Renters (Reform) Bill

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a huge pleasure to deliver the closing speech today on the Second Reading of the Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, and I begin by thanking Members across the House for their valuable, thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions to the debate. I have enjoyed and noted the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the Chair of the Select Committee —my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), whom I thank for all his work across a range of all-party parliamentary groups, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield)—I would be very happy to meet him and his APPG—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who will know about all the work we are doing to help address the second home issue in his constituency. He has spoken to me about that on a number of occasions.

I also thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for the support from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I declare an interest similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as I have four children in their 20s who are renting in London. I know at first hand of the issues that they and their friends face, and that is why I am so convinced that this Bill is the right thing to do for the next generations of our children and grandchildren.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister’s children are in their 20s, but we want to make sure that they are not in their 30s before the Bill actually comes into effect, so will she give us a clear time when the courts will be ready for the Bill to be active in the Government’s view?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will come on to that precise point, if the hon. Member will allow me.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), whom I will be happy to meet again, as requested. I also thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I am deeply concerned about the case she has raised with me and will continue to work with her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

It is right to say at this point that we are committed to honouring the manifesto commitment that we made in 2019 to create a private rented sector that works for everyone and to level up housing quality in this country. I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who continue to engage constructively with us on the provisions in the Bill so that we can deliver the change needed to create a fairer rental market for both tenants and landlords. Of course, I echo the sentiment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said in his opening remarks that we will continue to work closely with Members to further hone and refine this legislation as it is put on the statute book.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rachel Maclean]

I will make progress, because I have limited time and I must address the points that have been put to me.

First, it is right that antisocial behaviour is a discretionary ground. Judges must decide on the circumstances of a case. Having formerly been Minister with responsibility for safeguarding and domestic abuse, I completely understand the importance of taking such serious issues into account and striking the right balance between tenants and landlords. I was asked whether local authorities will have funding to carry out their enforcement duties. Of course they will have that new burdens funding, as they would with any Government legislation.

I was asked about blanket bans on benefit claimants and families with children, and I make it very clear that we are committed to outlawing the unacceptable practice of such blanket bans. We are carefully considering how to get these measures right. This is a significant reform, as I think all Members understand. We must do it in the right way, while ensuring that landlords rightly have the final say on who they rent their properties to.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will give way to Members if I have time, but please allow me to make my points.

There have been many questions about the ombudsman. We need simplicity and clarity for landlords and tenants. It is important to say that this Bill does not, in itself, establish a new ombudsman. An existing ombudsman could do the job and, again, we are looking at that very carefully to make sure we get the right solution for this vital part of our regulatory reforms.

I am grateful that many Members have welcomed the point about pets, and I agree that we are a nation of animal lovers. Again, this is about reasonableness. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle is exactly right—the circumstances she set out would constitute a reasonable ground for refusal, but we need to look carefully at how this works.

The decent homes standard has been raised again, and it is a key part of our reforms. We must make sure that the new system we introduce means people are living in decent, safe and warm homes. Everyone in this House will be under no illusion about how importantly this Government take this issue, as they can see the work that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to tackle these issues, which have laid unresolved for many years. This Government brought in groundbreaking reforms in the social rented sector, and we will do so in the private rented sector to give tenants the same protections.

It is important to note at this point that the vast majority of possession claims do not end up in the courts—only something like 1% of claims go through the courts. In my capacity as Housing Minister, I work closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is responsible for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. There is a wide-ranging programme of reform in the court system.

The courts have already made huge improvements. It is worth saying that over 95% of hearings are listed within four to eight weeks of receipt, and of course the ombudsman will encourage the early dispute resolution process, taking a lot of claims out of the courts and freeing up court time for more complex processes. When we bring in this reform, however, it is right that we ensure landlords have confidence in the justice system because, as everybody has pointed out, if we do not have good landlords in this country who have confidence in the systems that underpin the justice system, we will not have the rented homes in every constituency that our country needs.

We have always committed to aligning and synchronising the reform of the private rented sector with the court system; we note that that was a recommendation of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. We do not think that a housing court is the right way to do that; nor is that the view of the sector or of the stakeholders, with whom we have engaged in huge detail. This work remains a priority for our Department and for the Ministry of Justice. We want to see landlords being offered a digital process for possession on all grounds.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

If the Bill’s Second Reading receives widespread support because it will rightly ditch no-fault evictions of tenants without triggering an exodus of private sector landlords, that will in no small part be down to the hard work, for which I am very grateful, of Ministers including my hon. Friend. While she is looking at what is a reasonable speed to resolve antisocial behaviour claims in the courts, will she confirm that it is the Government’s firm intention to fulfil our manifesto commitment and implement the Bill as soon as possible?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I can absolutely give him that assurance.

[Mr Fysh]

Does the Minister accept that if the Country Land and Business Association’s estimate is correct that the Bill may reduce the available private rentals by 40% in rural areas, that could have a completely deleterious effect on the Prime Minister’s main pledge, which is to get inflation down? Core inflation is driven by rentals. Will the Minister work with me to fix the Bill and ensure that that does not eventuate?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend on this and many other issues, but it is important that I say that we have done considerable analysis. There is no evidence, such as the estimate that he has just pointed to, that the Bill will lead to landlords leaving the sector, but it is right that any policy that the Government bring in is based on evidence. That will always be our approach.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to wind up now, because I cannot detain the House any longer. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we are focused on introducing this groundbreaking once-in-a-generation reform. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Programme)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Renters (Reform) Bill:

Committal

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

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 December 2023.

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

Consideration and Third Reading

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

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

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

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Question agreed to.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

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

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Renters (Reform) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Question agreed to.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Ways and Means)

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

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Renters (Reform) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees under or by virtue of the Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Question agreed to.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Carry-over)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Renters (Reform) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Question agreed to.

Petition

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 117.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Government amendments (b) to (d) to Lords amendment 117.

Lords amendment 231, and Government amendment (a).

Lords amendment 237, and Government amendments (a) and (b).

Lords amendment 369, and Government amendments (a), (c), (b) and (d).

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 and 4, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.

Lords amendment 10, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 13, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (p) in lieu.

Lords amendment 18, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 22, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 30 and 31, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.

Lords amendment 44, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 45, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 46, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 80, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 81, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 82, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 90, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 102 and 103, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.

Lords amendment 133, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 134, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 137, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 139, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 142, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 156, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 157, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 172, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 180, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 199, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 239, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 240, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 241, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 242, 243 and 288, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.

Lords amendment 244, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 249, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 273, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 280, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 285, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 327, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 329, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendments 5, 7 to 9, 11, 12, 15 to 17, 19 to 21, 23 to 29, 32 to 43, 47 to 79, 83 to 89, 91 to 101, 104 to 116, 118 to 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 143 to 155, 158 to 171, 173 to 179, 181 to 198, 200 to 230, 232 to 236, 238, 245 to 248, 250 to 272, 274 to 279, 281 to 284, 286, 287, 289 to 326, 328, 330 to 368 and 370 to 418.

[Rachel Maclean]

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has had a lengthy passage. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all my predecessors in my role and to colleagues across the Department who have shepherded the Bill to its position.

The Bill reflects the huge importance of levelling up for the future of the country. For decades, successive Governments have failed to address the inequality of opportunity in our country. Economic growth has for too long been concentrated in a select few areas. The Bill will ensure that this Government and future Governments set clear, long-term objectives for addressing entrenched geographic disparities.

The Bill will expand and deepen devolution across England. It will devolve powers to all areas in England where there is demand for it, allowing local leaders to regenerate their towns and cities and restore pride in places by creating a new institutional model more suitable for devolution to whole-county areas outside city regions that have more than one council: the combined county authority.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I do not know what the Minister is going to say about Lords amendment 14, but if she is agin it, will she reassure me that the voice of district councils will not be lost in combined county authorities, which would create a disparity of the type that she is out to remove in the Bill?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his view. I will come on to address that point substantially in my remarks.

We are modernising our planning system, putting local people at its heart so that it delivers more of what communities want. The reformed system will champion beautiful design in keeping with local style and preferences and ensure that development is sustainable and accompanied by the infrastructure that communities will benefit from.

The Bill further strengthens protections for the environment so that better outcomes are at the heart of planning decisions. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that we have reached agreement with both the Welsh and Scottish Governments on a UK-wide approach to environmental outcomes reports in part 6 of the Bill.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

May I welcome the amendment that the Government tabled in the other place that will have the effect of addressing the issues I raised on Second Reading about the propensity of developers simply to clear a site in advance, with no regard for the wildlife on it at all? We had a controversial case of that happening only last week. I think the amendment will make a real difference and stop that terrible practice happening. It is a good example of the Government’s commitment to wildlife and the environment. I am grateful to the Minister.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend from the bottom of my heart for all the work he has done to protect wildlife both in his constituency and across the country. Hedgehogs will be a lot safer for his determined work—and not only hedgehogs but all other species of our beloved wildlife.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will give way shortly.

We have committed to resolving a related anomaly by reinstating a devolved regulation-making function for the Scottish Government on Electricity Act 1989 consents. That was lost following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. Our Governments will work together to transfer functions so that powers lost in the repeal of that Act can be reinstated, using existing processes under the Scotland Act 1998.

Since the Bill left this House, the Government have made a number of amendments to improve it. For example, we have addressed the issue of the payment of compulsory purchase hope value compensation by removing hope value from certain types of schemes where there is justification in the public interest. Part 11 of the Bill has been refined in response to concerns raised by the House about the need to specify the purposes for which the new information-gathering powers may be used. To bolster the Bill’s benefits for the environment, we have reduced opportunities for incentives for site clearance before development, just as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and included a clear requirement for plan makers to take into account the content of local nature recovery strategies.

I turn to the changes added by peers in the other place. Part 1 of the Bill provides the foundations to address entrenched geographic disparities across the UK. We have heard calls to be clearer on the third round of the levelling-up fund and tabled an amendment that adds a duty to lay a statement before each House of Parliament within three months of Royal Assent about the allocation of levelling-up fund round 3. Our views differ from those in the other place. We do not think that there is any connection between that further clarity on the levelling-up fund and the publication of the statement of levelling-up missions. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to bring forward the laying date of the statement of levelling-up missions as proposed in Lords amendment 1.

We have been clear that the first statement of levelling-up missions will contain the missions from the levelling up White Paper. Missions may need to evolve over time and, if the detail of missions appears in the Bill, the process to adjust them in the future will become unhelpfully rigid and time-consuming. Therefore, in response to Lords amendments 2 and 4, seeking missions on child poverty and health disparities, the Government have tabled an amendment that requires the Government to consider both economic and social outcomes in deciding their levelling-up missions. That means that we retain that vital flexibility for future Governments to set missions according to the most important pressing issues of the day, while recognising that social outcomes such as child poverty and health inequalities are essential factors when deciding missions.

We are not able to accept Lords amendment 3, which would define criteria for assessing the success of levelling up, because those criteria will inevitably change as the data we have evolves. However, given the strength of feeling, I am pleased to announce that the Government can commit to publishing an analysis of geographical disparities alongside the first statement of missions. Linked to that, there have been calls for more specific reporting on levelling up and rural proofing in Lords amendment 6. We strongly agree that levelling up must work for all types of communities, not just those in urban centres.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will just finish this remark, and I will certainly give way to my former ministerial colleague.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs already publishes an annual rural proofing report, which reflects the Government’s consideration of rural challenges across policymaking.

[Dehenna Davison]

As someone proud to represent a predominantly rural community, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to level up in rural areas is by ensuring that those areas get strong devolution deals with strong local leadership?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just a little reminder that if Members intervene on a speaker, it is customary to stay until the end of their speech.

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to reiterate my thanks to my former colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who did so much to shepherd the Bill to its current position. I completely agree with her. The best way to ensure levelling up across the country is by voting Conservative, because we have done more than any other Government to spread opportunity around the country.

To avoid anything that would duplicate the work I just mentioned, we have tabled an amendment that will require the Government to have regard to the needs of rural communities in preparing the statement of levelling-up missions. That is consistent with the approach we have taken in other areas, including with respect to the devolved Administrations.

We have heard the concerns highlighted through Lords amendment 199 on access to banking facilities for communities, and we share those concerns. Branch closures are commercial decisions for banks, and we do not believe that a blanket requirement on local authorities to produce strategies to inhibit that would be effective or proportionate. Instead, the Treasury will continue to support the roll-out of alternative services, such as banking hubs, which will ensure that communities across the country have access to the facilities they need.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

On Lords amendment 199, a lot of constituents have written to me with their concerns about bank closures. In West Kirby in my constituency, when the last bank closes next year there will be a banking hub, but it will not meet the needs of everyone across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that banks, post offices and so forth are incredibly important, particularly for those who are not able to or do not have the facility to access the internet and do their transactions online? Will she reconsider that position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady makes some good points. As I said, we agree on the importance of those services, particularly for the rural communities that we represent. That is why we are pushing through with the other work being done by our colleagues in the Treasury, and with the banking services model.

Turning to combined county authorities, the Government have heard the strength of feeling in both Houses about combined county authority associate member voting rights, and the combined authority boundary changes. The Government are therefore content to remove the ability to vote from associate members of both combined authorities and combined county authorities, the latter of which is called for by Lords amendment 14. We are also content to accept the requirements that must be satisfied before local government areas are added to an existing combined authority for the first nine months after Royal Assent, as proposed in Lords Amendment 18. The Government have accordingly tabled amendments in lieu, which we hope the House will support.

The core feature of combined county authorities is that only upper tier local authorities can be constituent members. That principle is essential to ensuring devolution, and its benefits can be expanded to two-tier areas. The House will not need reminding of several previous devolution deal negotiations for combined authorities that have failed in these areas, despite majority support for the deal. Allowing non-constituent members of a combined county authority to become full members would undermine our efforts to address the problem in future and would reduce the effectiveness of devolution in those areas. We remain of the view that combined county authorities must engage all relevant stakeholders, and wish for district councils to have voting rights on issues pertaining to them, but they must be established at local level. Let me reassure the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is next to me on the Front Bench, is having detailed discussions with districts on that point.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given the Minister’s enthusiasm for devolution and the wish to spread investment more sensibly around the country, what extra powers will local communities have to decide what is a realistic number of new homes in any given area?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will address that matter in due course, so I hope my right hon. Friend will allow a little patience.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said about the concern at district council level that they may be sidelined in combined authorities. We have received a persuasive letter from New Forest District Council, and I would like the Minister to reassure the House that her pledge that they can vote on areas relevant to them will be honoured.

[Rachel Maclean]

New Forest MPs are definitely speaking up for their residents today. My right hon. Friend will have seen the Levelling Up Minister next to me; he has heard that vital point. These matters must be decided locally, but I can reassure both my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that their voices have been heard and those points will be considered in future arrangements.

It is our strong view that one of the core principles of local democracy is that citizens can attend council meetings to interact in person with their local representatives. There are no limits placed on authorities broadcasting their meetings online and we do not agree that councillors should be able to attend those meetings and cast their votes remotely. It is important that they are present, active participants in local democracy. Therefore, the Government are not able to support Lords amendment 22.

The Bill removes a key barrier to transferring police and crime commissioner functions to combined authority Mayors, a long-standing Government commitment. Those powers do not permit the removal of a police and crime commissioner in favour of a mayor mid-term, as some have suggested. The powers simply allow the May 2024 mayoral elections to elect the Mayor as the next police and crime commissioner for an area, where Mayors request that the election be conducted on that basis. It is to allow the proper preparation for, and administration of, those elections that the Government are seeking to commence the provision upon Royal Assent, and so we are unable to support Lords amendment 273.

Turning to planning, we have heard the strength of feeling across both Houses about the need for national development management policies to be produced transparently, with clear opportunities for scrutiny. We have therefore strengthened the consultation requirements in the Bill, to make it clear that consultation will take place in all but exceptional circumstances, or where a change has no material effect on the policies. Draft policies will also need to be subject to environmental assessment, which in itself will require consultation. That will give everyone with an interest in these important policies—the public and parliamentarians alike—the opportunity to scrutinise and influence what is proposed.

Housing provision has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to finish my point, and then I will gladly give way?

As our existing policy makes clear, it is important that every local plan is founded on a clear understanding of the housing needs in the area. In response to Lords amendment 82, we have tabled an amendment that puts that important principle into law: plans should take into account an appropriate assessment of need, including the need for affordable homes. Any assessment of need is only a starting point for plan making; it will remain the case that local planning authorities will make their own assessment of how much of that need can be accommodated.

[Theresa Villiers]

Will the Minister assure the House that the compromise set out in the Secretary of State’s letter to colleagues of 5 December last year will be implemented? It is an important way to amplify local control over what is built in a neighbourhood, while still delivering the volume of new homes that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which I think is a matter of interest to all colleagues. She will know that we have had an exceptionally high level of interest in the consultation on the national planning policy framework, with over 25,000 respondents across the country. That demonstrates the keen interest of parliamentarians and their constituents in this important issue. She will know that officials need to work through those responses, as they are doing directly with her and others, before we make proposed changes. Officials will continue to work with her and other colleagues, and we look forward to publishing the updated document shortly. To be clear, the position remains as outlined in the Secretary of State’s letter of December 2022.

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The Minister is endeavouring to strike the right balance in a tricky area. Does she agree with me, as a former Housing Minister—there are one or two in this place—that actually the most important thing beyond what happens in Westminster is that local authorities get their local plan in place? We have a Liberal Democrat-run council in Elmbridge. It does not have a plan in place and has not for years. That is what exposes the green belt and unwanted developments such as the Jolly Boatman site which local communities do not want.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend and esteemed predecessor in my role. I will come on to speak a bit more about the “banana” policies of the Liberal Democrats later in my remarks. For the avoidance of doubt, that stands for—

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

rose—

[Rachel Maclean]

No. The hon. Lady will have her chance to speak later. It stands for “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone”. That is their policy. The whole House and the whole country know it. We on the Conservative Benches are building the homes that the country needs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) is absolutely right to say that where local authorities have a local plan more houses are built, and that where local authorities do not produce a local plan they are failing their residents and letting down future generations who will live in those areas. I will not take any more interventions now; I need to make some more progress.

The Government agree that it is vital for local planning authorities to have the resources they need to deliver an effective planning service. On 20 July, we laid draft affirmative regulations that, if approved by Parliament, will increase planning fees by 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications. This is a national fee increase that will benefit all local planning authorities in England. We are also undertaking a programme, with funding, to build capacity and capability in local planning authorities. The Government do not believe that enabling authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues. It will lead to inconsistency of fees between local planning authorities and does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies. It would also create significant financial costs to the taxpayer. We do not require the fee income to be formally ringfenced, as there is already a requirement through primary legislation for planning fees to be used for the function of determining applications. We have been very clear that local planning authorities should use the income from planning fees to fund their services. That will allow them to build their capability and capacity, and improve their performance. Therefore, the Government are not able to support Lords amendment 82.

On the environment, the Government agree that the planning system must support our efforts to meet our legal net zero commitments by 2050 and to tackle the risks of climate change. We have committed to updating the national planning policy framework to ensure it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible. What is crucial, however, is that we address climate change in a way that is effective without being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excessive litigation for those seeking to apply the policies once they are made. That is why we cannot support Lords amendment 45.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on her stewardship of the Bill. It is clear that it will be to the further benefit of the environment and devolve power democratically in terms of local decision making. Does she agree that it is this Conservative Government that are best for levelling up, whereas the other political parties in this Chamber constitute no progress at all and will bring no progress in the unlikely event they are ever put in that position? Is not the fact of the matter that, both democratically and transparently, it is the policies she is setting out and the position of this Government that will be for the benefit of the whole country?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I think Northampton North speaks for the whole House on this issue. With that, I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says, very importantly, that we will be getting an update to the NPPF to reflect the changes made in the Bill. Can she give us an idea when we will get it? We were promised it before the summer and then we were promised it in September. When will the House and the country actually see the updated NPPF?

[Rachel Maclean]

I recognise that there is a keen appetite to see the update. As I set out earlier, there has been a huge amount of work to analyse the very significant volume of responses. We will be bringing forward the update as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am not going to give way at the moment, I am afraid.

The Government agree that the quality of our homes is vital, but we do not agree that further legislation is needed to achieve that. The healthy homes principles contained in Lords amendments 46, 327 and 249 cut across building safety, building standards, building regulations, planning policy and design. They are already considered and addressed through those well-established systems.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am truly grateful to the Minister for giving way.

In its latest progress report, the Climate Change Committee was clear that planning policy needs what it calls “radical reform” to support net zero. Will the Minister therefore say more about her bewildering decision not to accept Lords amendment 45, which would simply ensure that all national planning policy decisions, local planning making and individual development decisions are in line with net zero? If the Government are serious about wanting net zero to be a priority, why would they not ensure that all their planning decisions support net zero, rather than undermine it?

[Rachel Maclean]

I have set out that, of course, the planning system puts the environment and net zero at the heart of all its work.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I just want to go back to the point about the Government coming forward with the NPPF. She indicated that it would appear very quickly after Royal Assent. Presumably the Bill will receive Royal Assent very quickly, so surely that piece of work must be almost ready. Why can we not see it sooner rather than later?

[Rachel Maclean]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We very much hope we will, with the consent of the House after these debates, see the Bill receive Royal Assent. We are working at pace to bring forward the long-awaited detail that she and others are rightly pressing for.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on healthy homes?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will come to colleagues very shortly. I want to say a few words about healthy homes, which I think my hon. Friend may want to speak about. The Government do not agree that an additional regulatory framework to promote healthy homes, including a schedule setting out the principles and process for providing a statement, is necessary, because it is already considered and addressed through well-established systems.

[Steve Brine]

I understand why the Government are resisting Lords amendment 46, a cross-party amendment from Lord Crisp, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blunkett. I understand what the Government are saying. At the moment, a big Select Committee inquiry is under way into prevention and we are looking at healthy homes. Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are addressing the fact that poor-quality housing is a major determinant of ill health that cuts across inequalities and is directly comparable to that? Is the Minister satisfied that all the stuff in the letter yesterday from the Secretary of State to all Members is in place to address that inequality?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the Chair of the Health Committee for all the work he is doing on this issue. I will read his report with great interest. I draw the House’s attention to the work that the Government and the Department are doing to tackle the damp and mould that is in so many houses and that caused the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. It is always right that we look to see what more we can do.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I need to make progress.

On the important issue of building in flood risk areas, which was raised in the other place, amendment 80 is well intentioned but would have wholly impractical implications. Under the amendment, a ban on residential development in land identified as flood zone 3 would take no account of flood defences and where, in reality, it is safe to build. For example, some 60% of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham lies in flood zone 3, as do many parts of Westminster. Planning policy and guidance make it clear that residential development is not compatible with functional floodplain, and should not be approved.

There is strong policy and guidance in place to prevent residential development where that would be genuinely unsafe. In high-risk areas, such development is only acceptable when there are no reasonably available sites with a lower risk of flooding, when the benefits of development outweigh the risk, and when it can be demonstrated that the development can be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I appreciate that the wording of Lords amendment 80 is not suitable given its likely scope, but flooding is a big issue in my constituency. It has affected a number of building sites, the Linden Grove development being just one example. Can the Minister assure me that the wide panoply of powers available to the Government, including the forthcoming planning policy framework, will create the infrastructure and apparatus necessary to ensure that a robust system will be in place to prevent flooding from affecting future housing developments?

[Rachel Maclean]

I can, with pleasure, give that assurance to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and to those in other flood-risk areas. We have considered this matter very carefully. We have strengthened planning policy and guidance, and put capacity into local authorities to enable them to assess risks properly. We believe that the policy strikes the right balance between allowing house building where it is safe and, of course, protecting homes from flooding in the future.

We are grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place on the important topic of ancient woodland. We are content to accept the principle of Lords amendment 81, which means that within three months of Royal Assent we will amend the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 to require local planning authorities to consult the Secretary of State if they want to grant planning permission for developments affecting ancient woodland. That clause will ensure that a Government commitment made during the passage of the Environment Act 2021 is enacted to a specified timeframe.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Ancient woodland is already highly protected. Will the Minister consider how this will interact with major infrastructure delivery in line with the commitment that she has given? I am particularly mindful of the fact that in Dover we are seeking an upgrade of the A2, which has already been planned to take account of ancient woodland. I am keen for that to progress, taking account of the existing environmental considerations.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is an excellent champion of infrastructure and housing in her constituency and, of course, throughout the country. She has made an important point, and I should be pleased to meet her and, possibly, her local representatives to talk about it in more detail.

Last month, in response to the concerns of Members of both Houses, the Government made changes to the national planning policy framework in relation to onshore wind, which were designed to make it easier and quicker for local planning authorities to consider and, where appropriate, approve onshore wind projects when there is local support. We need to allow time for those changes to take effect, so we will keep the policy under review, and will report in due course on the number of new onshore wind projects progressing from planning application through to consent. We also intend to update planning practice guidance to support the changes further, and to publish our response to the local partnerships consultation for onshore wind in England. The response will set out how, beyond the planning system, the Government intend to improve the types of community benefits that are on offer for communities who choose to host onshore wind projects, including local energy bill discounts.

[Sir Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Conservative colleagues and I, along with the Minister’s Department, worked together to end the de facto banning of onshore wind, and I am grateful for that. However, as the Minister has acknowledged, we need to see whether this policy is working, and a key determinant of that will be whether onshore wind really has meaningful community benefits. The consultation closed three and a half months ago; will the Minister tell us when we will see its conclusions? I am not suggesting that she should pre-empt those now, but could she also specify some of the likely monetary benefits that might flow to communities, so that we could have an indication that the Government are moving in the right direction?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and for all the vital work that he did in his previous role in taking forward the country’s reaction to climate change. This is a key plank of our policy. Our commitment to renewables is beyond question, and we have done more to drive forward that agenda with the help of my right hon. Friend and others. I have been discussing some of the questions he has raised today with my colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because I think people want to see what this means in practice for their communities. We have some exciting work planned, and I can assure him that, as I have said in response to earlier interventions, we will provide the response to the NPPF—which covers this and other matters—as soon as we can.

The Government remain committed to repealing the antiquated Vagrancy Act 1824 as soon as replacement legislation can be introduced, and once that has happened there will be no need to publish a report. Lords amendment 240 would require a Minister to publish, within 90 days of Royal Assent, an assessment of the impact of the enforcement sections of the Vagrancy Act on levelling up and regeneration. Given our commitment to the repeal and replacement of the Act, and because identifying and gathering the information would take significant time, we propose that a year should be provided rather than 90 days.

To ensure that the leaseholder protections on remediation work as originally intended in the Building Safety Act 2022, we have tabled an amendment to remedy a gap in the Act so that a qualifying lease retains its protection if extended, varied, or replaced by an entirely new lease. We do not, however, agree that Lords amendment 242, which would secure parity between non-qualifying and qualifying leaseholders, and exclude shares in a property of 50% or less from being counted as “owned” for the purposes of calculating whether a lease qualifies for the protections, should be accepted. There are a number of defects in the amendment; in particular, it would remove the protections once remediation work was complete, which a number of stakeholders have described to us as a potentially worrying change.

The Government made amendments to the Bill—clauses 239 and 240—which will allow us to transfer the building safety regulator out of the Health and Safety Executive in the future. That will ensure that we are ready, and have the flexibility in place, to respond to the Grenfell Tower inquiry report when it is published. When the regulator is moved, the essential committees established under sections 9 to 11 of the Building Safety Act will need to be transferred. We are therefore unable to accept an amendment that prevents us from removing the references to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to the committees. I should, however, make it clear that the Government have no intention of amending the make-up or role of those committees.

The Government take the condition of school and hospital buildings very seriously, which is why we already have extensive, well-established and transparent data collection arrangements for schools and hospitals. In addition to annual funding and central rebuilding programmes, we provide targeted support for schools and hospitals with specific problems such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The creation of a new register, collecting new data and following up relatively minor issues easily managed locally, will take limited resources and focus away from the most serious issues which require additional support to keep our schools and hospitals safe, undermining overall safety. That would carry unavoidable significant financial implications for both the NHS and the school system. The Government have listened to the arguments about local authorities opening their own childcare provision. While we did not feel that there was a legislative gap, we are willing to concede that point in full, and an amendment will be added to the Bill.

You will be delighted to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am nearing the end of my remarks, but I have no doubt that you will hear from the Opposition Front Bench a torrent of complaints and criticisms of the Government’s entire policy. Before we hear from them, however, let me make a few things clear. Despite having listened to numerous speeches from Opposition Front Benchers, I have no idea what their plans are for this vital policy area—apart from the rare instances in which they have simply repeated, and passed off as their own ideas, what the Government are already doing. They claim that they would magically make all these things happen without any additional public spending. Oh, I am sorry; perhaps I have missed their saying where they will spend the VAT charge on private schools, for possibly the ninth or 10th time. We can all see that for the fantasy it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am not giving way.

The Leader of the Opposition says that his is now the party of the yimbys. We all want housing for our own children and grandchildren—I am a mother of four; my second grandchild, Henry, was born just last night—so this Government stand squarely behind the aspiration of families across the country to buy a home of their own and get on the housing ladder. But what have we seen from Labour? At least 19 members of the shadow Cabinet have conspired to block houses being built in their own constituencies, including the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the Leader of the Opposition himself, who just two years ago voted to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications. That is what he voted for in this place, yet he now says that local communities will be completely ignored. Presumably what he means is that what is okay for him is not okay for anyone else. He wants to rip up the protections for precious green spaces, not just on the green belt but on the brownfield sites. Of course these are a vital aspect of our brownfield-first planning policies, but they often also form a vital green lung in heavily urbanised areas—[Interruption.] There is an awful lot of chuntering from Labour Front Benchers. They do not like what I am saying, but I will not be shouted down in standing up for house building across the country.

I would like to refer to a quote:

“Green space is vital in our communities to give children a safe place to play and to enhance community well-being.”

Not my words but the words of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who went on to say:

“I wanted residents to know they have my support in their bid to stop contractors entering the site to start building.”

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition has explained his position clearly to the residents of Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth, who I am sure will be interested to know exactly which sites on their green belt, urban brownfield and rural farmland the Labour party would like to determine, at the stroke of a north London lawyer’s pen, should be built over with zero regard to local communities.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will not give way.

There is no credibility at all on the Labour Front Bench. You do not have to take my word for it; just look at housing delivery in London and in Wales, where Labour has been in government, with all the powers, funding and levers, for many years. It has an atrocious record on house building, housing delivery and affordable house building. It is hardly surprising, when house building fell to the lowest level since the 1920s the last time Labour was in government. That, along with everything else, is something that the Conservatives had to sort out when we took office.

We are on track to deliver our manifesto pledge to build 1 million homes during this Parliament, with housing delivery at near-record 30-year highs. We are not complacent, and we need to deliver more of the right homes in the right places. That is why the Prime Minister and the Housing Secretary set out our long-term plan for housing in July—a plan based on the principles of building beautiful, with homes built alongside GP surgeries, schools and transport links, where communities are listened to and where we enhance the natural environment and protect our green spaces. It is a plan where we will build beautiful neighbourhoods modelled on the streets of Maida Vale, the crescents of Bath or the rural and suburban vernacular of Poundbury, not on soulless dormitory towns.

Now I shall turn to the Liberal Democrats. Even by their own standards, we have seen the most extraordinary fiasco unfolding within their party. I have to hand it to them: their balancing act is pretty impressive. They are taking the high-rise tightrope walk art of holding two entirely different positions at the same time to newly dizzying heights. Historically, the Lib Dems have been the BANANA party—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone—but amid incredible scenes, their youth wing has thrown out the yellow bendy fruit and forced on the party a top-down Whitehall-driven target of 380,000 houses a year.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady can speak later.

This policy has been described by the Lib Dems’ own former leader—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just a little reminder that we are on Lords amendments. I am sure the Minister will be referring her remarks back to the relevant ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We did discuss the matter of housing targets in the Lords debate.

The Lib Dems’ policy to have 380,000 houses a year—that is certainly this week’s policy—has been described by their own former leader as Thatcherite. So anyone contemplating voting Liberal Democrat needs to know what this means. I am afraid that they can no longer sustain a position of objecting to every single house being built in their area, or avoid making local plans to give communities a proper say over housing and the green belt. As we have seen with so many Liberal Democrat local authorities, they have kicked the can down the road and failed their residents.

I shall finish by expressing my gratitude to all my colleagues, both here and in the other place, for their continued and dedicated engagement with this complicated and complex Bill during its passage. We have listened carefully to the views of Members on both sides of the House, stakeholders and members of the public. The amendments we have made to the Bill as it has progressed to the Lords have further enhanced it and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend on that point. Coming out of covid, a lot of parish councils have raised that issue with me. From their perspective, they have made well-reasoned cases. They are not going to go daft. There is perhaps a nightmare scenario of local councillors never leaving their homes and, as a result, being abstract from the communities they represent. But they will not do that. They will be very mindful of their responsibilities and they would use this provision sensibly. At a time when we are talking about cascading down responsibilities to local authorities, it appears slightly perverse to be saying, “No, you’ve got to do it this way.”

My next point relates to Lords amendments 46 and 327, which would require the Secretary of State to promote healthy homes and neighbourhoods through a regulatory framework for planning and the built environment. As we have heard, the Government are seeking to strike out those amendments, on the basis that they will cut across the actions the Government are already taking to improve the quality of new homes, will create uncertainty and risk legal challenge and delay. I would readily accept that argument if the existing policy was working well, but it is not; it is complex and focused only on risk reduction. We should bear it in mind that from a high-quality home a host of benefits ensue and cascade down: better health and less pressure on the NHS; and an enhanced environment for learning, doing homework and passing the exams and getting the qualifications that enable people to realise their life ambitions, thereby ensuring social mobility. That in turn leads to improvement in national economic productivity. If the Government are to strike out those amendments, they need to fast-track their reviews of the decent homes standard and future homes standard and to put them in a coherent, positive and ambitious framework.

Finally, Lords amendment 45 requires the Secretary of State to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in preparing national policy, planning policy and advice relating to the development or use of land. As we have heard, the Government oppose the amendment on the basis that it could trigger a slew of litigation, which would hinder action needed to safeguard the environment, and that it repeats existing policy and statutory requirements. They also say that the importance of the environment is already restated in the Bill. I take that on board, although I would highlight three concerns.

First, to achieve our net zero obligations, there is a need for an enormous amount of private sector investment. As the UK Green Building Council points out, pension funds, corporate investors and construction companies require clarity, consistency and certainty in the policy framework. At present, that is missing and the business and investment community is confused.

Secondly, the existing system has created an inconsistency whereby local authorities must take net zero into account in developing their local plans, but the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State, as we heard on a number of occasions, do not have to give net zero the same level of consideration. If this Lords amendment does not stand, at the very least the Government need to remove that ambiguity as quickly as possible.

Finally, I am mindful that in Waveney, my own backyard, in Suffolk and across East Anglia, we are at the forefront of the challenges and opportunities arising from climate change. We have an exposed and vulnerable coast, we are low lying and prone to flooding, and we are the driest region in the UK. That said, we have great economic opportunities arising from the low-carbon economy, in the form of offshore wind, nuclear and hydrogen.

Local authorities and local business in the eastern region have innovative plans to best address these threats and to maximise the benefits arising from these opportunities. However, as matters stand, they are constrained by the inconsistencies I have outlined. A greater emphasis on climate change mitigation would provide some certainty and would help to attract the private sector investment I mentioned that, as we are seeing, is globally footloose.

These are the concerns I have. I acknowledge that the Bill should not be seen as the panacea for all our ills and I have listened to the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has provided. I hope that she might be able to allay some of the concerns I have outlined in her summing up.

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the points made by colleagues across the House. This is a complex and important Bill, and it has been a thoughtful and well set out debate; everyone has contributed.

I thank colleagues across the House for their remarks. I can assure everyone that the Government have listened extremely carefully to those. Because I have limited time, I may not be able to give as full an exposition on every single point, but I hope colleagues will not be disappointed and my door is always open to colleagues —as are the doors of all my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—to listen to any specific problems that people will have. Therefore, I want to thank the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for their comments.

I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) for her maiden speech and congratulate her on how she delivered it and its content. I listened to it with great interest and particularly noted her advocacy for and championing of the cider industry in her constituency, as well as her standing up for farmers. I am sure that is something that every single Member of the House can strongly agree with. I wish her all the best for her parliamentary career.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for their comments. I also thank colleagues from the Opposition Front Benches for their constructive comments. We have definitely reached agreement on some points, although not all, which is not surprising given the range of issues we have been looking at.

I want to touch on a few themes that colleagues have raised. I hope that we can go some way to addressing the specific questions put to me by them. Colleagues have raised concerns about how national development management policies will operate in practice; people have said they are thinking ahead to how those could operate in practice. I want to be clear that, where a decision is made in accordance with the development plan, national development management policies and a specific local policy, and NDMPs are relevant considerations but not in conflict, as part of a planning judgment, it will still be for the decision maker to decide how much weight is afforded to those different policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. The precedence clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies and where they contradict one another. We do expect such conflicts to be limited in future because of the more distinct roles that national and local policy will have. In response to questions asked by many hon. and right hon. Members, I can assure the House that we will be consulting further on how that will operate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked: what does the provision mean when it says the Secretary of State can act urgently? I reassure her that that refers to very limited circumstances such as the unprecedented situations that we saw during the pandemic. It is envisaged that that provision would be used only in those sorts of urgent and emergency situations.

There has been much debate about the role of district councils in the future combined county authorities. I have definitely heard the points that colleagues have made. We do value the amazing work that is done by district councils. I wish to thank my own district council—Redditch Borough Council—for the incredible work that it does. I know that Members have thanked their own local authorities. I listened very carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. It is right that we want devolution to work and the voices of those district councils are really important. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), has been very clear in his discussions that we are encouraging potential areas to consider how best to involve district councils—they make a unique contribution—in recognition of the role that they play, without holding up those important devolution arrangements.

I have been struck by the number of colleagues who have talked about remote meetings and challenged the Government’s position on that. It is the Government’s view that face-to-face democracy should remain in place and that physical attendance at meetings is important, not just to build strong working relationships, but to deliver good governance and democratic accountability. It is clearly right that councillors are regularly and routinely meeting other councillors in person and that members of the public can ask questions in person. Some of these measures were brought in during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic has passed, it is right to consider reversing those and getting back to that face-to-face democracy. However, we are looking at a call for evidence on this matter and we will publish the results of that as soon as possible.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It seems to me that it would be a good idea to consult parish councils in particular and to have a debate in the House of Commons when the Government have had their responses. For the Government to say what their view is, is one thing. For Parliament, which gives powers to authorities, to decide we do not want to tell them how to discuss using those powers is another. Those authorities are limited by the powers. In my view, they should not be limited in how they discuss them.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the Father of the House for those comments. I can assure him that the Government are carefully considering his points, and those made by other colleagues.

I turn to rural-proofing and the vital role of rural areas—a point made by a number of colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. He asked how we will make sure that we abide by our commitments to rural-proofing in the Bill. I wish to be clear that we are fully behind the objectives to make sure that rural areas benefit from our levelling-up agendas. We want to make sure that the needs of people and businesses in rural areas are at the heart of policymaking, including through rural-proofing. The report that we published early last year demonstrates that we are making real progress on all sorts of issues, including digital connectivity and action to tackle rural crime.

My hon. Friend also asked about the use of agricultural land for food production—again, an issue close to the hearts of many of us who represent rural areas. The Government agree that we must seek to protect our food production and rural environments, and we will publish the consultation response on that issue very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

I hate to take my hon. Friend back to my earlier question, but she has not answered it. Until we get a new NPPF, planning inspectors will refer to the previous one, and that leaves the option open to them to make decisions that are not in line with the legislation. Will the Minister give guidance to planning inspectors now that in the interim, until the new NPPF is in place, they must take account of what is in legislation passed by the House, rather than referring to the previous NPPF? Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the perverse position where local authorities can give permission to developments that are against what the Government are proposing on areas such as the five-year land bank and housing targets. We cannot allow ourselves to be politically exposed like that. This is a party that wants to win a general election and that expects Ministers to give direction to the planning inspectors.

[Rachel Maclean]

I assure my right hon. Friend that I heard his remarks and concerns. Until we have published the response on the NPPF, it is not possible for us to give directions to the planning inspectors in the way that he has asked. He will also know that the Planning Inspectorate has to work within the framework policy and the legislation of the time. It is important to set out that local areas must get their local plans in place, and I hope that his local area is doing so. That is the best way to ensure that it delivers houses that command the consent of his constituents, for whom he is advocating superbly.

The Bill addresses the entrenched disparities that exist across the United Kingdom, backed by billions of pounds-worth of funding, including, I must add, for Scotland. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), who spoke for the Scottish National party, was a little ungenerous in her remarks, so I want to land with her the significant investment that this Government are making in Scotland—I think the figure is £394 million—to boost communities across the country.

This Government set clear long-term objectives for levelling up and are held accountable for—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Rachel Maclean]

I am supposed to be winding up, but I will take one final intervention.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful and will be brief. During an earlier intervention, I asked the Minister for clarity on the specific question of the duty to co-operate. Can she give me that clarity before she winds up?

[Rachel Maclean]

I can confirm for my right hon. Friend that we will scrap the duty to co-operate for the reasons that she mentioned. We will consult on how we expect local authorities to work together. I urge her to work with us and to contribute to that consultation when we bring it forward in due course.

The Bill devolves powers to all areas of England, modernises the planning system and strengthens environmental protection. We have, of course, heard hon. Members’ points, which we will consider carefully as the Bill completes its passage. The Government are on the side of the builders, communities and homeowners —present and future—across our country. I commend it to the House.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 117.

Government amendments (b) to (d) made to Lords amendment 117.

Lords amendment 117, as amended, agreed to.

After Clause 214

Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 231.—(Rachel Maclean.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support first-time buyers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

The Government have a range of schemes available to first-time buyers, including First Homes and shared ownership. The mortgage guarantee scheme helps to increase the supply of 95% loan-to-value mortgages. We have also doubled the threshold at which stamp duty land tax becomes due to £250,000, and expanded first-time buyer relief.

[Chi Onwurah]

In West Fenham recently, Mr and Mrs Joyce told me how their daughter and prospective son in-law had lived with them for five years while they tried to realise their dream of home ownership. Even after saving a deposit, the failure of the Minister’s Government to build houses meant that they were constantly outbid on the few homes available. Labour has set out plans to get Britain building again. Will the Minister match our ambition, or is living with the in-laws the new Tory dream?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady asks whether we will match Labour’s ambition. I have news for her: from what I picked up from the Labour party conference, it announced the same targets that we are getting on with. I draw her attention to the fact that more than 860,000 households have been helped to purchase a home since spring 2010, through Government-backed schemes including Help to Buy, Right to Buy and First Homes.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I welcome the new “young” Minister to his post. I want to attach myself to tributes to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who is sitting next to me.

Last week, a freedom of information request showed that the Lib Dem-Labour controlled Greater Cambridge Partnership, which handles city deal money in my constituency, spent £4.7 million developing plans for a congestion charge that was then dropped because it was opposed basically by everyone. It also spent £16.5 million on the Cambridge South East Transport bus route, also now dropped, and £18 million on new car parks, none of which are actually open. That is a total so far of £160 million on transport projects, and virtually none of them functioning. It is now asking the Government for £200 million more. It is no wonder that in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, people think that the Greater Cambridge Partnership is unelected, unaccountable and a waste of public money. Does the Minister agree that we have to ensure public value for money? Will he meet me to talk about the details?

--- Later in debate ---

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

Through the Levelling Up Parks Fund we have made available £9 million for local authorities in areas of high deprivation to create or significantly refurbish green spaces. The fund also includes the planting and maintaining of trees and encourages projects to work towards green flag award status.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the Minister for that answer. What steps is she taking to ensure that proposed sites for housing that are completely unsuitable for reasons of biodiversity or lack of access or proximity to a site of special scientific interest are not taken forward and built upon? Although this is a national, not local, question, I am thinking particularly of a contentious application on Water Lane in Knaresborough, which has previously been refused.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend will, I hope, understand that I cannot comment on that specific case or situation, but it is really important that local authorities make decisions according to their local plans, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out earlier. If local authorities have a plan in place, it allows them to set out where they would like to see development that benefits their natural environment take place.

In England, we have also set out that from January 2024 biodiversity net gain will apply to mitigate the impact of major development. That requires developers to deliver 10% biodiversity net gain.

[Robbie Moore]

In 10 days’ time Bradford Council is likely to give the green light to yet more houses to be built in Silsden on valuable green space. If approved, the additional 140 houses will follow many hundreds of houses currently being built in Silsden, and many more are awaiting planning approval. Silsden’s infrastructure simply cannot cope. Does the Minister agree that Bradford Council should prioritise Silsden’s infrastructure first, rather than seeing the area as a quick win for achieving its housing targets?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is completely right. As ever, he champions his constituents over the actions of Labour-run Bradford Council, which obviously has a detrimental impact on his constituent’s lives. Local authorities have an obligation to spend section 106 receipts in line with the purpose for which they were agreed, for exactly the reasons he gives. We are committed to introducing new measures through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that will give greater certainty to local communities about the infrastructure that will be delivered in their area.

[Aaron Bell]

Newcastle-under-Lyme is going through its local plan process at the moment. I welcome the fact that the Conservative-led administration has reduced the overall number of new homes to 7,000, from the 11,500 in the previous, Labour-led local plan, which would have carpeted over our green spaces, as the Leader of the Opposition seemingly wants to do everywhere. Nevertheless, some people are unhappy. Would the Minister join me in urging the council in its next draft to further prioritise brownfield development, which is the key to regeneration?

[Rachel Maclean]

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government’s policy to strongly encourage local authorities to make the most of brownfield land first, especially for new homes. It is right that if local authorities want to alter a green belt boundary, they have show exceptional circumstances. We Conservatives believe in preserving our green spaces, and it is interesting to hear the proclamations from the Opposition. I will be very interested to see whether they propose concreting over the green spaces surrounding their own constituencies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. We have undertaken an inquiry and sent the report through to Ministers. The recommendations from that were clear: while it is good to have healthy, energy-efficient homes, it is really important to have green space around those houses. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the report from the APPG? If not, I will ensure that she gets a copy, and I hope that she will then come back to me on the recommendations.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for his comments, and I would be delighted to read the report from his APPG and respond to him. I fully agree with his broader point that green spaces are vital for mental health and wellbeing, as well as physical health.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to help ensure the delivery of projects supported by the Towns Fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I have been running a “fair deal for new estates” campaign in my constituency to ensure that new estates are completed in a timely manner. I am talking about not just the housing, but the play areas, the planting, the drainage and the pavements. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss this campaign, which is important locally and is achieving progress for residents in Harrogate and Knaresborough?

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in raising the concerns of his constituents on the Floor of the House. I know that those concerns are also raised with many other colleagues. That is why, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we are strengthening planning enforcement powers, including powers to tackle uncompleted developments. I hope his constituents will welcome that, and I would be pleased to meet him and discuss it in more detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Voter Identification Scheme

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement on the voter identification scheme.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

We were pleased and encouraged by the first roll-out of voter identification at the local elections in England in May. The data gathered in polling stations showed that the vast majority of electors—99.75%—were able to cast their vote successfully and adapted well to the roll-out of the changes. We are grateful to local authorities and other partners for their work to deliver the change in requirements.

The Government committed in legislation to conduct an evaluation of the implementation of voter identification at the local elections in May and at the next two UK parliamentary general elections. Our intention is that the first of those reports, evaluating the implementation at May’s local elections, will be published in November 2023. Yesterday the Government published two documents that demonstrate that we are making clear progress with the evaluation, and that provide more detail on the evidence upon which it will be based. We are determined to ensure that we fully understand how the policy has operated in practice, what has gone well, and any ideas for improvement.

There are few tasks more important in public life than maintaining the integrity of our democratic processes and the British public’s trust in them. We are not just committed to doing so; we are acting to achieve that. The Government have taken seriously the important recommendations made by the independent Electoral Commission, by international electoral observers and by Sir Eric Pickles—now Lord Pickles—in his report into electoral fraud, and we have been committed in the years since to addressing what has been a staggering vulnerability in our electoral system. It was previously far too easy to commit the crime of electoral fraud in the polling station and almost impossible to detect it. I am immensely proud that we have now delivered this new process and fulfilled our manifesto commitment.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I suspect that the Minister and I were reading different reports, because the first report cards on the roll-out of voter identification in England are out, and they are not good. The Electoral Commission’s report—the result of extensive work monitoring and analysing the recent elections—warned that disabled people and the unemployed found it harder to show accepted voter ID, as well as younger people and people from ethnic minorities. It also reported that on average more deprived areas had a higher proportion turned away compared with less deprived areas. The Local Government Information Unit reported that approximately 14,000 voters were not given a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID and significantly more were deterred from voting because of the ID requirement.

This is not just about England, because the next election is UK wide—it will affect my constituents in North East Fife. Hundreds of thousands of people risk being turned away at the next election, at a cost to the taxpayer of £120 million over the next decade, and all of that to combat levels of voter fraud that, at the last election, stood at six cases—talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A general election is perhaps no more than a year away, but it is clear from reading the reports that we are teetering on the cliff edge of a democratic travesty, not just because the roll-out of voter ID has been botched—many of us believe that it should never have been implemented in the first place—but because of the Government’s apparent refusal to listen to the concerns of members of the public and Members of this House. That was what they did in the run-up to the local elections, when take-up of voter authority certificates was pitiful and local authorities were warning that they were unprepared, and that is what the Government are doing now.

I was hugely disheartened that in both the Minister’s response and the written statement published yesterday the Government seem to be taking a stance of blindly ignoring the warning signs. So far, I see no evidence to suggest that that stance will change in the Government’s evaluation report in November. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity to start setting things right. Will the Government ensure that the evaluation report in November is truly independent? What measures are under consideration to ensure that voters will not be turned away at the general election, as the LGIU report warns? How do the Government intend to expand the roll-out of voter authority certificates ahead of the general election, and will they expand the list of acceptable forms of identification?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I remind all Members in this Chamber that we have already passed the Elections Act 2022; it passed the scrutiny of both Houses and is now law. If she refers to the debates in Hansard, she has treated us to a compilation of the Liberal Democrats’ greatest hits—and that is no surprise because, as always, they do one thing and say another. If she is so opposed to the principle of electoral identification and photographic identification, why did her party support its introduction in Northern Ireland? At that time, the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson told Parliament that

“we accept the need for a Bill… The Liberal Democrats…welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an electoral identity card”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 705-707.]

That legislation passed Second Reading without a vote. If we separate the points of substance and process from re-running the battles of the past, of course we take the recommendations of the independent Electoral Commission extremely seriously, as we set out in detail in the report and as I set out in my remarks earlier.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister has rightly distinguished the political from the practical. The Electoral Commission itself recommended photographic ID, and it has now come forward with other comments.

We must recognise that the biggest deficit is the inadequacies in the completeness of the electoral roll, and the fact that one third of people do not vote in general elections and up to two thirds do not vote in local elections. We ought to spend as much time on that issue as we do on this.

We ought to consider the suggestion of attestation, where someone in a household who does not have voter ID can have their identity attested by a person in the same household who does. Perhaps neighbours ought to be able to do that, and other people with some kind of standing in society might be able to do the same thing for people who find they cannot vote on the day. It seems to me that we can improve what we have without throwing out the whole system of photographic ID, which, as the Minister has said, was supported by all parties when it was first brought in for Northern Ireland.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend the Father of the House for those very sensible and proportionate comments. He is right that, as political parties, we all have a responsibility to ensure that our constituents and those voters take part in our democratic process. That is what this process is about. I am afraid that the kind of scaremongering comments that we have just heard from the Liberal Democrats, and that no doubt we will hear from all the other Opposition parties, are damaging the important cause that we all stand behind: ensuring the safety of our precious democracy, which now more than at any other time could potentially be at risk. I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking sensible steps to protect our democracy from the kind of interference that we all fear could happen in this day and age.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Minister.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in her urgent question and by the Father of the House in his sensible remarks. The Minister should be promoting confidence in our electoral system and concentrating on getting the millions of people who are not registered to vote on to the register. Instead, she has tried to pull the wool over our eyes this morning by presenting the Electoral Commission’s report as a ringing endorsement of her Government’s dangerous policies.

The reality is far from that. This extremely concerning report brings into sharp focus the consequences of the Tories’ failed photo ID regulations. By introducing such strict regulations, against the advice of experts and equality groups, the Conservatives have snatched away the ability of legitimate voters to have their say on services and society. One former Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), admitted that this partisan scheme was designed to rig the rules and lock voters out of democracy. The Minister claims that she is concerned with protecting our democracy, so will she agree to the entirely reasonable Electoral Commission reforms and the widening of the list of ID that people can use to vote, or will she commit to introducing a vouching rule for those without voter ID?

Given that the Electoral Commission said that the rules risk widespread disenfranchisement at the general election, will the Minister commit now to publishing the evidence to prove the commission wrong? That should not be a problem if she has nothing to hide.

Is the Minister concerned by the watchdog’s findings that the laws could have a disproportionate impact on people from minority ethnic backgrounds? When the independent review concludes, will she commit to making a statement to the House?

[Rachel Maclean]

May I take this opportunity to warmly welcome the hon. Lady to her place and to thank her for her comments? On the substantive, non-political points that she made, I have been extremely clear, and am happy to repeat the assurance, that we are working carefully with the independent Electoral Commission, which itself recommended the introduction of photographic ID to safeguard our precious democracy. We are looking at all its recommendations. We will, of course, naturally come forward for scrutiny when the findings are published, as we do as a matter of course.

On the substantive point, is the hon. Lady really saying that the Labour party will repeal the Elections Act should it come into government? What exactly has the Labour party done to raise confidence among Labour voters? Or is this just a case of Labour Members standing on the sidelines making shrill, scaremongering claims? Time and again, Labour has made such claims ahead of the sensible and proportionate pilot schemes that we have rolled out, but none of the things that Labour Members have warned about has happened—[Interruption.] Perhaps she would like to listen to my remarks.

The new shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), warned of shortages of electoral staff, lack of venues and funding uncertainty ahead of the local elections in May 2021. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, warned that elderly people and ethnic minorities would not visit polling stations. None of those things has happened. The Electoral Commission—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering from sedentary positions, but perhaps they should listen to the words of the independent Electoral Commission—not my words—which found that

“the polls were delivered safely and successfully”,

and that changes put in place by the UK Government, the commission and electoral administrators helped to “support and reassure voters” and campaigners.

I think it important to make this final point. The hon. Lady talks about ethnic minorities being disenfranchised and discriminated against, but we know from the type of heinous behaviour that we saw in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham that ethnic minority voters are most disenfranchised and disadvantaged by not having security in our elections.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The crime of personation has been notoriously difficult to prove. We have functioned on the basis of trust that people who go to the polling station are who they say they are. The sad reality is that when I was elected in 2010, we found after the election that scores, perhaps hundreds, of people who had voted in my constituency were actually abroad at the time. The police refused to do anything about it. People impersonated those voters. I do not how they voted, but clearly those votes were stolen from people. Voter ID ensures that that sort of activity cannot happen. Will my hon. Friend also take up the issue of postal and proxy voting to ensure that their proper policing is integral to our system?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is totally right. The suggestion from the Opposition parties is that we should just wait and see whether something bad happens, and then take action. That is the wrong way to go about safeguarding our democracy, which we should all be proud of. He makes the extremely valid point that it is impossible to detect impersonation. When it has been detected, such as in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham—the Opposition do not like me mentioning it—people have been taken to court and found guilty of these offences. He is also right to raise the issue of postal and proxy voting, and he will know that we are commencing provisions to safeguard some of those processes, which is the right thing to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The incredibly hard-working team at the Electoral Commission are far too polite to say, “We told you so,” but that would be a pretty easy way to sum up most of what is in this report. Practically every concern about the introduction of photo ID that was raised during the passage of the Elections Bill has been borne out in the by-elections and local elections that have taken place since it became law.

The Government say that they want to increase democratic participation and not suppress turnout among minority and disadvantaged communities, but the evidence suggests that that is exactly what is happening—fewer votes from sections of society that it just so happens are less likely to vote Tory. What steps will the Government take in advance of the general election to remove barriers to voting established by the Elections Act 2022? Will they expand the list of acceptable ID? Will they make sure that, as the Father of the House suggests, people can vote on polling day through attestation? Will they make sure that the Electoral Commission and local authorities are properly resourced to fulfil their functions? They already have to deal with boundary changes and polling district redraws, and now they have to deal with the Elections Act. Will the Government look to Scotland as well, where with votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, refugees and EU citizens, we are seeking to expand, not restrict, the franchise?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to the response that I have given multiple times, but I am happy to repeat it, in case he was reading his brief at the time. We are working with the Electoral Commission on all the recommendations it has made. It made several recommendations, and we are looking closely at them. I hope that we all share the same objective of making sure that this change is rolled out successfully.

If the hon. Gentleman does not like our proposals—I am sure he does not, because he wants to break up the United Kingdom—could he explain why they are working so well in Northern Ireland? The incredibly hard-working people, as he puts it, from the Electoral Commission have observed there:

“Since the introduction of photo ID in Northern Ireland there have been no reported cases of personation. Voters’ confidence that elections are well-run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations.”

Why is it perfectly acceptable for us to listen to the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, England and Wales but not in Scotland?

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

One of the problems was that people took ID that had run out, such as driving licences and passports. Does the Minister agree that if a document has recently run out, as long as it has a photograph of the person, it is admissible? Furthermore, could the amount of ID that can be shown be broadened slightly, so that people have a bit more choice in what they can use?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestions. It is right that we look at all the practical barriers that have been encountered at polling stations. That is why we are working closely with the sector to listen to its feedback and to representations from civil society, disability charities and others. We know that where voter identification was trialled in pilots, the proportion of people who agreed that electoral fraud was not a problem increased from 13% to 32%. We know that most people were able to vote successfully in both the pilot and the last local elections, but it is right to look at all the details, and we will be doing so, in line with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

If we are to have voter ID at the next general election, which we will, will the Minister seriously look at extending the amount of ID that is acceptable? It is unfathomable that a concessionary bus pass is acceptable, but an 18-year-old’s bus pass is not.

[Rachel Maclean]

I would like the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at the eligibility for 18-year-old Oyster cards and 60-plus Oyster cards, because they are different. Eligibility for the 60-plus card involves significantly more requirements, including a passport or driving licence. Of course, when we try to expand the forms of identification that can be used, we are going to say yes in some instances and no in others if the eligibility is different.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Despite what we are hearing from Opposition Members, my experience at the local elections in May was that when people were turned away, they did indeed return. They are used to providing identification when dealing with so many other services, and they found it quite acceptable. We need to recognise that the public at large are very supportive of the policy, but echoing other comments, could the Minister give an assurance that the postal vote system will be thoroughly examined? There are genuine causes for concern about that system.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation, and he is right that the vast majority of the general public support the policy. I remind Opposition Members that we were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce these measures. They have been thoroughly debated in both Houses and have received very serious parliamentary scrutiny. Opposition Members are asking the same questions that they have asked time and time again, and I remind them that prior to the introduction of this policy, it was harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel from a post office than it was to vote in someone else’s name. This Government do not agree that that is an acceptable state of affairs in Great Britain today, and I find it quite astounding that members of Opposition parties do.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

If we as a country truly value democracy, it should be in the interests of the state that as many people as possible vote, rather than deliberately turning them away as this Conservative Government have done. Since the Minister has chosen to attack the Liberal Democrats’ legitimate concerns rather than answer questions, I will start again and ask her to answer a specific question: what measures are under consideration to ensure that voters will not be turned away at the next general election?

[Rachel Maclean]

For the hon. Lady’s benefit, I will repeat the specific answers I have already given. We know that the vast majority of people were able to vote successfully, so I have nothing to do other than remind her that the Liberal Democrats, of which she is a member, supported the introduction of photographic identification in Northern Ireland. It is quite astonishing to me that the Liberal Democrats continue to oppose introducing sensible measures in England that they supported and voted for in Northern Ireland, which is part of our United Kingdom.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

On the day of the local elections, I remember knocking on the door of a constituent who told me that she usually votes, but was not going to because she realised that she did not have the necessary voter ID. That broke my heart: her democratic rights, which she has exercised time and time again, were taken away, and of course she will not appear in that figure of 14,000 people who were turned away.

The Electoral Commission says that ethnic minorities and unemployed voters were more likely to be turned away at the polling station. When we show our constituents around this House, we talk about the struggle for the universal franchise. Let us remember that the establishment that the Conservative party represents did not want women or the working class to have the vote. Will the Minister reflect on our journey towards increasing participation in democracy, and on how this rotten arrangement is robbing people of their hard-won democratic rights?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will respond to that by asking the hon. Gentleman to reflect on his comments. Is he seriously suggesting that the introduction of photographic identification is not suitable? Does he seriously think that it should be harder to take out a library book than to vote in his constituency today? If he is seriously suggesting that, that—more than anything else—gives us evidence that the Labour party is in no way ready for government. It is not a serious party: it does not take seriously the threat to our democracy from international actors, and would do nothing to tackle the very real issues experienced by ethnic minorities in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, who are being systematically disenfranchised by the corrupt practices of certain people in their local areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I might be a lone voice on the Opposition side of the Chamber, but I reinforce what the Minister has said. The electoral voter ID system for Northern Ireland has been a tremendous success, as is proved at every election. It shows that the system can work.

A short time ago, along with my chief of staff, I visited the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to be constructive and suggest how we could perhaps do some things better. The Electoral Commission is agreeing to set up hubs across Northern Ireland constituencies, giving people the opportunity to get their voter IDs in person. That has not always been possible in areas of my constituency, so I welcome that commitment, which will be announced, I understand, in early October. Will the Minister consider something similar for the United Kingdom so that everyone can have the advantage of getting their voter ID in person in their own constituency?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing his really practical and useful wisdom from the policy that has been rolled out in Northern Ireland—a valued part of our United Kingdom—where it has been working very well for many years. I note that a much smaller list of documents is used in Northern Ireland and that that has worked effectively. In the Electoral Commission’s recent 2021 public opinion tracker survey, not a single respondent from Northern Ireland reported that they did not have ID and had found themselves unable to vote.

Of course, we must always look at the sensible and practical recommendations from the Electoral Commission. We will continue to do that. Before this roll-out, we put a significant amount of investment into working with civil society and charities. We have made funding available for communications campaigns. It is just a shame that the Labour party and Liberal Democrats did not take the opportunity to amplify our messages among their own constituents. We all have a shared responsibility in this place to amplify messages and communicate effectively, particularly to ethnic minority and disabled voters. I know that is what I did ahead of local elections; I wonder what they did.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend the Minister received representations from any colleagues in the House, particularly from Opposition parties, about the arrangements for voter ID in Northern Ireland? After all, those were introduced by the Labour Government of the time and the arrangement is used by Labour at its own internal elections.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, as always. If Labour Members now think that voter identification is so wrong, why are they not campaigning to repeal their own laws? Why should electoral fraud be tolerated in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland? Do they really believe that most European countries, which require voter ID, engage in so-called voter suppression? They seem to want to take us back into the European Union across all areas of policy; perhaps this is their latest ploy to take us back into the EU.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

For all the bluster that the Minister is deploying, I am not sure that we are any clearer about what she actually thinks. A minute ago, she referred to “international actors”. Which international actors are pretending to be Mrs McGlumpher from the high street, trying to vote? She is deploying a ridiculous argument. The reality is that the Electoral Commission’s research has shown that younger people, ethnic minorities and unemployed people were all disproportionately disenfranchised by voter ID. Those are, of course, all demographic groups less likely than others to vote Tory. Does the Minister understand that those of us looking at the issue with a perspective different from hers think that rather than safeguarding democracy, as she would suggest, it looks very much like voter suppression—“If you can’t persuade them, don’t let them vote”?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, I do not understand a single thing that the hon. Lady said, which is hardly surprising from the nationalists across there. She thinks this is voter suppression; her party is so keen to break up the United Kingdom and rejoin the European Union, but this is standard practice across the European Union in all manner of elections. The fact that the hon. Lady cannot take seriously the threats to our democracy shows the lack of seriousness that the Scottish National party—[Interruption.] She does not like what I am saying and is chuntering from a sedentary position, but perhaps she ought to listen to a serious Government about the serious actions we are taking.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Government have committed to an independent review of their voter ID changes. Can the Minister tell us who will conduct that review and what its terms of reference will be? If she is not in a position to do that today, can she confirm when she will be able to share that information?

[Rachel Maclean]

We will make further statements on that process in due course, and we will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the Minister’s answers have taken sophistry to new levels. She said that 99.7% of voters were able to vote, but that is only of those who turned up to vote, and many will not have bothered to try and vote. The Government knew that young people, ethnic minorities and the unemployed would be disproportionately affected but they did it anyway. Incidentally, having tried to apply myself, I can attest to the fact that the Scottish young person’s concessionary travel card requires a lot more proof of ID than the London Oyster card for young people. Will she just admit that this Government’s version of voter ID is blatant antidemocratic gerrymandering?

[Rachel Maclean]

It is right that I put on record once again that everybody can vote across the UK. The methods that have been introduced are free methods available to everybody. On the hon. Gentleman’s other points, I actually take his comments as a compliment and refer him to my previous remarks.

High Street Heritage and Conservation Areas

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It has been a pleasure and a privilege to listen to this fantastic debate. As a midlands MP myself, it has made me just that little bit more proud of the heritage that I share with colleagues here—as well as with Milton Keynes and, of course, Strangford across the water in Northern Ireland. There is always a lively debate about where exactly the Black Country ends. I am often asked whether there are any bits of Worcestershire in the Black Country—perhaps we will discuss that outside the Chamber.

It is right that I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing the debate, which has shone a light for us all on the diligent work that he does day in, day out on behalf of his constituents. It has also shown his deep knowledge of his area. As he said himself, although he was not able to rely on some established processes to contribute to the consultations he mentioned, he could draw on a lifetime’s experience of living and breathing the streets of Stoke-on-Trent South.

Like my hon. Friend, the Government want our high streets to be restored to their former glory, as the beautiful, beating hearts of our communities where people can come together to socialise, shop, work and run businesses in safe and attractive surroundings. The reality is that many of our high streets are struggling—they are blighted by boarded-up shops and antisocial behaviour—but we are determined to break the cycle of decline. We have already started to do so, working side by side with local leaders to achieve our shared goals. Transforming dying high streets back into vibrant places to live, work and socialise is central to our levelling-up agenda, and that will be the litmus test for our success.

Today’s debate is crucial to our better understanding what more needs to be done to protect and rejuvenate crucial civic centres, which are rightly cherished by communities up and down the UK. There is no better example of best practice than those that hon. Members shared of the historic ceramic industry and pottery towns of Stoke-on-Trent, which are backed by the Conservative Government. I will turn to the specific points raised by hon. Members at the end of my remarks. The truth is that, in stark contrast to what the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) just said, we have success stories all over the country, backed by billions of pounds of funding from the Conservative Government.

Even with the massive challenges that have emerged in recent years—the exodus to online shopping and the impact of the pandemic—people still very much care about their high streets, as we have heard from all the speakers in the debate. High streets are central to people’s sense of local pride and belonging; they are the iconic thing that people focus on. When we ask, “What does levelling up mean to you?”, concern about the high street comes up time and again.

Let me talk about some of the actions that we are taking to reverse some of the issues that hon. Members have rightly identified. Our ambitious Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will help to tackle the growing problem of empty shops on high streets, which fuels the feeling of decline, through high street rental auctions. Those will empower local authorities to address long-term vacant properties. Landlords will be required to rent out persistently vacant high street commercial properties to new occupants, or face the local authority’s stepping in and putting the lease up for auction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South may be aware that, on 27 March this year, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced that £2 million would be made available by the antisocial behaviour action plan to support communities and businesses to bring such derelict properties back into use. That vital funding will cover the cost of refurbishing properties, the cost of the auction and the council’s fees, and will enable doors to open again for rapid occupation. High street rental auctions will breathe new life into our much-loved high streets, and the funding will do just that by empowering communities to take control and restoring pride in place.

As my hon. Friend noted, local planning authorities have powers under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to serve notices that require owners to take steps to clean up their land where it is adversely affecting the amenity of an area. The power applies to both land and buildings, and it is an important tool for local planning authorities, alongside other powers, such as repair notices in respect of listed buildings or dangerous structure notices.

[Marco Longhi]

Today’s debate has been about how we look after our high streets, and one of the best ways of keeping heritage buildings going is just keeping them going. Unfortunately, a number of buildings require extra protection, and there is a pattern, up and down the country, of buildings suddenly becoming vulnerable to arson attacks, and then demolition, when they are either sold or not used as much. The Minister will know why I make that point.

As we are talking about enforcement, one way that we could, perhaps, afford extra protection to such buildings is through the listing process. When an application for listing is made in England, there is no protection until the full process is undergone and a decision is made to protect the building. In Wales, when an application to list is made, temporary provision is made immediately, and then a final decision is made about whether to give full protection. Will the Minister consider that, and perhaps suggest it to the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison)? Will she also consider increasing penalties where there is clear evidence of arson and misuse of property?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend and commend him for all the work he is doing on behalf of his constituents, who I know used to be regulars at the Crooked House pub. We have all watched the situation there with great concern. I will take his ideas seriously and look at what more we can do; I thank him for those proposals.

We have seen some transformational examples of section 215 powers being put to good use for formerly vacant industrial sites, town centre street frontages, rural sites and derelict buildings, as well as more typical rundown residential properties and overgrown gardens. Local authorities have powers to undertake clean-up works themselves, the cost of which they are empowered to recover from the landowner.

My hon. Friends have called for use classes to be made simpler and more straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South will know that the class E use class includes a broad and diverse range of uses suitable for a high street or town centre, including shops, restaurants, cafés and offices, as well as health centres and gyms. It also allows for new uses that may emerge in a town centre. The use class applies to buildings in conservation areas and to listed buildings, but unfortunately planning permission is still required for any external works in those areas. We always keep use classes under review, and I am sure it is right that we continue to explore where we may be able to assist my hon. Friend in achieving the objectives he outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) made the point that people like to visit properties in heritage areas, whether they are pop-up cafés or restaurants. That is a vital point.

I am also sympathetic to the frustrations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South with the implementation of local conservation areas and the boundary lines. I know that he has already taken that up with the local planning authority. I remind the authority that it is duty-bound to review past designations to determine whether former or new areas should be considered to be within the boundary. Planning authorities are responsible for delivering conservation area appraisals, which should be kept up to date.

One of the central policies that we have to enable Stoke-on-Trent to reach its flourishing potential even more than it is at the moment is the Office for Place, which my hon. Friend mentioned. I am thrilled that that newly created arm’s length body will be located in Stoke-on-Trent, because it gives me the perfect opportunity to arrange a visit and to have oatcakes with cheese, bacon, red sauce and maybe even brown sauce—let’s try them all and see which we prefer. Of course, the vision is to support the creation and stewardship of a beautiful, sustainable, popular and also healthy place, so perhaps we should have a small oatcake.

There could be no more appropriate home town for the Office for Place than Stoke-on-Trent—the city’s name in Old English means “place”. We have heard the city’s proud heritage and its chance for a prosperous future so passionately and clearly articulated. The levelling-up funding going into the Crown Works is just one part of taking that heritage into a new area. I understand that the Office for Place chair, Nicholas Boys Smith, who is a leading expert in the country, has already met my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Stoke-on-Trent South and for Stoke-on-Trent Central, and council leaders, to discuss opportunities for regeneration. He will be working closely with them to help them reinvigorate their city, moving from streets as gyratories to streets as enjoyable places to be, attracting jobs and taking advantage of the proud industrial heritage.

The Office for Place has already established its office in Stoke-on-Trent, which will benefit the city through its positive impact on the local economy and opportunities for collaboration. It is fully envisaged that it will partner with Stoke-on-Trent City Council, but of course it must also take into account the views of local MPs, who have a broad vision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said so well.

My understanding from colleagues in the Department for Transport is that they are still working with Stoke-on-Trent City Council to deliver the transforming cities fund programme, including proposals at Longton station. I encourage my hon. Friend—if he needs encouragement —to continue his lobbying efforts with the Department for Transport.

There has been a lot of discussion of high street heritage action zones. The championship that Members present have shown on behalf of their constituents, who both work in and appreciate the ceramics industry now and in the past, is just exceptional. We all agree that restoring our high streets must include protecting our heritage. The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to doing that, which is why we are investing tens of millions in regenerating historic buildings on high streets and in town centres across England through our future high streets fund. Meanwhile, social enterprises, community groups and charities reusing heritage buildings on high streets and in town centres have been supported through the £15 million made available via the Architectural Heritage Fund’s transforming places through heritage programme.

That programme is benefiting local people and businesses. For example, the historic Drapers’ Hall in Coventry has opened its doors once more following funding from the scheme as a successful arts venue. Meanwhile, through the £95 million high street heritage action zones programme, we are driving the regeneration of 67 towns and cities, transforming historic buildings and streetscapes. More funding is coming on top of that thanks to the additional £930,000 investment made this year by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to support existing high street heritage action zone projects.

I was delighted, as always, to hear from my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—it has been too long. It reminded me what a wonderful time I had in his constituency. I really valued his tribute to the Union of our beautiful islands, to the royal family, and to moving forward together on our cherished heritage. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central that we should show ambition for the future, for our children and grandchildren, in terms of our culture and heritage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is a huge advocate for pride in place. Together with his colleagues, he has driven exceptional, record amounts of funding, in particular into his town of Tunstall. I very much hope that the current Labour administration of Stoke-on-Trent City Council will heed his calls, and those of all his colleagues, to work constructively with the exceptional, record amounts of funding that have been put into their city by a Conservative Government who believe in the future of Stoke-on-Trent after many years of neglect. It is always a pleasure to debate the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Luton North, but I will take no lectures from her about Labour councils. I say one thing to her: Birmingham City Council.

Our high streets have been the lifeblood of our communities for generations, and we will not let them wither on our watch—far from it. Instead, we are pulling out the stops to preserve them, protecting our heritage, supporting local businesses, and helping to provide the vibrant, safe civic hubs that our communities deserve, supported by our newly established Office for Place. We have measures to support our ongoing efforts, from planning use classes to high street rental auctions, and we must work pragmatically with local leaders on some of the timescales that have been raised with me due to delays from the covid pandemic. We are laying the foundations for a brighter future by working alongside local leaders to deliver for their communities with exceptional devolution deals that transfer meaningful powers and funding to them as we level up opportunity across the country.

Draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023 Draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023 Draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023 Draft Representation of the People and recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023, the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023 and the draft Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir James.

[The Chair]

Order. It is very kind of you, but I am not Sir James—perhaps one day; you never know. Unless you know something that I do not, just Mr Gray will be fine.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you for correcting me, Mr Gray. Clearly there is something wrong with the universe; let us hope that it is now listening to my plea. It is a pleasure both to serve under your chairmanship and to bring forward these important regulations.

The Government are committed to protecting the integrity of our democratic process, and we have delivered on that commitment. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act 2022, which includes safeguards to prevent individuals from exploiting the absent voting process and stealing votes. Today I am delighted to bring forward five statutory instruments that flow from that Act. I will talk through each instrument in detail, turning first to the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

The Elections Act introduced a requirement to reapply for a postal vote at least every three years in Great Britain, as a result of which identifiers—in particular, the elector’s signature—will also be updated. This will help electors to stay alert about arrangements they have in place, ensure that a person’s eligibility to vote by post is reviewed on a regular basis, and reduce the risk of redundant postal ballots being issued. I appreciate that it will mean a change for long-term postal voters, but empowering them to stay informed and in control of- their vote is a positive step. The measure will help prevent voters from being unduly pressured into having a postal vote and using it under duress. To make the transition as smooth as possible, this statutory instrument allows existing long-term postal voters’ arrangements in Great Britain to continue until 31 January 2026, giving them more time to make a fresh application under the new system. Electoral registration officers will be required to make those whose postal vote is due to expire aware in advance and outline the new application process.

The instrument also introduces a limit to the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. That limit is four, of which no more than two can be domestic electors—that is, an elector who is not registered as an overseas or service voter. The regulations will update all relevant prescribed forms to make sure the new limits are set out. Two of the instruments that I will turn to shortly will implement this limit in Northern Ireland. There is a concern that under existing arrangements, electors can be coerced into appointing a proxy to control how they vote. The new arrangements will ensure that the scope for fraud is reduced by limiting the number of electors that a person may act as a proxy for.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify a point? Is there any Government evidence to prove that there has been interference with proxy and postal voters? It seems to me that the change to the legislation is based on something. Is there any tangible evidence?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is a valid question. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there have been multiple parliamentary debates in both Chambers on the principles of the Elections Act. That Act was passed by both Houses and we are now implementing these detailed proposals. I refer him to those debates for much more information than I am able to provide in this narrowly focused Committee.

The regulations also introduce an identity check at the point of application or reapplication for a postal or proxy vote, mirroring similar checks that are already in place in Northern Ireland. The elector will be required to provide their national insurance number, which will be checked against Department for Work and Pensions data. Where the elector cannot provide that information, they will need to give a reason as part of the application. Where an individual does not have a national insurance number, the electoral registration officer may request other specified documentary evidence or an attestation to demonstrate their identity.

In addition, we are committed to ensuring that our elections are modern and accessible by creating a new digital route for electors in Great Britain to apply online to vote by post or by proxy. The new digital system will remove the reliance on cumbersome paper-based processes and will operate similarly to the register to vote service, passing absent vote applications on to the relevant electoral registration officers for processing. The revisions of postal and proxy rules will apply to all elections reserved to the UK Government in Great Britain, as will the online application service.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

We already have this digital process in Northern Ireland, as the Minister knows. It is very good, but there is an issue; when someone loses their digital number, it is not like resetting a lost password on a computer—the person actually has to make contact with the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and it can take days before that digital number is returned to them. Is there any way of speeding up that process or enabling instantaneous access to a digital number, given that if it is the day before the election, that person essentially loses their vote?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank hon. Gentleman for raising that very relevant point. Of course, all of us in this place are deeply concerned with those practicalities of voting. We have all been knocking on doors and have all experienced glitches in systems, which is why we are making improvements. I am sure that he will be aware that I am not normally the Minister leading on this policy area. I am standing in for the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who is unfortunately not well today, but I am happy to pass that request to her to see whether she can continue to work with him and the devolved Administration to tackle some of the problems that he has rightly raised.

The proxy voting rules will also apply in Northern Ireland and the digital service will be introduced in Northern Ireland at a later time. Two of the instruments that I bring before the Committee—the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023 and the draft Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023—make provisions that are specific to Northern Ireland elections. It is necessary to split the provisions into two instruments, as Northern Ireland local elections changes must be made by a separate Order in Council. In addition to implementing the proxy voting limit to a maximum of four people, and a number of smaller measures to ensure consistency across elections and recall petitions, the two statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland also make two Northern Ireland specific changes.

The Elections Act places a duty on the chief electoral officer to provide dates of birth lists to polling stations in Northern Ireland for the purposes of checking a voter’s or proxy’s exact date of birth in specific circumstances. These instruments ensure the protection of the sensitive personal information that the lists contain, so that only the police and the courts may access them. In a further Northern Ireland specific measure, the existing provisions allowing retention of entries on the Northern Ireland register following a canvass is being extended. This will avoid a cliff-edge loss of electors from the register. Data checking has given the chief electoral officer a high degree of confidence that the voters concerned are entitled to remain on the register, and the Electoral Commission is supportive of extending the period of retention.

I turn to the EU voting and candidacy rights instrument, the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023. The Elections Act amended the franchise to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU and protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries, and this moved us to the principle of a mutual granting of rights through agreements with individual EU member states. Qualifying EU citizens from EU member states that have bilateral agreements with the UK will have the right to vote and stand in relevant elections.

We also preserve the existing rights of all EU citizens who choose to make the UK their home prior to the end of the implementation period. As such, EU citizens with retained rights will continue to have the right to vote and stand. [Interruption.] I would like to add for the record that it is good to welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall to her place. I know she has missed my opening remarks, but she can refer to Hansard to see what has been read into the record. The long-standing voting rights of Irish citizens remain unchanged. Likewise, the voting rights of Maltese and Cypriot citizens, as Commonwealth citizens, are not affected by these changes.

On ongoing registration, this instrument provides for a new registration process for EU citizens, which includes clear information about the new eligibility criteria for electors. Persons applying under the retained rights criteria will have to make a legal declaration that they have been legally resident in the UK since the end of the implementation period. Registration officers will be able to accept that declaration as sufficient evidence of eligibility, or if they deem it necessary, they will be able to require further information and evidence from the individual to make a determination.

Electoral registration officers have a legal duty to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate, so the instrument requires them to conduct a one-time review to determine the eligibility of all registered EU citizens. The bespoke eligibility review process is designed to be fair and transparent for review subjects, and to minimise burdens on registration officers. As far as possible, it has been based on, and benchmarked against, existing practice and processes.

Initially, registration officers will use data already available to them to confirm an elector’s continued eligibility without the need for an elector to take any action. Where a registration officer is unable to confirm eligibility using existing data, the instrument requires them to contact the elector to request the information necessary to determine eligibility. In the event of no response, a registration officer must make at least three attempts to contact the elector in writing and at least one attempt to contact the elector in person before they may determine them to be ineligible. All those reviewed will be notified of the franchise change and the review outcome, with the contents of all review communications prescribed for consistency.

Where a person is deemed ineligible and removed from the register on the basis of non-response, they will be invited to reapply if they believe they are eligible to do so. We anticipate that the end-to-end review process will take up to three months to complete. Registration officers will have a nine-month implementation window, from 7 May 2024 to 31 January 2025, to undertake the one-time review. The SI requires registration officers to report on the operation of the review process to the Electoral Commission upon completion.

The instrument will apply only to polls that are reserved to the UK Government. That includes UK parliamentary elections, all local elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. A separate instrument will apply the franchise changes to Northern Ireland elections, and that was laid in the House on 4 September.

I turn to the draft Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023. This instrument is largely technical in nature and updates the relevant electoral conduct rules to implement measures in the Elections Act 2022 and the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.

The Elections Act updated the existing offence of undue influence for reserved elections and referendums, including UK parliamentary and local government elections, and all elections in Northern Ireland. The revised offence better protects voters from improper influences to vote in a particular way, or to not vote at all. It also provides clearer legal drafting to assist authorities in enforcing the offence. The purpose of the regulations is to apply the updated offence to police and crime commissioner elections, recall petitions, local authority referendums and neighbourhood planning referendums.

Political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society, which is why part 5 of the Elections Act introduced a new disqualification order aimed at offenders who intimidate those who participate in public life. The order introduces a five-year ban on standing for or holding public office. The Elections Act also extended the powers of returning officers to hold a nomination paper invalid where a candidate is disqualified under the new order, and requires candidates to declare that they are not disqualified under the order. The changes applied to Northern Ireland, local and UK parliamentary elections.

The Act also amended the relevant vacancy rules, including for UK parliamentary elections, to reflect the timing of vacancies occurring as a result of the new order and to ensure that those disqualified vacate office. The SI replicates the changes for nomination for police and crime commissioner elections as well as local and combined authority mayoral elections, and updates the vacancy rules for combined authority mayors.

In addition, the Elections Act introduced a new measure to permit greater flexibility in the use of commonly used names by candidates on nomination and ballot papers. The change means that candidates can use their middle name as a commonly used name and amends the existing rules for UK parliamentary elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections in Northern Ireland. The instrument makes the same change to the conduct rules for local and combined authority mayoral elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. It also amends the nomination paper completed by candidates at those polls to reflect the new provisions.

I now turn to the provisions concerning the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow)—I had thought he was behind me, but in fact he is not in the room—for his work on this important new measure. The 2023 Act introduced two new offences: the first, for a person to be with another person at a polling booth; and the second, for a person to be near a polling booth while another person is at that booth—with the intention, in both cases, of influencing that other person to vote in a particular way or to refrain from voting. The Act, which applies to UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, as well as elections in Northern Ireland, aims to provide polling station staff with a firmer basis on which to challenge suspected inappropriate behaviour in polling stations.

The provisions complete the implementation of the Act by extending the new offence to police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, MP recall petitions across the UK, and local government, council tax and neighbourhood planning referendums in England. I hope that, in setting out the details of these three statutory instruments, I have enabled the Committee to appreciate their careful and considered design. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a pleasure to respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and the hon. Member for North Antrim. I thank the shadow Minister for her constructive remarks, and for her general support for our shared aim of ensuring that our elections are free and fair and that we protect them from abuse by anyone who wants to disrupt them—surely a vital task in this day and age.

The shadow Minister asked some detailed questions about the portal for the online voter application system. I assure her that we have worked closely with everybody involved in getting that up and running, but she is right to say that we need to be concerned about and get right the practical impacts. The digital service will go live when the regulations come into force. It is currently undergoing significant testing before it goes live, as we need to learn lessons from the process and ensure that it is fit for purpose. I set out in my earlier remarks how existing postal voters will transition to the new arrangements. The objective is to make applying for an absent vote more efficient for both electors and administrators; there is no difference in the principle of applying to register to vote, which we all agree and accept has been an established feature of our democracy for a long time.

It is important that the message goes out from this place that the measures will not—and there is no evidence that they will—disadvantage anybody who wishes to take part in our democracy. The provisions have been agreed on by both Houses and it is important that we send that message again today. We believe that these processes will bring time-saving benefits to administrators, and that may bring a welcome reduction in costs for those services. We anticipate that administrators will be required to process fewer paper forms as a result of the availability of the online application route. I assure the shadow Minister that grant funding was provided to local authorities in August to initiate the implementation phase of the policies, and further grant funding will be provided in April 2024 ahead of the May 2024 elections. Although we do not think the funding will be insufficient, but if it is—for example, if application volumes are higher than anticipated—local authorities will be able to apply for further funding via a justification-led bid process later in 2024.

I commend the instruments to the Committee and thank Members for their consideration of them.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (FRANCHISE AMENDMENT AND ELIGIBILITY REVIEW) REGULATIONS 2023

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023.—(Rachel Maclean.)

DRAFT REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (POSTAL AND PROXY VOTING ETC.) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2023

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.—(Rachel Maclean.)

Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if they will make a statement on the Government’s decision to use the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to scrap environmental protections on nutrient neutrality.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up tabled a written ministerial statement yesterday on the Government’s plans, but I am happy to provide an update to the House. In proposing these amendments, we are responding to calls from local—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that it is very good of you to offer to give that update? I decided that it was an urgent question—I expect Ministers to come to the House, as I did not think a written ministerial statement was the way to inform the House.

[Rachel Maclean]

I am delighted to be here to answer this urgent question.

In proposing the amendments, we were responding to calls from local councils, which want the Government to take action to allow them to deliver the homes their communities need. At present, legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality are blocking the delivery of new homes, including in cases where planning permission has already been granted. This has affected home building of all types, whether that is the redevelopment of empty spaces above high street shops, affordable housing schemes, new care homes or families building their own home. The block on building is hampering local economies and threatening to put small and medium-sized local builders out of business. Nutrients entering our rivers are a real problem, but the contribution made by new homes is very small compared with that of other sources such as agriculture, industry and our existing housing stock, and the judgment is that nutrient neutrality has so far done little to improve water quality.

We are already taking action across Government to mandate water companies to improve their waste water treatment works to the highest technically achievable limits. Those provisions alone will more than offset the nutrients expected from new housing developments, but we need to go further, faster. That is why, as well as proposing targeted amendments to the habitats regulations, the Government are committing to a package of environmental measures. Central to that is £280 million of funding to Natural England to deliver strategic mitigation sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to up to 100,000 homes between now and 2030. We have also announced more than £200 million for slurry management and agricultural innovation in nutrient management and a commitment to accelerate protected site strategies in the most affected catchments.

In our overall approach, there will be no loss of environmental outcomes, and we are confident that our package of measures will improve the environment. Nutrient neutrality was only ever an interim solution. With funding in place, and by putting these sites on a trajectory to recovery, we feel confident in making this legislative intervention.

[Caroline Lucas]

I find it extraordinary that the Minister can stand there and make that statement with a straight face. Over the past eight years, Ministers have stood at that Dispatch Box and promised time and again that leaving the European Union would not lead to a weakening of environmental standards. Those of us who raised our concerns have repeatedly been told that we were scaremongering. As recently as 12 June, the Solicitor General said in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that

“we will not lower environmental protections.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 828.]

Yet here we have it: proposals to unpick the habitats directive and to disapply the nutrient neutrality rules that protect our precious rivers and sensitive ecosystems.

The Office for Environmental Protection has itself made clear that the proposals

“would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression.”

I underline that point to the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is chuntering from his seat on the Front Bench. The proposals go directly against the “polluter pays” principle by forcing the taxpayer, rather than house builders, to foot the bill for mitigating increased water pollution from house building in environmentally sensitive areas. What is particularly infuriating is that, as the name suggests, the nutrient neutrality rules were not even about improving our environment, but simply about trying to prevent pollution from getting worse.

Let me ask the Minister some important questions. On transparency, will the Government follow the OEP’s call for them to make a statement, as required by section 20(4) of the Environment Act 2021, admitting that they can no longer say that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would not reduce environmental protections in law? Will the Minister explain how the Government will meet their objectives for water quality and protected site condition when they are at the same time weakening environmental law? What advice did Ministers receive from Natural England before the amendments were tabled? Will she explain why there has there been a complete lack of consultation with environment groups? Will she also explain what consultation there was with house builders, whom Members will have noticed are cock-a-hoop about the announcement and the subsequent boost to their share prices?

Will the Minister admit that it is a false choice to pit house building against environmental protection when there are successful projects under way to address nutrient pollution? Will the Government provide evidence for their unsubstantiated claim that 100,000 homes are being delayed as a consequence of these rules? Will she recognise that money, which can easily be taken away at a later stage, is not the same as a legal requirement to stop pollution getting into our rivers?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her long list of questions; I am happy to respond to all of them in detail. On our approach, I stand by what I and the Government have said: we stand by our pledges to the environment, and we do not accept that, as she stated, we will weaken our commitment to the environment at all. It is important to consider what we are talking about here, which is unblocking 100,000 homes that add very little in terms of pollution. To be clear, our approach means that there will be no overall loss in environmental outcomes. Not only do the measures that we are taking address the very small amount of nutrient run-off from new housing, but at the same time, we are investing in the improvement of environmental outcomes. We do not agree that this is regression on environmental standards. We are taking direct action to continue to protect the environment and ensure that housing can be brought forward in areas where people need it.

The hon. Lady asked about engagement. Ministers across Government, the Secretary of State and I have had numerous meetings with all parties involved, and we have had meetings with environment groups as part of Government business. It is worth the House noting the significant enforcement steps taken on the water companies by colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 prosecutions against water and sewerage companies, securing £150 million in fines. The regulators have recently launched the largest criminal and civil investigations into water company sewage. We are taking action against water companies to protect our rivers, leave the environment in a better state than we found it, and build the affordable houses that the country so desperately needs, including in her constituency.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

The Minister will recognise that I and many other colleagues on the Government side of the House share the admirable objectives of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in ensuring that the water quality of our rivers improves year by year under the Government and their successors. The Minister’s proposals to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill are not about damaging the status of our rivers; as I understand it, they are about dealing with a particular and specific interpretation of the EU habitats directive by the European Court of Justice in connection with a case in Holland prior to the time we left the EU. If that is the case—she has referred to the litigation and measures she has undertaken—does she agree that in special areas of conservation such as the River Clun catchment in my constituency, where no planning consent has been granted for nine years, these measures will help to unlock that while preserving the quality of the river in the catchment?

[Mr Speaker]

You have taken longer than the person who asked the question.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much. He is right in his observation that this has been a judgment imposed on the United Kingdom after we left the European Union. This is not a long-standing convention in any shape or form. He is also right to highlight the measures we are putting in place to protect our rivers and the environment more broadly. We are also putting in place a substantial package to help farmers to farm more sustainability, manage their slurry infrastructure more effectively and be able to drive the circular economy in farming that we all want. He mentioned specific catchments in his area. We have committed to bring forward a Wye catchment plan shortly, which I hope will address the issues he is referring to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Clive Betts. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a result of the Government’s failure over many years to make decisive progress in tackling the main sources of problem nutrients, namely farming and waste water treatment works, the requirements for nutrient neutrality in sensitive river catchments present a challenge to securing planning permission for new housing development. It is therefore right in Labour’s view that the operation of the rules around nutrient neutrality is reviewed with a view to addressing problematic delays and increasing the pace at which homes can be delivered in these areas.

However, we have serious concerns about the approach that the Government have decided on. Not only does it involve disapplying the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, but it does not legally secure the additional funding pledges to deliver nutrient management programmes and does not provide for a legal mechanism to ensure that housing developers contribute towards mitigation.

I put the following questions to the Minister: what advice did the Government receive from Natural England about potential reform of the laws around nutrient neutrality? Did it offer a view on the Government’s proposed approach? Given the amount of mitigation currently available in the pipeline, which is estimated at allowing for approximately 72,000 homes, did the Government consider an approach based on the habitat regulations assessment derogation and a revised credit mitigation system to front-load permissions and provide for future compensatory schemes? If so, why did they dismiss that option? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of their proposed approach on the nascent market in mitigation credits, and investor confidence in nature markets more generally? Why on earth do Ministers believe developers will voluntarily contribute to mitigation under the proposed approach?

Finally, the Government claim their approach will see 100,000 planning permissions expedited between now and 2030. Given that house building activity is falling sharply and the pipeline for future development is being squeezed—not least as a result of housing and planning policy decisions made by this Conservative Government—what assessment has the Department made of the number of permissions that its disruptive approach will unlock within the first 12 months of its operation?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and remarks. I take them to mean that he will support the measures when they come before the House. I am delighted to hear his support for our sensible, practical and pragmatic approach to unblock much needed housing across the country. He asked about our engagement with Natural England; we have had detailed discussions. He asked about the current legal framework; we have looked at and discussed a number of options to make the changes, and we are taking what we believe is the right approach to unblock planning permissions more quickly than the current situation allows.

The hon. Gentleman referred to nature markets; he is right to highlight the groundbreaking work we are doing across that piece. We are continuing with our commitment to those nature markets, which are a very important part of the Government’s plan to keep our environment, protect it and leave it in a better state than we found it. That is what the Conservative Government have always been committed to and continue to be.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have spoken to developers, who, of course, support our objectives. We have very constructive dialogue with the developers, who are happy to contribute. We will have those discussions with industry, as I am sure he has heard from developers, because I know he has spoken to them all. We are on the side of those builders. It is important to say that the developers most affected by the disproportionate ruling from the European Court of Justice are not the big developers but the small and medium-sized enterprises—the small builders—some of which have gone bust. It is right that we stand behind them.

[Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate the Government on taking action on this very serious issue. I welcome sincerely the remarks from the Opposition spokesperson offering qualified support for what is being done. We have an issue whereby 100,000 homes, spanning 74 council areas, are being blocked. Those homes have planning permission already granted, but cannot be built because of the perverse legacy ruling. More to the point, could my hon. Friend confirm that there is no environmental impact, because we are doubling investment in the nutrient mitigation scheme? That is as well as developing protected site strategies for those catchment areas affected most severely by the nutrients issue, which overwhelmingly is not caused by new housing. Does she agree that the real challenge should be laid down to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on what she would say to all the hundreds of thousands of young families out there who cannot buy a home in the places they need and want, at a price they can afford?

[Rachel Maclean]

My right hon. Friend has considerable expertise in this matter. He is right to focus on the mechanisms we need to bring forward to enable the much needed planning permission to take effect. His region in particular is affected by this issue, and I know his constituents and people across the region will be desperate to see those homes built, to allow people a step on the property ladder. We are about building a property-owning democracy.

My right hon. Friend is also right to say that we can do that at the same time as protecting the environment, which is why we have doubled the funding for Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme. We are investing £200 million in slurry management infrastructure and we are helping farmers with a £25 million sustainable package to help them invest in innovative farming techniques to manage their nutrients more sustainably, which can be of benefit to their farms and agricultural processes. We are going much further on those protected sites, so that we deal with the problem at source. That is what we need to focus on.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

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

This is hardly a new problem, is it? The Court decision was in 2018, yet last year we had the levelling-up Bill, which was really a planning Bill with a bit of levelling up added on—no mention of the issue there. In December we had major consultations on changes to the national planning policy framework—no mention of the issue there. The Committee wrote to the Minister and asked how many more consultations on planning issues there would be this year. We were given nine of them—no mention of the issue there. If it is such a serious issue, why has it taken the Government so long to act? It looks like the Government are making it up as they go along. This is a panicked response from the Government to the collapsing numbers of housing starts which the Minister simply wants to do something—anything—about.

[Rachel Maclean]

I very much value the hon. Gentleman’s scrutiny of the Government’s record and I very much enjoy coming before his Committee. We have discussed this issue, and many others, with his Committee in the past. It is right that we are taking this action. It is a serious and complex issue, and we needed time to consider all the legal aspects of it. However, what I come back to time and time again is that we need to unblock planning permissions. We need housing all over the country. We are doing that at the same time as protecting the environment and I very much hope to have further dialogue with him about this in the future.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

It is always baffling to hear those who believe in environmental improvement saying that only the EU way works. Does the Minister agree with me that outside the EU we have been able to adapt our laws to what works for this country, and also make improvements such as marine protected areas and provide support to agriculture outside the common agricultural policy? To say that leaving the EU has meant a degradation in our approach to the environment is simply nonsense.

[Rachel Maclean]

My right hon. Friend speaks from vast experience on this issue. I can do no more than agree strongly with every word. Leaving the EU allows us to make the laws that are right for our country, most specifically in the area of building the homes we need across his area and across the whole country. The point here is also that the EU legacy judgment has not improved the quality of the water. That is why we are taking further steps to mitigate the problem at source. Everybody who cares about the quality of water should welcome that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The Government have just set up the Office for Environmental Protection—I was on the Environment Bill Committee when we did that—which says that this planning change is a regression in environmental protections. We should not just throw out the rules when they are a bit difficult. What advice did the Government receive from Natural England—the Minister said she spoke with it—on its approach to problem nutrients? Did Natural England green-light the proposals or is it being ignored, along with the Office for Environmental Protection?

[Rachel Maclean]

Natural England is a Government partner. We work very closely with it, as well as with local planning authorities. We rely on Natural England to carry out some of the mitigation schemes, the nutrient credit schemes, and many others. In response to the Office for Environmental Protection, we have a different view. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) set out very clearly her response to the Office for Environmental Protection. We do not agree with it. Fundamentally, we do not agree that this is a regression in environmental outcomes overall.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

It is perfectly possible to make housing development nitrate neutral in the first place. Bearwood development in my constituency contains over 2,000 new houses and is nitrate neutral through sustainable drainage and building techniques, so we can have new homes without compromising our environment and without taking good-quality farm land out for mitigation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that planning law matches that ambition?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. She is right to focus on some of the very good work that is already taking place through some individual projects I am aware are being brought forward. She is also right to highlight the role that sustainable drainage can take and we have committed to looking at that more broadly to see what more can be done with that particular policy. Planning law is very clear. It has to leave the environment in a better state than it finds it, not only in her area but across the country.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Of course we need more housing, but in my constituency the sewers are over capacity, Victorian and clapped out. I invite the Minister to meet some of the households where in times of heavy rain raw sewage not only pollutes the environment but floats around the streets, the gardens and even the kitchens. It is simply not acceptable to imagine we can somehow wave a wand to solve the housing problem. Finally, may I draw the attention of the House to an excellent website called “Top of the Poops”, which states that in my constituency there were 4,468 hours of sewage last year alone? That is completely unacceptable.

[Rachel Maclean]

DEFRA Ministers have been at this Dispatch Box multiple times to update colleagues on the work that the Government are proud to do as part of the plan for water. This is the most ambitious and stringent package that has been brought forward to tackle this abhorrent issue. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that storm overflows and sewage overflows are wrong. That is why the £2.2 billion of new accelerated investment will be directed into vital infrastructure. We are clear that the volume of sewage discharge into our waters is unacceptable and that is why we have taken action in terms of stronger regulation, more fines and tougher enforcement across the board to tackle every source of river and sea pollution.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, the levels of Somerset are some of the most environmentally enhanced areas in the UK. Natural England has destroyed chances for development. We are about to start building the Tata factory, the largest factory that this country has seen for a long time. That needs to be sorted and I would like the Minister’s thoughts. Conversely, the reality also slips. South West Water, which is an abomination, has just announced it will stop pollutants from 120,000 hectares by 2025. Can we please have a grip on the reality of both sides of this issue? If we do not, nothing will be developed in parts that are environmentally sensitive.

[Rachel Maclean]

I am aware that my hon. Friend represents an area with acute environmental sensitivities and he is right to raise those concerns on the Floor of the House. We work across Government not only to tackle the storm overflow issue to which he refers, but to find a way to allow house building and other types of building that is much needed to drive jobs and investment, and to support businesses in his constituency, without that having a weakening effect on our environment.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I wonder if I could pick up on something the Minister said a moment ago. Natural England is not a Government partner; it is a Government agency. So far as this issue is concerned, it is literally the Government. This rule has existed since 2019 and the Government’s guidance on it has indeed got in the way of genuinely affordable, environmentally sustainable housing schemes in the Lake District and, I am sure, elsewhere. The answer was not to scrap it but to change the guidance to make it more intelligent, so that we protect our waterways and our landscapes from pollution without preventing vital development. Why did the Government spend four years dithering before panicking, overreacting and then acting in line with their own nature by damaging British nature?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his usual way, but without confronting the reality of the situation that affects his constituents. Of course Natural England is a Government partner and a Government body. We work in partnership with Natural England. We work constructively with it to tackle these complex legal issues. I am sure he would be the first to jump up and complain if we took action too quickly without considering the consequences. As it is, what we are doing is a sensible, proportionate measure to allow much needed development in the Lake District: homes for his constituents that have the planning permission to be built—finally.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Labour-run Kirklees Council is sitting on millions of pounds of unspent section 106 developer contributions for local infrastructure. Much of that unspent cash is for environmental projects. What confidence should we in my area have that our shambolic Labour-run Kirklees Council will be able to deliver these mitigation environmental projects when it is actually not delivering for our local environment as it is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is completely right to raise the record—in his words, the shambolic record—of his local Labour-run council. What I can say to reassure him and other colleagues is that I have engaged with local authority leaders to explain to them exactly what this change means for them, what we expect them to do, and what they should be doing on behalf of their residents to make sure the money is spent properly to protect the rivers, seas and lakes, and get houses built.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the only ones blocking the development of the houses that we need, including genuinely affordable social housing—a pitiful number were built last year; I think it was just over 7,000—are those on the Government Benches? It is the Tory Government who are the blockers of housing development to meet housing need. That is the case, is it not, Minister?

[Rachel Maclean]

It might sound very nice on the hon. Gentleman’s Facebook clip, but if he actually looks at the facts he will find it is Conservative-run councils that have, on the whole, delivered more houses over the last few years in responding to the needs of their constituents, and Labour-run councils that are experiencing significant failures in delivering the houses that their residents need.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Minister has lifted a blight from my constituency, but as a result of these measures we are all going to be swimming in cleaner water as well, aren’t we?

[Rachel Maclean]

We are, and I look forward to joining my right hon. Friend in swimming in some cleaner water very soon.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly said that too many house building companies were going bust, but may I gently suggest that that is a consequence of the Government’s crashing the economy last year, inflation pushing up the cost of materials, and a skills shortage? The Government claim that their approach will see 100,000 permissions expedited between now and 2030, but given this context, what is that assessment actually based on, and has the Minister consulted local authorities?

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes, we have consulted local authorities, and I make no apologies for standing up and taking action when it is needed to help small builders in particular. The diversity of the sector in this country, unlike that in other countries, is disproportionately skewed towards larger developers, and it is therefore right for us, as a Conservative Government, to back small businesses. We understand what people go through to start a business, which is why we are taking action to help them.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s balanced approach, which will improve the long-term quality of the River Stour in my constituency while allowing much-needed planning permissions for new homes to start again. Thousands of people, very sensibly, want to live in Ashford, and they want to see new homes built, not least in accordance with the local plan rather than being built opportunistically around the place, which is what the delays in permissions have led to. Can the Minister give us some indication of a timescale and when councils such as Ashford can start granting planning permissions again?

[Rachel Maclean]

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct and I thank him for his support. We need to wait for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to achieve Royal Assent—it must, of course, undergo parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses—but we are working apace. We have already started that engagement with local authorities and partners, Natural England and others, to ensure that they have all the operational detail that they need. What we need to see are spades in the ground as soon as possible.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is clear from the Minister’s replies that her statutory adviser, Natural England, opposed this move, so will she please publish its advice? Instead of letting developers and water companies off the hook and pouring even more sewage into our waterways, why does she not take the advice of her right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and reverse the Prime Minister’s disastrous decision to scrap local housing targets, which has given nimby councils carte blanche to do nothing?

[Rachel Maclean]

What I take issue with in the right hon. Gentleman’s questions—plural—is his comment that we scrapped housing targets. We have done no such thing. We are committed to building 1 million homes during this Parliament, and we have the target of building 300,000 homes every year. That is a very important target that we stand by. What we are doing, unlike the Labour party, is taking account of local communities. What Labour would do is build all over the green belt, and I can tell the House that its own MPs are not in favour of that: they are blocking developments in their constituencies. What we have is a sensible, proportionate approach—to build the right houses in the right places.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

What the negative social media debate about all this has masked is the fact that a significant amount of work is being done to create, conserve and improve wetlands around the country. The all-party parliamentary group for wetlands, which I chair, is supporting the drive by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust to create 100,000 additional hectares of wetlands in this country, and we would also like to see a dedicated domestic wetlands team in DEFRA to repeat its successes in peat productivity. Will my hon. Friend give us more information about how expert organisations such as the WWT in Slimbridge, in my patch, can apply for the £280 million to continue positive progress on environmental matters, and will she assist my efforts to get the wetlands team up and running?

[Rachel Maclean]

I know that my hon. Friend does extremely good work on behalf of Slimbridge and other wetlands in her area. I should be delighted to meet her, and to read any of the reports produced by her APPG. I think it important to stress again that the packages to be delivered through the work of Natural England and the credit scheme must continue, and we will be boosting them because we know of the benefit that they have for my hon. Friend’s area and many others.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the proposed investment in the Natural England nutrient mitigation scheme covers only 15% of the total mitigation requirement to 2030? Where will the additional funds required to address the shortfall come from?

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not accept that figure, and I do not know where the hon. Lady got it. Those schemes are very much in progress at the moment, on an ongoing basis. We are working through some of the details. I should also mention that as well as the Natural England scheme we have the Government’s own scheme, administered by my Department, which we will be able to deliver throughout the country.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a flaw in the way in which the Office for Environmental Protection has reached its determination in this matter? It can take into account only what is in the Bill. It cannot take into account the other measures that the Minister has mentioned, the Natural England nutrient neutrality programme and the investment in slurry management. Surely, to form a more coherent view of the environmental impact of these measures, it is necessary to look at all measures in the round, not just legislative measures.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is of course extremely perceptive and he is absolutely correct. We presented an ambitious package overall, and that means we can meet head-on the challenge of delivering the much-needed planning permissions that my hon. Friend will no doubt welcome in his area—which I know needs more housing—and also protect and enhance our environment. In its recent comments, the Office for Environmental Protection has interpreted this in a very narrow fashion, and we do not necessarily agree with its assessments.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the Minister has struggled previously with what constitutes retained EU legislation, but what we are talking about today is an amendment to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The challenge before the Minister is that this Government pledged, on the record, not once but seven times during the debate on the Bill that became the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, that they would not reduce those explicit environmental protections. Will she say now whether that pledge to match those environmental protections directly remains, or does she want to take this opportunity to correct the record and admit that the Government’s word on the environment is not worth the paper it is written on?

[Rachel Maclean]

I think that what I am struggling with is the fact that the hon. Lady clearly did not listen to my previous comments on this matter. I have said a great many times that we do not agree that this is a regression in environmental outcomes, and we stand by that. We are the Conservative Government, and we are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than the one in which we found it. That is backed up by a strong package of action across numerous areas.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

My constituency was one of the worst-affected places in the entire country, with 2,000 planning applications held up and thousands of people at risk of losing their jobs. We are talking not about large construction companies, but about everyday jobbing builders—people with families to feed. This is a great step towards getting the country moving again and solving an intractable problem.

May I ask the Minister a very simple question? If I build a small house, or put a little extension on the side of my current house, am I really damaging the watercourses to the same degree as pig farming and chicken farming? Are these well-intended laws completely missing the mark of what they were intended to do in the first place?

[Rachel Maclean]

The simple answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that he is right. The existing legal framework that has been hindering us has had a disproportionate effect on planning permissions and house building when the main source of the pollution lies elsewhere. Overall, this package will be able to deliver house building and extensions in my hon. Friend’s constituency, help the smaller builders and, of course, protect our rivers.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In an industrial area such as Teesside, environmental standards are critical, including around water quality and our riverside. Will the new policy framework lead to increased funds for the Canal & River Trust, which has seen its budgets decimated in recent years, leading to huge cuts in its activities and the removal of every single litter bin on its land around the River Tees?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the Canal & River Trust. I am sure that his comments will have been heard by DEFRA Ministers, but I will be happy to take those concerns back to them and ask them to provide an answer.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Following the question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on mitigation, the Government’s focus seems to be on wetlands, but if we are honest it will take a long time to fully mitigate the possible additional pollution. What will be done in the interim to deal with this pollution before the wetlands become fully operational?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there is a focus on wetlands but other projects are in scope of the credit scheme. However, she has hit the nail on the head: the key point is that some of these things take a very long time to come on stream but we need to start unblocking those houses now, which is why we have taken this proportionate approach with the amendments.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Over the summer, I met members of the Bedfordshire Great Ouse Valley Environment Trust. They are concerned that our river is the fifth most polluted in England with forever toxins—the level is a shocking 10 times that considered safe—not to mention raw sewage and nitrate and phosphate contamination. Can the Minister explain to my constituents why the Government are decreasing protections for our beautiful river when what is needed is an urgent plan to clean up our dirty waterways?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone else listening to this, including his constituents, that the package we are bringing forward will protect the river and enable it to be in a cleaner state. That is backed up by our plan for water and the further announcements we are putting in place today. What is more, I know from his correspondence that his constituents also want to see affordable housing being built, and that is what this will enable.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

My constituents, whether they live in urban Lancaster or in one of the rural Wyre villages, recognise the need for housing across north Lancashire, but they also recognise the ripping up of environmental protections when they see it, and they do not like that. The Minister seems to be very concerned about small house builders who are going bust, so will she take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of her Government, who crashed the economy, pushed up inflation and made materials more expensive and who have not dealt with the land banking that is really holding back house building?

[Rachel Maclean]

What I would like to see from Members on the other side of the House is an apology for talking this country down, which they have done repeatedly. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was able to tune in to Treasury questions recently when the Chancellor set the record straight on how we now have one of the fastest-growing rates in the G7. It is this Conservative Government who will get every industry going, including the house building industry and small and large builders. We are on the side of the builders, not the blockers.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The Minister refers to the doubling of investment in a nutrient mitigation scheme, with £200 million put into slurry management, yet 80% of phosphates in the UK’s rivers are from households and only 15% are from agriculture. Is this just another example of this Government passing the buck and blaming farmers for pollution in our rivers?

[Rachel Maclean]

I would be happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and explain to him what is meant by slurry management grants. We are helping farmers to build a circular economy. He will know that this is a valuable resource. Farmers will welcome this intervention because they know that it could help them to farm more sustainably. Most farmers I talk to want to work in harmony with nature. That is what we are doing. I do not know what the Liberal Democrats’ policy is, though.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

This Tory Government are failing on housing and the environment pays the price. It is not an either/or. Our Welsh Labour Government are delivering on both in Wales. They have been working strategically with all stakeholders, with high-level nutrient management boards set up to tackle precisely this issue, sometimes chaired by the First Minister himself—they are always chaired by Ministers—as well as bringing through regulations to improve agricultural water quality and getting homes built as well. If the Welsh Labour Government can do both, why can’t this Government?

[Rachel Maclean]

The Welsh Labour Government have a shocking record on house building, as they have on many issues. What is more, they are not tackling the issue at source, which is why we are bringing forward our catchment plans and our protected site strategies. A lot of the rivers that are draining from Wales are impacting negatively on constituencies in England. The only thing I agree with in the hon. Lady’s rather stilted comments is that this is not an either/or. If she had listened to what I was saying, she would know that we are doing both. We are protecting the environment, protecting our rivers and bringing forward housing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.

Cost of Living: Private rented sector

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. As is traditional, I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for securing the debate on this important issue, which matters to all of us, including those of us who serve in the Government. He spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents, as did the other Members who have spoken, and I will come on to their contributions before I conclude my remarks.

The hon. Gentleman’s concerns reflect my determination to make sure that the Government deliver a strong, functioning private rented sector. As has been reflected during the course of the debate, private rented accommodation is the second largest housing sector in England, providing homes for 4.6 million households and an estimated 11 million tenants. It plays a vital role in supporting people to study away from home, explore new locations or move to find work, which is why we are ensuring that tenants have the security they need and enjoy a positive experience of renting a home.

As has been alluded to, the Government recently introduced the Renters (Reform) Bill to Parliament. The Bill will help change the landscape of the private rented sector. It is the most significant reform to the private rented sector for a generation, and it will deliver on the Government’s commitment to a better deal for renters. The Bill will make a fairer, more secure and higher quality private rented sector, fit for the 21st century. It will end section 21 “no fault” evictions and move to periodic tenancies, allowing landlords and tenants to end tenancies when they need to. This means that tenants can rent decent, secure homes and put down roots in their communities, while being empowered to challenge poor practice without worrying about retaliatory eviction, or they can leave if the landlord fails to meet their basic responsibilities.

However, we know that the overwhelming majority of landlords provide a good service, and we recognise that good landlords play a vital role in providing decent homes for millions of people across the country. That is why we will introduce comprehensive, fair and efficient grounds to ensure that landlords have confidence that they can regain possession of their property when it is reasonable to do so. We also want to simplify the system for both tenants and landlords, which is why all rent increases will take place via one mechanism. We will allow rent increases once per year in periodic tenancies and increase the notice that landlords must give to two months, giving tenants more time to plan and to seek advice. That will create a fairer system that allows both parties to negotiate rents effectively, while protecting security of tenure. I want to be clear: this Government do not support rent controls. Some Members asked me to set out our position on that. We recognise, however, that most people want to buy their own home one day. We are therefore firmly committed to helping generation rent to become generation buy.

We are working towards delivering on our commitment of 300,000 homes a year. Despite all the doom and gloom that may be reported, we are making strong progress. There is always more to do, but it is important to recognise that annual housing supply is up 10% compared with the previous year, with more than 232,000 net additional homes delivered in 2021-22. That is the third highest yearly rate for the past 30 years. We have also announced £10 billion of investment in housing supply since the start of the Parliament, and the Government are on track to deliver thousands of affordable homes to rent and buy across the country through our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme. A large number of those are for social rent.

I want to address the—if I may put it this way—nonsense stated by a couple of contributors to this debate, who said that money has been handed back to the Treasury. That is simply not the case. The money referred to was re-profiled, which is a normal part of Government accounting —[Interruption.] Opposition Members might want to listen and find out how Government funding and finance work. That money will be recycled and refocused into the 2016 to 2023 affordable homes programme. I hope that we will hear no more of that kind of comment.

A healthy housing market thrives on having a range of tenures. That is why we have launched the £1.5 billion levelling-up home building fund, which provides loans and takes out equity in house builders that would otherwise struggle to access finance. The Government have made a range of interventions to support the sector over the past decade. The construction of new Build to Rent homes will play an important part in helping to ease demand pressures in the private rented sector and is already providing thousands of much-needed new quality homes.

We know that right now meeting immediate housing costs is a huge struggle for some people, and that a higher proportion of income is being spent on rent by those on lower incomes in particular. In April 2020, therefore, we raised local housing allowance rates—a significant investment of almost £1 billion—and that increase has been maintained since then. Where tenants are unable to meet their housing costs and need further support, discretionary housing payments are available from local councils. Since 2011, the Government have provided almost £1.6 billion in discretionary housing payment funding to local authorities. For those who need additional support, the Government are providing another £1 billion of funding—including any Barnett impact, as colleagues from the devolved nations have spoken today—to extend the household support fund in England into the next financial year, bringing total funding to £2.5 billion.

[Beth Winter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will not give way, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because I have a lot to get on the record.

Cost of living pressures go beyond housing costs, and that is why we have taken decisive action to support households, totalling £94 billion or £3,300 per household on average, across 2022-23 and 2023-24. We uprated benefits and state pension by 10.1% in April. For 2023-24, the Government are providing additional means-tested cost of living payments of up to £900. We also provided significant support for households with their energy bills, covering about half of a typical household energy bill this past winter. I utterly reject comments to suggest that the Government are not interested in helping people on low incomes. I have set out how we are doing just that with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

I will touch on the Members who have spoken. I thank the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) and for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), the Front Benchers of the SNP and the official Opposition, the hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am about to refer to my hon. Friend’s comments, if he will allow me, so he can come back to me after that. He asked about the RPC and the impact assessment. I agree with him that this is about supply, and I assure him that the number of PRS properties increased by 11,000 in 2022 compared with the previous year. The data from UK Finance shows that the number of buy-to-let landlords reached a record high at the end of last year. There is no evidence that private rented landlords are leaving the market. Our Bill is fair to decent landlords, and the RPC has estimated the net cost to landlords to be just £10 per property. The committee has given the Bill a green rating, and I do not think £10 per property is a significant sum that is going to force landlords to leave the market.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

rose—

[Rachel Maclean]

If my hon. Friend wants to challenge me further, I will allow him.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I want to ask the Minister about her aspiration to move from generation rent to generation buy. When does she expect the Government to deliver the voluntary right to buy for housing association tenants, which was first promised in 2015?

[Rachel Maclean]

I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier remarks, which set out that we are building record numbers of houses both to buy and for rent. We will make further announcements on that point in due course.

I gently remind the other Members who have spoken that all of them, I think, represent areas that have Labour-run councils, or else represent areas in the devolved nations. Their own councils have considerable powers, funding and tools, especially in enforcement, to tackle a lot of the issues that have been raised in their casework.

I was struck by the complaint made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington about the way her own city council, which is run by the Labour party, is allowing HMOs to be delivered. I suggest that she takes that up with her own Labour-run council—likewise for the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, whose constituency is of course part of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which is run by Labour Mayor Andy Burnham, who has considerable powers, influence and devolved funding from the central Government.

[Beth Winter]

rose—

[Rachel Maclean]

I briefly give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very persistent.

[Beth Winter]

Is the Minister aware that the devolved nations have been underfunded by billions of pounds? Going back to the point that the Minister made earlier, the local housing allowance is a reserved matter, and it has been frozen since 2020, since which time we have had a cost of living crisis. People are struggling. My question, though, relates to the report by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which stated:

“If the Government believes the PRS is the right place for those on the lowest incomes, it should…make sure housing benefit…covers benefit recipients’ housing costs.”

The Committee is still awaiting a response from the Government. When will the Government respond?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. We need to allow the Minister to respond and Andrew Western to wind up the debate.

[Rachel Maclean]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the premise of the hon. Lady’s question, which is that the devolved nations have been underfunded. Her Government in Wales is led by the Labour party, and it is up to them to deliver housing for people who live in Wales. I suggest that she address her comments to their door.

We recognise the struggles that renters have faced in recent months, which is why we have taken decisive action to offer vital support where it is desperately needed. More importantly, we are making the most significant change to the private rented sector in over 30 years to provide the stability and security that renters need, as well as continuing to build new affordable homes so that many more people can own their own home. I therefore look forward to working with Members from across the House to achieve that goal, which we all share. I thank all Members who have contributed.

[Andrew Western]

I thank all colleagues who have taken the time to contribute to what has been an important and insightful debate into an issue that affects all our constituents very acutely. I will not speak to all the contributions from Opposition colleagues, but they have all accurately reflected the plight of private renters, both in terms of the impact of the cost of living crisis on their living standards and ability to pay for basics such as food, energy and rent, and in terms of the condition of the properties that many constituents have to live in. Many constituents are unable to afford to move and terrified to challenge their landlords on the need for repair.

I want to spend rather longer, though, on the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). He is absolutely right to state that we need additional supply in the housing market. He seemed to suggest that I had not referenced that when I set out the need to scrap the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to build, build, build, to utilise the green belt, and to drive up housing supply in a way that delivers significantly more affordable and social homes. None the less, we agree on that point. I stress that because it was probably the only part of his contribution I agree with. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on many of the changes made 40 years ago in the 1980s; sadly, I was not born until 1985. However, it is certainly the case that the interventions made back then have done nothing to ease the terrible situation for those at the sharp end of private rent, who are experiencing this cost of living crisis, often on very low incomes.

I also object to the suggestion that immigration, or indeed any form of demand issue, is driving the housing crisis. It is simply a fact that the biggest driver of demand for private rent is the 307,000 young people looking to move out of their parents’ homes in 2022, which was caused by many of them staying at home for longer during covid, as well as the impacts on their employment during that time and so on. Although that is the biggest aspect of demand, it is important to remember that the housing crisis is always fundamentally about supply.

I am sure the hon. Member for Christchurch will be aware of this, given that he has already subjected us to one history lesson. If I point to the history of house building in this country, we have not been building enough homes for the past near 70 years. In some of those years we had net migration out of the country, so to suggest that immigration is a driver of the housing crisis does not bear any alignment with the evidence before us. It was wholly unsurprising to hear that the hon. Gentleman stands against the Renters (Reform) Bill—not only from his contribution today, but from the significant delay in bringing the Bill forward for both First and Second Reading. We know now that it is the Tory Back Benchers who have caused significant delay to this important legislation.

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for his comments. I am not going to speak to the merits of the system that has been brought forward in Scotland, other than to note the significant difference between the interventionist approach there and the inertia from the Government here in bringing forward their proposals.

Again, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who was absolutely correct to highlight the ONS data showing that private renters are five times more likely to be struggling, and that 2.5 million of them are struggling to pay their rent. I know he understands that, which is why he is pressing so hard for the Renters (Reform) Bill to come forward, as he did today.

In many ways, the Minister echoed that desire to see the legislation come forward, which leaves one wondering why there has been such a delay. I appreciate that we have had a number of Housing Ministers over the past few years; I can only hope that she is still in the job on Monday. The issue with that many changes, and with the number of Prime Ministers over the past few years, is that this legislation has been kicked down the road time and again. When people are in desperate need and struggling to pay their rent, that is simply not good enough.

I was interested by what the Minister said about the £1.9 billion not actually being clawed back, but reprofiled. I am sure that will be of great reassurance to the many people struggling to get on the housing ladder and to access social and affordable property, not least because the Minister promised that the money will be available from 2026. How wonderful!

[Rachel Maclean]

I did not say that.

[Andrew Western]

I believe that the Minister said it was from 2026 to 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

What I said was that the programme is from 2016 to 2023. It is already delivering affordable housing. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech, and he will find it in Hansard.

[Andrew Western]

I am grateful for that and I apologise if I misheard the Minister. However, the fundamental point is that there is still much work to do. Yes, we need to see the Renters (Reform) Bill come through urgently. We also desperately need to see the support package that is being brought forward to stop mortgage holders being evicted extended to renters. Of course, we also need to build, build, build social and affordable homes in a way that gets them back to the second largest form of tenure in this country, giving the housing security that people desperately need.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the cost of living and the private rented sector.

Draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The draft regulations amend the existing leaseholder protection regulations made under the Building Safety Act 2022 to clarify and simplify some provisions in the light of experience and to address points made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and in the two stayed judicial review applications. I will start by providing some context and background to the draft regulations.

As hon. Members know, the Government introduced the leaseholder protections to protect many leaseholders from the cost of remedying historical safety defects in their building, either entirely or with liability firmly capped. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported the 2022 affirmative regulations for cases of suspected defective drafting and doubtful vires. Notwithstanding the Committee’s concerns, the Government were satisfied that no issues with the regulations would prevent the process from operating successfully.

My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), committed to introduce changes if it became apparent that they were necessary. I therefore laid the regulations before us to address the issues that I have mentioned, and they were engaged in two rounds of correspondence with the Joint Committee, culminating in a memorandum of response set out in the appendix to the Joint Committee’s 44th report of the 2023 Session, published last Friday.

To summarise, the Joint Committee reported the regulations for one case of defective drafting in relation to a lack of consequence for failure to notify the landlord associated with the developer of their liability. The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee for its careful scrutiny of the regulations and have considered the issue carefully. As set out in the memorandum published by the Committee, the Government are satisfied that no issue with the regulations will prevent the process from operating successfully.

It is imperative that the regulations come into force before the summer recess so as to alleviate the issues facing named managers and landlords. We will of course monitor closely the progress of future cases and, if it becomes apparent that further changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with proposals.

The regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they address points made in the Joint Committee’s report of July 2022. They make it clear that to recover the remediation amount, L—the body responsible for managing the building—must issue a notice to the landlord with the liability to pay. The notice must include the prescribed information on both the amount to be recovered and the appeals process. The regulations clarify the powers of the first-tier tribunal in determining the outcome of an appeal: if the appeal is unsuccessful, the appellant has to pay the amount set out in the notice; if the appeal is successful, the appellant has to pay either nothing or an alternative amount determined by the tribunal.

The Joint Committee considered regulation 6(1) of SI 2022/859, which purports to allow a leaseholder voluntarily to provide a leaseholder deed of certificate to their landlord, to be ultra vires, so the draft regulations remove that provision. I should make it clear, however, that nothing prevents a leaseholder from providing a certificate to their landlord at a time of their choosing. The regulations clarify that the prescribed evidence is required as part of the leaseholder deed of certificate and that failure to provide a completed leaseholder deed of certificate and the required evidence will result in the lease being treated as if it were not a qualifying lease. The regulations also provide that “shared ownership lease” has the same meaning as that used in schedule 8 to the 2022 Act.

Secondly, the regulations address points made in the two stayed judicial review applications. They provide for named managers to recover the cost of relevant measures in relation to relevant defects from landlords in the same way as resident management companies and right-to-manage companies. They also provide for L to be able to recover notified amounts from landlords as a civil debt and for L to be able to pursue a remediation contribution order against the landlord to recover costs. The regulations also provide that a landlord who is associated with the developer must be notified of its liability to pay for relevant measures or relevant defects. However, nothing in the regulations prevents L from instead pursuing another liable landlord if, for example, they feel that funds are more likely to be recovered in that way.

Thirdly, the regulations deliver additional detail to clarify and simplify some of the provisions in the 2022 regulations. They enable Homes England—the Department’s delivery partner for remediation work outside London—to apply for a remediation order or a remediation contribution order. They provide that a landlord may apply to the first-tier tribunal for a 30-day extension to the appeal process, to give time for out-of-court engagement. They also provide that the landlord must update the landlord certificate to reflect a lease’s qualifying status within four weeks of receiving a leaseholder deed of certificate.

Finally, amendments are made to the 2022 regulations so that the current landlord does not need to provide certain evidence where they accept liability for a relevant defect, and the existing landlord certificate is replaced by the schedule to these regulations to reflect that. This change reduces the information-sharing requirement to that which is essential for a leaseholder and L to determine liability. The regulations also provide that current landlords must provide L with copies of the landlord and leaseholder certificates within a week of completion or receipt, to enable L to apportion costs in line with the 2022 regulations. Where the current landlord fails to comply, the regulations provide that their share of costs cannot be passed on to leaseholders.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that many landlords have sold or gone into liquidation and referred on, and the current landlord may now be in a very different jurisdiction and may often be difficult to get at. Has the Minister considered the effect of that on these regulations, and how the notifications and periods she has set out will impact on leaseholders if, as she has just said, it will be possible for the cost to be passed on to them in this situation?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He will be aware that this is a very specific provision in the regulations, which serve the specific purpose of providing the detail needed to clarify and simplify some of the provisions in the existing leaseholder protection regulations.

To continue—

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, I am not going to give way again, if that is okay, Mrs Murray.

The regulations also address concerns raised by the Joint Committee last July and the two stayed judicial review applications. That will enable landlords to complete a shortened landlord certificate and enable L to take civil action against non-compliant landlords.

I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and will address his points. He asked why we are amending leaseholder protections again. He is right that mistakes were raised by the JCSI last July, with correcting regulations in February and now these draft regulations. The Government committed in the House last summer to making any necessary amendments to the leaseholder protection regulations, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which came into force in February, corrected an error in the definition of “associated persons” to ensure that complex corporate structures cannot avoid liability. That was always the Government’s intention. Those regulations were able to be dealt with under the negative procedure, which is why we were able to bring them into force the day after laying them. It was important to do that to ensure that landlords could not avoid the new requirements. Today’s draft regulations, considered under the affirmative procedure, do the opposite: they minimise information-sharing requirements for landlords and provide clarity to ensure the protections have effect in the way originally intended.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Homes England. It will not be taking over from the Department, but it will be able to apply, where it thinks it appropriate to do so, and we constantly review the enforcement arrangements and resourcing. I put it on the record that no money has been handed back to the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman stated incorrectly. Homes England funding is being reprofiled, which is a normal process of Government funding and a responsible way to account for public money, and all the money will be spent on affordable housing. I hope that sets hon. Members’ concerns straight on that point.

As I said earlier, these draft regulations deliver additional detail to clarify and simplify some provisions in the existing leaseholder protection regulations. There is of course more to do in this area, some of which will require primary legislation, and the Government will come back to the House with further proposals in due course. I hope the Committee will welcome these important and necessary regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Freehold Estate Management Fees

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate on an issue that she feels passionately about. Indeed, many of us feel passionately about it, and it is a testament to the persistence and determination of many colleagues in the House that we are again debating this vital issue.

As the hon. Member did during the recent Opposition day debate, she brought to the House’s attention powerful examples from her area; I think that it is particularly on the Brambles estate in Whitchurch where the current system is not working for homeowners. I am hugely frustrated at the situation that those homeowners find themselves in.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for the discussions we have had about this issue and for the attention to detail they have brought to our process of scrutinising and preparing the legislation that we very much hope to introduce soon. I will come on to that shortly.

The Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), correctly highlighted the cross-party support on this issue. He has been supportive and constructive in his tone, both today and other occasions. I welcome that, because it makes the case for all of us to pursue the legislation and to ensure that it is brought to the House swiftly.

There was a broad consensus on the need for change. Let me use this opportunity to assure Members that fairness remains at the heart of our ambition for the housing market. We all know that we need to drive up housing supply so that we have the homes that the country needs, but while doing that, we need to ensure that buyers are getting high-quality and safe housing on modern, beautiful estates—if that is what is being built—that they can enjoy for years to come. Unfortunately, too many homeowners who bought their properties in good faith have not had their expectations met.

In the past, as Members have highlighted, it was typical for councils to adopt local infrastructure and shared spaces, but the system has changed in recent years. I recognise that on more and more estates, it is common for the shared spaces to be owned and managed by another party. The ownership of the land varies between developments. On some estates, it is owned and managed by a resident-led management company, often with the support of a managing agent, which provides expertise and services to the residents in the running of the estate. On other estates, the land is owned and managed by private management companies. Some have connections to the original developers; others are third-party companies.

It is often not down to the homeowners themselves to decide which type of management arrangement is in place on the estate. Commonly, that is set by the developer before any of the houses are sold. Either way, as has been pointed out, homeowners on these estates must pay a charge to cover the upkeep of open green spaces, roads, sewerage, drainage and other shared infrastructure, such as balancing ponds and play areas, which have been highlighted. In such circumstances, we must ensure that homeowners get a fair deal and do not end up in a vulnerable position as a result of these arrangements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for North Shropshire called for local authorities to be compelled to adopt all communal facilities on a new estate. It is worth pausing to consider why that does not happen at the moment. Our current planning arrangements exist to support new developments. When a new development is granted planning permission, the local authority can obtain section 106 planning obligations to secure a commitment from the developer. That means that the local authority does not have to adopt and maintain the land at its own expense. Local authorities no doubt take such financial considerations into account when they make these decisions, but it is up to developers and the local planning authority to agree on specific issues such as timescales for development and appropriate funding arrangements, and it is clear to me that, in a lot of cases that have been brought to our attention, that process is breaking down.

The local authority has powers to ensure that the developer builds and maintains communal facilities to the standards and quality set out in the planning permission. It is worth noting that the maintenance of communal areas, and of roads in particular, can be a significant financial burden. This is why it is right that the decision about adoption should rest with the local authority. The Department for Transport has recently issued guidance on the circumstances in which local authorities should be adopting roads. Again, I note that this can be a fraught area in some situations; I have seen that from my correspondence.

We need transparency. We need a system that consistently delivers clarity to potential purchasers and arms them with information about the arrangements for the maintenance of shared spaces on private estates. That information should be set out as part of the conveyancing process. Many already use the freehold management enquiries form, the FME1, published by the Law Society. I know that the form is used widely across the sector, but I have heard that for some buyers the information was not provided, or perhaps not drawn to their attention, at the point of purchase. That may have been the experience of some of the constituents my hon. Friends and colleagues have spoken about.

If a homeowner is unhappy with the service that they received from their conveyancer or solicitor, and the internal complaints process cannot resolve the issue, the legal ombudsman may be able to help. That needs to happen within six months of the homeowner’s final response from their conveyancer or solicitor. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire highlighted the issues with buying and selling homes, the process for which in England and Wales can be expensive, time-consuming and stressful. For that reason, we committed to improving the process in the levelling-up White Paper.

We have committed to work with industry to ensure that potential buyers have access to the critical information that they need in an accurate and timely format. That will help them to make an informed decision about whether to purchase a property, reducing the likelihood of the sale falling through. Some of that work is already taking place, but the Government are committed to continuing to create a fair and just housing system for everybody.

Too often, once a homeowner has moved into their home, they are asked to pay charges without an effective breakdown of what they cover. This is a matter of basic fairness and justice. Homeowners deserve to know what they are paying for on their estate. As with leaseholders, a lack of transparency, both at the homebuying stage and when people are settled in their property, leaves homeowners in an unfair and often vulnerable position.

[Helen Morgan]

That is the crux of the matter. If rogue management companies acting in bad faith do not provide that information and do not have an AGM, there is no remedy for homeowners to challenge what they are up to, or to take control of the situation. If those basic Companies Act requirements are not being fulfilled, could there be some legislative remedy for homeowners that does not involve them incurring the enormous expense of going to court? For example, could they take on the management of the company if basic Companies Act requirements are not complied with?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member again for reminding us of this issue. I hope that she will bear with me, as I am coming on to our intended legislative remedy, through which we intend to drive up transparency for homeowners. Better transparency will help people to be better informed about buying a home on a managed estate and empower them to question or challenge the charges when they are billed. Alongside that, they must have better rights to challenge, as the hon. Member just said.

Freeholders on managed estates are currently at a disadvantage compared even with leaseholders, for whom the system is not perfect by a long way, regarding their ability to challenge costs and poor service. Leaseholders already have certain protections and rights that enable them to hold landlords and management companies to account, yet freehold homeowners have no such equivalent, although they may be paying for very similar services. The situation is clearly unfair, and we are committed to introducing legislation to plug the gap.

Let me come on to what we intend to do, which I am sure Members are keen to hear. We intend to create a new statutory regime for freehold homeowners based on the rights that leaseholders have. We will give homeowners the right to challenge the reasonableness of the estate management charges at the first-tier tribunal, and the right to change the provider of management services by applying to the tribunal to appoint a new manager. That will be an important power when a homeowner is unhappy with the service that they are receiving and there is a significant failure by the estate management provider in meeting its obligations.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire mentioned existing homeowner rights, which will depend on the ownership of the land and the terms of the transfer. People should seek independent advice on the options available to them. For example, if a management company is not complying with its obligations, homeowners may be able to use contract law and make an application to the county court for an injunction for specific performance. That will require the management company to comply with its obligations.

Resident-led management companies are independent companies to which residents are appointed as directors. Sometimes the articles of association, which set out how the company will run, will specify that homeowners are automatically part of the company and so can vote at the AGM. Homeowners may also be able to call extraordinary general meetings, and they can apply for an injunction for specific performance if the company is not complying with the articles of association of any management agreement. But we know we must do more, which is why we will consider introducing a right to manage for freehold homeowners. That will follow from our consideration of the Law Commission’s report and recommendations on changes to the right to manage for leaseholders.

It is not only estate management charges that need to be reasonable. As I mentioned in last week’s Westminster Hall debate, the principle must also apply to the administration fees that individual homeowners may face in their dealings with estate management companies. Therefore, we will legislate to require that all administration charges must be reasonable, which will mean that they may be challenged at the first-tier tribunal.

I want briefly to mention the Competition and Markets Authority’s house building market study.

[Richard Fuller]

Before the Minister moves on from charges, I wish to make the point that I made earlier, although she may not wish to comment now. If those changes are made, is it the Government’s intention that people who have been charged excessively, or can make the case that they have been, prior to that legislative change will be provided with access to those tribunal options?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend’s point is very much in my mind. He is right to make it—he has made it to me multiple times—because it is a very important point. While the legislation is being prepared, I cannot comment specifically on the individual measures that will be in it, but I have no doubt that when we bring it forward, he will probe and challenge every part of it. I very much hope that we can achieve a successful situation at the end of that process.

In February, the Competition and Markets Authority launched a market study on house building, as part of which it will examine the fairness of estate management fees charged for unadopted roads and amenities. It will make recommendations about policy and regulatory changes. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire may be interested to find out about those.

There is also an issue of redress in relation to the fit and finish of residents’ homes on new estates. Invariably, the problems are the result of inadequate quality control. People have encountered unfinished roads, half-built playgrounds and a lack of recourse to resolve those issues, all of which are unacceptable. We have been clear that new housing developments should be finished on time and to a high standard. If things go wrong, homebuyers must be treated promptly and fairly.

There are existing routes to redress, which we are strengthening through the Building Safety Act 2022. We have included a provision for a statutory new homes ombudsman, which will make developers more accountable and make it easier and simpler for new home buyers to seek redress when things go wrong. We are considering the arrangements for the statutory scheme and are working on the next steps, which we will set out in due course. In the meantime, the independent New Homes Quality Board has established the voluntary new homes ombudsman service, which launched last autumn. It can handle complaints from homebuyers about new homes built by developers that have registered, and it is 100% free for homebuyers to use.

Let me turn finally to the most important matter for hon. Members: the timing of these changes. Unfortunately, I do not have much to add to what I have already said, which is that legislation for the next Session will be set out in the King’s Speech. Everybody in the Chamber will have heard the Secretary of State and I say that it is our intention that the King’s Speech will contain a Bill that will address the issues that have rightly been raised. That remains our priority.

Fairness needs to be at the heart of the housing system. The arrangements for the upkeep of open spaces and roads on freehold estates should always be clear to potential homebuyers, and costs charged must be transparent and reasonable. Homeowners need to have access to redress when things go wrong and be empowered to hold their estate management companies to account. That is why we remain committed to legislating as soon as we can. I thank all colleagues for their consistent advocacy and campaigning on this vital issue, which, as has been said, affects a million people around the country.