Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I echo his comments, especially on early consultation and problems with maintenance companies. In West Suffolk the population has increased by 5.3% over the last decade. The population of Haverhill, the biggest town, has nearly doubled over the past three decades, and the size of Newmarket has grown by 50%.

Some of the developments have been contentious but, on the whole, people are not opposed to new house building in West Suffolk. We have had around 3,000 new homes built in just the last five years, and one of the things that our whole area has in common is the relationship with the economic geography of Cambridge, which is obviously only going to develop in the decades ahead. Most of the residents I speak to support the need for new, attractive family homes in the right places. Recently, I had a very constructive meeting with small developers in West Suffolk who are keen to grow their market share, and who often provide homes that are more attractive and sensitive to the community than some of the bigger companies. That is part of a new approach that I would like to see, but a new approach should go wider than that.

I want to cite some examples of the experience in my constituency. In Mildenhall there is a proposed development of more than 1,000 new homes to the west of the town. We are going to need a relief road there to help manage the extra traffic that will inevitably follow the development. There are similar issues in communities such as Kentford and Red Lodge, where residents are worried about the growing volume of traffic because of the number of houses that have been built nearby in recent years. In Haverhill, residents have felt let down because the relief road that was promised with the large development that was constructed over the past few years is still not open to use.

I will quickly make a few points in principle. First, we need new homes in this country. My points are not about nimbyism, but about ensuring that homes are sensible and in the right places. We should be building for families, not just transient tenants. Secondly, developers should be required to contribute more to the communities that they profit from building in. Thirdly, new infrastructure should arrive in advance of expansion; residents should not have to wait years for the benefit.

Fourthly, we need to build communities, not just “units”, which is the dreadful word used too often by council offices. We need communities that build a neighbourly spirit and encourage trust—not antisocial behaviour and crime. The quality of the housing needs to be much better than some of what has been thrown up in recent years. There should be no more building on floodplains, and we need proper accountability, so that when developers do not do what they promise, there are proper consequences for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

Absolutely not. The example I gave was—to go back to that 2006 movie—about a hedge. The power that planning committees have must be exercised with restraint. We must consider the opportunity costs. Disabled families and other families, my constituents, have been left waiting six months because of a landscape issue over a hedge.

There are a couple of practical considerations I would like to raise. The future homes standard is great, and developers have a responsibility there, but we cannot just focus on air source heat pumps. We must have battery storage linked to photovoltaics as well—that should be the new home standard. We must also have extra planning committee resource so we can properly hold developers to account. I would really welcome the Minister updating us on when the 200 new planning officers are likely to be in place. They are desperately needed in York.

Let me also touch on pre-application discussions. These are important to let developers get on and consider local need in the right way and at an early stage.

[Nick Timothy]

We are sent here not to consider anecdotes and individual case studies, but to consider legal frameworks and systems. If the hon. Gentleman wants to remove some of the systemic barriers to house building, which regulations—particularly pertaining to the environment and biodiversity—might he be interested in seeing removed?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are part of our regular work, and it is entirely up to the speaker to take them. However, when an intervention is taken, it adds one minute to the speaker’s time slot, which takes time away from others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I assure him and the House that the Government are committed to securing better environmental outcomes alongside facilitating the development that our country so desperately needs. In our consultation on proposed reforms to the NPPF, we made it clear that land safeguarded by existing environmental designations will maintain its current protections. We are exploring how we might streamline house building and infrastructure delivery by using development to fund nature recovery where both are currently stalled. However, we have made it clear that we will act with legislation only when we have confirmed to Parliament that the steps we are taking will deliver positive environmental outcomes.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Ministers dropped the last Government’s plan for the development of Cambridge and connections to nearby towns including Haverhill in my constituency. When will the Government come forward with an integrated plan to develop Cambridge and improve road and rail links to towns like Haverhill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I wrote to local leaders in the greater Cambridge area a few weeks ago to make it clear that the Government believe the area is a site where we should take forward nationally significant housing growth. We will set out further details in due course, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Cambridge growth company is taking plans and pulling together an evidence base to set out precisely what the scale of development should be and how it should take place in that area.

Employment Rights Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) on his maiden speech. I look forward to the best dog in the world, Monty, taking on Scooby in the Westminster dog of the year competition.

Everybody in the House knows that every Labour Government in history have ended with unemployment higher than when they started. Bills like this are part of the reason why, whatever the intention. If the purpose of this Bill really is to improve workers’ rights, and it is not just about paying back £40 million of union donations made over the past few years, why is there no provision addressing one of the worst labour market abuses in our country: substitution clauses, which allow delivery drivers to lend their identities to others? These clauses are in contracts from huge firms such as Amazon and Deliveroo, and they fuel worker exploitation and immigration crime. We know that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom cannot work here legally, trade identities. By undercutting British workers and exploiting those with no right to be here, these companies are privatising profits and socialising the costs that they cause, so why is that issue missing from the Bill?

Why will the Government do nothing about the international trading system? Countries aiming to run trade surpluses, such as China, hold down their labour costs and destroy industry in deficit countries such as ours. Trade wars, as two authors like to say, are class wars, and the Labour party usually likes to fight a class war, yet this Government want to flood Britain with cheap Chinese electric cars because of the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero. That is just one way in which our economic model needs to change, because while the Government’s characterisation of their inheritance is, I am afraid, cynical and wrong, there is a case for economic change, if only the Government were prepared to undertake it. I think the Business Secretary might be one of those capable of doing that, but I am not sure that some of his colleagues are. Today, Ministers could be launching a plan for reindustrialisation, for competitive energy prices, for domestic steel manufacturing and for a strategy taking in better infrastructure, skills and training, planning, regulatory reform and more—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to intervene?

[Antonia Bance]

No; I am fine, thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

The Government could be doing something about the fact that nearly 22% of the workforce is economically inactive and a record number of men is leaving the labour market. They could be backing British business.

[Robbie Moore]

This again highlights the point that there is so much detail yet to be released into the public domain about this Bill. I highlighted this before. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had that detail, we could provide more reassurance to the small and larger businesses dealing with the challenges he has mentioned?

[Nick Timothy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; I agree.

The Government could be backing British business, not burdening it with all these new regulations. Instead, we have an Energy Secretary driving up energy prices, a Chancellor planning a jobs tax, increases to capital gains tax and the imposition of inheritance tax on small family businesses, and a Deputy Prime Minister reregulating the labour market at a cost to business of £5 billion, to pay back the unions who fund the Labour party. The Prime Minister promised us that his priority was “growth, growth, growth”, but like everything else he said before the election, he did not mean it, because the only three things that this Bill will bring are more costs, less investment and fewer jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman just quoted the CBI approvingly. Can he name the chief executive of a real business who approves of this Bill?

[Peter Swallow]

I have spoken to many chief executives in my constituency who approve of this Bill. I will not go into private conversations, because I have not warned them that I was about to quote them in the House, but I am sure that we will hear many such examples in contributions from other Members.

This Bill will bring in historic new rights for working people. It will make work pay, and it will be good for boosting our national productivity and supporting businesses and growth in this country, because we all know that when workers feel that the jobs that they do are valued, they contribute more to the economy. That is why this Bill is good not only for workers but for businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) whether there are any business leaders who actually support the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware of any?

[Robbie Moore]

I have spoken to and received correspondence from many businesses, both small and large, in my constituency, but not one gave the Bill their full backing. In fact, they raised concerns about the relationship between the employer and employee being tampered with by the Government.

One of the most unsurprising parts of the Bill is clause 48, in which the Government want to force union members to pay into the political fund of the union, unless they explicitly decide to opt out. No matter what views hon. Members may have about unions, this clause is simply not right; working people should not be paying into political funds without giving their prior consent, especially when that money ends up in the pockets of a political party. Having received over £29 million in donations from the unions, we know which political party that money will end up going to—the party in government; and all this from a self-proclaimed Government of supposed transparency. Every employment is different, every job is different and every circumstance is different, but this Bill fails to recognise that.