, to reconsider its approach and facilitate a redesign of the junction to save the tree and, even more importantly, to ensure the safety of the pupils—some of whom are as young as five—at both the schools. A company with even the slightest regard for its public reputation would surely attempt to do so, but this is Bloor Homes, so we shall have to wait and see.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill because it seeks to create a tougher and more effective regulator for the social housing sector, in which many of my constituents, as well as the constituents of colleagues across the House, continue to live. In my experience, some housing associations, such as Sanctuary, which is under new leadership and is actively considering requiring tenants to sign off repair work so that the contractor is not paid unless and until the repair is completed satisfactorily, are gradually getting better, while others such as Notting Hill Genesis appear to be getting worse.

Having spoken to headteachers post Ofsted inspection, or hospital managers after a visit from the Care Quality Commission, I have no doubt that when their regulator turns up they take the visit extremely seriously indeed. I would like to see a similarly powerful social housing regulator whose objective is to ensure a better and safer service for tenants, and which housing associations and the like dare not ignore. I wish this important Bill and the Ministers in charge of it Godspeed and good luck.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I sincerely thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions to the debate, but also for the constructive nature in which they have engaged with this crucial legislation. I was pleased to hear that Members from across the House support the principles of the Bill. It is imperative that we get it on to the statute book quickly, so it can deliver the change the sector needs and the change we all know tenants deserve.

It is right that I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and many other Members across the House: Grenfell United and the community as a whole have displayed incredible courage and determination over the last five years, turning their own terrible experiences into important and lasting change. Their tireless endeavour has helped to bring this historic legislation before Members today and I wholeheartedly commend them. The Bill is part of their legacy and the legacy of the 72 who sadly lost their lives. The residents in the tower were put in an appalling situation that never should have occurred. We have a duty to ensure that it never happens again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) is no longer in his place, but spoke passionately about the fact that all social tenants should be treated with respect, a sentiment that all of us across the House certainly share. I put on record my thanks for all the work he did in this particular policy area.

A few Members spoke about the stigma around social housing. We absolutely need to reduce it. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). I particularly thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for sharing her own story. It is clear that she is incredibly passionate about this issue and I hope she will continue to campaign on it with the vigour she has shown to date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) rightly praised those working in the social housing sector and I share that praise. We have heard tales today of bad practice, but that is very much a minority of people working in the sector. We need to recognise the hard work and dedication of those across the sector to ensure their tenants are in safe and secure housing and are protected. He was also right to say that social landlords must fulfil their obligations. He rightly raised improvement plans and the new fines that will be put in place as part of the Bill.

We have heard from across the House examples of bad practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised examples from the experiences of their own constituents. I must add my voice in praising Kwajo for his tireless campaigning. Stories like his prove why it is so crucial that we pass the Bill today.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke of Georgia’s law. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult Georgia and her son’s experience must have been, but I would be grateful for the opportunity to sit down with the hon. Member to discuss that further before we get to the Committee stage.

A number of Members discussed whether we should go further on the professionalisation of the sector, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. I add my sincere thanks to her for her steadfast campaigning since the terrible tragedy occurred in June 2017. The Government firmly believe that the housing sector should have competent and respectful staff who can meet tenants’ needs and deliver high-quality services. That is why we ran a professionalisation review from January to July this year. It brought together tenant representative groups, including Grenfell United, trade bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing, landlords, and housing academics to consider the optimum approaches to staff development in the social housing sector. The review was informed by independent research that mapped the current qualifications and training landscape. The review concluded that there was no one-size-fits-all qualification that encompassed every facet of the social housing sector’s requirements, although I note the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead about whether it is possible to develop a slightly more detailed set of proposals on those qualifications.

My right hon. Friend also raised a point about potential reclassification by the Office for National Statistics, and rightly outlined a concern we have in Government about the risk that could bring to taxpayers, particularly the fact that £90 billion of debt could be brought on to the public ledger, which is a very real consideration for us. She asked whether it was possible to engage with the ONS, and whether any engagement had already occurred. The ONS will only make a formal classification decision on new policy or regulation once that has already been implemented. In exceptional circumstances, the Government can ask the ONS to perform a policy proposal review, but as the policy is currently still being developed, we are not in a position to request that formal review. The risk assessment that we have undertaken is based on our work with the Treasury classification team, who work closely with the ONS and have in-depth knowledge of the classification framework and its application to the social housing sector. I would be happy to sit down with my right hon. Friend and discuss the issue further before the Bill goes to Committee.

Inspections were raised by a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Member for Battersea. The regulator has committed to delivering regular consumer inspections as part of the new proactive regime. Inspections will help the regulator to hold landlords to account and take action where necessary, ultimately driving up the standard of service delivery to tenants. The Government tabled an amendment in the Lords to put that commitment into law, which gives the regulator a duty to publish and take reasonable steps to implement a plan for regular inspections. The system of inspections will be based on a risk profile to ensure that those landlords at greatest risk of failing, or where failure might have the greatest impact on tenants, are subject to greater oversight. As part of that, the regulator will aim to inspect landlords with more than 1,000 homes every four years. We have had a positive response from stakeholders, including Lord Best and Shelter, since we placed that measure in the Bill.

Let me touch quickly on supported housing. The Government are investing £20 million in a supported housing improvement programme to drive up quality in that sector. My Department is actively engaging with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the charity Crisis, which is campaigning passionately on this issue, to see how we can address the problems raised. Social housing supply was raised by the hon. Members for Wigan, for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Battersea, and for Salford and Eccles. The provision of affordable housing is an existing part of the Government’s plans to build more homes and provide aspiring homeowners with a step on to the housing ladder. Our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will deliver thousands of affordable homes for both rent and to buy right across the country. The Levelling Up White Paper committed to increasing the supply of social rented homes, and a large number of the new homes delivered through our affordable housing programme will be for social rents.

[Mr Francois]

I congratulate the new Minister who is admirably summing up what I thought was a remarkably thoughtful, consensual and non-partisan debate. On a slightly lighter note, can we do something about the name of the social housing regulator? It does not have to be off-roof, or even roof-off, but could we have something a bit snappier that might strike fear into the hearts of complacent housing association chief executives, of whom there are sadly still too many?

[Dehenna Davison]

I will certainly take that suggestion on board. If my right hon. Friend has any ideas, I will accept them on a postcard or via WhatsApp. He now has a mission to come up with a snappy name.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) raised the subject of energy efficiency. Baroness Hayman tabled a successful amendment in the other place that ties the Government into producing a strategy on energy efficiency in the social rented sector within 12 months of Royal Assent. We are considering how to address that new provision in the Bill and will update the House shortly.

The hon. Members for Vauxhall, for Wigan, for North Shropshire and for Mitcham and Morden touched on the resourcing of the regulator. We are firmly committed to ensuring that the regulator has the resources that it needs not only to deliver the new consumer regulation regime but to ensure that it continues to regulate its economic objectives effectively. We have made an additional £4.6 million available in 2022-23 to support the new regime. We will potentially be introducing changes to the fee regime, which will be subject to consultation to ensure that the regulator is funded appropriately.

The hon. Member for Strangford, as always, adopted a constructive approach, wanting to ensure that those in Northern Ireland learn the lessons of the terrible tragedy of Grenfell and that they can benefit from some of the incredible measures that we are bringing forward in the Bill. He will have heard the Secretary of State speak about his engagement with devolved Administration Ministers and officials; I hope that that has provided him with some assurance.

We have heard today how a Bill with a relatively small number of clauses can have such a large impact. Addressing housing in this country is central to our levelling-up mission. It is essential that social tenants live in safe, good-quality homes provided by responsible, well-run registered providers. I am pleased to be closing this insightful Second Reading debate; seeing how passionately Members across the House feel about the Bill only reinforces its importance. I look forward to taking the Bill through Committee and working with shadow Ministers and all interested Members across the House so that we can bring real, lasting change to the social housing sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 December 2022.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Nigel Huddleston.)

Question agreed to.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Nigel Huddleston.)

Question agreed to.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees.—(Nigel Huddleston.)

Question agreed to.

New Homes: Developers, Housebuilders and Management Companies

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

A very happy new year to you, Mr Betts. As we have limited time, I will make three points. First, I have served as an MP for over 20 years, and the whole issue of housing development and the associated infrastructure remains the most controversial issue in my constituency. One of the things I have learned from that is that in order to be accepted by local people, development must be done with people, rather than to people, but the major house builders rarely seem to understand that.

The legislative framework within which the house building industry has to operate is obviously fundamental, but we are still awaiting the publication of the Government’s much-delayed planning Bill. That has led to the iniquitous situation whereby the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities continues to harry local authorities to finalise their local plans, despite holding back legislation that, once enacted, might mean that local councils have to revise or even substantially rewrite the plans that many of them have just spent literally years working on. It is becoming a bit like “Waiting for Godot”. To put it another way, the Department should remove the plank from its own eye. I humbly ask the Minister: when can we expect the publication of the planning Bill, and when is Second Reading likely to be?

Secondly, the UK housing market is now effectively an example of near market failure. It is completely dominated by half a dozen or so major house builders, some of whom have grown over the years by absorbing competitors. That restricts choice, and, even more importantly, artificially restricts housing supply. That is done deliberately to keep prices up. Liam Halligan, economics editor of the Sunday Telegraph and now a popular TV presenter, explored the problem in great detail in his very good 2019 book, “Home Truths: The UK's chronic housing shortage”, in which he exposes the adverse effects of the dominance of the volume house builders on the housing market.

For instance, as Liam Halligan points out, since the Office of Fair Trading’s investigation into the housing sector in 2008, the market share of the volume house builders has more than doubled, from 31% to 59%—not far off two thirds of the entire market. Covid is likely to have made that serious market anomaly worse by increasing the pressure on smaller builders, many of whom have limited financial reserves.

As Liam Halligan argues,

“An oligopolistic house building sector, deliberately restricting the supply of new homes to keep profits high, is anathema to free markets.”

But it is even worse than that. The paradigm that the Government appear to be working in is one where house building is held back by nimby local authorities, despite the best efforts of house builders to build new homes. In fact, the reverse is true. As the Local Government Association pointed out in February 2020, there are over 1 million extant planning permissions for new properties, but these have not been built out. In October 2020, the Campaign to Protect Rural England produced a report highlighting that over half a million of these plots alone are on brownfield sites. A former chief executive of Persimmon Homes stood down after getting his £75 million bonus—a bonus so profane that it embarrassed not just his company but the rest of the industry. Perhaps he was untroubled by these facts. Nevertheless, some of the practices we have heard about from colleagues this morning still go on. Where, one has to ask, are Ministers—and, indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority—in all of this?

I come to my third point. Let me give a practical example of how truly arrogant some of these companies have become. Bloor Homes, one of the largest privately owned developers in Britain, was so desperate to secure planning permission for a highly controversial site off Ashingdon Road in my constituency that it resorted to trying to interfere with the composition of the development control committee of Rochford District Council, which was due to consider the application last June. Bloor having lost—the committee turned it down—Bloor’s political consultant sent a series of highly intemperate, even offensive, texts late at night to the leader of the council. It is the sheer arrogance of these tactics, which I have not previously encountered in over 30 years of public life as a councillor and then as an MP, that I find deeply shocking. This is the sad reality of house building in Britain today. We have limited time, Mr Betts, so I will not read all the communications into the record. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to do on Second Reading of the planning Bill, so that Ministers, parliamentary colleagues, the media and others in the house building industry can learn how Bloor Homes really behaves.

In summary, the UK house building sector is deeply troubled, bordering on dysfunctional. Many ordinary families are struggling to buy a home, while some of the major house builders ruthlessly exploit their agony to maintain their already generous profit margins. They blame everyone but themselves: Government, MPs, local authorities or concerned local residents—anyone but the greedy companies that are at the heart of the problem. If Ministers really want to boost housing supply, let us have a full inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority on over-concentration in the UK house building industry, and let us have it now.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

As I want to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.38 am, the last two speakers will have five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing the debate. From the contributions that have been made, we can see that this is a topic that promotes passion on the part of not just those right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed, but their constituents.

I welcome the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) to his place. I wish him a happy—but obviously not too successful—new year. Regarding future legislation, particularly on leasehold reform, I look forward to discussing that with him, and with other Members, to ensure that we get the legislation in a good place before it is brought forward.

I understand how important it is that infrastructure comes with new housing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is a one-man campaign machine in working to secure infrastructure for his constituents along with housing. As he says, they are not NIMBYs; they just understand that houses must come with the infrastructure they require. Section 106 agreements of around £1 billion towards infrastructure were agreed in 2018-19. That includes contributions to transport, open spaces, the environment, education and medical facilities.

The community infrastructure levy also allows local authorities to obtain the funds needed to deliver infrastructure such as roads, schools, health facilities and flood defences. Currently, around 50% of local authorities charge CIL. It is estimated that the liability for new planning permissions amounts to roughly £1 billion since 2018-19. The housing infrastructure fund provides £4.3 billion so that improved transport connectivity, healthcare services and other infrastructure can be put in place before housing is built.

We have already made changes to reduce the renegotiation of affordable housing in infrastructure commitments made through section 106 agreements. To reduce renegotiation, the Government require local authorities to have clear policy requirements in their local plans so that landowners and site purchasers are aware of likely costs up front and can take them into consideration when agreeing land transactions. The Government have also set out clear guidance on how viability assessments should be undertaken and made public to ensure consistency and transparency.

The Government recognise, however, that the existing system of developer contributions can sometimes be costly and complex, and can delay developments and reduce certainty for communities, which is why we are exploring the introduction of a new infrastructure levy to replace the current system of developer contributions. That levy will seek to deliver at least as much value and on-site affordable housing as at present. To reduce the renegotiation issues to which section 106 agreements are prone, we propose making the levy a non-negotiable charge on a fixed proportion of the development value. Our intention is that the proceeds from the levy will be collected and spent locally, and that councils will have flexibility in that spending.

Unfortunately, I do not have much to add on planning reforms. The Secretary of State took control of the newly empowered Department in September, and he has an awful lot in his in-tray to work through, but he is committed to looking at planning reform and fulfilling the Government’s levelling-up ambitions by carefully considering what reforms to the system are needed and how they are best taken forward. An announcement will be made in due course.

[Mr Francois]

It is disappointing that the Minister cannot give any timings on when the planning Bill is coming, because some of us would like to know before we retire. He has heard 10 very good Back-Bench contributions in this debate, all of which have been, in one way or another, highly critical of the housebuilding industry in this country. When will the Government support a Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into the UK housebuilding industry?

[Eddie Hughes]

As I have set out, the Government are already working closely with the CMA to push forward their ambitions. There are some ongoing court cases, so it would be inappropriate to comment except to say that we are enthusiastic in our support. I put on the record that the Secretary of State read my right hon. Friend’s book over Christmas, and I think he has been in touch with him to say how good a read it was.

[Mr Francois]

He has, but I was told I could not plug it in the debate. [Laughter.]

[Eddie Hughes]

Briefly, as I am running out of time, a number of Members have highlighted that for net zero, we need to build homes that are as environmentally sound and low carbon in their production as possible. People are concerned about the transition to the new legislation. Just before Christmas, we introduced part L of the building regulations to improve the energy efficiency of homes. For a developer to make use of the transitional arrangements, they must have submitted an initial notice, a building notice or a full planning application to the local authority prior to the new regulations coming into effect in June 2022. They must then have commenced work on an individual building to which they want to apply the previous standards before June 2023.

Members referred to the idea of simply digging a trench in order to have started work on a site, but we are going to be more stringent with the application of the arrangements. For the previous regulations to apply, developers must have started the foundations of a building, for example. Those transitional arrangements mean that developers can no longer build to out-of-date energy standards over several years as sites are developed. Unless construction has actually commenced, they will need to build to current regulations. A full technical consultation with regard to the future homes standard is planned for spring 2023. As part of that, we will consider what transitional arrangements are appropriate for that legislation.

Several Members mentioned management companies and, in many cases, their bad practice. Put simply, the current situation is unfair to freeholders, and we are committed to introducing legislation to right that wrong. We intend to create a new statutory regime for freeholders based on the rights enjoyed by leaseholders. This would ensure that maintenance charges must be reasonably incurred, and that the services provided are of an acceptable standard, and would include a right to challenge the reasonableness of the charges at a property tribunal. Freeholders would have a right to change the provider of maintenance services by applying to the tribunal to appoint a new manager. That may be especially helpful for freeholders dissatisfied with the services they currently receive. The Government intend to introduce legislation to implement those changes as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The build-out rate was also raised. The Government are clear that new homes should be built out as soon as possible once planning permission is granted. Sir Oliver Letwin’s independent review of build-out rates found no evidence that speculative land banking is part of the business model of major house builders, nor that it is a driver of slow build-out rates. None the less, we note that build-out is important to communities and are exploring further options. In our “Planning for the future” White Paper, which was referenced earlier, we have been clear that we will explore those further options to support faster build-out rates as part of our proposed planning reform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) raised concerns about Harron Homes. I would be happy to meet them to discuss their concerns to see if there is anything that we can advise. Obviously, we cannot intervene in particular cases, but there might be some advice that we can give. With regard to the Building Safety Bill, the Secretary of State is working closely with Lord Greenhalgh to see what else can be done. I hope that an announcement will be made in the not-too-distant future.

We have had an excellent debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to and respond to it. I look forward to bumping into Members in the corridor to discuss the issues that they have raised today.

Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I was shocked to read in the evening Echo that, apparently, a new super council is to be created in Essex and that everybody had been told about it. I certainly had not heard anything about it, and I am one of the local Members of Parliament. Apparently, the leader of Essex County Council had a meeting with the chief executive of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. They had a discussion but apparently she was not able to answer any questions. I am not surprised. There are many questions I would like to have answered, because this seems like a white elephant.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a white elephant, but what is worse, it has been cooked up in private for two years by six council leaders—six chief executives. The Essex MPs are against it and did not know. So are all the back benchers on the six councils. The whole thing is a farce.

[Sir David Amess]

It is disgraceful. I want to know where this new super local authority would be and who would be running it. There are so many questions. We already have the police and crime commissioners, who are paid a bit more than Members of Parliament, with their layer of bureaucracy. The last thing I want is another layer of bureaucracy with this new super council and the break-up of Essex County Council. So I hope the Minister will reflect on what my right hon. Friend and I have said about this issue.

I want to praise Southend-on-Sea Borough Council’s registry office and, in particular, the chief registrar, Nicole Rogerson, who has done a marvellous job, and I am delighted that Matthew and Louise will be getting married on 18 July at Porters lodge in Southend—well done to them.

I am getting lots of complaints about parking and speeding in Southend, and, extraordinarily, Southend council is not having any meetings at all to regulate those things. I am not mad keen on cycling and I am sick to death of people riding their bikes on pavements, so I very much want the Government to do something about that issue. I love Old Leigh, where we have wonderful retail outlets, but to have another licensed bar there is totally unacceptable, and I hope the Minister will have a review of licensing laws. On council tax, money is very tight. This year our council tax went up by 3.99%. I do not know whether the Government are thinking of a freeze next year, but it would be very welcome. I was delighted with the stamp duty changes announced yesterday, but in Southend we have a particular problem with leasehold properties in the Ekco Park development. I wonder whether the Minister will look at that issue. Homelessness is obviously a crisis in so many of our constituencies. I pay tribute to HARP and Off the Streets for all the work that they have done. Will the Minister commit to review the guidance for social housing waiting lists, to ensure that those most in need are prioritised?

Many Members are fed up with illegal Traveller sites. We have had umpteen meetings with Ministers about this issue. The point has been reached where we really need some action.

Finally, I think we need to be cheered up. Next year the Duke of Edinburgh will be 100. The year after, Her Majesty the Queen will have been on the throne for 70 years. We need a city status competition, and what would give the nation greater pleasure than Southend being declared a city?

Housing and Planning

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Neil O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is completely correct. People want a proper plan-led system. Other countries achieve that by allowing local government to play a stronger role in determining where things go.

We must reform the 1961 Act to make it clear that buyers can pay current market use values for land rather inflated hope values. We should stop land prices being bid up in the first place, by stopping sites going through the plan-making process on the assumption that developers are going to get away without paying for infrastructure. We should turn Homes England into a flying squad to help councils plan and deliver brownfield regeneration. We must make sure that council planning departments are well enough resourced to retain good staff. It is a difficult industry where the poachers, as it were, can pay people a lot of money, and local councils often struggle to hang on to good staff.

My final proposed reform to the planning system is to reboot neighbourhood planning so that it can fulfil its potential. Many places in my constituency have drawn up neighbourhood plans, and people have given a lot of time to them. In some cases they have been a force for good and shaped the way in which, and where, things get built. In other cases, however, they have taken so long to draw up that developers have front-run them. Too many are lengthy and lack the one thing that would give them real bite, which is a map of where development does and does not go.

We should radically simplify and speed up the process of making neighbourhood plans. They should all have a clear map of where development does and does not go. Where councils are planning sensibly, we must give them more legal weight. As I argued in a report for the think-tank Onward, we should reward outstanding councils by making them exempt from any appeal to the planning inspector.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. Does he agree that democratic accountability is fundamental to this process? Is he, like me, concerned about the rumours, which I hope are not true—I am looking at the Minister—that the Government are considering changing planning law so that developers will get automatic planning permission, regardless of the quality of their design, if they make an application in an area zoned for housing? Does he agree that democratically that would be completely unacceptable?

[Neil O'Brien]

My right hon. Friend makes a thoughtful contribution. It depends what we mean by a plan-led system. It is right that councils should be clear about where development is going, but I worry about anything that would ride roughshod over the wishes of local people, so I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point.

There is much to fix in our planning and housing system. The current rules seem almost perfectly set up to cause a huge amount of grief and political friction, and to deliver a relatively small amount of housing, because they push development in the wrong places, without the necessary infrastructure. If we change the system, we can keep green and pleasant those places we value most, but also ensure that the average family can get a house they can afford. We are fortunate that we have exactly the right Minister to deliver that huge reform.

Planning System: Gypsies and Travellers

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I do not think anyone has any objection to Gypsies and Travellers who legitimately want to travel, so long as when they park up, they do so lawfully, on land that they either own or have permission to park up on. The problem is that the quarter of the Traveller community who do travel all too frequently park up on land that they do not own, and where they do not have permission to be.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Regarding his last point, he will know that although the Government did not use this phrase, they effectively committed in the Conservative party manifesto to what is known as the Irish option, making acts of deliberate trespass a criminal, rather than civil, offence. However, he will also know that doing so will require primary legislation. I ask him to press the Minister to give us some timings for when that legislation will be introduced in the Commons, and to confirm which Department will be leading on it.

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will do so straight away: I put it to the Minister that this legislation needs to be brought forward as soon as possible, so that we can address this problem head on. Of course, this has been done in the Republic of Ireland, which in 2002 changed trespass from a civil offence to a criminal offence. That is actually inflaming the problem in this country, because many Irish Travellers are not in Ireland any more; they are here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

There are two issues. We will probably disagree, but I struggle with the idea that local authorities should be obliged to provide such sites. I do not see why the public purse should purchase land for a particular group of people to live on. If Travellers were to purchase land and then apply for planning permission for a Traveller site—a suitable site in the right location—the local authority should give planning permission for that, but personally I do not see why the public purse should subsidise sites specifically for one ethnic group.

[Mr Francois]

I apologise for having a second bite at the cherry. It is true that the provision of sites varies around the country. Basildon Council has a number of sites, but part of the problem is that the Travellers often do not want to stay on them. They want to go where they like. Providing sites is not a panacea, if the people for whom they are theoretically provided ignore them.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend does not have to apologise for having a second bite at the cherry. He is welcome to intervene as often as he likes, because he is an expert on the issue. He makes an extremely good point in a thoroughly competent way.

I called for the debate because the activities of Gypsies and Travellers are a huge issue in the borough of Kettering. It is a combination of Gypsies and Travellers parking up on publicly or privately owned land without permission, and of their purchasing land in the countryside and immediately building plots without any intention of applying for planning permission. They clearly realise that the land is an unsuitable place for such a development, but they are cocking a snook at local authorities. There are therefore two issues. First, there is the trespass issue of parking up on land that they do not own. Secondly, there is the issue of purchasing land and developing Gypsy and Traveller sites with no intention of applying for planning permission.

British House Building Industry

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating the Minister on her appointment? It is good to see her in her place at the Dispatch Box.

The house building market in the United Kingdom is highly oligopolistic, dominated by very few very large players, some of whom are extremely unresponsive to the needs of local communities, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) laid out so well in her speech. They can have an adverse impact on communities in the long term, but they can also have an adverse impact in the short term, while their houses are being built.

We had an example of that in Rayleigh on Monday morning. The schools came back, so clearly the traffic increased, but it was massively exacerbated by three contraflows all in operation at the same time on three different housing developments: Barratt David Wilson at Hullbridge, where a nearby key road called Watery Lane has been closed for many weeks because of the works; Countryside at Rawreth Lane in Rayleigh, which has a contraflow in place; and Silver City, a lesser known, smaller developer which has a contraflow on the London Road in Rayleigh. The cumulative effect, made worse by a road traffic accident that morning, was that the town was in effect gridlocked, and many of my constituents were extremely frustrated as they were simply trying to get to work.

I have remonstrated with the county council’s highways department for granting permits to work on the highway to all these developers at the same time. It has a strategic overview of the highways network, and I think it should look at that again. I have also contacted all the developers directly and encouraged them to get this work done as fast as possible and then get out of the way, and the responses have been instructive. The smallest, Silver City, has promised that it will be finished by the end of the week and that it will be off the highway network. Countryside, an Essex-based developer, has said that it will no longer operate its contraflow in the morning and evening rush hours, thus considerably easing the congestion.

Barratt David Wilson, the major national house builder, has been the least responsive of all. It has been on site since February, and my constituents in Hullbridge are just about sick and tired of it. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has pointed out, its chief executive, Mr David Thomas, is on a nice little earner. According to its 2018 annual report, he earned a total package of just shy of £3 million—some 20 times the salary the Prime Minister earns for the responsibility of running the country. I suspect that Mr David Thomas could not find Hullbridge in my constituency with a TomTom.

Barratt David Wilson has now, under pressure, contemplated extending the hours of its work to try to finish the job, but it still will not give me a firm date for when its works will be completed, Watery Lane can be reopened and it will get out of the way. In short, it is a bad neighbour in my constituency, and I think it is about time that this large, unresponsive, uncaring national house builder, run by a fat cat on £3 million a year, was held to account. My constituents deserve better than this, and these developers should put more people on the job, get the job done quicker and get off the roadway.

We are tight for time, but in my last minute I want to mention Sanctuary Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency. I had an Adjournment debate on 18 July about what is wrong with it, so I shall not reiterate it all now, suffice it to say that I had a meeting with its chief executive, Mr Craig Moule, and its outgoing chairman, Mr Jonathan Lander, yesterday. It was a deeply unsatisfactory meeting. Basically, it had promised to build 50 affordable houses a year, but it got nowhere near that. It had no clear plan or strategy to achieve the target. I am afraid the outgoing chairman of the board clearly did not take the meeting seriously. In fact, his attitude was patronising. If he had said, “I hear what you say, Mr Francois” one more time, I think I would have screamed.

There is a governance issue at Sanctuary. It is badly run and badly governed. It is not properly accountable to the tenants it serves, which is why it was slated by “Dispatches” a few months ago. My plea to the Minister is that we need tighter regulation of the registered social landlords market. Some of these are very large organisations indeed. They are not properly regulated by the Government, and Sanctuary is most certainly not properly regulated by its rather useless board.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Sanctuary Housing Group

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate and thus providing me with an important opportunity to try to hold the Sanctuary Housing Group, which I regard as a highly dysfunctional organisation, to account. As you will soon hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, my remarks have been born from over a decade of frustration in trying to deal with these people as a local MP. To put it bluntly, I have well and truly had enough.

To begin with, Sanctuary has consistently provided a poor maintenance service to many of my constituents over a period of many years. I have had numerous complaints from Sanctuary tenants about shoddy workmanship, missed appointments and a generally off-hand attitude towards them when they complain. To give just one example, a constituent contacted me a few years ago to complain about a broken lift in one of Sanctuary’s sheltered housing units. My constituent put it in an email:

“I’m writing to complain about the fact that our lift has not been working for the past 10 days, effectively trapping my disabled wife in our first-floor flat. Today, I spoke with the Scheme Manager, who advised me there is no confirmed date for when this problem will be resolved. He also advised me that the service company assessed the lift a month ago and advised Sanctuary of repairs that needed to be done, and the lift broke down three weeks after it was assessed… My wife has been trapped in the lift in her wheelchair six or more times. Sanctuary has known there are issues with the lift and has not responded adequately.”

That is but one example of the poor level of service that Sanctuary provides, but I could spend hours reading very many others into the record. The company’s record is so poor that in March this year it was the subject of an absolutely scathing Channel 4 “Dispatches” documentary entitled, “New Landlords from Hell”. To try to summarise a half-hour documentary in one sentence, I would say that the group’s record is truly shocking. In many instances, it shows a complete disregard for the welfare, or even the safety, of its tenants. Sanctuary’s so-called board of directors should watch the documentary and then hang their heads in shame. Anybody who wants to know more about this organisation should watch the programme. I suspect they will be appalled, just as I was, by what they see.

It is not as if Sanctuary is a small or under-resourced organisation. I have carefully read its latest annual report. It currently has total assets under management in the order of £4 billion. It is one of the largest registered social landlords in the United Kingdom, with about 100,000 properties currently under management. It is, supposedly, a not-for-profit organisation, yet it made an operating profit of just under £200 million, as recorded in its 2017-18 accounts. The group’s previous chief executive served for some 27 years, but has recently been replaced by a new chief executive, Craig Moule, whose total annual remuneration, including pension contributions and so on, is now in the order of half a million pounds.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

What?!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Yes. By comparison, the CEO of L&Q—London and Quadrant Housing Trust—earns about £350,000 in total, the CEO of the Peabody Trust is on about £279,000, and the CEO of Genesis Housing is on approximately £250,000.

Despite previously asking Sanctuary officials for a meeting, I have not yet been offered an audience with the new chief executive, which is a shame, because the first question I would like to ask him is: “How can you justify a salary over three times greater than that paid to the Prime Minister?” I cannot countenance how someone running, essentially, a public sector organisation could be paid such a vast amount for presiding over such chaos.

To give the Minister some idea of the history of all this, I first came across the group some years ago when Rochford District Council decided to transfer its social housing stock to a new registered social landlord established for the purpose, called Rochford Housing Association. The tenants voted in a ballot to transfer to the housing association, which was then shortly taken over by a regional housing association called Hereward, and then in turn by a national organisation, Sanctuary. So I have been dealing with RHA/Hereward/Sanctuary for over a decade as the local MP.

Crucially, the original manifesto for the transfer ballot contained a commitment to build up to 50 additional units of affordable housing a year to assist the council with addressing its housing waiting list. Specifically, the manifesto—I have a copy here, because I saved one—said the following under the heading, “New affordable housing to meet local housing needs”:

“Tenants and the Council have said they want to see new homes in the area for future generations and the Council is committed to working with Housing Associations to provide affordable housing to meet local needs.

Rochford Housing Association working with Hereward Housing will aim to provide at least 50 new affordable homes each year in the Rochford District.”

That was the promise to the tenants before they voted to transfer. Sanctuary took over that commitment when it absorbed Hereward and promised to honour it when that entity became part of its group, but it has come absolutely nowhere near doing so.

I have had multiple meetings with Sanctuary down the years to try to persuade it to honour that promise, not least to alleviate the considerable pressure on Rochford’s housing list, which has sometimes, unfortunately, meant that the council has had to place families, including those with young children, in highly unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation in nearby Southend.

[Sir David Amess]

The salaries are absolutely obscene, just like those of senior members of the BBC. My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that someone in my office suffered under these people as a student. Does he agree that, as we look to build a new town somewhere in Essex, these are the last people we want to get their hands on anything we might pursue in meeting our housing needs?

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I will demonstrate, it is difficult, I am afraid, to believe anything that this group now says. As we have a Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister sitting on the Front Bench, I will take this opportunity to absolutely endorse my hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign for Southend to be made a city. I hope the Minister will take that back to the Department.

I have had a number of meetings with Sanctuary’s head of development, Mr Chris Cole, which have taken on an almost ritualistic aspect, with him repeatedly reading out a list of major housing developments that Sanctuary is either going to be involved with or to develop itself, hardly any of which—with the exception of some very small developments and one development at Canewdon—ever come to fruition.

Sanctuary absolutely assured me several years ago that, to make up its backlog, it would bid aggressively for the social housing component of three large developments in the Rochford District Council area known as Hall Road in Rochford, Rawreth Lane/London Road in Rayleigh, and Malyons Farm in Hullbridge. In each of those instances, despite the company’s £4 billion of assets, it underbid and did not secure the RSL element of any of those developments, which would have represented well over 100 houses in each of the three cases. Basically, Minister, these people talk a good game to your face, but then completely and utterly fail to put their money where their mouth is. That is totally unacceptable on their part.

Moreover, Sanctuary has acquired, or sought to acquire, a number of high-profile brownfield sites across the district, which it has been promising to build on for years. However, in the vast majority of cases, it has not laid one brick on top of another to this day. To take just one example, when I met Mr Cole on Friday 10 May in Sanctuary’s local offices in Rochford, he sought to assure me that Sanctuary was “actively on site” on the old Bullwood Hall Prison site, which was closed some years ago and is now a classic brownfield site. Sanctuary obtained planning permission to build there over a year ago. Quite by chance, and unluckily for Mr Cole, I visited the site the weekend prior to our meeting, and I was therefore amazed when Mr Cole attempted to persuade me that the company was actively building houses there. Even when I told him to his face that I knew it was not, because I had been there and seen that it was not, he still tried to tell me that it was. The Minister is shaking his head. I mention this vignette deliberately, because it is absolutely typical of the dismissive way in which Sanctuary treats elected representatives.

Let me say as an aside that I recently spoke to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who, for the avoidance of doubt, has not seen my speech and is not party to it. She mentioned to me in passing that she, too, had had unsatisfactory experiences with Sanctuary, but that unfortunately, because of its constitutional status—I shall say more about that in a minute—it was not subject to the remit of the Public Accounts Committee, the most powerful Committee in Parliament. That raises all sorts of governance issues, to which I shall return shortly.

Because of Sanctuary’s appalling record of not keeping to its commitments, the dispute came to a head several years ago when it agreed to sign a “deed of variation, determination and collaboration” via which it undertook to raise its game and make up the considerable backlog of houses to meet the original commitment of 50 a year. I have here a letter, dated 27 July 2016, from a lady called Emma Keegan, who was at that time Sanctuary’s local managing director. It states, clearly and unequivocally:

“At the forefront of Sanctuary’s commitment is to build homes in Rochford. Part of that is a contractually binding requirement for Sanctuary to deliver the 50 homes a year referred to in the original agreement. Taken over the ten years of the agreement, this will require Sanctuary to build 363 more homes. If we fail to do so the local Council will receive £10,000 for each new home below the target figure of 363, up to a maximum payment of £1 million. This reflects our confidence that we will make good this commitment. We have a development team focused solely on this ambition with commercial resources at their disposal.”

I submit to the Minister that that could not be any clearer, but Sanctuary never got anywhere near it. Time after time, it has failed to develop schemes and has given a whole litany of excuses, including desperately trying to blame Rochford District Council for not giving planning permission, suggesting that it was the council’s fault that the houses had not been built and the target—which, incidentally, was due to be met by March 2018, a year ago—had not been delivered.

When I met Sanctuary representatives in May, I raised that issue and was told quite forcefully by Chris Cole that Rochford District Council had “let us off’ the payment because the council had admitted that the planning delays were its own fault. I double-checked that with Mr Shaun Scrutton, the council’s managing director, at a meeting in his office on Friday 5 July. He categorically denied that Rochford had been responsible for any major planning delay and absolutely insisted that it intended to pursue Sanctuary for the outstanding amount and was considering legal action. He said to me, “I will be having a meeting with our legal team on Monday morning.” Both those men cannot be right, and, to put it mildly, one of them must at least be badly mistaken, as the two positions are poles apart.

Part of my purpose in initiating this debate was first to shame Sanctuary into coughing up the million quid that it owes my local council, and secondly, as well as arguing for the money, to argue that it should go on to build the affordable houses that it promised to build in the first place. In short, this is a housing association that, incredibly, seems reluctant to build houses, particularly if that will cost it any money. I read in the newspapers that we have a housing crisis in this country. With registered social housing landlords like Sanctuary, is it any wonder? Basically, these people are a joke, but one that is no longer funny, particularly for those who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a result of their absolute indolence.

Let me give one further example. Sanctuary assured me that it would build up to 100 properties in a site in Rayleigh known as Timber Grove, and that it was actively acquiring the site for that purpose. When I double-checked a few days ago, it had still not bought the site, which has lain undeveloped effectively for several years. That is just another example of it being extremely difficult to believe anything that the company now says based on bitter experience of a decade of repeatedly broken promises; it is that bad.

That brings me on to my wider point about the regulation of housing associations. There are good and bad registered social landlords in this country; for instance, one of the other housing associations active in my constituency is a locally based one called Chelmer Housing Partnership or CHP. If I speak as I find, I personally do not recall ever receiving a single complaint from any of my constituents who are its tenants about the management of a CHP property, although in fairness, the very good new leader of Rochford District Council, Councillor Mike Steptoe, tells me anecdotally that he has had a few complaints about CHP, which has the RSL component at the new development at Hall Road that I mentioned a few minutes ago. In any event, it is a matter of fact that housing associations, some of whose chief executives are extremely well paid—far more than the Prime Minister—are not even subject to freedom of information requests. In short, they are neither fish nor fowl—neither wholly public nor wholly private—and that leads to serious questions about who is really in charge. Partly based on my experience with Sanctuary, I wish to raise with the Minister the serious question of the governance of the sector in general.

There is a lack of an effective regulator to hold housing association boards to account and to make sure their tenants receive the kind of service for which they pay their rent. I would, therefore, like to press the Minister specifically and ask him whether the Department has any proposals to change the governance of housing associations and, in particular, whether it has any plans to bring in any form of new regulator, perhaps focusing on governance and customer service, to try to keep housing associations up to the mark. For the avoidance of doubt, there are some very good registered social landlords in this country, but there are also some very bad ones, and Sanctuary is probably the worst of the entire lot.

This is a sorry tale of an extremely badly run organisation, which does not keep its word, which obfuscates and delays, treats publicly elected officials with open contempt, and threatens to bring its entire sector into disrepute. Just as Persimmon Homes has given the private house building sector something of a bad name in recent years—I do not believe the sector really deserves that and I note in passing that the new chief executive of Persimmon, David Jenkinson, is attempting to do something to address it—I believe that Sanctuary threatens to give the whole housing association sector in this country a bad name. That would be a shame, because many RSLs do very good work to provide decent, affordable homes for our constituents to live in, and it is important to put that on the record.

I very much hope therefore that when the board members of Sanctuary read this debate, as I suspect they may, they will take radical action to address their woeful underperformance. I hope they will sack the hopeless Mr Chris Cole and specifically agree to pay Rochford District Council the £1 million that they owe. I also hope they will redouble their efforts to build the affordable housing they promised to build all along and which my constituents so desperately need.

This rolling farce, perpetrated by a failed and broken organisation, has gone on long enough and we now need action, not words. I have known the Minister for years and, as he knows, I have high regard for him. I am sure he will take my constituents’ concerns very seriously—that would be in his nature—and I therefore look forward with considerable interest to his reply on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.