Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I would have no problem with changing the rules for multi-academy trusts, but I do not think that that alone would resolve the difficulty. Most schools would be loth to take a child in year 11 or year 13 because they would be in the second year of their exams and the curriculums would not match. Schools of all statuses are concerned about their performance.

The 26,000 families I described are forced to travel an estimated 400,000 miles each year to access temporary accommodation—the equivalent of going 16 times around the globe. On one day at the civic centre in my constituency, the only temporary accommodation that could be offered to families was in Telford, 170 miles away from their home borough, and that is not unique. How can someone possibly start putting their life back together when they are 170 miles away from the borough they have been living in? And that was in Merton, which does not have the same problems as other London boroughs.

Across the UK, as I said, the total temporary accommodation expenditure has reached £1.6 billion, of which three quarters was funded by housing benefit. That is not money well spent. If we moved each family out of temporary accommodation and into social rented housing, we would save £572 million a year. As the Public Accounts Committee put it, not only is temporary accommodation

“often of a poor standard”,

but it

“does not offer value for money.”

I am aware that the Government have supported the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), which would try to raise standards in exempt accommodation, but it is important to note that exempt accommodation is distinct from temporary accommodation. Exempt accommodation provides accommodation with extra support for more marginalised groups such as recent prison leavers, care leavers, those fleeing domestic violence and homeless people with substance dependence or mental health issues. Exempt accommodation is a problem of its own, with landlords exploiting the housing benefit system to profit from vulnerable people, but it should be noted that temporary accommodation is different. It represents people who are either awaiting the outcome of a homelessness application under the 1996 Act, or awaiting an offer of suitable accommodation.

I will finish by saying that, after nearly 30 years of Ofsted, we know that unless a school knows that Ofsted is coming, problems begin. A substantial proportion of outstanding schools that were not inspected for five years have recently been graded as needing improvement. Organisations—the best organisations—need to know that somebody is coming, and in a reasonable time. The same is true of councils that are meant to be ensuring that the standards and code of guidance are met. The Government clearly think that schools and children’s social services departments should be independently inspected. What is different about temporary accommodation for homeless families? The Government provide a national curriculum for schools. They do not just say, “That’s okay—I’m sure the curriculum is being followed.” They actually check to see that it is happening. We can talk about what we are going to introduce, such as different pieces of guidance for councils, but unless local authority housing departments are inspected in the same way that schools and children’s social services departments are, we can never expect the standards in temporary accommodation to be safe.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this important Bill. I do so as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and as a former shadow Housing Minister.

I would like to focus my remarks on the amendments relating to inspections. I also want to reiterate the importance of tenant empowerment, on which the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and the Minister spoke eloquently. I think it is clear that, across the House, this legislation is considered to be highly significant, highly needed and certainly long overdue.

I welcome, as do other Members across the House, the constructive approach to the Bill, which will address the issues that matter to local authorities, housing associations, residents and, vitally, tenants. It will improve their access to swift and fair redress through stronger and more proactive consumer and citizen regulations. I hope that the cross-party work with key stakeholders will ensure that the Bill is effective and addresses the real issues of tenants, including through the professionalisation of housing management in the social housing sector. A number of new clauses and amendments in that regard have cross-party support.

I have said throughout the progress of this Bill that it is the voices of tenants and residents that should take centre stage. It is vital that we have a system of social housing regulation that puts the rights and interests of residents at its heart, and that deals with the historical stigma that social tenants have faced for years, as was highlighted by Grenfell United, by Shelter and, in tragic circumstances recently, by Awaab’s family.

Like the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, I would like matters to go further, to empower tenants and ensure that their voices will never again go unheard. I was disappointed, as was my hon. Friend, that the Government rejected a number of amendments in Committee. I therefore strongly support amendments 36 and 37 and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would ensure that much-needed representation of tenants on the advisory panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee held an inquiry into social housing regulation. I think we are waiting for a Government response to our report from several months ago, although we have had one from the housing ombudsman and the regulator. It was far from clear whether inspections by the regulator will go further than simply inspecting the framework of the organisations, instead going into properties and looking at what is done. The regulator had not quite taken that step in its response.

[Mike Amesbury]

As always, I have the utmost respect for the Chair of the Select Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that powerful and informed point.

We are in a social housing crisis. Tenants deserve so much better—the very best public housing that this country could provide. That is where we should be going, whether the Government of today or a Labour Government in the not-too-distant future. Tenants deserve so much better. We should not hold back when it comes to the safety, health and wellbeing of tenants and residents. We must make the most of the Bill and act collectively with key stakeholders so that we do not have a repetition of the disasters of the not-too-distant past, such as the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy and the most recent tragic death of Awaab, which has been referred to across this Chamber—my heart goes out to his family.

Everyone should feel safe in their home. It should be a place of sanctuary, not anxiety and worry. Let us not waste this opportunity as the Bill goes through its passage in the House. Let us be bold. Let us work together in this place.

[Dehenna Davison]

With the leave of the House, I will try to address the concerns raised by Members across the House. First, I thank hon. Members with all sincerity for their thoughtful and considered debate, not just today but throughout the passage of the Bill. We have dealt with things in a constructive manner, ultimately to try to strengthen the Bill to its fullest extent and provide the maximum protection for social housing residents.

I will seek to answer as many questions as I can, starting with Awaab’s law. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who is not here today, for their constructive engagement following the devastating case of Awaab, which touched them and many of us in this House incredibly personally.

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for amendments (a) to (f) to Government new clause 1 relating to Awaab’s law. However, we are clear that our current proposals already sufficiently achieve what the hon. Member is seeking to do. Prescribed requirements are already defined in new clause 1 and therefore do not need to be defined in the alternative way proposed. Moreover, new clause 1 already gives us the power to make provision ensuring that social housing providers’ duty to meet requirements cannot be overridden or circumvented by the terms of the lease. We also think it important to be able to make provision enabling the landlord to inspect the property to ascertain whether there are any hazards present, provided reasonable notice is given if it is to be under an obligation to rectify prescribed hazards.

As I have made clear, we will consult on Awaab’s law within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. The consultation will inform the detail of the regulations that the Secretary of State will set for Awaab’s law, including timescales and details on the prescribed hazards themselves. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who raised concerns on that point. I reiterate the importance of setting requirements that deliver the best outcomes for residents, while being achievable, proportionate and evidence-based. I assure the House that with new clause 1, landlords will have no choice but to comply with new regulations and to take action to ensure homes are free of hazards that pose health risks to their residents. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.

On professionalisation, on which many Members expressed their concerns and passion, I am incredibly grateful for the broad support across the House for our amendment. I believe our approach is the right way to drive up professional standards in the sector, but we will of course carry out further engagement with the sector, including landlords, tenants and professional bodies, as we develop our approach to implementation. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is no longer in his place but who raised that point earlier.

New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, seeks to extend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to him, and to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Salford and Eccles for raising their concerns. I think we can all agree that increasing transparency in the sector is hugely important, but I do not believe that new clause 6 is necessary or advisable at this stage. Development of the access to information scheme, one of the Government’s commitments in the social housing White Paper, is already well under way. Through the scheme, private registered providers will have similar obligations as they would under the Freedom of Information Act. The tenants of providers, and their representatives, will be able to request information from their landlords in much the same way. I am also concerned—I am sorry to raise this point on another issue—that extending FOI to registered providers would increase the level of Government control exercised over the sector and may lead to the Office for National Statistics reclassifying housing associations. That is something we are incredibly concerned about.

On new clause 7, relating to Georgia’s law, I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for campaigning on this matter and for raising the really sad case of Georgia and her family. I am grateful to her for engaging with me in a really constructive fashion as we sought to find a middle road that the Government could accept in line with the new clause she is proposing. Unfortunately, we are unable to support it today, and I will explain why that is the case. I note the hon. Lady’s additions to bring assured tenancies within the scope of her new clause, but I reiterate my concern, raised in Committee, about the new clause itself—if not its intent, which I think we can all agree is incredibly admirable. I remain concerned that binding housing providers with policies that remove flexibility to choose who they give tenancies to is not the right course of action. Those decisions are devolved for good reason.

Leaseholders and Managing Agents

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner]

I am most grateful to the Father of the House, who is also co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, for his knowledge, his campaigning over many years and his intervention.

In the Housing Act 1974, which still related only to houses, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which gave leaseholders the right, if more than 50% of them wished to, to purchase the freehold interest in their block, the concept of marriage value was sadly reintroduced. Marriage value has been at the heart of many of leaseholders’ problems for more than half a century, simply because the freehold title of the property is worth more to them than to anyone else by virtue of the fact that they live in it. The law allows the freeholder to benefit from that asymmetry and impose considerable extra costs on any leaseholder who wishes to purchase or extend the lease on their home. When the Government come to legislate for leasehold reform—they have promised to do so and I look forward to that—I trust that they will understand that it is that fundamental injustice that has kept leaseholders prisoner to the vagaries of their freeholder and, often, the outrageous services charges imposed by their managing agents.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such a vital debate. Here we are again. The National Leasehold Campaign—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The Division bell has gone. If the hon. Member finishes his intervention, he might get a response when we come back, but he should be brief.

[Mike Amesbury]

Isn’t it time to abolish, rather than polish, the leasehold system?

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended. If there is one Division, we will suspend for 15 minutes; if there are two, it will be 25 minutes.

Voter Identification

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I think that I have already answered that question, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman, in readiness for the elections that will take place in his area in the future, to spend his time highlighting to his constituents how we are protecting the sanctity of the vote, rather than making cheap shots such as that.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

As of today, just 118 people have applied for the voter authority certificate in Cheshire West and Chester. I urge the Minister to apply some common sense to this. We have had debates on the principle of this, but can we pause the roll-out to ensure that we have integrity of the franchise for all?

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Gentleman outlines, it is important that we have integrity of the ballot box. I have explained multiple times why this is an important initiative to ensure that. If he has concerns about what is happening in Cheshire West and Chester, I encourage him to take it up with the leader of Cheshire West and Chester Council, who has been given additional money to make sure that they communicate with those in hard-to-reach areas so that the May elections are successful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I will have to look closely at that. It is rare that Warwickshire gets things wrong, in my experience, but my hon. Friend seems to have identified an anomaly that stands in the way of the effective transition to electric vehicles, so I look forward to considering more closely the issue that he raises.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

How can taking away £25 million from Halton Borough Council over the next three years be classed as levelling up? For Cheshire West and Chester Council, it is nearly half a billion pounds since 2010. That is not levelling up. When can we expect a genuine, fair funding review?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that at the last spending review, we secured a significant increase in local government spending, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire pointed out when we had the debate on the local government finance settlement, authorities such as that of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) have received the funding they need in order to deliver the services on which constituents rely.

Levelling-up Fund Round 2: Bidding Process

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on securing such a timely debate. Many communities in great need have lost out in both rounds of levelling-up funding. I note that the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) has been successful and I congratulate him and his community on that.

The Government expect places that receive funding to be grateful for a partial refund on money that has been systematically stripped out of their communities, decimating local services, whether that is children’s services for the most disadvantaged or adult services and social care, not to mention grounds and environmental maintenance. Those are just some of the key services that councils provide.

Nearly £500 million has been cut from Cheshire West and Chester Council’s budget over the last 13 years, while hard-pressed residents are expected to pick up the bill through astronomical council tax rises—in modern terminology this is known as core spending power. The Government have failed on levelling up, and they have even given up the pretence of trying. Look at Richmond and the award there, then look at Knowsley. That is a prime example of that.

At the core of this failure is the fundamentally flawed system and an unfair “Hunger Games” bidding process, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), our Front-Bench spokesman, will refer to. Many local authorities have had to go through this process. The Local Government Association—in which I should declare an interest as a vice-president—has estimated that each bid costs an average of £30,000, successful or not.

The system is not measured according to need, as it should be, but is seemingly influenced by political patronage at times. In my constituency, a very good and comprehensive bid was put forward by Cheshire West and Chester Council for funding for a new Winnington bridge travel corridor and brownfield development of 1,500 houses. The bridge is a key piece of infrastructure that serves industry, businesses and local people in not just my constituency but neighbouring Tatton. The council simply does not have the money to fund such an infrastructure project, and there does not seem to be any other Department for Transport scheme that would do the job. If levelling up were to mean anything, surely that bid would have been successful. The Government talk about “brownbelt first”, but 1,500 houses that would be good to go if the infrastructure was in place have now essentially been rejected.

If we truly want to power up communities, decisions need to be made closer to the communities that they would serve, and more powers need to be given to councils on funding. Devolve that funding to councils. Even the likes of Andy Street, from the Government’s side, has labelled this system of levelling up as a “broken begging bowl culture”. I wholeheartedly agree.

Today, the Conservative Government are once again busy with their own internal chaos; delivering for people and for communities is beyond their radar. I know that variety is the spice of life and we all love a bit of a surprise, but my God, this is on an industrial scale! I did not even know what Minister would turn up today. I am pleased that the Minister is here, by the way, and I will have a number of questions to ask her. But in the meantime, the whole House is seemingly in chaos and it leaves the country adrift. I think we are on our 12th Housing Minister, for example, at the moment.

Before I conclude, I have a number of short questions for the Minister. When will I and Cheshire West and Chester have feedback about the round 2 bid? Where did it go wrong? I am confused about that. What alternative route is available not only to fund the bridge, but to open up the opportunity to build the 1,500 houses? The funding is there for that, by the way; it is not a call on Government. But it is not for the bridge. What are the timescales for round 3? Will the Minister meet me to explore alternative funding routes?

I will conclude by saying that if we are truly to take control, we genuinely need fiscal devolution to our councils. That is exactly what is needed, so that they can make the spending decisions. And you know what? Sometimes they will make mistakes as well, but I would rather that that happened in our communities than came from Westminster and Whitehall. This is a flawed system.

Building Safety

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I will ask Sue Gray, the second permanent secretary of my Department, to be in touch with the Northern Ireland Executive this week to do just that.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

On what date can we expect a positive response on personal emergency evacuation plans and the next and final stage of leasehold reform, to put it in the history books?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

That is a very interesting point. I am sure a Minister will take that up and consider it with the hon. Member.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Cheshire West and Chester Council and I have put in an excellent bid in round 2 of the levelling-up fund for the corridor at Winnington bridge. On what day in January can we expect a positive outcome?

[Dehenna Davison]

I cannot promise a positive outcome at this stage. All bids are under consideration, but there will be an outcome before the end of the month.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to make sure that we get our planning system right, on behalf of and with so many colleagues on our Benches. I assure him that we in the Department for Levelling Up—me and the Secretary of State—believe that we have come to a better solution. We are committed to delivering it, as I am sure my hon. Friend and others across this House will see in the policy that we will propose in the NPPF and bring forward before Christmas.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

rose—

[Lucy Frazer]

I will make a little progress, because I would like to address the Government amendments, which I will do in five categories. First, we are making it easier for people to develop where they want to develop, and where it delivers the best gain to the community and ensures that planned-for development actually happens. I will highlight five measures in this first category.

Through new clauses 49 to 59, we will pilot community land auctions. They will seek to increase the supply of land and aim to capture more land value more effectively to the benefit of the local community. Planning permission will not be granted automatically on sites allocated in the local plan through the auction process.

Through new clauses 60 and 69, we are allowing for street votes enabling residents to come together and propose additional development on their streets in line with their preferences—subject to meeting prescribed requirements—and vote on whether it should be given permission. In speaking to those new clauses, I would like to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the “Strong Suburbs” report by Policy Exchange.

We are making it easier for people to access suitable plots to build their own homes. We are building on the immense work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). We recognise the importance of self-build and custom housebuilding, and new clause 68 clarifies the duty on authorities to provide for plots for such homes in their planning decisions.

We will also seek to reduce barriers to smaller-scale developments that communities can easily get behind. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) has worked significantly on that area. I can confirm that our intention is to consult on changing national policy to encourage greater use of small sites, especially those that will deliver higher levels of affordable housing.

Importantly, we are ensuring that when permissions are given, developments can be built out quickly. New clauses 48 and 67 deal with that. Members across the House have been concerned about the rate at which development occurs once planning permission has been granted. It is wrong for developers simply to sit on planning permissions, because that increases the number of permissions that have to be granted and risks overdevelopment. The Bill introduces further steps to tackle the issue, including a requirement for developers to report on the rate at which they build, and allowing authorities to deny permission for further development on the same sites where the developers have failed to build out. All those measures will encourage development where people want it and where they have agreed to have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mike Amesbury will be the last speaker on a five-minute limit. I will indicate whether the new limit is to be four or three minutes as soon as he has finished.

[Mike Amesbury]

I rise to speak to my amendments 97 and 98, to my new clause 111 and to other amendments that I support.

After 12 years of pursuing policies that have wrecked and hollowed out communities and deepened inequalities, this Tory Government now say that they are the ones to repair the damage and that the so-called levelling-up agenda is the way to do it. The Bill exposes levelling up as the empty promise that it is. It will not ensure that our planning system delivers for us, it will not provide the genuinely affordable housing we need, and it will not put investment and power back into communities and people’s pockets. In fact, the current Government are doing exactly the opposite.

I support several Labour Front-Bench amendments, including amendments 78 and 84 and new clause 98. This Parliament declared a climate emergency in 2019, so it is somewhat bizarre that, years later, mitigation and adaptation are not hardwired into our planning system. New clause 98, which would do just that, is welcome. As it stands, the Bill will create a power grab by the centre and by the Secretary of State, undermining the local plans and neighbourhood plans that Members across the House have spoken for so strongly in this debate, so I strongly support amendment 78. If we are to build communities with the right houses in the right places that are genuinely affordable, with essential infrastructure and beautiful green spaces, they must be sufficiently funded. That is not the case now, has not been the case for 12 years and will not be the case under the Bill, which is why I am backing amendment 84.

I turn to the amendments that I have tabled. Amendment 97, which is supported by the Local Government Association, would provide local authorities with the certainty that they need about how to administer the levy in relation to retrospective planning applications; the Bill does not currently make provision for that. Amendment 98 would ensure that all forms of provision delivered through section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including affordable housing, are not lost but continue to be delivered by the levy. Otherwise, important schemes that do not come under the definition of infrastructure, but are currently delivered through section 106—including apprenticeships, skills development, supporting the local workforce and supporting young people into employment—may be omitted. New clause 111 would have the same effect as new clause 94: by removing the clauses of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that relate to the sale of vacant higher-value local authority housing, it would hold the Government to a commitment that they made in the social housing Green Paper.

I also support amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Rightly, it would add childcare, either subsidised or free, to the definition of infrastructure. It is common sense, it is the right thing to do and I wholly support it.

My amendments and many others tabled by Members across the House seek to add some substance to a discredited and vacuous slogan: namely, “levelling up”. Over the past 12 years, communities such as mine have been hollowed out, with facilities from leisure centres to libraries closed down and our high streets boarded up. We need something radically different. In fact, what we need is a Labour Government who will empower our communities, genuinely power up our communities, and fill people’s pockets with the money and opportunities they deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will be a four-minute time limit. I call Sir John Hayes.

Council Tax

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The proposal will result in voter suppression, and I want to raise a number of concerns about its implementation, based on feedback from colleagues on Plymouth City Council, which represents one of the poorest communities in the country. Being in the south-west of England, surrounded by lovely beaches and gorgeous countryside, we are often not considered to be one of the poorest communities, but many of the problems experienced by some of the poorest communities in the north and the midlands are also present in the south-west.

I greatly fear that this proposal will not increase turnout, and I think that any Government who seek to introduce electoral reforms with the objective of not increasing turnout should look again at why they are doing it. What is their motivation? The proposal will cut turnout; in certain target demographics, the Conservative party will have a partisan advantage over other parties, which should also make us look again at the reasons for the proposal.

Many of the concerns were expressed during a group discussion between Councillor Tudor Evans, the leader of the Labour opposition on Plymouth City Council, and his councillors. I think they are genuinely meaningful, and I should be grateful if the Minister responded to them when he sums up the debate. One of them relates to the number of people who might be unable to obtain voter ID. On the basis of Government figures, the council estimates that about 4% of voters—8,000 people in Plymouth—will not have access to the photo ID that will be required for them to vote, which means that a great many people will not be able to cast their ballot without embarking on a bureaucratic process to secure it.

The concern in this regard is that councils will not be able, in the time that is allowed, to process the necessary number of applications. Councils are not full of staff twiddling their thumbs and looking idle, but they do not have the capacity to enable electoral officers to work flat out to process these IDs. Even if it were possible for that to be done on time—which it is not—resources would be diverted from jobs on which councils should be focusing.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this is about the disenfranchisement of, in particular, young people and black and ethnic minorities. As he also said, it is impractical too. The Local Government Association has talked of delaying the timetable beyond the local elections. I am fundamentally against the proposal and will vote accordingly, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that we need to look again at this unrealistic timetable.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree that the timetable is important. Regardless of party, we should all be seeking to make good legislation, with a good outcome. Rushed legislation will not lead to a good outcome, and I fear that rushed legislation is exactly what we have before us.

One of the concerns that many councils have is that the software required for them to produce valid certificates enabling people to vote if they do not have what legislation defines as legitimate forms of photo ID will not arrive until the start of next year, and has not been tested and integrated into other local IT systems that councils possess. Even councils that want to process the IDs for as many people as possible cannot yet do so. Plymouth City Council estimates that it will take eight minutes to process a single piece of voter ID for someone who does not have one, and 8,000 people in Plymouth do not have one. That means an awful lot of work: someone will be working their socks off to be able to deliver it.

This will also involve additional bureaucracy and cost. I asked a parliamentary question about the number of mirrors that would be required for the legislation to work, which produced some very puzzled faces. Why was I asking about mirrors? The answer is that the legislation will require 40,000 mirrors to be purchased by local councils to enable people in polling stations to readjust their masks or religious garments after taking them off to demonstrate that they are who they are, should they be asked to do so. It will also require the purchase of 40,000 privacy screens so that people can do that outside the public gaze, particularly for religious reasons.

Furthermore, the legislation will require a woman to be present as one of the polling clerk staff throughout the day. I think we should be seeking more women to be polling clerks, but we know that many polling stations do not have female coverage across the entirety of the day. That would now be required, under these regulations, so we are asking councils that are deeply in debt and struggling to afford social care for some of our poorest people to go on to eBay and buy mirrors. We would need one mirror for every polling station and we would probably need some spares in case one got smashed along the way.

It is a warped priority for councils to be buying mirrors, so can the Minister say whether the Government will be providing privacy screens and mirrors for every single polling station, or whether that cost will be put on to hard-pressed council taxpayers? I suspect that if the parties were in opposite positions and we were introducing this, Conservative Members would be saying, “Look at this Labour Government waste, buying mirrors and privacy screens.” Why is that not being said here? The £180 million cost is a significant amount of money that should be being spent on social care. The Tory-run Plymouth City Council is £37 million in deficit at the moment, and I want it to spend every single penny on essential public services, not on this type of bureaucracy.

Another concern I would like the Minister to address is the safety of polling clerks at the polling stations. We have to assume that refusing people or asking them for ID will generate a certain level of friction among some of the people seeking to cast their vote. Plymouth has 105 polling stations and there is real concern about what advice has been and will be given to those polling clerks about what happens if that friction turns into violence. Will there be adequate policing resources available on polling day to ensure that those polling clerks are safe when they ask people for ID or when they have to refuse them? What about the people who do not return when they have been refused? Our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), estimated that this would involve nearly a third of the people. That is an enormous number of people who might be in possession of the correct form of identification but do not have it with them when they go to vote. That is an awful lot of people who simply will not return, and not just for that election, because it will damage their voting experience for the rest of their lives.

I want to put on record a concern about the rural impact of the proposal. People who live in an urban area who are refused because they have left their ID at home might be able to walk back to their polling station easily, but those who live in a rural area and must travel large distances to get to their polling station are less likely to return. There is an urban-rural divide.

How will the Minister judge the success or failure of this measure? We know that there has been only one conviction, so in the Minister’s eyes, how many people being refused their right to vote will class the proposal a success, and what is the level at which it tips over to be a failure? I think that a single person being denied the right to vote is a failure, but I understand that the Government have taken a different view, and I would like to understand how many people must be turned away for this not to be successful.

This is not a piece of legislation of which the House can be proud. More importantly, it is not a piece of legislation of which the Minister should be proud. After this piece of voter suppression delivers partisan advantage in May and turns out to be a failure because people are refused their right to vote on a widespread basis—heaven help us if there is violence or if a poll clerk gets injured because of this—what do the Government think success looks like? Denying people their vote is never a success; it is always a failure, and I think that is what this piece of legislation will be.

New Developments on Green-belt Land

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Taiwo Owatemi]

The hon. Member makes an important point, and he is absolutely right that local people need to be able to have a local say on developments in their area. Developers should not be dictating to people in Coventry North West, who have often lived in the area for generations, what is in their best interests.

I will take a moment to look at the statistics, which are often used to estimate how many homes should be built and where. With the 38 new investment zones that have recently been announced, Whitehall is taking more and more control over the planning processes in our towns and cities. This approach is often predicted using census projections, but in Coventry the predictions have turned out to be way off. Our population has not grown anywhere near as quickly as was anticipated. The Office for National Statistics estimated Coventry’s population would be over 379,000, but recently released census results show that our city’s population actually stands at just 345,000—more than 30,000 less than predicted. This means that green-belt land may be torn up unnecessarily for houses that are not actually needed. It is now clear that the Government projections were plain wrong, and that top-down imposed house building targets are widely inaccurate.

The outcome in Coventry is that some of the most beautiful green spaces in my constituency have been needlessly taken away from green belt and allocated for house building instead. The figures do not stack up. For the short term, I would like to see a halt to building on any green-belt land around Coventry while accurate figures are calculated. I have repeatedly joined campaigners across Coventry in calling for these figures to be reviewed, but our pleas are falling on deaf ears. The Government have refused to take any action to remedy the situation, so the decimation of our green belt is poised to continue. Plans are still ongoing to build new developments that few people want. An overwhelming 92% of residents who took part in my survey thought that those elected to represent them on the city council must have a proper say on new development proposals in our city, but local government has little power over the matter.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her excellent speech. In my constituency, Weaver Vale, more than 2,000 units are being built on green-belt land as we speak. This former green-belt land was purchased by the Government agency named Homes England, yet the national planning framework talks about building on green belt in exceptional circumstances. There are huge contradictions, and the direction of travel seems to be towards further liberalisation. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be strengthened protections in the green belt.

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important point. He is right that we must continue to strengthen the protection of our green belt.

An overwhelming 92% of residents who took part in my survey thought that those elected to represent us on the city council must have a proper say on new development proposals in our community, but local government has little power in the matter. Instead, Whitehall is able to impose house building targets based on its faulty figures. I want to see a real shift in power away from Whitehall and towards local government. That would mean that local elected representatives, accountable to their residents who live and breathe their community, had the final say on new development. That way, we could abandon the inaccurate house building targets imposed by Whitehall and get on with meeting local housing needs.

In contrast to the Conservative Government, who have consistently sided with wealthy developers over local people, the Labour party has set out a different vision for planning and development policy. Labour would hand power to local communities to build the affordable housing they need and give councils the ability to build much-needed social housing—the houses we need where local people want them to be built. When new developments were built, Labour would give priority to first-time buyers and prevent new homes from being bought up by foreign investors before local people got a look in. That would put the dream of home ownership within reach of many people who cannot get on the housing ladder and reverse the decline in home ownership under this Government.

While the Conservatives are in the pocket of their property developer donors, a Labour Government would be on the side of local communities and would deliver the housing that Britain needs. Far too often, the houses being built are in opposition to what people need and want. Across the communities in Holbrooks, Allesley, Keresley and Eastern Green in my constituency, many have real and heartfelt anxieties about the impact of large-scale new development and its devastating impact on green-belt land. That is because the wrong type of housing is being built, and those houses are being built in the wrong part of the city. Eventually, they are going to be sold at an unaffordable price. From start to finish, this is a mess caused by a broken system. Those communities are already changing because of overdevelopment, and there is a great deal of frustration owing to the fact that communities can have large-scale development imposed on them without receiving the investment that is needed.

Too frequently, when homes are built in the wrong part of our city, the additional local services and new infrastructure required to support them are not put in place. Greedy developers must not be allowed to profit from building hundreds of expensive new houses against the will of local people and then walk away, doing nothing to provide much-needed services and infrastructure. New developments in Coventry North West are often built far from the nearest GP surgery, schools and shops, and without a proper broadband connection. Those developments often have neither public transport nor adequate roads. Everyone is fed up with massive developments being allowed to go ahead without proper thought and consideration being given to the infrastructure needed and the availability of public services. It is just not good enough.

It is morally bankrupt to build homes without also ensuring access to vital services, and it makes no practical sense either, as extra pressure is piled on already overstretched services. Developers will always want to turn a profit, but they must be made to play their part in delivering the services and infrastructure required to support the new homes that they build. In my constituency, too many homes are being built on green-belt land, and they are simply too expensive for local people to afford. I have repeatedly met with big developers to insist that they build affordable, family-sized homes for first-time buyers in the right part of our city, but those calls have repeatedly been dismissed. We must build homes that are affordable for families living in Coventry. Otherwise, what is the point of those homes?

Overpriced homes and out-of-reach mortgages are not what my constituents need. In Coventry, there are brownfield sites and similar land suited to redevelopment. That must be used first, before developers start destroying our precious green belt. Rather than building on the green belt at the behest of developers, I want houses to be built on brownfield sites, on disused land and in empty buildings, because that is what local people have asked for.

Lastly, I will highlight some of the specific local concerns that affect my constituency. Too often, developers earmark popular open spaces in our towns and cities for new homes, depriving communities of much-needed open spaces. That is certainly a problem in my constituency. Take Coundon Wedge, a beautiful spot that is enjoyed by people from across our city. Developers have been eyeing up Coundon Wedge for some time and, as homes are proposed on nearby Browns Lane, many people are understandably anxious that the Wedge will be next.

The local council has made it clear for decades that it does not want to build homes on Coundon Wedge. However, many people fear that because inaccurate house building targets are being imposed on Coventry by Whitehall, the hands of the local council may soon be forced. That is totally unacceptable. Coundon Wedge must not be put up for sale, and as the local MP I will oppose any future plans for new development on this vital green space.

Although local Conservatives in Coventry have been cynically campaigning to save Coundon Wedge for their own political gain, their party has been in power for the last 12 years and has failed to deliver long-overdue reforms to our planning law. The Conservatives are overseeing the very same planning and development free-for-all that threatens the future of the Wedge. Indeed, when the Conservatives last led Coventry City Council, they proposed thousands of new homes on green-belt land in Keresley, which is also in my constituency. People in my constituency will not be so easily fooled, and the hypocrisy will not go unnoticed.