Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge.

I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent.

My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted.

This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

This is a timely debate, because I have just written to Solihull council about the Arden Triangle in my constituency and the lack of sufficient detail around the masterplan that is being put forward and considered tomorrow. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about this? One of the points I raised was that developers need to give consideration to infrastructure such as GP surgeries, but also to the road network, so that it can deal with the increase in housing.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital.

That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working.

I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at.

As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities.

I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

Planning Committees: Reform

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I am owed a visit to Ebbsfleet at some point, so I will happily take that up with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber. I am glad that he mentions strategic planning committees—one of the changes that we have put forward in the working paper and would like views on. We think that they should cover, in theory, large-scale allocated regeneration or industrial sites, including urban extensions or opportunity areas—large sites in local communities that could benefit from a more streamlined process. A smaller group of elected councillors with the expertise and knowledge about a specific site could make decisions about it, rather than all such proposals being taken to wider planning committees.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?

Employment Rights Bill

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill is pro-worker and pro-business; that is the context in which the Bill has come to fruition. We have been consulting wide and long on the measures, and we believe they strike the right balance to get our economy working across the board, so that people can contribute and feel that their contribution is valued as part of the UK economy.

The Bill also delivers a once-in-a-generation upgrade of the rights of our proud seafarers. Never again will any company be able to get away scot-free with exploiting a loophole to sack employees without notice. No longer will our seas be the byword for a race to the bottom on standards.

The next step in our package to transform the rights of working people is on unfair dismissal. At present, employees must wait two years for basic protections against unfair dismissal, so it is not surprising that they can be loath to change jobs and restart the clock. That is not right. It deprives people of promotion opportunities and pay rises, and it limits businesses’ ability to recruit. Under the Bill, employees will not have to wait years for protection from unfair dismissal. Instead, they will receive it from day one. Those measures alone will benefit close to 9 million people.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister talks about seafarers not being abused, but did she apologise to DP World last week?

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know what the hon. Member is getting at. Maybe he is getting at the former Conservative Transport Secretary, who referred to them as pirates of the high seas or weasels—I do not know. I have just said clearly to all businesses in the UK that I want to work with them to ensure that we value their employees. Many of them are onboard: they recognise that it is good for business, good for growth and good for their employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There speaks somebody who has actually run a business and understands the impact on a small employer. That is why we say there should be a carve-out, certainly for small and micro businesses.

We have to ask ourselves this: if the Government are not listening to businesses who “pull the whole cart”, who are they listening to? I think we all know the answer to that. A consultation is not five minutes inside No. 10 and a photo opportunity. Proper consultation is working with business, listening, taking your time and not rushing things—the exact opposite of what the Government have done. We know why that is. The Deputy Prime Minister made a misguided promise to Labour’s trade union paymasters that legislation would be introduced within 100 days. Despite 100 days of gloom and doom, talking the economy down and wrecking business confidence, they managed it—just.

The Government are not even listening to their own legal experts. Only last week the Attorney General said:

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”

Because the Bill is such a rushed job, it takes swathes of delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, meaning the final policy will be decided later at the Secretary of State’s whim—not now by Parliament. Legislating that way is causing real concerns for businesses today. The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues preach stability, yet in the same breath they are causing instability, uncertainty and falling confidence at a cost of jobs and investment today. There are already 58,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Labour took office. Confidence levels at the Institute of Directors on future investment intentions have dropped from plus 30 in June to minus six today. The Government are planning 30 consultations on the measures in the Bill. They should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, so the legislation could be precise about what it will do.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about trade unions. I have just seen a news update on the Unite union’s Birmingham hotel and conference centre being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. The total cost was £112 million, but it has now been valued at £29 million. Who will hold the trade unions to account in the Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That certainly needs looking at very carefully.

As the Government’s attempt at business consultation has clearly failed, and as no one on their Front Bench has any business experience, I will draw the right hon. Lady a picture of what the Bill actually means for businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Many small business in Meriden and Solihull East are rightly concerned about the Bill for a number of reasons. Since the election, I have spoken a number of times demanding that the Government be more ambitious for growth, for our entrepreneurs and for our small businesses. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every Government to unleash the full potential of our businesses and, where possible, to create an environment to embolden entrepreneurs and encourage economic growth.

Instead, the Bill will kill off any ambition and any focus on growth. If we want to focus on inclusive growth, we must nurture our start-ups, scale-ups and small businesses, and let them be nimble in how they operate, rather than shackling them. That is how economic magic will start to happen. The businesses to which I have spoken are worried about the insufficient consultation. The Government’s impact assessment, which we received late, shows that small businesses are likely to be hit hardest. The costs, according to the Government’s own analysis, will be in the low billions—up to £5 billion. For a Government who keep talking about the alleged black hole, those low billions seem rather reckless. It proves that this is nothing more than an ideological Bill that does not ensure growth.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with just nine days until Halloween, the impact assessment we have seen today is an early horror show?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A lot of people are in a holding pattern for business decisions on investment and employment.

All the Bill will do is leave our businesses at the mercy of the trade unions and take us back to the 1970s. It will merely align us with the growth-gobbling guidelines set by bureaucrats in Brussels and hold our businesses back. It is not just me who thinks this; I am going by the Government’s impact assessment. The CBI claims that employers expect Britain to become the worst place to invest and do business over the next five years—a damning indictment of the Government.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not.

What businesses want is less government, less regulation and more freedom. When making employment decisions, they require certainty and flexibility so that they can hire more people, but the Bill threatens to undermine the agility of businesses in ensuring that their workers maximise productivity. It does not encourage businesses to take risk, hire a budding new employee and reap the rewards; in fact, it does the complete opposite. The Federation of Small Businesses calls this legislation “clumsy and chaotic” and suggests that it will “increase economic inactivity.”

Let us be clear: the Bill is not really about employment rights or better conditions. Its focus is on repealing the 10-year ballot requirement on political funds, removing the opt-in default for trade union political funds, removing the need for proper consent to form a trade union, and so on. It is not the Employment Rights Bill; it is the trade union appeasement Bill. The Government are not prepared to stand up to the unions. We have seen them cave in to train drivers and give sweetheart deals without any savings for the taxpayer.

[Ms Billington]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not.

We have seen the unions hold the Government to ransom at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. That is why the Bill is bad for small and medium-sized businesses—those arguments have been made already. Our SMEs cannot afford dozens of French-style regulations that bolster the power of the trade unions and threaten to increase the cost of employment by over £1,000. I am speaking to raise the concerns of many small and medium-sized businesses in Meriden and Solihull East about this legislation. It is rushed—businesses have not been properly consulted—and it gives more power to the trade unions. It will fail to maximise productivity and will severely weaken the case for businesses to hire new employees. It is a flawed Bill serving a flawed ideology.