Neighbourhood Plans

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As always, Ms Ghani, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. As others have said, this is not only an important debate but a timely one, given the recent introduction of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and its Second Reading tomorrow. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing the debate, and I commend him on his considered opening remarks. I also thank the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions.

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Bosworth made a strong case for the importance of neighbourhood plans to his constituents in Leicestershire, the need for greater clarity around neighbourhood plans and the need for such plans to be accorded more weight in national planning policy. Opposition Members are very much in agreement with the thrust of his argument, although I take issue slightly with his wider remarks about unregulated development and development without the necessary infrastructure, which he spoke of as if they were materialising from the void, as if by magic, rather than as a consequence of successive Conservative Governments being determined to liberalise the planning system in a way that is causing extremely damaging development across large parts of the country. That issue aside, we have heard from all the speakers today about the benefits of neighbourhood planning.

Introduced in 2011 under the Localism Act as a formal part of the development framework, neighbourhood planning gives communities a greater say in where future development takes place, how it is designed and what infrastructure is provided with it. To the extent that it enables communities to better shape development in any given area, neighbourhood planning can—as we have heard, this is by no means always the case—increase public engagement, reduce the number of objections to planning applications and boost housing supply over and above local authority targets.

A detailed University of Reading report from May 2020 concluded that the contribution of neighbourhood plans to housing supply—as a result, essentially, of spatial planning by allocation—could be significant, that such plans have helped in many cases to improve design policy and refine local priorities, and that they have had an influential role in planning decisions in many parts of the country. There is also evidence that they have provided a means for particular communities to mitigate the impact of acute housing pressures in their localities. To take just one example—an issue that we have debated more than once in recent months—neighbourhood plans have proven to be a means of assisting coastal and rural communities to better control excessive rates of second-home ownership and the marked growth of holiday lets, although the Government still need to do much more to properly bear down on the problems arising from those trends.

In praising the concept of neighbourhood planning, I do not intend to imply that it is problem free. Opposition Members have genuine concerns about the take-up of neighbourhood plans, in the sense that all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans made to date emanate from more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and resources to prepare and implement them, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. We also have concerns about the fact that their policy content, in terms of addressing critical issues such as climate change, has been highly variable. Those concerns aside, we continue to support the principle of neighbourhood planning.

The more fundamental issue with neighbourhood plans—somewhat ironically, given the title of today’s debate on the Order Paper—is that, as things stand, it is not entirely clear what role they play in national planning policy.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that clause 88 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill makes the point that neighbourhood plans will take into consideration climate change and environmental aspects?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do recognise that and I will come to the Bill specifically later in my remarks. It does provide some useful clarity about neighbourhood plans, although there are far more serious defects when it comes to them, but I will come to that shortly.

As I was saying, I do not think it is clear, as things stand, what role neighbourhood plans play in national planning policy. They are explicitly addressed in the national planning policy framework, but only in terms of process and—as people will see if they read the relevant sections—in such a convoluted manner that I would not be surprised if even professional planners struggle with what the guidance means in practice. On one hand, the stated rationale of neighbourhood plans is that they give communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area, and because they are legally part of development plans, they do provide for a statutory say in what goes where. On the other hand, they must conform to local plan housing allocations and have regard to national planning policy and they can be overturned when they are in conflict with either. The resulting tension, the root of which is ultimately the question of who decides—communities or Ministers—remains largely unresolved.

What I would argue is lacking but is sorely needed is greater clarity about the precise remit of neighbourhood plans. More fundamentally, we need a better sense of the function of neighbourhood planning within the wider planning system. Ultimately, we will have to move toward a planning system based on a clear and easily understood settlement—one that ensures that communities that wish to proactively shape development in their area cannot stymie the meeting of local housing need, while also preventing central Government from unduly stipulating how that need is met on the ground in any given area. That balance is critical, and it is balance that is required, but we believe that that balance has still not properly been struck. That is largely because the default reaction of successive Conservative Governments when confronting the tension that exists between local planning and national planning has been to seek to disempower communities and further horde control at the centre.

Several hon. Members spoke about the great play that earlier Conservative-led Governments made of neighbourhood planning, and it is absolutely true that the coalition Government made great play of it and of localism more generally in their early years. However, since that Administration, successive Conservative Administrations have spent much of the past 10 years ineptly tinkering with the planning system in ways that have systematically undermined the scope for effective local and neighbourhood planning. Far from seeking to remedy that error or to take forward a localism agenda—as the hon. Member for Bosworth, who introduced the debate, argued—the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill doubles down on it.

The hon. Gentleman did not explicitly mention this, although the hon. Member for Totnes did, but the new national development managing policies that the Bill provides for will take precedence over both local and neighbourhood plans where there is a conflict between them “to any extent”—the Bill is very clear about that. In addition, the requirements to consult on any new NDMP are entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State and, unlike with national policy statements, there is no parliamentary approval process.

I just ask Members to consider for a moment what that would mean in practice if the Bill goes through unamended. Those powers would allow a Minister of whatever political allegiance to develop an NDMP encompassing literally any policy designated by them as relating to development or use of land in England, to determine not to consult on that policy and then to use it to overrule any local development plan in conflict with it at the stroke of a pen. Is it any wonder that organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England are warning that if this power is enacted it will stifle local innovation on issues such as affordable housing, energy efficiency and nature conservation, undercut local democratic engagement in and scrutiny of the planning process, and lead to significant delays where conflict between local plans and national policies is contested?

The hon. Member for Totnes was absolutely right when he spoke about the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill as an opportunity. We have an opportunity to reform planning policy in England in a way that empowers local communities. Instead, my fear is that the Bill as drafted is likely only to further erode the legitimacy of the planning system in the public’s eyes by downgrading the status and the scope of local planning. The Government must amend the Bill to ensure that communities are still able to participate effectively in every aspect of development plan formulation, and to make it crystal clear—I think this is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making earlier—that NDMPs can only be used to overrule local and neighbourhood plans in relation to nationally significant issues.

When the Minister responds, I hope we hear from him that he appreciates the concerns that have been expressed about the ways in which the Bill undermines localism in the planning system, and that he is willing to think again about those clauses in the Bill that would undermine local and neighbourhood plans specifically. More widely, I look forward to hearing his thoughts about how the Government might provide greater clarity about the future remit and function of neighbourhood plans and in particular—this point was well made earlier—about what can be done to encourage their uptake by communities, particularly those facing the greatest social, economic or environmental challenges?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Steps taken in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and changes to the national planning policy framework should absolutely address the problems my hon. Friend identifies. Of course, the biggest problem he identifies is the fact that, sadly, South Cambridgeshire has a Liberal Democrat-controlled local planning authority that does not care about community but pursues a narrow political agenda, to the detriment of all.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

With rent levels surging in the private sector and with the local housing allowance frozen once again, millions of hard-pressed tenants across the country are at risk of arrears and eviction. We know that rent tribunals are not an effective safeguard against punitive rent rises, and that the risk of such rises is likely only to increase when section 21 no-fault evictions are finally scrapped. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell the House why his planned renters reform Bill appears to be completely silent on protections for tenants against unaffordable rent rises?

[Michael Gove]

Our renters reform Bill will specifically ensure that people in the private rented sector are protected, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the Bill satisfies the need of the hour.

Affordable Housing (Devon and Cornwall)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate, on the thoughtful way in which she opened it, and on her tenacity in returning to this issue time and again. I know that she has been highlighting it since she was elected. I also thank all Members who have participated this afternoon. We have had a series of excellent contributions, as well as a range of practical suggestions and questions, which I hope the Minister will respond to.

As many of the hon. Members present will be aware, having taken part in them, this is not the first debate this year to grapple with the issues of access and affordability relating to housing in rural and coastal communities. Indeed, there have been several Westminster Hall debates over recent months in which Members from across the House have raised serious concerns, particularly about the impact of second homes and short-term and holiday lets on the availability and affordability of homes for local people to buy and rent. That, in itself, speaks to the importance of this matter to a great many people across the country, as well as the pressing need for more to be done to address the problem so that we get the balance right between the benefits that second homes and short-term lets undoubtedly bring to local economies and their impact on local people.

It is clear from the strength of feeling expressed in this debate, and in those other recent debates, that there remains a clear view among a sizeable number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, that as things stand the Government have not done enough, and have not got that balance right. That lack of action on the part of the Government has real consequences. I do not think it is hyperbole to use the word “crisis”, as many hon. Members have done. I think that this is a crisis, particularly as it applies to Devon and Cornwall—but also to other parts of England, as we have heard.

What does that crisis look like? As we have heard, as well as entailing the loss of a significant proportion of the permanent population—and the impact that loss has on local services, amenities and the sustainability and cohesion of communities—excessive and growing rates of second home ownership are, in a great many rural and coastal areas, directly impacting the affordability, and therefore the availability, of local homes, particularly for local first-time buyers. The staggering growth in short-term and holiday lets in many rural and coastal constituencies is having the same detrimental impact, albeit on not only the number of affordable homes for local people to buy, but access to private rentals—as we heard—for those who cannot buy and also cannot secure social housing.

Incidentally, when it comes to the shrinking private rental markets in many rural and coastal communities, the issue is not only of access but of security. Many renters in these parts of the country—particularly key workers—are finding that their landlord wishes to begin using their property exclusively as a short-term or holiday let, and they are evicted as a result. That is yet another reason for the Government—who I must say have failed to bring forward a renters’ reform Bill in this Session, despite promising to do so in the Queen’s Speech—to get on with it and finally introduce the legislation necessary to ban no-fault evictions, rather than delaying matters for another year or year and a half with a White Paper.

What, then, needs to happen to ensure that we make available more affordable housing in Devon, Cornwall and other rural and coastal communities across the country? First, as I have said on previous occasions, there is clearly more that could be done to mitigate the negative impact of excessive numbers of second homes and holiday lets.

When it comes to non-planning levers—primarily taxation—we accept that the Government have taken action over recent years by reforming stamp duty, allowing local authorities to increase council tax to 100% for second homes, and proposing that properties be required to have been let for 70 days in any given financial year to be liable for business rates, rather than council tax. However, there is a strong case for going further. We believe the Government should explore providing local authorities with powers to, for example, introduce licensing regimes for second homes and short-term lets, and giving them even greater discretion over their council tax regimes, perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) just mentioned, allowing local authorities, as Labour has done in government in Wales, to levy a premium or surcharge on second homes and long-term empty properties if they believe that is what is required in their locality.

I believe there remains a strong case for reviewing whether the current 3% rate of stamp duty surcharge on second homes and the 5% rate levied on non-UK buyers are set at the appropriate level in light of the boom that we have witnessed over the course of the pandemic. When it comes to planning levers, the system does now enable residents to put in place local neighbourhood plans that can go some way to managing second-home ownership rates, but again it is clear that further measures are required. We believe that the Government should explore further changes to planning restrictions and enforcement that might enable local authorities to bear down on excessive numbers of second homes and holiday lets in a way that, if designed well, would not exacerbate the problems of affordability and availability that have been touched on in today’s debate.

Secondly, as well as doing more to mitigate the negative impact of, in particular, second homes and holiday lets, Ministers really do need to start grappling with what reforms are required to deliver the right quantity of new housing in the right places, at prices that local people can actually afford. They need to do so because at present the Government are failing to deliver on this front, both in terms of sufficient numbers of new affordable homes to rent—where Ministers are presiding over a system that sees a net loss of thousands of genuinely affordable social rented homes each and every year—and new affordable homes to buy.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) mentioned shared ownership and the first homes scheme. I could spend a long time speaking about the deficiencies of shared ownership as an intermediate model. I gently suggest to the Minister that, like its starter homes forerunner, the Government’s flagship first homes scheme, as a policy, looks to all intents and purposes like it is already an abject failure. Not only is it leading to a significant reduction in the number of social and affordable homes to rent by top-slicing funding secured through section 106 agreements, but since it was first introduced, rising house prices, coupled with a rising new build premium, have already eroded the value of the first homes discount, by my calculations, in almost three quarters of local authority areas.

The simple fact is that the policy does not address the underlying reasons why young people and key workers cannot get on to the housing ladder, particularly in areas with overheated housing markets, such as Devon and Cornwall. Labour is committed to giving first-time buyers first dibs on new homes in their local area, and to establishing a new definition of affordable, set at a rate of 30% of local incomes, rather than the present definition, which is linked to those overheated market rates that we have discussed.

I conclude by saying that this has been a worthwhile debate, and I have no doubt that we will return to this subject once again in the next Session unless the Government decide to heed the demands of hon. Members, including many on their own side, and act quickly on this issue. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister, both that the Government are minded to do so and precisely what that action will entail.

Building Safety Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

This Bill has been a long time in gestation. First published in July 2020, it was subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny and was examined in exhaustive detail over five long weeks in Committee in the autumn of last year. Then, in January this year, the Government accepted that the approach they had taken to the building safety crisis over a period of more than four years following the Grenfell fire had not worked, and they announced that it would change. We raised a series of questions and concerns about what that change of approach would mean in practice, but we welcomed the fact that it had finally happened. It is of course right that we seek to ensure that those who profited from the sale of unsafe buildings and construction products pay their fair share when it comes to putting things right, that every developer and freeholder who can shoulders the financial burden of fixing their own buildings, that we restore common sense and proportionality to the assessment of building safety in general, and that leaseholders are properly protected from the costs of remediating all historical cladding and non-cladding defects. Labour has urged the Government to act on all these fronts, and more, for years, and we are pleased that we are now finally making progress toward some semblance of a comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis.

However, the manner and the pace at which this already complex and technical Bill has been overhauled to reflect the Government’s belated change of heart has been deeply problematic. Large sections of the Bill have been completely rewritten on the basis of hundreds of Government amendments tabled in the other place that the noble Lords had relatively little time to consider carefully or properly scrutinise. We welcome many of those amendments, particularly the removal of the building safety charge and the abolition of building safety managers, and we also welcome the important concessions the Government made in the other place in response to Labour amendments—for example, to exempt social housing providers from the levy. But that does not detract from the fact that this is no way to make good law, and I want to put on record the Opposition’s serious misgivings about the way the Government have gone about revising the Bill. As a result of the way it has been modified, it is now, by all accounts, something of a mess, and the five pages of complex Government amendments tabled yesterday afternoon, which again provided hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House with little time to properly consider them, do little to remedy that fact.

Nevertheless, the Opposition have always maintained that we want to see a version of the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. As such, our focus is now on ensuring that its most glaring remaining defects are addressed so that it can be passed in what remains of this Session. To that end, there are five specific issues to be considered today: the duties placed on the Building Safety Regulator with regard to reviewing safety and standards, protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height, protection for leaseholders in enfranchised buildings, the issue of buildings held in trust, and the proposed leaseholder cap.

The first can be dealt with very quickly. As well as having the resource and capacity to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it, it is critically important that the new Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive be clearly tasked in the early years of its operation with assessing the benefits and costs of a range of measures in relation to safety and standards. Lords amendment 6 specified four—fire suppression systems, the safety of stairways and ramps, the certification of electrical equipment, and provision for people with disabilities—and we supported it. Having maintained in the other place that the amendment was entirely unnecessary, the Government yesterday tabled an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 6 that almost entirely mirrors its provisions. On that basis, we will support that Government amendment.

The second issue is protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height. As I argued on Report on 19 January, 18 metres was always a crude and arbitrary threshold that not only failed to adequately reflect the complexity of fire risk but was an entirely unsound basis for determining which blameless leaseholders were and were not protected by the state from the costs of remediation. The same argument applies to the 11-metre threshold. The blameless leaseholders who are trapped living in unsafe smaller buildings deserve the same protection as those in mid and high-rise unsafe buildings. As the Earl of Lytton argued in the other place:

“There seems no good reason for height exclusion on any moral, economic, safety or practical ground.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1508.]

The Government maintain—the Minister said as much again in his remarks—that there are no systemic building safety issues with buildings under 11 metres, yet we know from the devastating incident at Richmond House in Worcester Park in 2019 just how dangerous to life defective buildings under this height threshold can be. The Government further maintain that buildings under 11 metres in height that are dangerous are few in number. I suspect that is almost certainly the case, but all the more reason, then, to provide financial support to those blameless leaseholders who find themselves living in them rather than leaving them without protection. I noted what the Minister said when he gave a commitment that the Government would review such buildings on a case-by-case basis, but it begs the question: why will the Government not act by amending the Bill to cater for the exceptional circumstances that he spoke about?

[Rushanara Ali]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government do not act to safeguard such blocks, the people who live in those kinds of accommodation will find it very difficult to be insured and to get mortgages? This is a short-sighted response, when the Government could address these issues in the round.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it has been a consistent position of ours that we ensure that all leaseholders affected by the building safety crisis are protected irrespective of circumstance, including what height their building happens to be. For that reason, we will oppose Government amendment (a), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 94, and seek to ensure that the Lords amendment remains unmodified.

I turn to the third issue we are considering this afternoon: enfranchised buildings. Under the Bill, enfranchised leaseholders will, in effect, be treated as freeholders when it comes to the costs of remediation. That cannot be right. Buildings that have exercised a right to collective enfranchisement, or those on commonhold land, may be few in number, but it has been the policy of successive Governments to encourage leaseholders to enfranchise and to promote the right to manage. Indeed, the Government have promised legislation in the next Session to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to buy the freehold of their building, yet the Government have put forward no solution whatever to the issue of enfranchised buildings in the Bill as it stands, and they are seemingly content, at least until this afternoon, to see such leaseholders completely excluded from the protections enjoyed by those in buildings that remain unenfranchised. We vehemently disagree with that position. It is imperative that such leaseholders are afforded the same protection as those who do not collectively own or manage their buildings. As Lord Young put it in the other place,

“it would be perverse if the legislation before us today put enfranchised leaseholders in a worse position than leaseholders who are not enfranchised”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2022; Vol. 820. c. 1509.]

It is essential that the service charge protections set out in schedule 8 to the Bill apply clearly to enfranchised buildings and buildings where the right to manage has been exercised, which is another reason why we cannot support Government amendment (a), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 94, and why we will seek to divide the House on it. The Minister is right to say that pressing the amendment to a vote is not enough, and that at some point the Government will have to go further than simply accepting Lords amendment 94 or a version of it, because the Bill in its current form would not prevent resident-owned companies from making unlimited demands on leaseholders in their capacity as shareholders, to cover the costs that they would be unable to pass on via service charges if the Lords amendment, or a version of it, were to remain part of the Bill. So the Government will have to act.

I noted what the Minister said about a consultation, but I have to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is too late in the day to consult on this matter. Four and a half years after Grenfell, the Bill needs to be amended to reflect and deal with this issue.

I turn to the fourth issue we are considering this afternoon, which is buildings held in trust. As it stands, buildings held in trust on behalf of a third-party investor, where the landlord is a professional depository or custodian regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, or buildings owned on trust by what I can only describe as ground rent grazers—almost invariably based offshore—do not meet any of the association tests or the net wealth test in the Bill. Unless the Bill is revised to capture such trustee arrangements, they will escape the so-called waterfall system as set out in schedule 8, and the leaseholders will find themselves picking up a proportion of the costs of non-cladding remediation. The Minister is right to say that, in the other place, the Government accepted that the Bill needed to be so modified, and yesterday they tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 98 as a result.

Let me be clear that the inclusion of Lords amendment 98, as amended in the way the Government propose, would make for a better Bill than one that has no provision addressing the trustee loophole whatever. However, the Government amendment tabled yesterday afternoon has serious deficiencies, which are almost certainly the result—I make no charge against the officials involved—of the hurried timescale in which it has been drafted and tabled. Let me take the two most obvious problems with it. First, the Government amendment covers only partnerships or bodies corporate that are a beneficiary of a trust; private individuals are entirely excluded. That cannot be right, and they must be brought within the scope of these arrangements.

Secondly, the Government amendment makes no distinction whatever between types of trusts. A local authority pension fund, for example, will be liable under the waterfall system in precisely the same way as an offshore ground rent grazer. We believe that that is wrong and that the Government should think further about how they might better protect trusts where there is a clear public interest in doing so. We will not oppose Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 98, but I urge the Minister and his officials to go away and consider whether the flaws in the Government amendment as currently drafted can be rectified as the Bill progresses.

General Practice: Large Housing Developments

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd.

I genuinely think that this has been a valuable debate about an important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing it and on the typically clear and powerful remarks he made in opening it. He has been raising concerns about this issue for a considerable period, and the fact that he felt compelled to secure this debate today only serves, I am afraid to say, to highlight the startling lack of progress on the part of the Government in addressing those concerns.

The concerns are not the hon. Gentleman’s alone; indeed, this issue is not confined to his corner of Bedfordshire. His concerns are widely shared across the House. As the attendance for today’s debate makes clear, they are keenly felt among Government Members in particular. I thank all the Members who have contributed this morning.

Having heard today’s contributions, we can only hope that the Minister will at least be convinced of the need to go away and revisit the fundamental aspects of a planning system that routinely fails to produce the necessary social infrastructure for new communities to thrive. We have heard lots of complaints and points of contention today, but it is within the Government’s gift to take action on many of the issues that have been raised. I hope that the Minister will go away with renewed vigour to address them.

The focus of this morning’s debate has been on the provision of primary care services for large-scale housing developments. I add my praise to the general expressions of support that have been conveyed today to GPs and GP practice staff. That we face significant challenges as a country when it comes to primary care capacity is not in dispute. The reasons for that shortage are complex, and when it comes to problems such as the recruitment and retention of enough GPs to accommodate rising patient demand or how local health services plan for population growth in service provision, those are obviously the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care. However, there is no question in my mind but that the planning system is exacerbating the crisis in primary care, particularly in areas experiencing significant development, by failing to deliver new facilities in places where the needs of large-scale new communities cannot be met simply by the expansion of existing sites.

The particular concern of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire and others who have spoken this morning is general practice capacity, but the national failure to ensure that all new large-scale housing developments have adequate primary care provision is mirrored in other forms of infrastructure, whether that be school places or transport, as the hon. Members for Wantage (David Johnston), for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and others have remarked upon. Having that infrastructure is absolutely key to gaining local consent, which is an essential part of the planning process.

I do not think that this issue is primarily one of housing supply. There is a housing crisis and we need to address it, but the crux of this issue is the need for up-front infrastructure investment before or at the point that a large-scale residential development completes and new residents move in. However, the planning system as it currently operates—and I think Conservative Members will accept this—is simply not geared up to facilitate that infrastructure-first approach on all major sites; all too often, no one has overall responsibility for place-making.

The importance of master developers was clearly identified in the Letwin review: they strategically assemble land, secure the necessary permissions, co-ordinate the delivery of the infrastructure and de-risk the development process as a matter of course. Without those developers, the system incentivises volume house builders to build often poor-quality housing in inappropriate and often entirely car-dependent locations, in a way that frequently leads to intractable disputes about how core infrastructure and services will be delivered and who will pay for them. Ultimately, the fact that the planning system lacks many of the features necessary to support effective large-scale housing growth stems from the failure of central Government to take a clear strategic role in the delivery of new large-scale communities.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire and others drew attention to the inadequacies of the housing infrastructure fund, and they were right to do so. The fund can and does support the delivery of infrastructure on sites where viability is an issue and address the need for up-front infrastructure and the problem of risk on a limited number of sites. However, because it distributes funding on a competitive, ad hoc basis, it is not a general solution for the infrastructure needs of all large-scale housing developments.

Homes England could play a far larger role in providing local authorities with support and assisting local partners directly with delivery, land acquisition and the master developer role. It has extensive legal powers that allow it to take on that role and obtain land by means of compulsory purchase. It could be the instrument the Government use to support large-scale growth with the necessary social and transport infrastructure. However, that would depend on the Government having a strategy; at present, I am afraid, they do not. Although there are exceptions, in general terms it is simply a fact that central Government in England do not play a clear strategic role in site identification or the delivery of new large-scale communities.

The national infrastructure strategy sets out a range of investment priorities, but it does not provide a framework that makes clear which areas are preferred for long-term priority housing growth and their relationship to infrastructure investment. National planning policy on delivering sustainable, large-scale housing developments is incredibly vague and provides little in the way of encouragement or guidance to local authorities contemplating meeting local housing need in key strategic locations.

The Conservative Administration of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) changed the law in 2018 to encourage locally led development corporations to act as master developers. However, to the best of my knowledge—the Minister may correct me—none has yet been designated.

In many ways, the root cause of the infrastructure challenges on sites such as those that have been mentioned today is the issue of land value capture. Aside from direct Government grant, development of those sites is reliant on developer contributions in the form of section 106 or the community infrastructure levy to meet essential infrastructure needs. However, those contributions are often not sufficient to provide all the infrastructure needed on those sites. I am surprised that this has not been mentioned today, but that is at least partly a direct consequence of the impact of viability rules set out in the 2012 national planning policy framework, which allow developers to game the system and drive down section 106 contributions. Although in some cases local authorities could be more robust with developers, the national planning policy framework ties their hands behind their backs in terms of what they can extract as public gains under section 106.

The Minister will no doubt point to the Government’s proposals, mentioned most recently in the levelling-up White Paper, to introduce a new infrastructure levy. However, at present, we have no idea how it would apply to large-scale development or deal with areas of low demand, how much it would yield or the date by which we can expect it to be implemented. There is an immediate deficit, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said in his opening remarks.

Given how heavily the Government appear to be leaning on the new levy as a means to secure affordable housing and the infrastructure communities need, perhaps the Minister might give us a sense of what the new levy will look like, what form it will take and when it will be brought before the House for consideration. Indeed, he might even go so far as to give Members a straight answer to the more fundamental question of whether the Government still intend to legislate for a reform of the planning system in this Parliament.

To conclude, this debate has highlighted a problem that is not confined to a handful of sites or to particular parts of England, but is the inevitable outcome of the current planning system, which does not provide the necessary social and transport infrastructure on major sites as a matter of course. Addressing that problem requires a fundamental change of approach on the part of the Government, not just tinkering around the edges with individual infrastructure funding streams.

Real benefits can be gained if the Department is willing to grapple seriously with the problem, not only in delivering a marked increase in housing supply but in terms of the quality and sustainability of the new communities that could be created. The alternative is that we continue to see more poor-quality housing in inappropriate locations without the necessary infrastructure that residents need to flourish. Members across the House do not want to see that outcome, and I suspect the Minister does not want to see it either, but do the Government have the political will to re-examine the flawed system that they are currently presiding over?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank my right hon. Friend for asking such a specific question. I do not have those figures to hand, but I will ensure that I get them to him. He makes a very valid point, and I will come on to some of the things that we are looking at to address exactly his points.

I was talking about local plans, which provide certainty for communities, businesses and developers. An effective and up-to-date plan is essential not only to meet an area’s housing requirements, but to create well-designed and attractive places to live, with the services that people need on their doorstep. We are already helping councils to put in place such robust and up-to-date plans. That includes encouraging visits from the Planning Inspectorate and specialist advice from the Planning Advisory Service to provide a range of specialist planning advice to councils throughout England.

Plans should be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators, and statutory consultees. They should seek to meet the development needs of their area, and that includes facilities that will be needed across health, schools and other areas. We recognise, however, that more work is needed. We want all infrastructure providers, including healthcare providers, to be much more engaged in the plan making right from the outset, because that is clearly not happening enough, as we have heard in the evidence of colleagues today. We will come forward on how we will do that as part of our reforms in due course.

Local plans are not the only means of improving services and building that vital infrastructure. There are clear regulatory frameworks for local authorities and developers to follow. The national planning policy framework, for example, states that local plans should aim for sustainable development, which means that new schools, hospitals and local services such as GP practices should be factored in from the outset. Proposed development should be shaped by effective engagement with the local community, so that planners and developers know what is really needed. In some areas, it might be new roads, bridges or bus depots, but in others it will be new nurseries or GP surgeries. That engagement should extend to relevant health bodies too, such as NHS trusts and the clinical commissioning groups, to ensure that any development helps rather than hinders local strategies to improve health and wellbeing.

Local healthwatch organisations have a role to play. They have a firm grasp on the concerns of people who use health and social care services. My Department strongly encourages planning authorities to consult them when new homes are being built, so that they can raise those all-important questions on the number of GPs needed. Equally, to some extent local plans should head some of that off before houses are actually built. I have, however, listened to what colleagues have said—I hear it loud and clear. Put simply, if a GP surgery is right in the centre of town and a new development is on the outskirts, it is obviously better to ensure that a new surgery is built closer to the homes it will serve.

We have touched on some of the funding. Hon. Members are aware that councils obtain contributions through a community infrastructure levy on new development and by negotiating section 106 planning obligations with a developer. That helps to create funding not just for housing, but to address local infrastructure needs. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, about £5.5m has been allocated to healthcare provision through such funding, and that should be spent on helping to provide GP practices.

I recognise, however, that there is an issue here about which we need to do more. We hope that part of the effective planning reforms that we are to introduce will answer some of that. Our ambition has always been to simplify the system and to ensure that development becomes synonymous with improved services, and healthier and happier neighbourhoods. That is why we are exploring the introduction of a new infrastructure levy to replace the existing system of developer contributions.

At the moment, we plan for that new levy to be payable on completion of development. That will replace the negotiation and renegotiation that we keep seeing happen. The new levy will not be negotiable and will maximise land value, so we get more for local communities. It will also bring much greater certainty on costs, on factoring expenditure into the price paid for land and, in turn, on delivering more vital infrastructure. Under our proposals, local authorities would be allowed to borrow against infrastructure levy revenues so that they could bring forward vital improvements to services, including expanding GP capacity, before the first spade of a new development even hits the ground.

That said, I recognise that we need to test the policy. Many issues have been raised. I cannot at this moment commit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a meeting, but I will raise with him the suggestions and comments made today, and I will meet my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to raise the points made, to ensure that we are prioritising, gearing up and keeping focus, so that we can see what more can be done, and so that we do not miss the opportunity provided by the new fund to get the necessary infrastructure.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister may not be able to answer, but may I tempt him to name the legislative vehicle by which the new infrastructure levy will be introduced?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Member will not have to wait too long before hearing which vehicle will be used; I hope it will be in a couple of weeks.

I want to touch on the issue of transparency. We have introduced infrastructure funding statements, which give people the opportunity to see what councils have done, but we can and must do more to give confidence to residents. That brings me on to community engagement.

As hon. Members will know, changes to the levy system are by no means the only improvement we want to bring to our planning system. One of the reasons why new development has not always been matched with tangible improvements to schools, nurseries or GP practices is that it has not always been easy for local residents to scrutinise applications or to make their voices heard. We need a faster, more responsive planning system, fit for the modern age. That means embracing digital technology and encouraging more residents to voice their views on what is being built in their community, and where.

I know that some of our previous proposals generated significant debate, to say the least, and it is therefore right that we paused for thought and took stock of different voices from across the planning sector and beyond, but on this ambition we are determined to make headway because we believe that it will result in more real-world improvements to services, which hon. Members all want to see.

My ministerial colleagues and I hope to announce a way forward soon so that the planning system supports our wider mission to level up communities in Bedfordshire and right across the country. The key point is that, at its heart, communities must be involved. Communities and neighbourhoods should be shaping the places in which they live, so that we have beautiful places with the necessary infrastructure and a democratic system that also considers environmental improvements. Neighbourhoods should have a big say in all of it.

Colleagues raised a number of other points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) never misses an opportunity to raise housing targets with me. She knows from our conversations and meetings that I understand the issue. If she will allow me, I will come back to her in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) has also been quick off the mark to come to see me to discuss the issues in his constituency. Again, I understand them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough talked, quite rightly, about wanting to support new housing but that we should be building places where people want to live, not just huge dormitory estates. There has to be a sense of community. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked me to double up with the Secretary of State after his report—I will make sure that I do that for him.

I will see my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) later today to discuss the issue of second homes and its impact on those working in the public sector. I hope we will have a constructive meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) talked about towns I know well. My mother-in-law lives in Addingham, so I will get an earful from her if I do not get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) talked rightly about the stark increase—from 16,000 to 26,000—in the number of patients at his surgery. That is absolutely an area we need to look at carefully. He also talked about all of the different funds that are available. I think that that is one of the most confusing issues, and it is something that I would like to address as we go forward.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about the new levy. We are currently working with local authorities, providers and industry to ensure that the levy works for everybody.

In closing, I reiterate that I have heard loud and clear the concerns of hon. Members. The frustration of our constituents when large-scale new developments are green lit and local services become increasingly congested is palpable for us all. I hope I have clearly set out what we have already done to address that, through local plans, NPPF and section 106 agreements. I have also reiterated that we intend to go much further, by creating a more streamlined, smoother planning system, which levels up infrastructure and local services in every part of the country. I say to my hon. Friends that I am committed to working with all of them to ensure that we can make that vision a reality.

Private Rented Sector Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. The debate is incredibly important. The issue does not get enough attention in this place but, as all Members will know, it is of huge and growing importance to many of our constituents, not least given the size of the private rented sector and its ongoing—and, indeed, accelerating—expansion.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate and on the way he opened it. As always, he spoke with great force and sincerity on behalf of his constituents, and brought alive the reality of the appalling conditions faced by far too many of those renting privately.

Following his impassioned remarks, we heard a series of incredibly powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Their contributions were all directly informed by their respective constituency experiences and the obviously huge housing caseloads each of them deals with on a weekly basis.

It is not in dispute that some of the worst standards in housing are in the private rented sector. It goes without saying that that statement should not be taken to imply that every privately rented property is in bad condition, or that all private landlords fail their tenants. I also fully accept—no doubt it will be referenced in the remarks the Minister’s officials have prepared for him—that, measured by either the decent homes standard or the housing health and safety rating system category 1 hazards, the absolute number and proportion of poor quality private rented homes continues to fall, albeit steadily rather than drastically, as part of a half century if not longer of improvement in housing standards.

There is still clearly an acute problem for those private sector tenants who are the most vulnerable, have little or no purchasing power, are increasingly concentrated at the lower end of the private rental market and—as anecdotal evidence would suggest—are also increasingly concentrated geographically. However, we still need the Department to provide accurate data on precisely how private rented homes are distributed across the country.

As we have heard from all speakers today, for tenants forced to live in homes that do not meet the decent homes standard and that often have a category 1 hazard what should be a place of refuge and comfort is instead a source of daily anxiety and, in many cases, torment and misery. Whether they wake up every day to mould, vermin or dangerous hazards, today’s debate has provided yet more evidence that substandard private rented housing takes a huge toll on the physical and mental health of those in it and prevents families and children—it is this I find the most saddening—from flourishing as they should be able to.

I know the Under-Secretary cares deeply about improving housing standards and life chances, but it should be a real source of shame to him and his colleagues that after 12 years of Conservative-led Government, one in five homes in the private rented sector still does not meet the decent homes standard and one in 10 has a category 1 hazard posing a risk of serious harm. The Minister and his colleagues should be agitating week in, week out for the changes necessary to bear down decisively on this problem, and for those changes to be enacted as a matter of urgency. What makes the situation all the more frustrating is that it is patently obvious what the required changes are and, indeed, there is broad consensus across the House on most of them.

I leave aside the more fundamental issue of a striking lack of decent, secure and genuinely affordable social homes to rent, which is in many ways at the heart of the problem, and will instead use the time left to explore in a little more detail the three most important areas where change in the private rented sector is required: standards, enforcement and rights. Each has already featured in the debate.

First, on standards, a technical but crucial issue is that the Government need to review and strengthen national standards for rented homes, and to do so at pace. The decent homes standard, which provides for general benchmarking, has not been updated since 2006. It is welcome that it is being reviewed, but the process needs to be expedited. Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect the decent homes standard review to complete? The HHSRS is also under review and we need the conclusions of that exercise to be published as soon as possible. Will the Minister give us an update on when he expects that review to complete?

My final point on standards is that, in the levelling-up White Paper, the Government committed to exploring

“proposals for new minimum standards for rented homes”.

Obviously, we have no issue with that in principle, but will the Minister give us some sense of how such minimum standards would interact with the updated decent homes standard and the HHSRS? The last thing we need is to make the current regime even more complex and challenging to administer.

Secondly, the Government must start taking enforcement more seriously. A number of contributors have talked about the importance of enforcement. The Minister could emerge from Marsham Street in a month’s time with proposals for the most robust set of national standards possible, but it would count for little if those standards could not then be enforced in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North mentioned, two changes need to be made if the Government are to facilitate the proper enforcement of standards across the country.

The first is to give local authorities the means to enforce standards properly themselves. At present, enforcement of standards across the country is incredibly patchy and tenants face a postcode lottery as a result. Those councils that could do more with the resources they have but are not need to be encouraged to do so, but the problem in large part is the product of central Government funding cuts over many years. Does the Minister accept as much? If so, what plans do the Government have to provide local authorities with the funding and support they need to enforce regulations, as well as enabling, rather than frustrating, those authorities that wish to adopt landlord licensing schemes?

The second change is to enable tenants themselves to enforce standards. I appreciate that the issue lies outside of the Minister’s departmental responsibilities, but does he accept that unless legal aid is reintroduced for disrepair claims so that lower income tenants can seek to enforce existing standards—let alone future standards—progress on his objectives is likely to be held back?

Thirdly, the Government must act now to give renters more rights and better protection, so that they can seek redress for poor quality conditions and disrepair without fear of retribution. There is clear consensus across the House that we need to overhaul the outdated legislation that applies to the private rented sector. However, it is now three years since the Conservative Administration of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions. There has been a lot of talk about the White Paper today but, perhaps most disappointingly, we were promised a renter’s reform Bill in the Queen’s Speech last year yet as we approach the end of the Session, not only is there no sign of that Bill but we are now told to expect a White Paper in its place in the spring.

Of course, we need to ensure that any proposals for reform are considered and properly scrutinised, but tenants need protection now. They cannot afford to wait 12, 16, 18, 24 months or longer for the White Paper to be published and consulted on and for legislation to be brought forward. Given the implications for tenants suffering now, I would like to hear from the Minister why, having committed to a Bill in this Session, the Government have now determined that a White Paper will do instead.

To conclude, the House must act to improve conditions for the millions of private renters trapped in substandard housing, and must act quickly. Tenants living in squalid conditions cannot wait years while the Government slowly analyse yet more reviews and engage in more consultations and delay. We know what needs to happen; it is now a question of delivering it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are not only seized by the urgency of the problem but, as a result, will look again at how the changes that need to be made can be enacted quickly.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave three minutes at least for Ian Byrne to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

It is great to hear about good work that is going on across the country, and I fully accept that we can learn from the work that other areas are doing.

I quickly want to cover a few more points. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned Louise’s case. I would be grateful if she would write to me, so I can pick up that case, because we need to be concerned about standards in all forms of accommodation, and student accommodation is one of them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised working with devolved assemblies. One of the things I have been working on is the new homes ombudsman, who will ensure the new properties we build are of an appropriate quality. We have been working very closely with the devolved Assemblies on that issue, and we will continue to do so in other areas.

I am grateful for the invitation from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) to visit. I hope there is no reshuffle before I get the opportunity to get out and about more, to say the least. With regard to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), when we are talking about insecurity and poor quality housing, I hope that work to abolish section 21 will address both those points because tenants will have more security and more leverage to complain about the standards of accommodation they are being provided with.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The one question I would like the Minister to answer before he wraps up is why the Government have decided to replace a commitment to a renters reform Bill in this Session with a White Paper. Can he guarantee that we will get that comprehensive renters reform Bill in this Parliament?

[Eddie Hughes]

It would be fair to say that I will do everything I can. I feel personally invested in ensuring that happens. On the delay, I am not sure this is the legitimate answer the Government expect me to give, but we have been through two years of covid, and I have seen—we are seeing it now with the situation in Ukraine—that a number of staff have to pivot to the most pressing item that the Government are dealing with. We have a finite number of staff, and clearly covid has caused incredible challenges for the Government. I personally feel that they have responded well, but I understand the frustration. I conclude by saying that the debate has been incredibly useful for me—

Draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for so ably summarising the regulations, which, for reasons that will be obvious to Committee members, are entirely straightforward, as the Minister said, and uncontroversial. None the less, as I said to the hon. Gentleman before the Committee sat, I am going to make him earn his salary by asking a series of quick questions, some general and some specific to the SI.

First, in relation to the general issue of—

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman starts, it might be worth reminding him that he may only put questions relating to this particular SI and not to more general matters at all. That would not be in order.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Thank you for clarifying that, Mr Gray. My questions relate directly to the instrument in the sense that it concerns EPC ratings.

The Minister is responsible for the climate change portfolio and net zero policy in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and therefore he will have a keen grasp of the scale of the challenge we face to retrofit our country’s extremely inefficient building stock, and the importance to that national effort of accurate information about current ratings. Given that the regulations relate to the EPC register, I am keen to understand whether the Department knows the exact proportion of buildings in England and Wales that are on that register and, crucially, whether all buildings with EPC ratings are adding their names to that register. How confident is he that it is accurate?

Secondly, as for the effect of the regulations, the explanatory memorandum notes that as a result of the progressive shift to cloud-based systems, as the Minister noted, the Government have been overcharging the fees to register for some time. The precise period of overcharging is not specified. The fees are required to cover the cost of the register and although the fees reduction may seem small, when aggregated we are talking about serious amounts of money that have been overcharged and over-recorded during that period, whatever it might be. I simply wish to know how long that overcharging has run; how much has been collected as a result and what the Government have done with that money?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Matthew Pennycook.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Opposition have repeatedly criticised the Government’s First Homes scheme on the grounds that, by top-slicing section 106 funding, it drastically reduces the number of social and affordable rented homes that are being built, but we also have concerns that the scheme is failing in practice to help large numbers of first-time buyers across the country. Given that the new build premium is continuing to rise, and given that UK house price index data suggest that average house prices in England have increased by 18% since the scheme was first consulted on, can the Minister tell us in how many local authority areas the discount on those homes has not already been entirely eroded?

High-rise Buildings: Remediation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. This has been an incredibly worthwhile debate on an issue that we all agree deserves more attention. That will only increase in significance in the months and years ahead as more and more buildings compromised by historical cladding and non-cladding defects undergo remediation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing the debate. He spoke forcefully on behalf of his constituents in St Francis Tower. I add to the general and well-deserved praise bestowed on the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions, and for bringing to the attention of the House the plight of constituents in Mandale House, Vista Tower, and other affected buildings.

Each Member has touched on this, but any hon. or right hon. Member whose constituency contains buildings with historical cladding or non-cladding defects will know of the abject misery that the building safety scandal has caused to residents. At the point that they learn that the home they believed to be safe is a fire risk, they are immediately trapped—physically, mentally and financially.

The point at which remediation works finally begin—particularly when the full cost has been met by either the freeholder or the building safety fund—should be the moment at which that misery begins to somewhat dissipate. However, as the hon. Member for Ipswich brought home in his introductory remarks, and as others have argued on the basis of cases in their constituencies, those vital remediation works, for too many residents, are a continuation of the distress that they have been experiencing.

Whether it is the psychological damage of having their home shrouded in plastic sheeting for months on end, if not years, the associated physical and mental health implications of being denied natural light or fresh air, the security risk, which we have touched on, or the financial impacts of buildings being exposed to the elements, there is no doubt that remediation works that are not undertaken with the appropriate sensitivity can and do have a detrimental impact on residents in high-rise buildings.

We have heard several suggestions this morning about how the issue can be tackled. I think that the hon. Member for Stevenage raised the idea of a digital register of new and remediated buildings. I think that is absolutely unarguable, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.

Several hon. Members raised the idea of relocating residents from buildings. That may be necessary in some cases, but the idea that all affected residents could be provided with alternative accommodation for the duration of remediation works is deeply problematic, not only because of the astronomical cost, but the practical difficulties that would be involved in such an undertaking, given the thousands of buildings that must be made safe over the coming years.

I actually agree with the hon. Member for Stevenage: surely the simplest way to minimise the impact of remediation works on residents in these buildings is for the Government to look to introduce some kind of code of practice that would seek to ensure that remediation works are carried out as sensitively as possible. There may be a standard alternative to that opaque plastic sheeting, which we can encourage developers to take on board. Even if that is not possible, and plastic sheeting is required, there are ways, and examples around the country, of how freeholders, managing agents and those they contract, can undertake those works in a more sensitive manner, often as a result of extensive consultations with residents about their particular needs.

He is sadly not in this morning’s debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) was telling me about a block in his constituency just the other evening. The landlord, Plymouth Community Homes, has ensured that a young boy with autism who loves looking out of his window at the ships coming and going from the dockyard—an important part of his daily routine, I was told—can still do so, despite the cladding remediation works, because the builder installed see-through plastic sheeting around his family’s flat.

That is just one example, taken at random, of what considerate remediation could look like. We know that there are many others across the country. It would surely be an incredibly low-cost initiative for the Government to bring forward that code of practice to ensure that all building owners and managing agents properly engage with residents in drawing up remediation management plans. I very much welcome the Minister’s views on the matter, as I once again welcome him to his place.

Remediation works are not being carried out as sensitively as they could be, and there is an additional problem related to that. As has been raised, residents are having to endure for longer than necessary the inevitable daily noise, dust and general inconvenience that come with building works, often because of a shortage of skills, personnel and materials. We know that there are many obstacles to the building safety crisis being resolved any time soon. However, shortages of suitable replacement materials and appropriately skilled remediation experts have been known about for some time.

All the evidence suggests that the sector is working at full capacity, with many of the firms able to undertake remediation works being booked up years in advance. There is anecdotal evidence that the constraints on people and materials are impacting on the duration of works on individual sites. That is why there is a need to ensure that the remediation works are carried out not only as sensitively as possible, but as quickly as possible. The need for both those things, I would argue, reinforces the case for the Government to look to establish a new building works agency, as Labour has proposed: a single body, accountable to Ministers, that could go block by block to determine which works are necessary under the new PAS 9980 guidance, commission those works, look at the ways in which the impact might be mitigated and certify buildings as safe at the end of the process.

At present, the debate around the building safety crisis is, for completely understandable reasons, focused almost entirely on the issue of who pays. However, if—and I do say if—and when that issue is finally resolved, as we hope it will be if the Building Safety Bill is overhauled as required in the other place, Ministers will have to confront the very real problem of tackling the remediation challenge across the country at pace, and in a way that best limits the harm to the blameless residents caught up in this scandal.

To ensure that, Labour argues that the Government will need to be more interventionist; otherwise, the work will simply never get done. The hon. Member for Stevenage argued that none of us have prepared for the scale of the forthcoming remediation challenge. However, it has been on a lot of our minds for some time. As the Minister will know, various professional bodies have for some time been urging the Government to grip this issue, whether by the Department chairing a taskforce or by creating a body of the kind for which Labour has advocated.

Labour remains of the view that the Government could learn many lessons from the model adopted in Victoria, Australia. As the Minister may know, Cladding Safety Victoria provides a dedicated officer for each affected building, who then appoints a project manager directly. It is obvious how that arrangement could help ensure remediation works are carried out swiftly and considerately. I urge the Minister to look again, if he has not already, at the Australian experience and at what might be learnt from it.

This has been a valuable debate and I welcome the opportunity to hear the concerns of hon. Members from across the House on the effect of remediation works on residents in high-rise buildings. Labour has long pressed the Government to bring forward a comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis that will restore common sense and proportionality to the system, resolve the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability, clear the backlog of building safety fund applications and accelerate the agonisingly slow pace of remediation. However, mitigating the impact of remediation works on residents should not be an afterthought in all this, and I look forward to hearing what the Government will do to ensure that it is not.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Miller. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing it. As he mentioned, he has raised this issue with me before, even before I was in this new role as Minister. I know that he is passionate about trying to resolve many of the issues that his constituents face.

Other hon. Members have also raised important experiences that their constituencies have faced. One of the many things that struck me when I took on this role was the challenge that many of those constituencies have faced. Residents of high-rise buildings across the country probably went into those buildings with the dream of home ownership and the prospect of living in a nice new apartment, which rapidly turned into a nightmare the day they discovered that their flats were clad in dangerous and unsafe materials. That is why the contributions of hon. Members this morning have been so very important. I am deeply aware of the harrowing cases that many have discussed.

Although I am very new in post, I know and have known about the importance of remediation. I am obviously keen to get a grip of it during my time in this role, but I am also very keen to work with colleagues and to continue the cross-party relationship that has clearly delivered some important results for constituents. My door is always open to any colleagues who want to speak to me.

I will in a moment address some of the specific points that were raised. I want to reiterate that I hope that the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), will indicate to the House how seriously the Government take this issue. The whole package of measures that has been announced and the amendments being introduced in the other place as we speak show that there is a shift in addressing the issue. Those who live in high-rise properties can be assured that this matter is being taken seriously, and that we will address their safety concerns. We will also bring a good deal of proportionality into the issue; there are some people living in perfectly safe accommodation who are also feeling very frightened, so we need a sense of proportion.

To come to some of the points that were made, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich talked specifically about St Francis Tower and other buildings in the town. The lack of consultation with residents is, frankly, unacceptable. It does not cost any money to consult with the people who live in those buildings and to explain the processes that have to be undertaken. There are some elements that are necessary: some of the shrink wrapping ensures that residents do not face astronomical heating bills as a result of the cladding coming off. That said, we perhaps need to look at the types of wrapping. He says that he does not believe that there are any other ways. Lord Greenhalgh is dealing with the detail of those things, and I will speak to him when I get back to the Department about the really important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich raised.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about Mandale House and the lack of natural light. I do not think any of us could understand how that would feel—lacking the only source of natural light in one’s building. Those are the sorts of experiences that we have to listen to and learn from, because this will become a bigger problem as remedial works happen all over the country.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I know that when he gets his teeth into a subject, he does not let go—he is like a terrier—and he gave me a bit of a Christmas list of asks. He talked about developing a code of practice, and I will speak to Lord Greenhalgh about the merits of that. My hon. Friend raised the issue of compulsory purchases. That is a big ask, but these things are always worth exploring. I obviously cannot commit to that here, but it is an interesting point.

On the issue of a building safety register, for the high-risk buildings and buildings over 18 metres that are about to be occupied, there will be a register under the new Building Safety Regulator. However, if my hon. Friend has other concerns about that issue, perhaps we can talk about them later. Of course I will happily speak to my counterpart in Northern Ireland. Sharing best practice is right, as it is for the benefit of all the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland: it is important that we share the vital lessons that have been learned.

I hope that we have come a long way in recognising that this is an important issue that needs addressing and that that gives people confidence that the places they live in will have the remedial works that they need, so that they can get back to enjoying the houses and the accommodation that they are living in and enjoying the things in them. I get the point about my hon. Friend’s constituents’ plants; such things are important to people. Someone’s home is the most important place in their life and they want to ensure that they are able to enjoy it safely.

I will touch on the pace of remediation, because that is an important point. We are forcing industry to step up to the plate and take responsibility, of course, but we are also pressing ahead with getting dangerous cladding removed from buildings without delay. As I have said, we have provided the £5.1 billion to address fire safety risk caused by unsafe cladding on these buildings in order to protect residents and we have made great progress in making safe high-rise buildings with the most dangerous form of cladding—ACM cladding, the type that was on Grenfell Tower. Some 93% of all high-rise residential buildings identified with unsafe ACM cladding have now been remediated or have workers on site as we speak, finishing the job, and that rises to 100% in the social sector. For high-rise buildings with unsafe, non-ACM cladding, £1.073 billion has already been allocated from the building safety fund, with £945 million relating to the private sector and £128 million relating to the social sector. So, in total, 892 private sector buildings and 123 social sector buildings are proceeding with a full application to the building safety fund.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not put the Minister on the spot with a question, but I will just request that he go away and consider how we can speed up that application process, because far too many buildings without ACM cladding that have applied to the building safety fund face, even with the portal and the information on it, inconsistencies about the information that is said to be required and submitted, as well as very severe delays in receiving that funding. We are talking about remediation works that can take a year or two, but these buildings are not even at that point because they are still being held up in terms of getting a final award or final decision on remediation. Can he consider what more he can do to speed up that application process for all the buildings across the country that are affected?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will happily commit to go away and look into that issue for the hon. Gentleman, and I will get in touch with him afterwards to update him on that. It is important to say that we have also improved the information available to leaseholders and residents about the building safety fund, with the new online services that provide real-time updates, but I take the point that he has just made.

Clearly, the mental health aspect is a very important issue. I have outlined the steps that the Government are taking to meet a lot of the financial costs of removing the cladding and how we are doing everything within our power physically to speed up remediation. However, in response to the points that hon. Members have made today, I will also say that we also recognise that the building safety crisis has taken a very heavy toll on people’s mental health. Of course, my Department regularly engages with leaseholder groups who have shared with us terrible examples of people being sick to the stomach with stress over the last few years because they are trapped in homes that they are unable to sell or that they cannot afford to fix. We believe that bringing these matters to a swift conclusion through the measures that I have spoken about today is the best way to alleviate the stress and concerns of so many leaseholders.

We know that many residents living in these buildings, including many who have had to endure 24/7 waking watches or who have faced acute financial difficulties, understandably need access to proper mental health support. That is one reason we are working across Government to ensure that all people, regardless of their residential situation, get that help and support they need. Where residents in buildings fitted with flammable cladding need specific mental health support, we are encouraging them to contact their GP to discuss these issues and ensure they are referred to appropriate mental health services. I recognise that we have to look at that in greater detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage asked about the contribution of costs to waking watch being offset under the £10,000 cap, and I confirm that is the case. I am sure his constituent will be happy with that.

Non-commissioned Exempt Accommodation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow that powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).

This has been an excellent debate, featuring a great many thoughtful and impassioned contributions, and I thank all the Members who have taken part in it. As would be expected, there have been points of contention throughout, but there is clearly agreement across the House that far too many people find themselves living in unsafe, poor-quality shared housing without the support that they need to get back on their feet and improve their lives, and that the beneficiaries of this arrangement are the unscrupulous providers who, by exploiting gaps in the existing regulatory regime, have extracted—and continue to extract—significant amounts of public money through the “exempt” provisions relating to housing benefit.

As we have heard today from Members in all parts of the House, those who are suffering so that rogue landlords of this kind can get rich are some of the most vulnerable people in our society: those fleeing domestic abuse, those who have served their time in prison and are trying to make a fresh start, those with severe mental health needs, those battling addiction and substance dependence, those leaving care, and those who have sought and secured asylum in our country and are starting the process of building a new life for themselves. The impact of poor-quality, non-commissioned exempt accommodation on vulnerable individuals like those can be devastating, whether it is the physical and mental consequences of living in squalid conditions, the risks that arise from the absence of effective supervision and safeguarding arrangements, the money gouged from hard-up residents through service charge costs that are ineligible for housing benefit purposes, or simply the inability to sustain an exempt accommodation tenancy, or to move on from one, because of a lack of care or support.

Sharp practice in this sector is causing real harm, and, as we have heard today, it is not only causing harm to the vulnerable individuals placed in this type of housing. Communities with large numbers of badly run exempt-accommodation properties are struggling to cope with the impact of concentrated numbers of people whose lives are, by definition, challenging and often chaotic, and who are not being given the supervision, care and support that they need in order to manage. Most gallingly, it is taxpayers who are subsiding this exploitative arrangement, and are thereby indirectly facilitating its social consequences. This is a situation that cries out for urgent reform, and the motion therefore seeks to ensure that the Government end the exploitation of vulnerable individuals at the hands of unscrupulous agencies, and at the taxpayer’s expense, as a matter of urgency.

I want to respond to a number of the points that have been raised in the debate, and to explain why we believe that a package of emergency measures is required to end this profiteering. Today we have heard numerous accounts of the detrimental impact of poorly managed, poor-quality non-commissioned exempt accommodation across the country. That attests to the scale of the problem, and to the fact that it is not an issue that affects only some cities and towns or only a select number of local authority areas. It is obvious that some parts of the country are more badly affected than others, and we have heard how and why cities such as Birmingham have become hotspots for poor practice in this sector, but it is a problem affecting every corner of the UK. Given the steady increase in the number of exempt tenancies over recent years, it is likely to become more widespread and more acute in the years to come if the Government fail to act quickly to stop rogue providers gaming the system.

Today’s debate has also made it clear that this is a complex problem to which there is no simple single solution, and the necessary first step to addressing it is that the Government accept that it cannot be tackled simply by incremental improvements at local level. Local discretion is of course vital, and there is no doubt that individual local authorities have been able, by their own efforts, through measures such as enhanced scrutiny of benefit claims or the use of voluntary codes of conduct, to reduce their reliance on the exempt accommodation sector and to drive up standards within it.

However, leaving this problem purely to councils, even with additional support, is not a solution, because it fails to address the fundamental causes of the problem. It is akin to asking the passengers of a ship holed beneath the waterline to do their best to bale the rising water out with their hands rather than seeking to repair the damage at source. Because it does not address the fundamental causes, any progress made in one local area will inevitably mean rogue providers simply pick up sticks and move to prey on another. If the Government are truly committed to bearing down on this problem wherever it arises, it must be a question of how, not if, they should intervene at national level to support the efforts already being undertaken by individual local authorities across the country.

We know what underlying factors have combined to drive the marked growth of this sector under successive Conservative-led Governments: a chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing; reductions in funding for housing-related support; and new barriers to access for single adults requiring social rented or mainstream privately rented housing. If we are to stand any chance of reducing reliance on non-commissioned exempt accommodation over the long term, the Government must take meaningful action in those areas.

However, those individuals and communities that are already suffering at the hands of unscrupulous exempt accommodation providers do not have the luxury of time. They cannot wait for patient reform over many years to reduce overall dependence on the sector and limit the opportunities for rogue operators to take advantage of it. They cannot wait for the Government to get around to analysing the results of local pilots that finished long ago. They require Ministers to act now—in a considered way, yes, but at pace. I have to say that the lackadaisical tone adopted by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), in his response suggested that the Government had not yet properly taken this on board.

We must act at pace, and that is why the motion specifically calls for a package of emergency measures to bring an immediate end to sharp practice in the sector. There are two obvious ways in which the Government could act swiftly and decisively to achieve that outcome. The first is to introduce some form of licensing regime, including fit and proper person requirements for providers of exempt accommodation. Ultimately, it is the exempt provisions of housing benefit that enable and encourage rogue providers to enter the sector and exploit vulnerable individuals at the taxpayer’s expense. There is therefore an overwhelming case for better regulating the eligibility for, and therefore access to, exempt benefit claims, to ensure that high-quality supported housing providers are the norm. Just as care home providers need to register with the Care Quality Commission and be subject to regular inspection, an effective licensing regime would see exempt accommodation landlords screened and monitored so that new unscrupulous providers were denied access to the system and the existing ones were progressively weeded out.

The second change would be to introduce a robust framework of national standards for the sector while ensuring that councils had access to the resources necessary to tailor that framework to local circumstances and enforce standards on the ground. At present, what qualifies as the more-than-minimal care, support or supervision to be provided by an exempt accommodation landlord is incredibly vague. As a result, local authorities are unable to judge effectively whether claims are valid and eligible. The reforms proposed in the social housing White Paper should make a difference to exempt homes that fall within that category, and we urge the Government to bring forward the legislation to enact them as soon as possible. Even if those proposals lead to an improvement, however, they do not cover all kinds of exempt housing, as the Minister well knows. Anyone who examines how rogue exempted accommodation providers are taking advantage of existing regulatory loopholes cannot but conclude that we need a new regulatory regime to drive up standards for supported housing across the board and to give all local authorities the tools they would need to make the regime work in their area.

These are only the two most obvious changes that are needed if we are to begin effectively bearing down on the problem that the House has debated today. Many other smaller changes are required to bring this scandal to an end. The motion deliberately avoids setting out an extensive shopping list of specific proposals, leaving it open to this House to debate at greater length, on another occasion, precisely what would be included in the kind of emergency package that the motion calls for in principle.

What is important today is that Ministers accept that the current state of affairs must be brought to an end, that what is required is for this House to enact urgent and fundamental reform at a national level, and that they must commit to bringing forward an emergency package of measures to that end. Anything less is tantamount to accepting that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are not worthy of immediate protection, that unscrupulous operators can continue to exploit them for financial gain and that taxpayers will continue to pick up the bill.