Exiting the European Union (Building and Buildings)

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for opening the debate, and I understand the technical nature of taking forward the regulations. As the Minister will know, I have a great deal of interest in ensuring that products used in the construction of our buildings reach the highest standards and are used in the appropriate way. The Minister is well versed in products such as aluminium composite material and high-pressure laminate insulation, and in the problems that we have in our high-rise buildings—not only those of 18-plus metres, but those of 11-plus metres—and those that certainly are risky that are cladded and have vulnerable people living in them, but this debate is not about that.

These regulations are important for ensuring that we prepare for the next phase of our relationship with the European Union. As someone who voted remain and campaigned for remain, I find it regrettable, but it is the reality, and now it is time to get on with it. It is not quite oven-ready, but that is another debate. As such, the Minister will be pleased to know that the Opposition will not be objecting to the regulations, but I want to raise with him a number of points that require clarification.

No impact assessment has been released with the legislation, so I would be interested to listen to the Minister’s reply in that regard. Immediately following the end of the transition period, UK designated standards will be identical to those under the European Union regime, but will that always be the case? If the Government are planning to make any changes, and should the regimes diverge, it is not hard to envisage real and material difficulties for UK manufacturers and distributors acting in Northern Ireland. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply on that matter. Will he give us such points of clarification, but also, very importantly, of reassurance? Does the Minister see any changes on the horizon, and what impacts could those changes have?

Before this debate, the Construction Products Association wrote to me, as I am sure it has written to the Minister and the Department. It raised some concerns about the types of testing that can be undertaken currently by UK notified bodies and therefore are currently done by a European Union notified body. It wants clarity about what the situation will be in January. I believe the CPA has already brought up these concerns, which bring into question whether some products made in the UK will be allowed for sale on the UK market post Brexit. We are at a very late stage of the process, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave some detail in responding to the House on those concerns.

I want to echo my colleagues in the other place—the Lords—in asking for the detail contained in the enforcement provisions. I understand this will work in a very similar way, and again I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on that. Echoing the comments from hon. Members in the Chamber today, what will the implications be for the construction industry and those involved in producing these products to high and world-class standards in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which is potentially a few weeks away. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I believe it may be both of those as well as the lack of resource for the fire service, which sadly has been cut significantly since 2010. There are, therefore, a number of significant issues for us as parliamentarians. I seek the Minister’s reassurance in particular on, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and my hon. (Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) mentioned, what happens as we move out of the scope of EU regulations and into a UK-based regime covering Great Britain while there will be continuation of EU measures in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of scope for confusion.

[Mike Amesbury]

Of course, many of the products, whether ACM, HPL or insulation, have been tested, though some of those tests have been questionable. As my hon. Friend rightly says, any divergence beyond the arrangements that we have now for transition out of the EU—of course, we do not have a trade deal—may have a further impact, and building safety issues go much broader than cladding, whether ACM or HPL, affecting thousands of buildings and hundreds of thousands of people.

Of course, 1.5 million people are now trapped in flats that largely have a zero rating for a mortgage. They also have to pay additional costs for waking watch, which in some cases can be thousands of pounds a month. Going forward, measures in the building safety Bill have the potential to put even more charges on leaseholders. Does my hon. Friend concur that, beyond Reading, this is a national scandal—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry but this intervention is way too long. Has the hon. Member got the gist of the point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

We have had an interesting debate on what otherwise might be described as dry and technical matters, though in saying that I do not wish in any way to diminish or undermine the seriousness of the issues at hand, some of which I will address in my remarks. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.



We are seeking a positive future trading relationship with the European Union that we hope will include a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment, supporting United Kingdom approved bodies and construction manufacturers alike. These regulations will come into force at the end of the transition period—in either scenario—and further legislation will be laid to implement such a trade agreement. The reason for these amendments is not a deal on free trade with the European Union, nor because we are attempting to diverge from the present harmonised rules on construction standards. It is simply that the present provisions, which will come into force at the end of the transition period, were made before the withdrawal agreement was agreed and before the Northern Ireland protocol was signed, and we need to amend them in the light of those—I think we would all agree—welcome advances.

I will address some of the points raised by hon. Members across the Chamber. With respect to building safety, I will not attempt to drain the debates that we have had across the Dispatch Box and around the Chamber over several weeks about the importance of dealing quickly with ACM and non-ACM clad buildings. As the House knows, the Government have put aside £1.6 billion for that purpose, and we keep the situation under review. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards for construction products that are put on the market. Let me say to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), that the Building Safety Bill, which has been published in draft and will be brought forward as soon as possible, will implement the recommendations of the Hackitt review. We want to use that further to strengthen the regulatory oversight of construction products at a national level. This is not a race to the bottom; it is very much a race to the top in terms of standards.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) also raised the question of where the CE designation will apply. The reason that we are transposing it into British law—Great Britain—is to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to prepare for any future changes in order to minimise business disruption. We are introducing the UK(NI) designation to ensure that any goods sold into Northern Ireland meet European Union CPR designated standards. Again, we want to ensure that the CE designation continues for a period of time. Will future regulations diverge? Well, that is a matter for the Government of the day. Any changes to our regulations will be debated in this place and the other place in the usual way, and the House will come to a conclusion. Should the European Union wish to change its designations, that is a matter for it. In those circumstances, the European Union would certainly have to comply with UK-wide designations, with the exception of the UK(NI) designation, which of course applies to Northern Ireland qualifying goods.

[Mike Amesbury]

What assurance can the Minister give the House that this divergence will not see a race to the bottom? We have talked about current standards, and it has been mentioned that there have been some major issues, including products that have been tested, and which have then been used either as fire breaks or to encase buildings. It has got to be a race to the top, rather than to the bottom. What assurances can the Minister provide?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have always been at the forefront of good design and product safety, and I hope that nobody in the House will assume that somehow, because they are EU regulations, those regulations must ineluctably be better than our own. We will make sure that we have regulations that are suitable for our markets. We will make sure that we have really good regulations and that, as we leave the transition period, we maintain EU regulations, which are being incorporated, as I have said, into British law.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about enforcement. One reason why we need to introduce the amendments to amendments is to make sure that local authorities, which are usually responsible for the enforcement of such regulations, have the wherewithal in England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland to enforce the necessary regulations, whether they are the CE regulations that we are transposing in Great Britain, future regulations that we might apply or the construction products regulations that will continue to pertain in Northern Ireland. The enforcement regulations —I think Lord Blunkett asked about this in the other place, and my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh replied—will be maintained as a result of these amendments.

What will happen in future? It is for my noble Friend Lord Frost and his negotiating team to win a great trade deal for the United Kingdom, and that is what he is endeavouring to do. I hope, given that the amount of trade in construction products is definitely in the European Union’s favour—something like £10.8 billion-worth of trade, compared with £4 billion and a bit the other way—it is in its interest to reach a good trade deal with the United Kingdom, to ensure that that trade continues to flow.

The Government believe that the regulations that we have laid before the House are needed to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for construction products at the end of the transition period and that it is, as I have said, in line with commitments set out in the all-important Northern Ireland protocol. I trust that I have answered all—or nearly all—the questions that have been put to me by Members in all parts of the House. If not, I am happy to write to them. With that, I conclude and commend the draft amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question and for the tone of it. Of course I will continue to engage with her and will happily meet her, as I think I did in July, to discuss these matters. She raised the EWS1 form particularly, and I think it would be worthwhile if I said a few words about it.

First, it is worth pointing out that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors EWS1 form is not a Government document; it was devised by RICS and by the industry. Not all lenders require it; some use other tools. Lenders that do require it are working with us to ensure that there are more nuanced tools available to resolve leaseholders’ concerns. I should say, with respect to those lenders that use EWS1 forms for buildings less than 18 metres in height, that that is not something that the Government support. We do not support a blanket approach to the use of EWS1 forms. Lenders should use other tools in order to discuss the safety or otherwise of those sorts of buildings.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Over three years on from the Grenfell tragedy and one year since the Bolton Cube fire, 203 high-rise blocks are still clad with flammable aluminium composite material, and many thousands more are clad with equally flammable high-pressure laminate. Minister, is it not about time to come clean about the serious limitations of the size and scope of the building safety fund? Up to 1.5 million people, such as Paul in Manchester, are desperate, trapped in this nightmare. What bold, urgent action does the Minister intend to take?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know, with respect to ACM cladding, that we have made £600 million available to remediate the most dangerous buildings. Something like 97% of buildings with ACM cladding have either completed or started their remediation. As a result of the expert support we have provided to private building owners, we have supported something like 100 ACM projects to remediation. With respect to the £1 billion fund for non-ACM-clad buildings, I can tell him that we have had a very significant number of applications, which have worked through. A very significant number have now been asked to make further information available, so we can advance those applications. We will get the money out of the door as quickly as we can. We will also encourage builders and owners to remediate the buildings themselves, because that is what they are obliged to do. It should not fall on the taxpayer to pay for remediation. It is the responsibility in the first case of building owners, through their warrantee schemes or through the original builders.

Fireworks

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 276425, relating to the sale of fireworks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and an honour to lead for the Petitions Committee on this debate.

Once again, we are having this debate in the run-up to 5 November, when we mark the foiling of the gunpowder plot in 1605. As we speak, we are only metres away from where Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Palace of Westminster and kill King James I. First, I thank Elizabeth Harden, who set up this petition, and the people who have signed it and other petitions like it over many years. Many colleagues have requested a chance to speak in this important debate, but due to the restrictions on numbers in Westminster Hall and other proceedings, they are unable to make their constituents’ voices heard. I stand here to represent many of their views.

This is an emotive subject, and I have been contacted by hundreds of people about it. No one can deny that a well organised firework display is something that a lot of people look forward to as the nights draw in, but the distress and danger that fireworks can cause to people with disabilities or health conditions, and to small children, wild animals and pets, must be considered throughout this debate. Marj Williams, my constituent and friend from the village where I live, Pontarddulais, has emailed me to express her frustrations about Guy Fawkes night and to suggest that, if we cannot stop the sale of fireworks altogether, they be sold for licensed events only, rather than to the general public, and that such events be restricted to one night only, not four or five consecutive nights.

I am sure all MPs have received emails from constituents outlining the terrible effect of unplanned fireworks being set off, often as early as October. I am afraid that this year, as we are living through the second wave of coronavirus, the consequences of the sale of fireworks and the increase in home displays will be the worst ever. We have rightly seen organised displays cancelled, but not a ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public. Some responsible outlets and supermarkets have made the decision not to sell fireworks for themselves, but the fact that the sale of fireworks has continued means that there has been a rise in firework-related antisocial behaviour, and there will be, I am afraid, more accidents.

The figures on injuries caused by fireworks are stark. There were nearly 2,000 visits to A&E linked to fireworks in 2018-19. In 2018, 4,436 individuals attended A&E because of an injury caused by a firework. NHS England states that in the past five years there have been almost 1,000 hospital admissions related to the discharge of a firework. Interestingly, in 2019, some 35,000 people sought advice from the nhs.uk website on how to treat burns and scalds; the figure peaked at more than 2,800 visits on 4 November.

What can we expect this year, when organised displays will not be happening? It is bound to lead to an increase in demand on emergency services at a time when we should be protecting our NHS. It is just irresponsible. How can we morally justify the sale of fireworks in a pandemic? I am not alone in my concerns about the impact of an increase in home displays on or around 5 November on the emergency services and the NHS.

Of course, nobody plans to have an accident, but when individuals, however experienced with fireworks, take any risk with them, there is a direct effect on services that are already under a huge burden and strain. Under normal circumstances, at this time of year, especially on 5 November, accident and emergency departments are under extreme pressure. The facts are the facts: fireworks are potentially very dangerous. If we want to be seen to be acting responsibly, the Government should ban the sale of fireworks, especially this year.

These safety concerns extend to wildlife and our natural spaces. Without safeguards and professional organisation, the risk of damage to land, livestock and wildlife from errant fireworks will be hugely increased. In my constituency, a couple of years ago, I saw a horse lose its life from the stress caused by fireworks continually going off. That is just unacceptable.

There are solutions to this ongoing issue. The petitions inquiry gave three recommendations to the Government. The first is that we create a permit scheme, run by local authorities, which would limit the number of firework displays in an area. The second is that we create a national awareness scheme about the responsible use of fireworks and their impact on veterans and those with post-traumatic stress disorder.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Up and down the country, our constituencies are starting to sound like war zones. My constituent, Richard Smith, a veteran who has given so much to this country, suffers particularly acutely at this time of year. He is an advocate for organised, licensed events, as well as tougher penalties, such as fixed-penalty notices. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion. I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about his constituent, because this issue is of great concern. The noise fireworks give off when they are used, not only in displays, frightens people. It is really quite unacceptable. That is why the call for fixed-penalty notices is important.

Thirdly, we need to rethink how fireworks are packaged, so that we limit their appeal and availability to children, and to others who behave badly and do not respect them. There is also a silent fireworks campaign, started by councillors in Pembrey and Burry Port, a town near my Gower constituency. The campaign suggests that if the sale of fireworks to the general public is to continue, those fireworks should be silent, so as to reduce antisocial disturbance to residents, pets and ex-armed forces personnel, of whom we have spoken.

Is it really beyond the wit of man to implement these recommendations, and to protect the most vulnerable in our communities and our pets and animals, who have no voice in this important matter? One need only look at social media to see the impact on animals at home whenever fireworks are set off, whatever the occasion, throughout the year. It is our responsibility, as Members of Parliament, and the responsibility of the Government to ensure that people and pets do not suffer. The Government’s response to the Petitions Committee inquiry was wholly inadequate. I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling about this issue in his response.

DRAFT COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for his introductory speech.

We will be opposing the statutory instrument for two reasons: first, exempting First Homes sites from paying contributions to the community infrastructure levy will undermine local infrastructure supply and the Government’s claimed commitment to an “infrastructure first” approach; and, secondly, the initiative will reduce the supply of affordable homes and homes for social rent. I will speak about that and my serious concerns about the scheme more widely.

At face value, the First Homes scheme might sound appealing. We all talk about the need to open up opportunities for first-time buyers to purchase good, affordable homes, but this initiative is not the answer. The Government are still in deep denial about the scale of the current housing crisis and the right ways to tackle it. Labour Members share deep concerns about who will benefit from this housing scheme, who it will hurt, and how wider communities will lose out because of it. First Homes is yet another scheme, after a decade of failure, to be put forward by the Conservative Government in recent years that claims to do something about the issue, but definitely does not. The spin attached to the initiative—that it is somehow designed for our key workers—comes from a Secretary of State who believes that a Cornish pasty with a side salad is a regular plated meal across the country.

Although the locked-in 30% discount is attractive at first sight, the fundamental question for real people in real communities is, “30% of what?” The Department has set the income cap for buyers wanting a First Home at £80,000 for homes outside London and £90,000 for those inside it. The median salary in the UK is just over £36,000 a year. Earning £80,000-plus puts someone in the top 5% of earners. On the other hand, the annual income for care workers on the median wage is less than £17,000 a year, as our Prime Minister learned only last month, and 38% of key workers earn less than £10 an hour. Homes bought under the scheme will be utterly out of reach for those key workers—those heroes—who have continuously been at the forefront of the fight against covid-19. It is not just key workers who will not benefit from the scheme; analysis by Shelter suggests that these homes will be out of reach of average earners in 96% of the country.

Even reaching the first step in home ownership is impossible for many. Two thirds of private renters have no savings whatsoever and therefore are utterly unable to raise a deposit. A vast majority of the remaining third have less than £16,000 saved, which is not nearly enough to secure the average home.

Yet again, the Government are twisting the meaning of “affordable” until it loses all credibility with the public. Will the Minister outline what evidence he has that key workers, or any worker not earning well over the average salary, will be helped by this scheme? Does not capping salaries at well over twice the median wage all but guarantee that this scheme will only help those people who are already doing better in our society than most?

The scheme sounds and looks suspiciously like the Starter Homes scheme that began in 2015, which built exactly zero houses for young people who wanted to get on the housing ladder. How many people is this scheme expected to help? The Government proudly boasted that up to 200,000 young people would benefit from the Starter Homes scheme. They are being decidedly less open about the estimates for First Homes.

First Homes will come at the expense of providing other housing, either in the form of existing affordable housing schemes, or homes for social rent. The Government propose that at least 25% of section 106 funding is earmarked for First Homes. Section 106 funding provides not only half of all affordable housing built in the UK, but half of all social housing. Social housing is already critically endangered in this country, with just 6,287 homes for social rent built in 2018-19. But the solution to that, and to the problem of how we house the 1.15 million people on the waiting list for housing, is not to divert more money to homeowners. Making social homes extinct will not reduce the housing crisis, but exacerbate it.

The cost of First Homes is not only to the supply of social housing. The community infrastructure levy allows local authorities to offset the impact of new housing on local infrastructure. The levy is a good and necessary vehicle to help to provide the infrastructure that all of us want in our communities and constituencies up and down the country, be that GP surgeries, green spaces, schools, local highways or public transport, but the draft regulations will ensure that no First Homes involve a contribution to community infrastructure.

Have the Government carried out an impact assessment on what the scheme will cost local authorities with regard to their ability to fund local infrastructure? How does cutting the funding available for local authorities to support new residents fit with the Government’s existing commitment to “infrastructure first”?

As I have said before to the Minister—I say it again—“You cannot cheat your way out of the current housing crisis.” We need to help people to get on the housing ladder. That should be an essential part of our national housing strategy, but it should not happen at the expense of local communities’ ability to build vital infrastructure, and nor should it be to the detriment of those most in need of decent housing. Yet this scheme will do both. For that reason, we oppose the regulations, based on the scheme that is presented to us today.

[Christopher Pincher]

I regret that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues propose to vote against this small technical amendment, not least because they are essentially setting themselves against the 87% of people in our country, many of whom are young people, who say time and time again, when asked, that they want to own their own home. The measures before the Committee will enable young people more easily to own their own home, but unfortunately the Opposition are choosing to set their sights against that.

The hon. Gentleman cited many numbers in his remarks. May I gently remind him that last year we built 240,000 new homes in our country? We built more social homes—council homes—in one year than the last Labour Government did in 13. We have abolished the housing revenue account cap to allow local authorities to build homes. We have also extended the period within which they can use their right- to-buy receipts. We have therefore taken firm action not only to support the building of new homes, but to build the array of discounted homes that our country needs.

[Mike Amesbury]

In the last year of the previous Labour Government, 28,000 social homes were built. In the year to which I was referring, the figure was less than 6,300. That is a fact—it is on the record.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Wales has been unable to build more council homes in a year than there are members of a Welsh rugby team, so we will not take too many lectures from the Labour party about building homes.

The hon. Gentleman talks about affordable homes, but let me remind him of the affordable homes programme that we announced only last month. We announced £12.3 billion of funding to build affordable homes in our country, which is the largest such cash injection for 15 years—and that is on top of the last affordable homes cash injection. We estimate that, economic conditions allowing, that will build 180,000 new homes, the majority of which will be for discounted or social rent. We have taken a firm stand to build the right homes that our people want and need.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned section 106. He will know that over 80% of local authorities and developers say that the present system is too opaque and too slow, and does not deliver the infrastructure and affordable homes that are required. That is one of the reasons why, in our “Planning for the future” White Paper, we are consulting on a change to the developer contribution levy: from a split between CIL and section 106, to a simple single infrastructure levy that might be set locally. I encourage him and his colleagues to look at that White Paper and the consultation, and to submit their thoughts accordingly.

I am confident that, as a result of the consultation that we undertook earlier this year, which received a great deal of feedback and closed on 1 May, in which 77% of respondents said that these proposals will bring forward more First Homes—they are right—

Planning and House Building

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) not only for securing such an important debate, but for speaking so eloquently and passionately. I am in a strange position as the official Opposition spokesperson, as I feel as though the speech has been written for me. There is a lot of agreement across the Chamber, which I shall come on to.

These proposals have come at a time when there is a lot of talk, and rightly so, about building not just to solve the housing crisis, but as a way to boost the economy, create that stimulus and sustainable jobs and move towards a net zero target. The oft-peddled Government mantra during this covid and economic crisis is “build back better”. As has been echoed across the Chamber, some of the proposals, at face value, such as design standards, codes and quality, and neighbourhood plans being on a statutory footing, were outlined in Labour’s planning commission in September 2019, so there are some positive steps. Yet Members across the Chamber, and certainly many of our constituents and people in the housing sector, do not have to scratch far beneath the surface to discover that the very DNA of these proposals is a shift of control, power and influence from our local communities to developers. It is a developer’s charter.

In reality, these announcements will do very little to build back better, beautiful and greener. In many cases, they do exactly the opposite, creating a framework of chaos—permitted development with bells on in terms of the statutory instruments, these monstrosities appearing in our communities, two-storey extensions on every house in every street, the green light for even more houses in multiple occupation ghettos throughout the land and, as the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) pointed out, concrete over much of London and the south-east. This is a real threat to our green belt.

Coming on the back of a decade of austerity and the current economic crisis because of the health crisis, these reforms further undermine our local councils, as has been pointed out from across the Chamber. They strip away power and finance from local planning authorities, but, crucially—very importantly—they take away the ability of local communities to have their voice heard. The zonal approach is particularly concerning because it risks creating a free-for-all where—this was again outlined by a number of Government Members—well-resourced developers can simply outplay, out-shout and out-shape our local residents and communities. Indeed, in the retort to concerns expressed by Tory shire leaders, bypassing democracy was this week described by the Secretary of State as

“at the heart of the moral mission of being a Conservative.”

I am pretty sure that Conservative Members do not actually agree with that—the very same moral mission that was applied to an unlawful planning direction in the Westferry scandal. Sixty-one per cent. of Conservative councillors think that these reforms are anti-democratic.

I have done a count but it was hard as people were moving in and out of the Chamber. Fifty or so hon. Members have spoken very eloquently for their communities, outlining similar concerns. Over 250,000 supporters of the countryside charity the Campaign to Protect Rural England argue the same. We have all had CPRE emails and its lobbying, along with that of the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, Civic Voice and many more organisations in and beyond the housing sector. I ask the Minister on their behalf, what role does he believe local democracy should have when it comes to decisions about house building and community development?

The Government’s concept of good placemaking seems to be to put the decision not just in the hands of developers through this developer’s charter, but into the maths of an algorithm that has now told the Government that we need to build—concrete over—to achieve an increase of 161% more homes in London and the south-east, but that in places such as the one that I represent, in the north, there will be 28% fewer homes. As the former Prime Minister said, how is that levelling up? It is simply not.

I think the Minister needs to have a chat with the Education Secretary when it comes to the merits of an algorithm—one that created heartache and chaos for thousands of young people, their families and carers, and one that pours concrete over London and the south-east while hollowing out communities such as mine in the north. It simply does not fit with the levelling-up agenda for the north and the midlands.

I would like to hear the Minister’s comments when it comes to environmental protections in the White Paper. It is not clear how the Government can reconcile their proposals in the planning White Paper with their existing commitments in the Environment Bill—a concern expressed by the CPRE and others.

The Government’s consistent inability to build enough housing—of all tenures—for our population should not be misdiagnosed as a failure of our planning system. I and all other Labour Members are utterly committed to tackling this housing emergency, ending rough sleeping, and helping a more genuine jobs recovery by getting decent homes built, improving the homes we already have and fostering happy and healthy communities for us all. The proposed reforms do the opposite. They will devalue planning as an essential part of the housebuilding and placemaking process, and simply make it easier for large developers to ignore local voices, local communities and local democracy. As pointed out by the previous Prime Minister, there are still 1 million unbuilt housing permissions from the past 10 years, yet the White Paper does nothing to ensure that those houses are built. Hon. Members have put forward ideas for incentivising developers, but the key is to put teeth into the proposals. There have been some great suggestions from across the House.

The lack of mention of social housing in the White Paper means that we remain over-reliant on private builders and market cycles to get homes built. If we are serious about maximising housing delivery of all tenures and meeting the 300,000 target, the Government need to stop ignoring the answer right in front of them and build a new generation of social housing. They built only 6,300 homes for social rent last year. We have yet to see the publication of the White Paper on social housing and the Minister refuses, despite being asked time and time again, to set a new target for a new generation of social homes.

The Local Government Association found that 30,000 affordable homes would have gone unbuilt over the past five years if the Government proposal to scrap section 106 agreements for developments of under 40 or 50 homes had been implemented. That risks, in particular, the future of affordable housing supply in rural communities, which many hon. Members across the House represent. It will hammer smaller developers. If the Government are serious about not just building but building good-quality affordable homes, why are they making it easier for developers to put forward only schemes that avoid building any affordable housing at all? Will the Minister outline the evidence behind that?

I would also like to hear more from the Minister about the new proposed levy to replace section 106 and the community infrastructure levy entirely. We have heard very little detail about how this works.

The current proposal for councils is that they provide the cash upfront, but that presents a serious risk. When we look at the funding pressures on councils right across the land, we can see that the proposal has no bearing on reality—on the pressures that councils are facing. On top of that, why continue with this absurd extension to permitted development when the Government know very well that it will create bad homes—we all have examples of them—and blight our communities? The Secretary of State seemed to claim at a party conference event that it was thanks to covid-19 that he realised how damaging it was for people to live in rabbit hutches—in flats that were no larger than a parking space—but he made no reference to our motions against these proposals or to his Back-Bench rebellion. Hallelujah, he saw the light. In fact he and his Minister even put it in this statutory instrument.

Permitted development bypasses the planning system and makes it impossible for local authorities and local communities to stop dodgy developers building unsafe, low-quality buildings in unsuitable areas without contributing to local infrastructure and affordable housing. I know that that causes serious problems in all our communities up and down the land, including in mine. Streets, villages, towns and cities will be littered with inappropriate two-storey extensions, pitching neighbour against neighbour. Furthermore, high streets will be hollowed out with former shops converted into houses of multiple occupation, and wheelie bins will be flowing out onto the streets—nothing beautiful or better about that reality. Unsafe flats will remain unsafe, but just two-storeys higher. This will mean multi-billion pound windfalls to freeholders. The millions of leaseholders trapped in a feudal system are still waiting for justice, despite promise after promise from successive Ministers.

In conclusion, as a nation, we cannot cheat our way out of this housing crisis. A home should be a basic human right for all. Building healthy and sustainable homes should be the response to this pandemic. We should be putting communities at the heart of good placing, strengthening the resources of our planning system and—I think we can all agree on this—strengthening local democracy. Those in local areas must be in the driving seat if we are to create decent, safe, affordable housing for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

The objective of the £1 billion fund is to target those properties that most need help, where there is no other immediate means of helping them. £1 billion is not a small amount of money and it is important that we get that money out of the door first to help those places that need it. The hon. Gentleman might, while he is at it, have a word with the Mayor of London, because London is lagging well behind the remediation of properties around England. That is why Lord Greenhalgh had to organise a London summit to get London to up its game. So, as much as we are determined to get the money out of the door, he must encourage the Mayor to do the same.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Ritu and Rebecca are among the many thousands of people now trapped in this situation despite their good intentions. Hon. Members across the House have discussed the EWS1 form today. The current estimate for the 1.5 million people stuck in this situation is that it will take 15 years-plus to resolve. This requires a sense of urgency. When the Minister going to get a grip of the situation?

[Christopher Pincher]

As I explained to the House just a moment ago—I think the hon. Gentleman heard what I said— the Government are working with lenders to make sure that this situation moves as quickly as possible, so that lenders require other more easily available assurances and are encouraged to act much more quickly. We continue to work with the industry to make sure that those people get the help and support they need, and I can confirm to him that we will bring forward further proposals very soon.

Town and Country Planning

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 632), dated 23 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 June 2020, be revoked.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall discuss the following motions:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 755), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 756), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for finding the time for this debate in response to the prayer motions that Her Majesty’s official Opposition have laid against these regulations.

I will start by telling Members a story, one that is real and with which some across the Chamber will be familiar. It does not have a happy ending, and given the Secretary of State’s radical extension of permitted development, it is about to get a whole lot worse for many people in many of communities up and down this nation.

Over the weekend, the Minister may have read an article in The Observer about permitted development. It began by talking about the experience of a woman, Katya, who lives in a block of flats created under the existing permitted development regulations. All Katya wants, like many of us, is a place to call home, to bring up a young family and to feel secure, space for her children to play safely, somewhere to shelter during this pandemic and to be able to travel to work from, and some communal green space. Yet Katya is one of thousands of residents who are crammed into former offices and industrial units that were not built for human habitation. Some have no or few windows, some are as small as 10 square metres—the average car parking space is 11 square metres—and many are on the outskirts of towns, with few amenities such as shops and schools.

Katya is not alone. Up to 60,000 units have been built under the previous extension to permitted development, many of which are unfit for human habitation. I am certain that neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State would like to find themselves or their families in them.

This debate is about three further ways in which the Government want to create poor-quality housing by bypassing the local community, local democracy and local control: by adding new units on top of flats; by allowing developers to demolish and rebuild empty buildings; and by allowing people to add multiple floors to their homes in a village, town and city near you.

Let me take Members on a visual journey up north to Leeds, where Abbey, a young professional, bought her leasehold flat only to discover that it had been cladded with flammable material. She is one of many thousands affected. She cannot sell it. It is zero-rated for a mortgage and she has to pay thousands in waking watch and insurance fees. There are also massive problems, with which the Minister and the Secretary of State are very familiar, with the EWS1—external wall survey—forms.

What is the Government’s solution? Instead of building back better, safer, healthier and greener for Katya and communities up and down our nation, the Secretary of State will go down in history not only for his unlawful planning direction in Tower Hamlets, with the Westferry affair, but as Bob the bad builder, coming to wreck a village, town and city near you.

Instead of having a relentless focus on making people like Abbey safe in a cladded building, he has rammed through a negative statutory instrument to lob an extra two storeys on blocks of flats, overnight giving some freeholders and overseas investors a multi-million pound windfall of up to £42 billion.

At the same time, this very SI has added an additional cost for leaseholders who may want to buy the freehold. No need for donors to attend the Carlton Club dinner circuit anymore and exchange chummy texts—just sneak the windfall through Parliament via an undebated instrument. What does that instrument deliver a year? Just 800 flats per year; that is 8,000 over a decade.

To make matters worse, because permitted development bypasses the planning system, we could have a ludicrous situation where high-rise buildings extended by two floors do not go through gateway 1 of the draft building safety Bill. Have the Government learned nothing just three years on from Grenfell? Oversight, regulation and rules protect lives.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Amesbury]

In a moment.

In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I happily quote the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who strongly advised the Prime Minister to get a “better housing adviser”. I find it difficult to disagree. Permitted development has been disastrous for our towns and cities since its introduction by the coalition Government in 2013 and things are about to get a whole lot worse. That is not me saying that—it comes from the Government’s own advisers. In fact, on the day that the Secretary of State laid two of the three statutory instruments that we have prayed against, his own commission’s review of permitted development was published—and it was damning.

The review found that only 22% of permitted development dwellings met the Government’s own space standards, fewer than 4% have access to a private amenity space and a vast majority have only single-aspect windows. These are not beautiful homes—in the words of another Government commission report—these are the slums of now, the slums of the future.

The Royal Institute of British Architects president, Alan Jones, put it like this:

“The arrogance and lack of understanding is breathtaking.”

It is not just RIBA that think the extensions to permitted development are a bad idea; they are opposed by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Town and Country Planning Association and many more. Aside from some developers looking to make a quick buck out of shoddy housing, who supports these pieces of legislation?

With a slight nod to the fact that windows for people in flats might be a step forward, all three SIs allow councils to challenge developers if there is inadequate lighting provision.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s tone. He and I got on very well as co-members of the Select Committee, and he will know from his experience on that Committee that the problems with Grenfell, which he lays at the Government’s door, were decades old in the building regulations system. This is not something he can lay at the door of this Government—there were decades of failure. The issue in relation to the £40 million Westferry windfall for the developer is factually incorrect; there would simply have been a reduction in the amount of affordable housing on that development. On the space standards, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, today the Government set out clearly that space standards will be included in future permitted development rights.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In terms of Grenfell, I referred to the draft building safety Bill and gateway 1. Certainly in terms of planning permitted development, there is an issue there—it is an issue that we will undoubtedly discuss beyond the debate today. With regard to the concession to the rebels, and the fact that we have laid the motions today, of course we welcome baby steps forward—finally, there is a concession that actually people deserve space as well as windows. That is a step forward, undoubtedly, but major problems remain with permitted development.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party group on healthy homes and buildings that sits in this House. We carried out an inquiry two years ago and made recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the importance of homes having the heating, quality of life and lighting correct, and having environmental amenities throughout. A home is not just four walls; it is much more than that. Does he agree that that has to be part of what the Government bring forward?

[Mike Amesbury]

I wholeheartedly agree with those powerful and pertinent points.

The quality of housing—the minimum standards required from Government—should be guided by a moral compass, one that puts health and wellbeing at the heart of housing provision, rather than the profit margins of some of the more unscrupulous developers in our country. Rather than bypassing local residents and councils, why not resource and fund local planning authorities properly and maximise that civic voice to create healthy communities and housing that people are proud to call their home? Ministers wax lyrical about the need for more affordable housing, yet this massive extension of permitted development bypasses the requirement for section 106 contributions and in many cases community infrastructure levy payments too, robbing communities of decent affordable housing and local infrastructure. The Conservative-led Local Government Association estimates that 3,500 affordable homes have been lost due to the current regime of permitted development. This centralisation of our planning system is a Stalinist power grab, bypassing local democracy and creating a developer’s charter, while vandalising the character of our villages, towns and cities, hollowing out our high streets, flattening industrial estates and concreting over green space. It is ideological claptrap with bells on. I worry that the Secretary of State is spending far too much time with his Russian oligarch friends—Private Eye is even referring to him as “Moscow Bob”.

If these statutory instruments are passed today, when more of these unplanned monstrosities start to appear in our communities, residents will no longer be able to voice their concerns to local councillors, their MPs or the local planning departments.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

On the point about local democracy, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as me to note that the plans for local development codes and local style codes, which have to be drafted by local councils—set by them, with local standards—ensure a valid local voice; it is just doing it in advance, rather than retrospectively. Surely he must accept that his points about a lack of local democracy are without foundation.

[Mike Amesbury]

Labour and Conservative councillors, parties of all political persuasions, are expressing major concerns about this. The Tory shires are on the march about it. It is a fundamental attack on democracy. It hands too much power to unscrupulous developers—that is a fact and we will consistently challenge on it. When MPs vote on these measures today, I know that Katya, Abbey and many thousands more who desperately need decent, safe and affordable homes will be looking at us all to know which side we are on. A vote to annul these SIs and to stop this chaotic vandalism coming to a town or city near you is a vote to stop this power grab from our local communities, which will create a bad developer’s charter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank Members from across the House for all the powerful contributions made today. I am sorry that I cannot acknowledge them all, but I am limited in time. Although we recognise the Government’s last-minute concession on space, resulting from our motion, and the work of campaigners from across the country in the housing and planning sector, the fact remains that this is a developer’s charter. It will enrich them, freeholders and overseas investors to the tune of billions. As has been said eloquently by Members from right across the House, it will create vandalism in our streets, communities, villages and high streets; lobbing two storeys on semi-detached houses and on flats—flats cladded with flammable materials—is nonsense. It is not building back better, building back safer—it is nonsense. As for affordable housing, 6,400 social houses last year—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Draft Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

May I affirm that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone? I welcome the new Minister to her place, and I think she will be pleased to know that the Opposition support the measures before the Committee today. I do of course have comments to make, but I am sure people will be mightily pleased when I reaffirm that they will be kept brief.

We welcome this legislation, although it has probably taken several years too many to bring it to the House. That was an inevitable outcome, given the stories of exploitation and harassment experienced by residents of mobile homes and sites, which were pointed out by the Minister in her powerful introduction. Many of them have been documented in contributions from hon. Members across this House over the years.

The Minister will be aware that this legislation presents a huge amount of work for local authorities in dealing with applications and maintaining a register of those whose applications are successful. In order for these changes to work and protect people, local authorities need the funding and resources to deal with the applications and to be able to enforce action in the worst cases. I therefore seek clarity from the Minister about what meaningful support the Government are offering to local authorities to implement these measures and ensure that enforcement does take place in the worst cases.

There may be complex issues where parks are managed by companies or other corporate entities and, if proper support and expertise are not ensured, inconsistent decisions could lead to these well-intentioned regulations being undermined. I look forward to hearing the Minister speak in a little detail about how this will work beyond the simple question of funding.

I know my colleague Lord Kennedy raised this point in the other place, but it is worth getting a response from the Minister in this place. Although mobile home owners are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and harassment, such issues are present across the rental sector. When I inquired in July about the rogue landlord database, I was told by the Department that only 13 landlords had been added to it, despite a previous Government estimate of more than 10,000 rogue landlords operating in the UK.

I do not believe I should have to ask, so will the Government commit to looking at that, especially considering that legislative attention will turn to the private rented sector very soon? It has been more than a year since the Government said they wanted the list to be public, and they will have an opportunity to make it so very soon.

In conclusion, as I noted, these regulations have been a long time coming. Many stakeholders, such as the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, welcome them, as I am sure everyone in Committee does. I want reassurance that the new measures will be properly resourced and I look forward to the Minister’s reply shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. To date, we have received 1,378 completed registration forms for the building safety fund. We expect the money made available by the Chancellor in this fiscal year to be fully allocated by March, so that the buildings that most need remediation where the owners were not able to act quickly can be helped. We have always made it clear that we expect a significant proportion of remediation costs to fall on the shoulders of those responsible for the original work or the building owners, and certainly not on the leaseholders.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Although we welcome the publication, finally, of the draft Building Safety Bill today, the Department’s own figures highlight the fact that 246 buildings are still wrapped in Grenfell-style cladding and thousands more are cladded in equally flammable materials. How will the measures outlined in the Bill speed up remediation while increasing the size and the scope of the building safety fund?

[Christopher Pincher]

Some 72% of buildings that had ACM cladding have had that cladding removed. I refer to the hon. Gentleman to the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) to which I replied. I said that tough enforcement action is on its way for those owners that are responsible but are not taking action to remediate their buildings. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as the Building Safety Bill passes through this House and the other place to make sure that we have a good Bill that is fit for purpose. This Government are committed to doing so; I trust he is, too.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Ultimately, we will not oppose the regulations, which introduce, as the Minister said, much needed fees for applications prior to approval on extending blocks of flats of three storeys or more upwards, to create new residential homes. However, I want to take a few minutes to outline why this does not mean that we support the Government’s extension to permitted development, to give it context.

The Minister will already have seen that I have put my name to a prayer, alongside the shadow Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), against the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. Our concern centres around the impact on those already living in the blocks of flats that will be extended upwards, those who will be moving into those new homes and those on the housing register, who need developers to contribute to schemes to provide vital social and affordable housing.

I am sure that the Minister will say that the issue of the quality of these new homes has been addressed now that councils will consider the adequate provision of light in the extensions, but the fact remains that permitted development has previously allowed what has been classed as “slum housing” to be built without any windows at all. That is disgraceful. A rabbit hutch with large windows is still a rabbit hutch; it is not fit for human habitation. The permitted development system has led to the delivery of homes as small as 13 square metres—smaller than the average living room. For reference, the national guidance for most housing developments states that the minimum internal floor space area should be 37 square metres—just under three times the size of the smallest permitted development homes.

The fact that the Government are continuing the permitted development system without addressing the fact that it bypasses space standards shows that they are not interested in ensuring that housing is fit for habitation; they are seeking only to avoid more headlines about the lack of windows in permitted development homes. Given that we have just come out of a pandemic in which we have rightly asked the public to stay at home, we cannot continue to allow housing to be built that risks the physical and mental health, and the dignity, of the people living in those homes in normal times, let alone when they are asked to be in them for 24 hours a day.

I also have concerns about the impact on existing leaseholders in those blocks. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) have raised concerns that this legislation will give a windfall to freeholders while compromising the value of flats owned by leaseholders. It offers no compensation for disruption while the work takes place, and potentially increases the cost to residents who want to buy their freeholds in the future. Given that we also have a broken system of leaseholds—a feudal system of leaseholds—with no legislation or reform in sight, why are the Government introducing an instrument that will exacerbate the problems for leaseholders?

The expansion of permitted development will also increase the number of developments that can bypass schemes that fund affordable housing and the things that we want in our constituencies—GP surgeries, schools, transport and green spaces, through section 106 and the community infrastructure levy. As the Local Government Association noted earlier this year, 13,500 affordable homes have potentially been lost in the past four years as a result of the permitted development rules. Instead of good-quality affordable and social homes that could have been funded by development through the planning system, low-quality slum housing has been propped up in all our constituencies.

Instead of finding ways to get around the current rules, the Government need to build—build, build, build—an alternative that delivers the communities that our constituents want and need. The Government should stop slashing planning departments’ funding and seeing section 106s and the community infrastructure levy as nuisances to be avoided. They can hardly state that that is not their attitude, given the recent Westferry saga.

Given that the draft Building Safety Bill was published today, I find it rather odd that buildings that are clad in flammable materials and have been built without the necessary firebreaks and additional safety measures are being given the green light through this statutory instrument and the Government’s direction to be extended upwards. I look forward to the Minister’s response.