New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his good fortune in securing a place in the ballot in order to introduce what is, without doubt, a very important Bill. I am, however, concerned about the scope of the Bill, and I will come to that in a moment, if I may—I do not propose to take very long. For many years, I have consistently opposed the installation of solar farms—of course, they are not farms at all—on agricultural land.

In east Kent, we are losing grade 1 agricultural land far too frequently, both to development and to be used for solar power generation. It is completely unnecessary. As I have said many times, both in this House and outside it, we have acres and acres of rooftops in public ownership, on public buildings—schools, hospitals and prisons—in addition to acres of car park space, which the French would be covering in solar panels. If we use all of that, I can see no need whatsoever to use for these purposes fine agricultural land that should be used for growing crops for feeding people. That is why I think that the scope of the Bill, good though it may be, does not go far enough. We must look, not just at new build, but at what exists and what can and should be done.

By the bye, I would go a stage further and say that we should not only be looking at solar panels, but at grey water systems. We waste gallons and gallons of water off the rooftops of this country, which of course cannot then soak into the land because we have covered it in tarmac, so it is not replenishing the aquifers. That water ought to be used for flushing lavatories and matters that do not require potable water. Again, I think there is a trick that may have been missed.

Quite clearly, what is going to happen is that the developers and the builders will scream like stuck pigs. For why? Let us take a development in Herne Bay in my constituency. I will not name the developer, because I would hate to upset Taylor Wimpey, but it has avoided installing electric vehicle charging points because there is a bit of wriggle room—the amount that it would add to the cost of the property—that allows it to get off the hook. I do not doubt that installing solar panels initially would add to the first purchase price of the property, which of course might eat into profit, and we would hate to see that. But this is essential. We have to do this, and it is long past time. I notice that the Bill gives 2026 as the start date; I can see no reason whatsoever why we should not start immediately and say that, from now on, every new build should be fitted with photovoltaic panels.

There is another issue, which is the design of the technology. We all know that retrofitted solar panels are pretty unattractive—hideous, to be blunt about it. It surprises me that, in this day and age, those developing this technology have not gone far enough and fast enough to develop attractive panels that are simply roofs like any other roof. It has got to be possible to develop a photovoltaic tile that could be used on listed buildings, but that has not happened.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I just want to advise the right hon. Member that several products of the type he is referencing are available on the market at the moment.

[Sir Roger Gale]

If the hon. Gentleman can tell me of a photovoltaic tile that is acceptable to the people who are enforcing regulations relating to listed buildings, I would be delighted to hear it. That is what I was trying to come on to before I was interrupted.

Kent, a wonderful county, has very many grade II listed buildings, and at present, it is not permitted to use solar panels—or solar tiles, as I would like to see them—on those listed buildings. It is not even permitted on other buildings, outbuildings, cottages or whatever within the curtilage of a listed building. That rules out a considerable quantity of property that can and should accommodate solar panels.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

King’s College in Cambridge, one of the oldest and most prestigious heritage buildings, now has a fine array of solar panels that it managed to get through planning permission. Does the right hon. Member agree that what we need in planning terms is for material weight to be given to climate change, as well as conservation status? That is where the crux of the matter is. It would allow all those who are responsible for listed homes or who have homes in conservation areas to do energy efficiency in the right way.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Up to a point, I agree with the hon. Lady, but only up to a point. I do not want to see the fine buildings of Kent smothered in hideous installations, so we have to find a way technically of making the panels acceptable. I accept entirely that retrofitting is much harder than new build. It is possible to inset photovoltaic panels into a new roof on a new build, but it is much harder to retrofit it attractively. I would like to see us make much more effort to go down that road, so that we come up with products that are acceptable across the board—not just for new build, but for existing buildings.

It is essential that this Bill has a Second Reading, and I will be supporting it today. There are flaws in it, but that is what the Committee stage is about, and we should allow the Bill to go into Committee. If I may say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, there is rather too much wriggle room. I can see canny developers finding ways of exploiting some of the exemptions, if we are not careful, that he has written into the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an unintended consequences of this Bill could be that it is no longer possible to build a new thatched house? In Dorset and Hampshire, we welcome people who are developing new thatched houses. How will that work with this Bill?

[Sir Roger Gale]

The Bill does accommodate exemptions, and my hon. Friend makes a case in point. In the village I live in, we have thatched buildings, and I would like to see more of them. There may be cases where an exemption should be permitted, but looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems that these loopholes are wide open to exploitation, and they will have to be tightened up. That, however, is the purpose of the Committee. Let us give the Bill its Second Reading, get it into Committee, amend it and bring it back on Report and Third Reading, and then let us see it become law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this important issue to the House. It is good to see the Minister in his place—I know he and Ministers in his Department have had a busy week.

Solar energy has an essential role to play in decarbonising our power sector by putting otherwise unused roof space to good use. Solar panels are an effective technology for reducing carbon emissions, and the Bill proposes a forward-looking measure that would require the installation of solar PV generation equipment on new homes. Its Second Reading offers us an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal and its potential contribution to our shared goal of reaching net zero by 2050.

While welcoming the Bill and its aims outlined this morning, I would like to add to the debate some possible unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form. I want to be a genuinely constructive voice in ensuring that the Bill gets to Committee—I hope the hon. Member sees that—but some areas could be strengthened. I appreciated his sunny disposition in bringing the legislation to the House today. I will try to be a ray of sunshine as I get through this speech. [Interruption.] I am in danger of misleading the House there. I hope to be a sunny ray of light in Committee should the Bill get through and we table amendments to it.

The previous Government supported solar energy generation where it was appropriate. Our efforts included a £50 million fund aimed at supporting rooftop solar installations to enhance on-farm energy security. The responsibility for advancing solar and renewable energy now rests with this Government, and we wish them luck in doing so while remaining sceptical about the abilities of GB Energy to see that through. Under the last Government’s leadership, we delivered 2.5 million homes since 2010, including 1 million homes during our final term in office. That provided more people with the opportunity to own their homes and expanded options for renters.

Additionally, in November 2023, as has been outlined, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced expanded development rights, making it easier for homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar panels without the need for planning permission in most cases. That was a positive step, and I hope to see such support continue. As the Government pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we must ask ourselves what impact the Bill would have on house building. Building costs are already high and projected to rise further. Even the chief executive of Homes England has admitted that delivering Labour’s housing target may require two parliamentary terms, not one as the Minister outlined.

I also note that the implementation date of 1 October 2026 in clause 1 provides little time for the industry to adapt to the significant challenges the Bill introduces. Given the growing pressures on the industry, it is necessary to question whether the Government have considered and worked on the potential skills shortage, as an hon. Member raised earlier, and the feasibility of implementing the standards in this well-intentioned Bill.

We know that the UK has one of the oldest housing stocks among developed countries, with a particularly complex system of housing tenure. Buildings owned by freeholders and occupied by a mix of leaseholders and tenants present ongoing challenges for successive Governments when implementing necessary updates and retrofits. Meanwhile, in the realm of housing development, where 1.4 million new units already have planning consent, developers continue to highlight issues, such as the cost of solar panels, as a significant obstacle to advancing new housing projects. We must therefore consider whether the additional costs imposed by the Bill could hinder progress in delivering housing. Could it add restrictions to house building plans, particularly when it comes into effect in 2026? We are open to the timescale that the Bill would implement.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that, while it is not remotely surprising that some developers are resistant on the grounds that the Bill will add to the costs of building property—it indubitably will—we should recognise the flipside of that coin, which is that it will enhance the value of the property and make its management and running much more affordable?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If he will allow me, I will elaborate on that further on in my oration this morning, when I will look at the other side of the coin. While absolutely taking into account that house builders will have concerns over costs and will claim concerns over costs, as we have seen various organisations do, we also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs of these technologies for those who buy the properties in the first place. There is a balance to strike, which we can look at further if the Bill goes into Committee.

Maintaining solar panels, as my right hon. Friend was tempting me to say, is not without challenges. Repairs often require scaffolding, which can be expensive. We worry that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be increased costs for residents, home owners and property owners. How will we support home owners facing frequent and costly repairs?

The updates to the national planning policy framework present an opportunity to consider how such requirements can be better embedded in planning law. I recognise that administrators face a challenging task. The framework contains approximately 19 chapters of guidance, which each local authority must reflect in its local plan after public examination, ensuring full alignment with those chapters. The complexity of the process, combined with consideration of local environmental factors, such as surface water run-off, and the need for materials to align with established practices, creates a considerable challenge.

To translate the aspirations outlined by Members into real-world outcomes, we must simplify the process for local authorities to enable them to fulfil their role as community leaders. Instead of requiring lengthy and costly procedures to prove compliance with planning law, we need to ensure that the relevant standards can be implemented efficiently. The previous Government consulted on a future homes standard to ensure that all new homes would be zero carbon-ready. That included provisions for solar panels where appropriate. We must also ensure that brownfield sites are prioritised for housing development and stand-alone solar power, rather than sacrificing valuable agricultural land, as we risk seeing under the Government’s proposals. I sincerely hope that they will build on the progress we saw as a result of the previous Government’s consultation and the feedback gathered.

As we consider the Bill, it is important to recognise that not all buildings are suitable for solar panels. Factors such as structural strength, the direction and orientation of buildings and challenges with maintenance access must be taken into account. As I believe the hon. Member for Cheltenham has recognised, a one-size-fits-all mandate might lead to unintended consequences or inefficiencies. What discussions has he or the Government had and what consultations have taken place with the building industry during the drafting of this legislation? Collaboration with developers and stakeholders is critical to ensuring the successful implementation of such a policy. Consumer and local choice must also play a role in these decisions. I am concerned about the Labour Government’s apparent intent to reduce the influence of local representatives on planning committees. Local people should have a say on what is built in their area—we have heard some examples from local council leadership across the country this morning.

If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.

Building Homes

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In his statement, the Minister referred to the undermining of the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their economic potential. Does he not realise that by effectively absolving the Mayor of London of his housing responsibilities, he is exacerbating the problem of inner-London boroughs, such as Lewisham and, dare I say, Greenwich and Woolwich, using the green fields of Kent as a dumping ground for their housing problems? We are fighting a rearguard action to protect our farmland from development, in the interests of our countryside and, more importantly perhaps, of sustainability. He refers to brownfield sites. What he has announced today is the undermining of the Secretary of State’s right to rule finally on planning issues after they have been to the Planning Inspectorate. She will now have no credibility at all.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that sort of hyperbole is beneath him, if I may say so. We are not absolving the Mayor of London of his responsibilities. The previous Government put in place a system whereby the arbitrary 35% urban uplift applied not merely to the core of a city region—as it does in every other part of the country—but to every London borough. That produced a fantastical figure that was completely divorced from reality. We have abolished that urban uplift and reset the standard method. That still leaves London with an incredibly stretching target of 88,000 homes per year, which is more than double recent delivery. We want to work in partnership with the Mayor of London, but we will be pushing him to increase his ambition for what can be achieved in London, and his delivery.

We place great importance on agricultural land and food production. The national planning policy framework remains clear that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. Those protections remain in the framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the housing crisis in Scotland, where too many families are waiting for too long for a safe and secure home. I completely back all the brilliant work that my friend the Scottish Labour leader is doing, and I know that the choice will be stark for people in Scotland in May 2026; it will be between a national Labour Government delivering for the working people of this country, and a clapped-out and failing SNP Government north of the border.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Given that the Secretary of State’s avowed goal is to create more social housing, can she explain to the House why Labour-controlled Thanet district council is seeking to build a large housing estate on the outskirts of Birchington-on-Sea, on prime agricultural land? There is little demand for those houses, and little provision of social housing. Can she have a word with the leader of Thanet council?

[Angela Rayner]

In our new national planning policy framework, we have set out how we are protecting agricultural land, but we have also set out the fact that our country faces a housing crisis. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency does not have a crisis, because it is everywhere.

City and Town Centres: Regeneration

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite successive challenges from devastating local government cuts, the impact of lockdowns during the covid pandemic, and 14 years of under-investment from the last Government, we are fighting back in Derby. We have turned a corner, and I would say that we are actually on the up. We now have a Labour Government, a Labour East Midlands Mayor—who is key to this solution—and a Labour council.

Importantly, we have a really strong private-public sector partnership trying to deliver a cleaner, safer and more prosperous Derby, but there is lots more to do. Does the Minister agree that there is more scope to regenerate our city centres with a forward-thinking, collaborative Government who work with the private sector, but put working people at the forefront?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has a very limited amount of time to wind up. I appreciate that there will be hon. Members who have not said everything that they want to, but I ask them to resist the temptation of doing so if the Minister is to respond to the debate.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and praise his work as leader of the council. This is politics-blind: we want to see a real alignment of national, regional or sub-regional government with the local authority and the local community, all working together in the shared interest and using tools and resources in the best way. That speaks to the new model that I talked about, as invited to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey). We want to bring resources together across Government—a theme mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—to get the best of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) made a good point about local events. I am conscious that the biggest personal and professional embarrassment of my life took place in Crewe town centre 16 and a half years ago—it is a matter of public record—but nevertheless, I know it to be a vibrant town centre. The point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) about investment portfolios is exactly right, understanding that there should be, as the shadow Minister said, a global reach even to the most local communities. That is the environment we need to create.

Regarding the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I had a chance to talk to some business owners from Newtownards when I presented at the High Street Heroes awards for Retail NI, which does excellent work in this space. I am afraid that Ballymena won on that day, but I know the creativity is there. The key is—this is different, as he said, in a devolved sense—to get the tools and resources to the experts, who are the local community.

It is no secret that growth is at the centre of our mission and at the core of the new Government’s activity, especially local growth in towns and city centres, and the businesses in our communities that make our high streets successful. There is no one vision for that—it will look different everywhere, and that is a good thing—but there are common themes around safety, accessibility and the types and mix of businesses and services we want to see. I will refer briefly to a couple of those themes and to some of the work that has be done so far.

Prior to the election, we committed to our five-point plan on anti-social behaviour and shoplifting; banking hubs; late payments; revamping empty shops, pubs and community spaces; and business rates. That work is under way.

My hon. Friends the Members for Derby North, for Portsmouth North, and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned vacancy. We will be bringing in high street rental auctions very soon—as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said, we need only secondary legislation—to give local communities the power, through their council, to bring vacant units back into use. I am really looking forward to that. We have also committed, as part of the English devolution Bill process, to go further with the community right to buy. I know there is a lot of interest in that; it is on its way. Those are real tools to help communities to shape place.

The theme of safety has come up frequently, and was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). Combating violence in retail is a personal passion of mine. We know that that type of crime and violence in communities is a doom loop, because it creates more vacancies and makes people less likely to go out, which in turn creates an environment where such behaviour thrives.

As part of our safer streets mission, we have committed to a neighbourhood policing guarantee that includes returning patrols to town centres; 13,000 more police and police community support officers; and a named officer in every community for people to turn to. We want communities to have their say in how they are used and, most of all, to know who to talk to. To be clear, there will be tools to tackle people who persistently harm their local community—for example, new respect orders that have growing penalties and a specific offence of violence against retail workers. Those measures will make our communities safer to live in, work in and visit.

I am conscious that I am very near the end of the debate, which I think is at 4.14 pm. Is that right, Sir Roger?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Given injury time for the Division, the debate will end at 4.18 pm, but the mover of the motion will need a couple of minutes to wind up.

[Alex Norris]

I might move my 1.5 speed down to 1.4 speed, then!

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) and the shadow Minister, mentioned business rates, which we are very mindful of. As we have said, we intend to level the playing field between the high street and online giants to incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurs in that venture. However, that measure has to be revenue-neutral because of the important work that business rates do.

Hon. Members invite me to make a slightly more fulsome commitment than I can today, because we are two weeks away from a major fiscal event. As they would expect, any significant tax announcement will be made then by the Chancellor, so I have to hold a little bit back. We have made the commitment we have made, however, and I have said what I have said today. We understand how important the issue of business rates is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) talked about the loss of the final bank in Beccles, how that is a totemic moment for a high street or town, and the impact it has on footfall, which is at the heart of the viability and safety of businesses. We are very keen on and committed to banking hubs: we have committed to rolling out 350 by the end of the Parliament, and we expect 100 to already be in place by Christmas. I have no doubt that she will be an advocate for her community in that regard. Banking hubs could become not only important in arresting one of the major sources of decline we have seen over the years, but a very attractive anchor on a high street, helping to bring in other businesses. There is a lot to go for in the banking hubs space.

Hon. Members have mentioned planning. We do not have time to talk about the whole planning system, but we want an environment that promotes the new mix. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, talked about not wanting to go back to the past, but it will not be, because we could order a book in two clicks on our phone—in this debate, heaven forfend. Instead, we know that the future will look different. Whether it is banking hubs, a mix of retail and leisure or, as the shadow Minister said, housing in the right conditions, it is about that new mix, and we want to ensure that communities have the tools and resources to shape place to ensure that they have that.

I will draw my remarks to a close so that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North has time to sum up, and I will end where I started by congratulating her on introducing the debate. We have heard from hon. Members across the nations and regions of the UK. There are many common challenges, but there is a real enthusiasm for the powers and resources to shape place locally, and that is what this Government will deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

I share my hon. Friend’s anger that promises that did not have a strong financial backing were made to communities—promises that the Government are having to work their way through. As I said, we want to move away from the broken competitive model, but we know that promises have been made, and we are working on them. Hon. Members will hear further answers from us before the Budget on 30 October.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The national planning policy framework clearly militates against building on agricultural land. Notwithstanding the Minister’s desire not to interfere in local democracy, will he write to the leader of Thanet district council to remind him that agricultural land is the stuff that we grow food on, and cannot be for housing if we are to remain sustainable?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are maintaining the existing strong protection for the best and most versatile agricultural land that is most important for food production. The line that we are removing from the NPPF was added in December 2023, and does not provide clear and meaningful guidance to authorities about what they should do, in addition to having that strong protection in place.

Building Homes

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. She is absolutely right, and her question builds on one that I answered previously. We have to protect our green belt, and the proposals we are putting forward do that. They also mean that we will have the right type of homes and the infrastructure. As part of this process, there will be nature considerations and rules around that. There will also be the infrastructure that people need, as well as access to the countryside and healthy living. My hon. Friend can look at a number of parts of the consultation that refer to how we are delivering better, greener areas for people. Hopefully, her constituents will be able to get behind that.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

It is good to see you in that Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has discussed her proposals with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Farmers Union, but the answer she gave on food production was risible. What she has announced today is effectively a recipe for disposing of the land that will be needed to feed our children and grandchildren. Just before she goes ahead with that, will she tell the House how many planning consents that have been granted are sitting there unbuilt-out? Should we not use those first?

[Angela Rayner]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman with absolute respect that he should please read the consultation. We think that we do support our agriculture, which accounts for just over 10% of land—the best and most versatile land. I talked before about protecting the best-value land, and we will do that. The land we are talking about—grey belt, which we define in the NPPF consultation—is not agricultural land; it is disused garages and things of that nature and not, as the right hon. Gentleman wants people to believe, the land we need for food.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I start by thanking the Clerks, the House staff and Library specialists for facilitating our debates on the Bill. I also put on record our thanks to all Members who have contributed to our proceedings at all stages. In particular, I offer our sincere thanks to those who served on the Select Committee for their work in overseeing the Bill’s petitioning period, and all those who made petitions against the Bill. Lastly, I put on record once again the thanks of Labour Members to all those who have been involved in advancing the proposed national memorial to the Holocaust, and Holocaust education more generally over recent years.

There are far too many to name individually, but I must make specific reference to the past and present members of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, including the right hon. Ed Balls and the right hon. Lord Eric Pickles, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and, of course, all the survivors of the Shoah who have not only campaigned for Holocaust education, but personally championed the project, including many who are sadly no longer with us.

Whatever differences might exist about precisely how we do so, we are united as a House in our commitment to remembering and learning from the Holocaust. It is imperative that we continue to educate future generations about what happened, both as a mark of respect to those who were murdered and those who survived, and also as a warning about what happens when antisemitism, prejudice and hatred are allowed to flourish unchecked. A national memorial for remembrance of the Holocaust will stand as a permanent reminder of the horrors of the past, and the need for a democratic citizenry to remain ever vigilant and willing to act when the values that underpin a free and tolerant society are undermined or threatened, as well as encouraging reflection on the implications of those horrors for British government and society.

As was rightly mentioned by several hon. Members in Committee, in the nine years since the idea was first mooted, the case for such a monument and institution has become acute. Not only does anti-Jewish hatred continue to grow, but the remaining survivors of the Holocaust become ever fewer and ever frailer. We owe it to those who remain with us, and to future generations, to complete this vitally important project. With that concern at the forefront of our minds, we wholeheartedly support the passage of the Bill this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on his tour de force in taking the Bill through today. In what has not been an easy debate, he has demonstrated his skills in handling colleagues and has done extremely well. I am also grateful for his kind remarks about me and others who are leaving this place this week.

In what will be my final contribution after 19 years on these Benches, it is fitting to be able to speak on such a significant topic, reflecting as it does what has happened over the last 79 years, since we were last at war in Europe. The horrors that would be commemorated by this memorial—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—there will be an opportunity to return to this on the carry-over motion later, if he wishes to do so. I accept the fact that his speech has been interrupted, and that will not count against him if he seeks to catch our eye again.

Derbyshire County Council

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before I call Mr Perkins, may I inform the House that permission has been given to the House Photographer to move around parts of the Chamber and take photographs in the course of this debate—that has consent?

Building Safety

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the continuing work to fix buildings with unsafe cladding across England, and the Government’s increasing determination to enforce against those who fail to take responsibility.

Since the beginning of 2023, there has been a step change in all aspects of remediation in England, from a limited programme to full coverage of all residential buildings over 11 metres; from developers not taking responsibility to their now being responsible for £3 billion of remediation across more than 1,500 buildings; from just over 1,600 buildings in remediation programmes last year to over 4,000 now; from 783 buildings having started or completed work in February 2023 to over 1,800 now; and from only 461 having completed last February to 863 now. Every month more buildings are identified, and more are beginning and completing works. That means that for some, albeit not all, the end is in sight.

From the start, we have prioritised the remediation of the highest risk buildings. Ninety-eight per cent of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous Grenfell-style aluminium composite material cladding have either started or completed work. Of the 10 occupied buildings remaining, two will start work this month and enforcement is being taken against a further six. Substantial progress can also be seen for buildings over 18 metres, with over half of known buildings having either started or completed work. The much more extensive work required for buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres is well under way. Since the full launch of the cladding safety scheme last July, over 400 buildings in the scheme have live applications. Grant funding agreements have been completed or are being signed for 152 buildings, and works have started on site for the first building. A further 4,000 buildings are being investigated and, where necessary, will be invited to apply to the scheme in the months ahead.

Further transparency is being brought to the social housing sector. Registered providers report that work has started on 525 buildings as of the end of November 2023, up from 394 at the end of August 2023. A further 200 have now been completed. For the first time, last Thursday we published detailed information on a provider-by-provider basis, which will be updated quarterly to ensure that residents can track what their individual provider is doing on remediation. While many buildings are being fixed or, better still, have completed remediation, there remains a reducing core of building owners who continue to hold up remediation. That is unacceptable. The Government continue to do whatever is necessary to change that.

All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. The Government are leading the way on enforcement, with strategic interventions by our recovery strategy unit targeting the most egregious actors who are unwilling to make their buildings safe. The RSU was key to forcing Wallace Estates to agree to four remediation orders, ensuring that 400 leaseholders will be safe in their homes. Our legal action forced Grey GR, a subsidiary of Railpen, to fix building safety defects at Galbraith House within three weeks. The first trial against Grey GR for Vista Tower in Stevenage is imminent. Nine remediation contribution orders were taken out against three further organisations last week, including developers, to recover funds paid out by both taxpayers and leaseholders to fix buildings. We will continue to take action against those who do not step up to their responsibilities.

Colleagues in the fire and rescue services and local councils are critical to the fight to ensure that residents are safe, and we are working with them to increase action. Many councils and fire and rescue services are doing a good job, but some need to do more. Over the last year, the additional funding that we have provided for councils has meant that the pace of enforcement has stepped up markedly. Councils are informing us of enforcement action at a rate of four per week, compared with one per month in 2022, and we expect that to accelerate further. To support that, today we are publishing our first league table, outlining where enforcement is being taken so that residents can see exactly what is happening and where. We will regularly update the league table to ensure that the public remains sighted on their authorities’ enforcement activity.

Our focus now is on more, and more consistent, enforcement. Last week, I met the Building Safety Regulator and sector leaders to discuss how we can build a shared plan to increase the pace of remediation further. Today, I am announcing a number of initiatives to boost enforcement: a further £6 million to council enforcement teams, the development of a new regulatory protocol for greater consistency and a new fund that partners can access for legal support in complex cases.

For a task as big as this, remediation of buildings with issues was always going to take time. There is no doubt that in some parts of the sector it is still taking far too long. Yet already, almost 60,000 homeowners have peace of mind that remediation is complete, and a further 300,000 dwellings are well on the way to the same. Every week that goes by, more is done: there are more starts and more completions and, vitally, more of those who are unwilling to do the right thing are being exposed. We will not stop until we have fixed cladding issues. Today, I hope the House can see the real and accelerating progress that is being made.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I welcome the elements of his remarks that confirm that we are making progress. I will comment on some of the others in a moment. I take it from his reference to the statement being just a “rehashing” of stats that he is pretty content that the stats are moving in the right direction. Indeed, part of the point of today’s statement is to highlight that we have made significant progress in recent months and over the past year, while still recognising, as I did in my opening remarks, that there is much more to do. There are clearly actors who are not doing the right thing, and we are trying to take systematic, consistent and coherent action against them.

I just caution the hon. Gentleman that I did not indicate that the end of the building safety issues is near, despite both of us sharing the desire for that to come as soon as possible. I did, however, say that progress was being made. To get to the end point, we must make progress. I think what the statement demonstrates, just like the written ministerial statement in October, is that we continue as a Government and as a country to make progress.

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that this has taken time, but if we look at individual funds, we can see that those that were open the earliest are now coming to a conclusion. For the ACM fund, 98% of known buildings are remediated or on the way to being remediated. That was opened in 2018-19. For the building safety fund for buildings over 18 metres, over half are either completed or on the way to being completed. That was opened in 2020. So, again, there is progress. These things take time. They are often very complicated. Unfortunately, we often have to drag freeholders to do the right thing, for example to encourage owners of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres to get involved in the fund. We are doing that as actively as we can. There is work to do, but further progress is being made.

The hon. Gentleman raises the specific question of second staircases. The statement is an update on building safety, but I will extend the scope slightly. We have committed, having already provided some information in recent months, to providing further information on second staircases by the end of the month. I can confirm that that will occur this week.

On enforcement, I gently say that it is absolutely incorrect to talk about reactive, piecemeal announcements. If we go down the list of what is being announced in the league table today, we can see clear evidence of progress being made all across the country: London Fire Brigade, 94 statutory enforcement notices; Greater Manchester, 32; East Sussex, 26; West Yorkshire, 14; and Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 11. I could go on and on and on. There are multiple pages here where we can see progress. The Government are making the information as transparent as possible, so that residents who are impacted can understand where their individual local bodies are and hold them to account where necessary.

Finally, on insurance premiums, the hon. Gentleman and I share a great deal of focus on trying to make things move as quickly as possible. I completely agree with him that progress needs to be made. I am pleased that the industry has announced the launch of its industry-led insurance premium scheme, from 1 April next week. Bluntly, it has taken too long. I have spent an awful lot of time over the past few months encouraging the sector to do that. From the moment it opens, we will monitor extremely carefully what the impact will be on the most affected buildings. I hope we will be able to say more about that in the coming months. I encourage colleagues who have insurance concerns—many Members in the Chamber have already raised them with me—to continue to raise them. Where remediation is under way or has concluded, we would expect some form of accommodation to be made against the premiums in those buildings unless there was a good reason not to do so. If hon. Members have individual examples of where that has not occurred, I would be very grateful to receive them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Father of the House.

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

It is some years since our late colleague, David Amess, led a few of us who were interested in fire safety even before Grenfell.

We must remember that in the months after Grenfell, everyone backed away thinking that residential leaseholders would be the only people who would have to bear the £10 billion to £15 billion cost of remediation—and that was before we knew all about the other fire defects, which our building control standards and inspections had allowed to accumulate over the decades. We should all hang our heads.

The Minister rightly talked about needing more transparency. I say in passing, although it is a very serious point, that anyone who looks at page 3 of the Financial Times today, on the possible future policy on ground rents, will see an indication that people who own such buildings—the pension funds, the Long Harbours of this world, the Tchenguizes’ interests and others—ought to be looking at their own social and environmental responsibilities, getting rid of ground rents and spending their money on making buildings safe for everyone to live in.

Cladding groups and leaseholders’ groups deserve praise, as do the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the present chair of the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service, who can point out some of the things that have not yet been done. This is an interim statement and we look forward to hearing more, whether by written or oral statements, but may I say to the Minister that the one group that seems to have been let off is the insurance companies who backed the developers, architects, surveyors, builders and component suppliers?

The Government should find a way to take together the potential claims of all the residents, tenants, leaseholders and owners of properties, and have a roundtable with insurance companies and get the billions of pounds out of them that they would have to pay if it went to court, without paying the lawyers half the money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

The first thing we need to do is bring greater transparency to service charges, which is what we are trying to do through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Assuming that progress is made in the other place, I hope that it will be on the statute book as quickly as possible, and then it will be clear exactly where such costs come from.

The second thing that is that our colleagues in the Financial Conduct Authority are bringing in the fair charging regime to make sure there are no inappropriate commissions and that, from an insurance perspective, exchanges are not under way with brokers, which will hopefully reduce the costs.

The third thing is the industry-led insurance scheme, which should hopefully bring down insurance costs for those who are most exposed. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need greater transparency and a greater understanding of where these costs are going, and we need to make sure that freeholders and managing agents are following the law, which is very clear about the kinds of costs that can and cannot be allocated. If there is something specific about the building he mentions that the Government can look at, I will happily talk to him separately.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the Opposition Front Bencher and the Minister for their participation in the statement.

High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill: Money

Roger Gale Excerpts

Money resolution
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.

The Government fully support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) to improve our nation’s high streets.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The question is as on the Order Paper—

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I beg your pardon. I call Jack Brereton.

[Jack Brereton]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will not detain the House long. I just wanted to put on the record my huge thanks and appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister, his officials and the Whips Office for all the support that they have given me and my Bill—it is an important Bill. Members across this House care deeply about high streets, and I am grateful for the support that I have received from them. I hope that the Bill will continue to move forward with success—we have Committee stage soon—on its way towards Royal Assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He did indicate to me that he wished to speak, but the business was moving so fast that I overlooked him.

Question put and agreed to.