Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to give residents greater input on local developments.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will improve our planning system and give residents more involvement in local development. The Bill will strengthen and scale up neighbourhood planning and enable the piloting of street votes supported by new digital tools to give communities more say in the developments that affect them.

[Huw Merriman]

The 2020 White Paper promised us a once-in-a-generation reform to planning policy. The present proposals appear somewhat unambitious and modest in contrast. Can I meet the Minister so he can explain to me how we can deal with the following situation in my constituency? Wealden and Rother District Councils have issued 10,000 planning permissions that have not been built out, and yet they still have to deliver 2,000 new homes between them each year. The developers responsible for building the homes deliver only 1,000 new homes. Surely, at the very least, we can have annual housing targets that take into account houses that are not yet built out, so that developers build rather than land bank.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend. There are measures in the Bill to try to address build-out rates, which are an important element that we have to tackle. Under the Bill, it will be necessary to supply the local authority with a commencement notice, an agreement on the number of houses that will be built each year and a completion notice. We are absolutely on this, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to ensure that the houses that have got permission are built.

[Henry Smith]

I welcome the Government’s reform of the planning system, but Homes England proposes the development of up to 10,000 houses on flood-prone green fields to the west of Ifield, just outside my constituency. That will put unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure, and although local people in my constituency will be most affected, they have no say over it. How will these planning proposals allow the people of Crawley to say no to the West of Ifield development?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am absolutely clear that communities must have a say on developments that affect them, and that is why we are making it easier and simpler to engage with the planning system. At the moment, it simply is not good enough. I recognise the specific concerns that my hon. Friend and the leader of Crawley Borough Council have raised about this development. The site itself is included in the Horsham draft plan that has been produced with Crawley council. Residents of Crawley are able to comment on that, as well as on any subsequent planning applications.

[David Johnston]

Constituents object not simply to the sheer number of developments in my constituency and the pressure that they place on local infrastructure, but to the environmental impact of the way the homes are constructed. My hon. Friend knows that I would like to see a requirement for homes to be built to the latest environmental standard, rather than the one that was in place when permission was granted. Can he tell the House whether local communities will be able to have a say on how the homes are constructed, rather than just what they look like from the outside?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that. It is a crucial area for me in this role, and I hope that he will be reassured that improving environmental standards and community engagement are key elements of our reforms. Clear local plans, tested against environmental outcomes and with strong community input, are central to that, alongside the steps we are taking through the future homes standard and the Environment Act 2021.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, Mr Clive Betts.

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

We look forward to seeing the Minister and the Secretary of State at the Select Committee to discuss these matters early after the recess. It seems there are some genuine improvements in the proposals, particularly, as described in paragraphs 50 and 60 of the explanatory notes, the clauses that give greater strength to local plans in looking at individual planning applications.

There are two areas where the Bill might be strengthened. The first refers back to what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said. Yes, developers will have to set out what they intend to build, but what sanctions will the local authority have if developers do not follow those promises? The second is about what happens if a developer does not observe conditions attached to a planning permission. That has happened with Avant Homes at Owlthorpe in my constituency—I have talked to the Minister about this—where the developer is refusing to comply with a whole range of conditions, including on wheel washers, compounds for workers and engaging with the local tenants’ association. I notice that the other day, the Daily Mail drew attention to the fact that the same developer has not met conditions in Nottinghamshire. What sanctions will the local authority have to deal with a developer in such a situation and to take into account those failures when a future planning permission is put in for?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee and for the reports that fed into many of the changes we have made. He is right to raise those issues. One issue communities see far too often, and the reason why they are sometimes opposed to development, is that they do not actually get what was promised at the beginning. I am really keen that, through the Bill, we give that power back to local communities and ensure neighbourhood plans are strengthened.

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

York is being overrun by investors hoovering up our new build by either leaving those properties empty or using them for Airbnb. That is causing the market to heat up, which is having a really disruptive impact and choking off opportunity for future buyers in my constituency. How will the Minister use his planning reforms to ensure we are not just building to numbers, but to local need?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady is right. The reforms are about empowering local communities to develop local plans and engage with the development of those local plans to identify the housing needs of each area. She is right to raise the issue on second homes and Airbnb. As I said to her the other day in the meeting we had, I look forward to potentially hosting a roundtable with her and colleagues around North Yorkshire to address those very issues.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On the point the Minister was making about developers or planners going back on previous agreements or advice, I have a case in South Leamington, which was consulted on six years ago, where we were to have social and truly affordable housing built on a particular site. As of last week, that has been changed and we will have 80 units with 92 beds in more or less the same space. Will he meet me to discuss that matter and will he explain how the planning changes will ensure communities get what they want, which is truly affordable housing?

[Stuart Andrew]

Of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue he raises. The whole point of the Bill is to strengthen the development of local plans in the first place, so local planning authorities can address the housing needs they have in their area, including the types of housing they need; and to strengthen enforcement issues around planning applications. I am more than happy to speak to him further to understand the issue in greater detail.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

5. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on taking steps to improve access to employment for those without car access in (a) North Shropshire and (b) other rural areas as part of the levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

9. What steps he plans to take to extend right-to-buy schemes to housing associations.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

The Government remain committed to the right to buy and to spreading the dream of home ownership to even more people. The midlands pilots for the voluntary right to buy were completed in 2021. An independent evaluation was published; we are reviewing the findings and will announce further details in due course.

[Mick Whitley]

There is a desperate shortage of social housing in this country; more than 1 million households are waiting for social homes. However, rather than taking the decisive action that is needed to get to grips with this housing crisis, Ministers have threatened to jettison their manifesto commitment to building 300,000 affordable homes a year, refuse to commit themselves to building the council housing that we so desperately need, and are openly considering extending the right to buy to housing association properties. Will the Minister concede that an extension of the right to buy scheme will make the housing shortage much worse, will cause continued misery for many millions, and will deal a grievous blow to the hopes of thousands of my constituents who just want somewhere that they can call home?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have a very ambitious affordable homes programme. More than £11 billion is being spent on a range of different options. We are also introducing an infrastructure levy that makes as many, if not more, contributions to the delivery of affordable homes. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has a problem with giving people in social housing the opportunity to become homeowners. I have to tell him that on the council estate where I grew up, it made a real, transformational difference to the social mobility of the families who were able to enjoy that great policy.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to help reduce financial pressures on local authority budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

11. What recent progress he has made in delivering an “infrastructure first” approach for planning and house building.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

This is essential to our planning reforms. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill introduces a new infrastructure levy. It will ensure that developers contribute funding for infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and new roads, and it will give local authorities control over how that is provided to best meet the needs of local people and development.

[Richard Fuller]

Can I encourage the Minister in his push for an “infrastructure first” approach with an example from my constituency? Quite a few years ago, a developer in the village of Biddenham proposed that a GP surgery be located there, and gave some land for it. It was to bring in patients from Biddenham and the neighbouring village of Bromham. All the houses have been built, but no part of that new GP surgery has been built. The good news is that the building will start later this year, but can the Minister assure me that the problem regarding the interactions between the clinical commissioning group, Bedford Borough Council, NHS Estates, GPs, the developer and the builder will be cleared up? No one is to blame, but I bet that if he had already introduced “infrastructure first”, we would have that GP surgery today.

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Councils, health bodies and everybody else need to get much better at this. Local planning authorities and CCGs should work together to provide the planned provision. Under our new levy, councils will be able to borrow against future levy receipts to forward-fund the infrastructure that is needed. I am arranging meetings with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to discuss the very issue that he brings to our attention.

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

It is vital that infrastructure is provided before development is allowed. It is also vital that houses that are given planning permission are then used for the purposes agreed on when the permission was granted. I am talking about second home ownership. Homes that are built for local families become second homes, and that leads to communities being hollowed out. Will the Minister look again at bringing in new change of use rules through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, so that second homes and holiday lets fall under a separate category of planning use, and homes in Cumbria can remain for local families, and do not become part of ghost towns?

[Stuart Andrew]

I seem to be dealing with the issue of second homes daily; colleagues from around the country are raising it with me and highlighting their concerns for their communities. The Bill allows local councils to increase council tax on second homes, but there is more that we need to explore. That is why I am holding a series of roundtables across the country. Perhaps I could come up to the Lake district and hold one there.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

On-site community facilities are also vitally important. Last summer I was at the St Clements development in east Ipswich, where Bovis, Vistry and Trinity Estate Management have failed to meet many of their obligations. The Foxhall community centre was meant to be brought back into use, but has not been, and there are many concerns over littering and lighting. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can hold developers to account to make sure they do not let residents down, as they have over the St Clements development?

[Stuart Andrew]

Again, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. He is right: when communities think that a development is coming and that there will be a particular benefit for them, and it is then not developed, it erodes trust in the whole planning system. That is exactly what our Bill is designed to address, so that communities can have more engagement, and more confidence that what has been agreed will be delivered.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister wake up to the reality of what is going on in local authorities up and down the country? Cuts since the 2010 election have run down the resources of every planning department in the country. There are not enough professionals being trained, and not enough people to provide an adequate service. What will he do about the planning authorities across this country that cannot deliver for the public?

[Stuart Andrew]

One of the points of the infrastructure levy is that it takes out the necessity for negotiation. It will be a set levy that developers cannot wriggle out of, and it will be for local authorities to set the levy. Of course, we are looking at the broader issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will hopefully report further on them in future.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to help empower local leaders to level up their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

T8. I welcome the proposals to ensure that empty shops have to be rented, but will the Minister explain whom they will be rented to? Will this enable upper floors to be converted to much-needed affordable housing? When will we see progress on filling key visible empty units in town centres such as Barnstaple?

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

High street rental auctions will apply to commercial property and make tenancies more accessible to businesses and community groups. We recognise the importance of diversifying high streets and have introduced permitted development rights to allow a wide range of commercial buildings to be changed to residential use without the need for a planning application. My hon. Friend is right: depending on the circumstances and the type of building, there could be opportunities to increase housing in areas such as hers where there are real challenges.

Affordable Housing (Devon and Cornwall)

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for championing this cause and bringing this debate before us today. I had literally been in the job for about four and a half minutes when she came hurtling up towards me and said, “I have two words for you.” Those two words were more polite than other words that people gave me—“Second homes,” she said. She has been relentless, as hon. Members have said, in ensuring that, in my head, this is high on the list of issues that need to be dealt with. Hon. Members across the south-west, in other parts of the country and across party have been presenting the real issues that their communities face. They are all incredibly important challenges in the housing sector. I thank my hon. Friend for being a torch bearer for the concerns of her constituents, in particular Carol, Rachel, Kathryn and Stephanie, whose responses she highlighted.

I will start my response with a statement of the obvious: people in communities up and down the country deserve access to good-quality and affordable housing. However, that is not the reality that many people in this country live with. To deliver on that ambition, we should keep a laser-like focus on the need to level up the country by increasing the supply of affordable homes in all regions. We as a Government are acutely aware of the unique set of circumstances that exists in our coastal communities around supply, second homes and the looming effects of climate change.

I believe that we are all in agreement that we need more affordable homes and that successive Governments —of all colours, frankly—have fallen short of that goal. We have made it a fundamental part of our levelling-up agenda so that we can start to rectify that, recognising that it is in our national interest for every community in the country to have a strong supply of high-quality, sustainable housing. Where people live should not limit their access to that supply.

We are making progress. Since 2010, we have delivered more than 574,000 new affordable homes across the country. In the south-west alone, we have delivered more than 63,000 of them. Ultimately, however, we know that we need to build more because, for a variety of reasons, supply has simply not kept up with demand in recent decades.

That acknowledgment underpins the affordable homes programme, which comprises £11 billion-worth of investment designed to tackle the twin issues of affordability and supply. It is the largest investment in a decade, and I am hopeful that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon is aware that the south-west receives one of the largest allocations from it, with £1 billion earmarked for the delivery of 17,500 new affordable homes across the region.

The programme fits with our determination to turn generation rent into a generation of homeowners. Through the programme, we have said that approximately half of the homes constructed will be for affordable home ownership, supporting aspiring homeowners to take the first step on the housing ladder. The programme will also deliver more than double the number of social rent homes than the current programme, with about 132,000 homes for social rent. I accept that that is an incredibly important element of what we have to do. I am keen, as the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, that we also explore how we help councils start to build council housing again. The points he made are interesting ones, which I will take away and am happy to respond to in writing, if he is in agreement.

Our aim is to support thousands of hard-working people with funding to help them experience the unique sense of pride that comes with owning their own home. In turn, that will help us to level up parts of the country, such as the south-west, by creating new jobs for homebuilders, small and medium-sized enterprise developers, electricians and plumbers alike. The programme recognises the scale of the challenge in front of us, with major investments to tackle affordability, to re-energise the housing sector and, most importantly, to build back better from the pandemic.

As a Government we also recognise the need to address the impact that the large numbers of second homes and short-term holiday lets has, not just on the local housing market, but on the communities themselves, which all hon. Members have mentioned today. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon illuminated powerfully in her speech, that is particularly true in our rural and coastal communities, including her constituency.

I want to be clear: this Government wholeheartedly support responsible short-term letting. We absolutely recognise the economic benefits that that can have in our favourite holiday hotspots, but the benefits should not be to the detriment of local communities. Landlords who let out accommodation on a short-term basis must do so responsibly and in accordance with the law. We are taking action to address the fact that there is such a high concentration of second homes in these regions. I am of the view that it is only fair that owners of second homes pay their fair share towards the local services that they benefit from. It is important to re-emphasise the point about the introduction of stamp duty land tax for those purchasing additional properties, and tightening tax rules for second home owners. Large numbers of second homes should not block the path to home ownership for local people and the measures we have introduced will help mitigate their impact.

As I said at the start, I am aware of the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) suggested that I hold a roundtable in his region. He will be pleased to know that I have already suggested that to officials in my Department—I look forward to making those arrangements as soon as possible. I want to hear the suggestions that local partners may have. I want to fully understand the impact that the situation is having on local communities from those who are actually there. I now expect that there will be a million invitations for me to visit each constituency while I am there; I would very much look forward to that.

I want to move on to the planning issues mentioned by some hon. Members. Central to tackling the issues that have been raised is the need to deliver the right homes in the right places. Existing planning tools are already helping. Local plans such as those in the Yorkshire dales can protect a share of housing for local residents. Some communities, particularly in the south-west, have chosen to include policies in their neighbourhood plans to require new open-market housing to be occupied as a principal residence. In addition, section 106 agreements can apply a local connection test to protect a share of new housing for local people. Our first homes scheme enables local authorities to prioritise discounted homes for local people through section 106, with discounts at a minimum of 30%.

We have also made changes to the planning system to meet some of the numerous challenges that hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to. In August 2021, we introduced a new permitted development right that allows buildings in the new commercial, business and service use class to change to residential use. I was interested to hear of the challenges that are being faced; while I am not promising to bring my trowel and bucket, perhaps on my visit to the south-west I can see some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon alluded to. The new right means that a wider range of commercial buildings can make the change to residential use without the need for planning applications; for example, it can apply to the spaces above shops. We have also introduced new permitted development rights to allow two additional storeys to be added to existing buildings such as houses, flats and commercial buildings, to create new homes. Those rights will continue to deliver new homes that might not otherwise come forward through the planning system.

We recognise that there are currently capacity challenges, and we want to ensure that local authority planning departments are equipped and have the right skills to make creative decisions, enabling us to take forward ambitious proposals for levelling up. We are engaging with representatives from across local government, the private sector and professional bodies, to consider ways in which we can ensure that local authorities are equipped to deliver places that people can be proud of and have the skills needed to deliver an efficient planning service.

I want to mention levelling up. I think about levelling up as the tool that exists to prevent the Kansas-style twisters that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon described. I will not go as far as to say that levelling up is a miracle on the scale of “The Wizard of Oz”—and I cannot promise her that I have my ruby slippers on—but I appreciate the reference. Levelling up is a blueprint that has the potential to transform the fortunes of towns and cities all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon was right when she drew attention to regional disparities running through this country like faultlines. Those issues transcend every part of society; they are issues of lack of opportunity, lack of good quality jobs, and of life prospects being diminished by areas’ being overlooked and undervalued.

Across the country, places with proud histories such as North Devon have seen generation after generation leave the area with the promise of a better, brighter future that simply did not feel possible or affordable in the area in which they were living. We need only to look at some of the high streets in communities across the country to see that such places have been taken for granted for too long. Even places such as Devon and Cornwall—which draw millions of tourists and have rich cultural heritages—have, at times, been like a jet plane being powered by only one of its engines. We know it is not enough to simply identify the problem and say we are going to fix it. We need to walk the walk, and our levelling-up blueprint sets out exactly how we are going to do that.

Hon. and right hon. Members have raised a number of points today and I am looking at all those issues. I have heard loud and clear—literally—about such issues from colleagues not just in the south-west, but in the Lake district, Norfolk and other tourist hotspots. I appreciate the way that colleagues have conducted the debate today; it has been useful and interesting to hear all their suggestions. I will take them away and consider them very carefully so that we can try to address the problems that colleagues have raised with me beforehand, have spoken about today and, I am sure, will be causing them to keep knocking at my door in the days and weeks to come.

Future of Small Cities Following Covid-19

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing a debate on an issue that matters to so many communities across this country. The future prospects of small cities and our future support for them are real, tangible things that people in this country care deeply about. I commend him for his ongoing interest and convicti-on.

It almost goes without saying that covid-19 changed the world as we knew it. I cannot think of any part of the country that went untouched. Although the virus was a doomsday event for the businesses that make up our high streets, its effects—the hon. Gentleman has highlighted this in the past—were not evenly distributed. For places such as university cities and tourism hotspots, the effects of the virus were particularly profound. The issues created by the shutdown of local economies and the temporary closure of high streets were massively exacerbated by having fewer students and tourists in the city. For cities such as Cambridge, Oxford or York, whose populations always swell in size during normal times, the loss of revenue was especially damaging. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have felt that pain acutely, as Cambridge usually attracts more than 8 million visitors a year, bringing in about £800 million and accounting for nearly a quarter of all employment in the city.

I firmly believe that the Government, thanks to the support from the Treasury, did everything possible to support cities and places to weather the storm. That included billions of pounds of covid loans, furlough support and money to local authorities to support their communities. Those economic lifelines helped to keep businesses going, keep people in jobs and, most importantly, keep people safe from the virus. But it is right, with covid almost, I hope, in the rear-view mirror, that we look beyond the pandemic and at the wider economic geography of this country.

Although the virus was a generational event, we do not need to be economists to recognise that wider issues plaguing many of our small cities and towns have long predated the pandemic, including a lack of opportunities and good-quality jobs, and life prospects diminished by areas being overlooked and undervalued. Places across the country with proud histories have seen generation after generation leave the area in search of a brighter future that did not feel was possible where they were.

We need only to look at the high streets in some of the small cities dotted around the UK to see that they have been taken for granted for too long. Even places such as Cambridge, which draws millions of tourists and thousands of students, and places with a rich cultural heritage have at times been like a jet plane powered by only one of its engines. It does not have to be that way.

The Government party stood on a manifesto that promised to end the status quo, delivering policies and plans to usher in new opportunities across the country. That means reviving the fortunes and transforming some of our much loved cities, big and small, creating vibrant places and communities where people want to live and work.

In February we launched, in our levelling-up White Paper, our blueprint for how we get there. It outlines a huge number of measures designed to close gaps in health, education and wealth between regions, and inequalities that disfigure this country, including those in the east of England. It draws together policies on education, transport, housing, research and development and many other areas of Government spending. It is a plan that sets out a clear, targeted and measurable approach to breathing fresh life into our cities and improving the lives of people across the UK.

People want to see buzzing high streets. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) is right to raise the changing nature of many of our high streets and how we can tackle that. People want thriving local businesses and to see their children in good schools. They also want money to be invested back into things that strengthen the social fabric locally —from renovating the local theatre or museum, to constructing a neighbourhood community centre and preserving a centuries-old pub.

We believe that with the right approach—an approach that takes a long view and focuses on policies such as regeneration and proper devolution to local leaders—the results can be more money in the pockets of those people who need it most, more high-skilled jobs and more new investment attracted to an area.

[Richard Graham]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to one aspect of Gloucester’s success with the levelling-up fund, which is the first ever conversion in this country of a department store into a university teaching campus? It will open in September 2023 and I hope he will have the chance to visit it one day. That is also an opportunity for other cities.

[Stuart Andrew]

That is exactly the sort of innovation that we want to see in towns and cities all over the country, where people locally know what is best for their communities and of the existing opportunities, such as an empty building or area in need of redevelopment. Such local decision making will be key to ensuring that we maximise the potential for local communities. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.

I also emphasise, as I have many times in the past, the moral imperative to level up the country. Levelling up is not about an arbitrary divide that starts just to the north of the Watford gap, and nor is it about a London versus everyone else divide; it is about breathing new life into, and offering a more prosperous future to, neglected areas across the country that have for years felt forgotten by Westminster. I assure every Member present that those places in the east—Cambridge, Peterborough, Luton, Bury St Edmunds—and those further afield, such as Gloucester, are just as central to our levelling-up ambitions as Sunderland, Darlington and Grimsby.

The hon. Member for Cambridge has said that while slogans come and go, we need a proper regional policy. I could not agree more. For our strategy to work, it has to be more than a slogan; it has to be something that people can really see and feel where they live. One of the central pillars, therefore, is regeneration, and I am delighted with the progress that we are making on that front. The towns fund of more than £3.6 billion is helping to create jobs and to build more resilient local communities and economies. Our investment of £2.4 billion through the town deals for 101 towns across England is giving them the tools they need to boost their local economy.

Hon. Members will have seen at first hand how that funding is supporting regeneration in the east of England. The region has received more than £287 million through our towns fund for several projects to support growth, regenerate public spaces, as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned, and improve transport. A fantastic example is the city of Peterborough, which will benefit from a range of new cultural facilities in the city centre, including a lakeside activity centre and the creation of new pedestrian links to improve access to the riverside and its green spaces, alongside the brand-new university opening its doors for the first time later this year. That is levelling up in action, and is just one of hundreds of examples.

We are soon to open the next round of our £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, and I encourage all smaller cities to get their bids in and to secure investment that will help to deliver on local priorities for the people they serve.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am encouraged by much of what the Minister is saying. Cambridge is in a slightly different position, with slightly different issues. Will he undertake to meet Cambridge Ahead to look at how we can take things forward in future?

[Stuart Andrew]

I was literally about to come on to the hon. Member’s point. For me and the Department, regeneration has a fundamental role to play in the levelling-up agenda. By bringing together the vast experience that exists in our private sector businesses, local authorities, developers and local communities, we can create vibrant cities and restore people’s pride in the places where they live.

The hon. Member mentioned the Cambridge Ahead report, and I loved his comment that his ambition is for Cambridge to be the best small city in the world. The Government are clear that, as I have said, levelling up means levelling up all over the country—and that, of course, includes Cambridge. He will understand that certain points he raised on education and transport are not in my Department’s remit. None the less, the values he raised from the report sound like they could be of value to our Department’s levelling-up mission. I particularly welcome the report’s recommendations for a more resilient city with well-designed, inclusive spaces. That will be a key element of some of the work we will be doing in the forthcoming months. I will ensure that this report is reviewed and taken into consideration by my Department as we consider the next steps from the levelling-up White Paper. More importantly, I am more than happy to ensure that officials meet people in Cambridge to discuss the report further.

I want to touch on another central theme of our levelling-up plans, and that is devolution. As part of our diagnosis of the challenges that areas are facing, we recognise that low-paid, low-productivity work is largely concentrated in areas that are disconnected from much bigger cities. We believe that one of the principal solutions should be levelling up by devolving down, with a proper revolution in how we approach local democracy—one that replicates some of the extraordinary successes that have come from the introduction of metro Mayors in places such as Teesside and the west midlands. We believe that that is a winning formula for giving back control to areas over their own destiny.

That kind of devolution is what will propel us beyond what Michael Heseltine termed “the traditional Whitehall solution” of

“throwing money at individual identified problems”.

Our approach will embody the Heseltine approach to devolution, where the focus is not based on north, south, east and west, but on devolving power to cities and devolving to towns. For the east of England, that process has already begun, with Norfolk and Suffolk among the first wave of areas being invited to discuss county deals.

I will finish by thanking the hon. Member for championing the cause of small cities and bringing the debate to us today. I hope I have laid out our vision for how we offer these places a positive vision for the post-covid era, with policies and initiatives that meet the urgent needs of the moment. Individually these policies would do little to transform the fortunes of any given place, but taken together our levelling-up plans, with new hospitals, new county deals, new 4G infrastructure investment and new powers for local leaders have the potential to lift up every single city and strengthen its social fabric.

Local government and local institutions worked with national Government throughout the pandemic to support people through one of the most challenging periods in the history of this country. We did that in the spirit of collaboration and with a desire to protect people from a deadly virus. I am certain that if we work together and apply the same spirit and zeal that we showed in that moment to levelling up our country, we can deliver on the things that matter to people. I know that all hon. Members present share the motivations behind that agenda, even if we may sometimes disagree on the precise means of getting there, and I look forward to working hand in hand with hon. Members present and on all sides of the political divide to make that a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Planning and Development: Women’s Safety

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this important debate. She is right to highlight and speak so powerfully about the issues that she has raised. I too want to take a moment to pay tribute to Sarah Everard and all those other women who have sadly been victims in this country. The Government empathise deeply with the calls for a greater focus on women’s safety in planning and more generally. This is a priority in my Department and it rightly deserves a cross-Government approach. However, I want to say at the outset that planning is a devolved matter, so I can speak only for the laws and rules that extend to England. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the planning system in England already has a framework of policy and guidance in place to make new developments safe, and I am grateful to have this opportunity to highlight it today so that, hopefully, planning authorities around the country will be even more aware of the guidance that is in place.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate. It is important, and it has made me think about the challenges involved.

One point I want to raise with the Minister is that this is not just about the planning of new developments; it is about the delivery of them as well. There are several estates being built in my constituency. People are already moving in, and many women have approached me and said that there is no safety in the form of street lights, pavements and secure walkways for them. So this is about not only the absolute end of the project but the delivery of the development.

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I have had exactly the same sort of developments in my own constituency—large developments that have taken a number of years. In fact, I helped to get some street lighting in the first part of one development because I had exactly the same issues. These are things that I will certainly take more consideration of in this role.

Our view is that any change to the existing planning system requires careful consideration in order to avoid any unintended consequences. I will briefly set out for hon. Members the current planning process in England, but I must reiterate that women’s safety relies on much more than just good planning practice, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. My Department has made it clear through the national planning policy framework that planning policies and decisions should aim to create safe places. Chapter 8 of the framework explicitly states that planning policies and decisions should promote public safety. That can often be achieved with pedestrian cycle routes, high-quality public spaces and the active use of park and playgrounds.

The supporting section of the framework’s planning practice guidance on healthy and safe communities expands on that. It states:

“Planning provides an important opportunity to consider the security of the built environment”

and

“those that live and work in it.”

It also references section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended. This requires all local, joint and combined authorities to exercise their functions with regard to their effect on crime and disorder, and to do all they reasonably can to prevent both.

On the subject of design in the planning system, the hon. Lady rightly mentioned the national design guide and the national model design code, which help councils and builders to create buildings that are safe for every member of the community. Specifically, the national design guide sets out 10 characteristics of well-designed places that councils can refer to when considering a planning application. The guide is also used by planners creating local policy so that they, together with the community, can define what good and safe design means in that area.

The national guide emphasises that where developments have public spaces and a network of streets, they must be safe and secure and accessible to all. Importantly, the guide makes it clear that shared spaces should be safe and feel safe, not just for the people living or working in nearby buildings but for visitors and passers-by too. That is essential for overcoming crime and the fear of crime because, as hon. Members will know, when a development gains a reputation for being quiet, poorly lit or dangerous, it is likely to attract even more criminal behaviour and it becomes a vicious cycle.

The national design guide does a lot to prevent that from the outset by asking for an assessment of risks in all new developments and a clear plan for mitigating them. It also encourages the use of what are known in the industry as “active frontages” so there is a steady stream of people taking the same route at different times of the day.

Finally, the guide makes it clear that natural surveillance should be factored into the planning equation, with windows and balconies so that people can feel safe in the knowledge that local streets and public spaces can be seen by people nearby from above and at street level.

That is what the national design guide seeks to achieve, but there is also the national model design code, which sets a baseline standard of quality and practice that councils are expected to meet when developing their own local design codes and determining planning applications. This includes how the design of new developments should enhance the health and wellbeing of local communities and create safe, inclusive and active environments.

The national model design code states that developments should include natural surveillance of the street, good lighting and high levels of footfall to deter criminal behaviour and ensure people feel safe walking the street. Importantly, the code reminds planners that insecure places can disproportionately affect groups with protected characteristics, including gender.

The Government’s policy and guidance on safety in new developments must be taken into account by councils when preparing their development plans, and they are very much a material consideration in planning decisions. The planning system is centred on effective community engagement, so when preparing a design code that sets the design standard for a local area, or when determining a planning application, there is an opportunity for everyone, including women and all those with an interest in personal safety, to help shape new buildings, streets and public spaces. In that sense, there is already a strong requirement that the planning system should do all it can to help ensure the safety of women and, indeed, all members of the community.

[Matt Western]

The Minister is generous in giving way, and I hear what he is saying. Perhaps he could meet me to discuss this, but I have very upset, angry and distraught people, particularly women, on this new estate, where there is no lighting on certain streets and where some pathways do not yet exist. There seems to be no provision for those pathways.

[Stuart Andrew]

I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we are currently considering a raft of planning issues, so perhaps this is something we can discuss.

The Department for Transport is also giving councils further guidance on street design. We are working closely with DFT on a revised “Manual for Streets”, for all councils in England to use when designing new roads and pedestrianised routes. It helps councils to make sure that paths and public spaces are overlooked by residential buildings, have good lighting and do not suffer from blind corners or other design flaws that can be exploited by criminals.

Last year, DFT launched a call for evidence on personal safety measures in streets and public spaces, to find out more about how people, particularly women, feel unsafe when using the street and experience harassment, intimidation or unwanted sexual behaviour in public spaces. The aim was to gather information to understand the problem, identify possible solutions and include what works and, more importantly, what does not work in that space. A new version of the guidance is set to be published later this year.

Another crucial safeguard in protecting women’s safety through the planning system is the support and advice on Secured by Design standards, which is available from the police through a network of designing out crime officers across the UK. These officers play a key role because they can liaise directly with the architects, designers and local planning authorities on a particular planning application. They can also provide specialist advice on the security of new buildings, as well the refurbishment of old ones, so they are as safe as they can be. Ensuring that consultation with Secured by Design and other experts in the field is taking place right from the start of the design stage is the best way to ensure that a proposed development protects women, girls and anyone else who may feel vulnerable—that is where our focus must be.

That said, the Government wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to protect vulnerable women, which is why, as hon. Members will know, in July last year we published our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy. It sets out our ambition to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online and on the streets. The strategy presents a number of measures designed to improve women’s safety, including the online tool StreetSafe, which encourages women and girls to anonymously report areas where they have felt unsafe, whether that is because of poor lighting, a lack of CCTV coverage or the people who were around them.

Since 2020, we have also provided £70 million to police and crime commissioners and councils in England and Wales through our flagship safer streets fund. That initiative is specifically focused on preventing neighbourhood crime, crime in public spaces and violence against women and girls. It has funded life-saving projects comprising not only traditional crime prevention techniques, such as better CCTV and street lighting, but creative interventions such as bystander training and educational initiatives to change attitudes and raise awareness. We are committing a further £150 million to the safer streets programme over the next three years, with tackling neighbourhood crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls as its key objectives.

The Government recognise that the built environment has a significant impact on people’s health and wellbeing, so it needs to feel safe and secure for every member of the community. Through the design guide and the design code, we are giving both councils and developers the tools they need to create green, sustainable neighbourhoods with safety at their very heart. Those tools are already being put into action. Let me give a couple of examples: in Cambridge, the development at Marmalade Lane was designed to prioritise pedestrians, with a focus on social interaction; and Horsted Park in Kent was designed with visibility over parking spaces, with tree and shrub planting kept low to maintain visibility along the street and towards front doors—that is exactly the point that the hon Lady mentioned.

Our cities are also making improvements to existing public spaces, with good maintenance and management and a focus on lighting design that involves collaboration with a wide range of groups. We are also doubling our efforts to protect women and girls not just through effective planning but through a comprehensive strategy to reduce the prevalence of violence against them in the long term. That rightly means a wide range of Departments treating this with the urgency it deserves. I can give the hon. Member for Edinburgh West the commitment today that I will work with her and Members on both sides of the House to deliver on that mission, ensuring that housing and planning policy is playing its part in creating a safer society for all, which I am sure we all want to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Building Safety Bill

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 93.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment (b) to Lords amendment 93.

Lords amendment 94, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 98, and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

Lords amendment 107, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 108, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 109, and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 145, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 184, Government amendments (a) and (b), amendment (e), Government amendments (c) and (d), and amendment (f) thereto.

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

Lords amendments 1 to 5 and 7 to 25.

Lords amendment 26, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 27 to 77.

Lords amendment 27, and Government consequential amendment (a).

Lords amendments 79 to 92, 95 to 97, 99 to 106 and 110.

Lords amendment 111, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 112 to 144, 146 to 183 and 185 to 191.

[Stuart Andrew]

I must start with a reminder of where this journey started: 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which was the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. All our thoughts are with those families who have lost loved ones. The Government are determined to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

I thank the Members of this House, noble Lords, cladding groups and industry stakeholders who have worked tirelessly on this landmark legislation. I remind Members that the Bill not only creates an improved building safety regulatory system but protects leaseholders, who have become victims in the building safety crisis. We have stuck to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s principles on building safety, which are that we must make industry pay to fix the problems for which it is responsible; protect leaseholders; and restore common sense to the assessment of building safety risks, thereby speeding up the fixing of the highest-risk buildings and stopping buildings being declared unsafe unnecessarily .

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

I accept that a lot of what the Minister is saying is correct—that those who are responsible should pay and leaseholders should not—but he missed out one group that has been particularly affected by Grenfell: social housing tenants. Why is the Minister not prepared to offer them the same financial support as he is giving to leaseholders?

[Stuart Andrew]

We continue to review all these matters. We are looking at and consulting on the whole of the affordable housing and social housing policy area, and we will come back to ensure that we get it right.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Chairman of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—and I have been involved in the prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill and the whole process behind it. Is my right hon. Friend the Minister saying that not only can we pass the Bill today with the Government amendments but he will continue to look to revise the law and to embrace more people in the law through secondary legislation?

[Stuart Andrew]

The Building Safety Regulator will continue to make sure that all building safety regulations are adhered to. Mention has been made of social housing tenants, social housing and affordable housing; we will consult on that further down the line so that we can be absolutely sure we have got this right. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

On 13 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to Members to update them on the progress in the negotiations with industry. We will now see the vast majority of developers fix all the buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing in the past 30 years. My right hon. Friend announced last week that, in addition to the existing building safety fund, the Government will establish a new cladding remediation scheme, funded by industry contributions, to cover all other unsafe residential buildings of 11 to 18 metres that contain private leasehold properties but a developer has not accepted responsibility for fixing them or cannot be identified.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for what he is saying. He will be aware that I have had significant issues in my constituency, with many affected developments. In respect of the Celestia development in particular, there have been long-standing challenges in getting answers to the questions that residents are asking. Redrow wrote to the Secretary of State to say that it will now take responsibility for paying, but it has not made clear whether that applies to Wales—the letter refers only to England. Will the Minister clarify whether he understands that such commitments are going to be UK-wide, given that it is a UK-wide issue? If they are not, what pressure will he put on Redrow to make sure that that commitment applies to Wales as well?

[Stuart Andrew]

I do not know the specifics, to be really honest with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that I have picked this issue up lately, and if he does not mind, I will come back to him with a definitive answer.

The leaseholder protections that were introduced in the other place put our commitments into law. Qualifying leaseholders—defined as those living in their own homes or with up to three UK properties in total in buildings that are above 11 metres or five storeys—will be legally protected from all costs associated with the remediation of unsafe cladding, as will all leaseholders in buildings owned by or associated with the developer. Leaseholders in buildings above 18 metres are already protected by the Government’s £5.1 billion building safety fund for the removal of unsafe cladding. It is the Government’s expectation that developers will pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Has it been possible to trace any foreign companies or foreign interests that are involved in these matters? Will they be making their contribution?

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. I shall address that specific point later in my speech.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

The Minister has been a breath of fresh air since he has come to the Department, and the discussions have been very productive. Will he clarify from the Dispatch Box that for leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres, who currently have no protections, the Department would be willing to look at those buildings on a case-by-case basis if support was needed?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend has invested a considerable amount of time in his campaign and I have enjoyed the opportunity to have those discussions with him. I will come to that point shortly, but yes, as a Department we will deal with those buildings on a case-by-case basis. I shall give more details as to why we have come to that conclusion.

We are protecting qualifying leaseholders from costs associated with non-cladding defects, including interim measures such as waking watches. Building owners and landlords will be prevented from passing on the costs to fix non-cladding defects if they are linked to, or are, the developer.

While the Bill was in the other place, the Government made a number of amendments to it that will restore fairness to the system and help those who have been unfairly impacted by building safety issues. I know that many Members wish to speak, so I do not propose to go through each of the amendments made in the other place. The Bill now not only provides for a new regulatory regime but provides an extensive set of tools, in law, to ensure that those who bear the responsibility for defects are made to pay and to protect leaseholders from crippling bills for historic defects. In response to concerns expressed by Members in both Houses and by stakeholders, we have changed how the building safety charge works and removed the legal duty to appoint a building safety manager.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

The EWS1 form, which was brought about by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has caused many problems for people trying to sell their properties. We now have PAS 9980, which will not replace EWS1, but could the Minister say that from his perspective he would rather people look at PAS 9980, as opposed to EWS1?

[Stuart Andrew]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has also been heavily involved in all this work. Yes, I can confirm that. I will elaborate later in my speech.

Let me turn now to the Government amendments to the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 94 inserts a clause that sets out the meaning of “relevant building”. The clause defines the categories of buildings to which the leaseholder protection measures apply. The Government originally proposed to apply the leaseholder protection measures to buildings containing at least two dwellings above 11 metres in height, or with at least five storeys. Amendments made in the other place extended the definition of “relevant building” to buildings of all heights containing two or more dwellings. We will take a very dim view of freeholders who seek to exploit leaseholders to pay for unnecessary works. The Department is aware of a handful of low-rise buildings where freeholders have been commissioning such works and we are addressing such buildings, as I said a moment ago, on a case-by-case basis, but we must restore proportionality to the system. That is why the Government do not agree with the extension of the scope of leaseholder protections to include buildings under 11 metres. There is no systematic risk of fire with buildings below 11 metres. Low-rise buildings are therefore unlikely to need costly remediation to make them safe. Lower-cost mitigations such as fire alarms are likely to be far more appropriate and proportionate. Assessments carried out in accordance with the new PAS 9980 principles should produce more proportionate responses than costly and, ultimately, unnecessary remediation. The Government have been clear in their view that an EWS1 form should not be required for buildings below 18 metres in height.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. What is his advice to leaseholders who believe that they have been wrongly charged for unnecessary works, or works that are not actually required in the way that he is describing? Many residents have raised concerns with me about what has been put forward and whether it was actually required. What should they do? What is the Minister’s practical advice?

[Stuart Andrew]

My door is always open, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific cases with me I would be more than happy to take them up and make sure that we get relevant answers for him.

Freeholders and landlords should not be commissioning costly remediation in buildings below 11 metres except in exceptional circumstances, which is where there is no more proportionate option available. They certainly should not be pointing to old EWS assessments to justify those costs. Given the small number of buildings involved, a blanket legislative intervention bringing hundreds of thousands more buildings into scope to deal with an issue affecting just a handful of buildings would be entirely disproportionate. The Government amendments therefore reinstate the definition of “relevant building” as one that is at least 11 metres, or five storeys in height, and contains at least two dwellings.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. In respect of the point that he has just made, have the Government made an estimate of the number of residential buildings below 11 metres where there may be a case for extensive remediation works? I am just trying to follow the logic of the Government’s position. They say that there is not really a problem with buildings below 11 metres, which is why they do want to include them, but if there is not a problem, surely the Government would not be having to do much in respect of those buildings, because there are very few of them—so the Minister says.

[Stuart Andrew]

The issue is the proportionate measures that can be made in those buildings to ensure that they are safe. We want to make sure that we get this right, and we will be continuing to look at all of these. If the building safety regulator assesses that further work needs to be done, or that the Government need to look at what needs to be done, we will absolutely make sure that we do that, and I make that commitment to the House.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On that specific point, I am grateful that the Minister has said that he will look at this issue of buildings below 11 metres. As part of that, will he commit to focus especially on those buildings where there are many vulnerable residents—whether that is care homes, shelter buildings or perhaps even schools where there are children with special educational needs or disabilities who might find it harder to escape buildings? Will he commit to look specifically through that lens of risk to the vulnerable adults in those buildings?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her engagement, too. She raised this important point with me yesterday. Yes, absolutely, we have officials looking at that, but also, as I have said, the Building Safety Regulator will be assessing buildings such as those. If this becomes an area that needs further consideration, we will look at what measures need to be introduced.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will take one more intervention and then I must progress.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous, but these are important and quite complicated issues. There is a general welcome for the Government’s attempts to take a more proportionate approach and for moving away, albeit over a period of time, from EWS1 forms to PAS 9980, which can cover whole blocks rather than individual properties. The two questions that the Select Committee has not had answers to are, first, whether the Government will look at making the building regulator responsible for deciding which blocks need this new assessment rather than the building owners, who might have a particular interest in saying no; and, secondly, whether he will ensure that the professional indemnity insurance scheme also applies to assessors on the PAS 9980 assessments as well as to those on the EWS1 forms?

[Stuart Andrew]

I know that the Department has been considering much of the Select Committee’s excellent work. We have moved a long way from the initial reports, and the responses will be going back to the Committee. Yes, I will take that away with me if the hon. Gentleman will allow, and I will write to him to give him further details.

Let me move on now to collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings. The Government’s original proposal included an exemption from the leaseholder protection provisions to leaseholder-owned buildings—those in which the leaseholders have collectively enfranchised and those which are on commonhold land.

In a collectively enfranchised building, the freehold is owned by some or all of the leaseholders, so there is no separate entity with which the costs can be shared. The leaseholders are the freeholders. The amendments made in the other place seek to apply the protections to these buildings. The Government recognise that the amendments are well intentioned and driven by a desire to protect these leaseholders, and they share these aims. However, I must emphasise to the House that these amendments will not have the intended effect of protecting leaseholders living in those buildings. Those leaseholders who have enfranchised would still have to pay—but in their capacity as owners of the freehold rather than as a leaseholder. Indeed, it could make things worse. Where some leaseholders have chosen to enfranchise and others have not, the enfranchised leaseholders would have to pay for remediation of the whole building in their capacity as owners of the freehold—including the share of remediation costs that would otherwise have been recoverable from those leaseholders who have not enfranchised, once they have paid up to any cap. That is why the Government amendments reinstate the exemption for leaseholder-owned buildings. Enfranchised buildings are eligible for the £5.1 billion building safety fund in the same way as other buildings.

The other protections that we have introduced will also apply. The recent commitment from many developers to fix their own buildings will apply equally to enfranchised buildings, and the measures and powers that we have added to the Bill to pursue and compel developers and cladding manufacturers to pay will be available. I know that Members will still be concerned about how we can protect leaseholders in leaseholder-owned buildings, which is why I am announcing today that the Government will consult on how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings and other special cases can be protected from the costs associated with historical building safety defects. The consultation will allow the Government to understand fully the position regarding leaseholder-owned buildings with historical defects and identify whether further measures are appropriate to address specific circumstances in which leaseholders may unintentionally be exposed to disproportionate costs.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has, to some degree, covered the concerns that I was going to raise about those people who have exercised the right to manage. Yesterday, in a letter to us, he and the Secretary of State acknowledged that Lords amendment 117 identified a real problem. Frankly, at this stage, a consultation will give very little comfort, but could he try to assure leaseholders in that position by saying how long that consultation will be undertaken and when they might expect some conclusion?

[Stuart Andrew]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. I want to ensure that we get the consultation under way as quickly as possible. I accept that people have deeply held concerns, so we will do our best to get that done speedily, but we do need to consult. We need to get the evidence and know exactly what the picture is, in order to know how best to deal with that situation.

Lords amendment 184 inserts a new schedule 8, titled “Remediation costs under qualifying leases”. It sets out the circumstances in which costs cannot be passed on to leaseholders. The Government’s original proposals set out that where the building owner is, or is linked to, the developer or can afford to meet the costs in full, they would be prevented from passing costs on to leaseholders.

It is worth stressing just how wide these proposed protections are. If a building is still linked to the developer, that building owner and the landlord will be liable for the costs associated with non-cladding defects and their leaseholders will pay nothing. If the building owner or landlord is not linked to the developer, but has the wealth to meet the costs in full, their leaseholders will pay nothing. If a leaseholder property is valued at less than £175,000, or £325,000 in London, the leaseholder will pay nothing and, if the leaseholder has already met interim costs that exceed the contributions cap, they will pay nothing.

Based on that “waterfall”, the Government’s assessment is that the vast majority of leaseholders would pay less than the caps and many would pay nothing at all. However, it is important to remember that not all landlords are evil. Where the building owner or landlord is not at fault, where they have no link to the developer who created those defects and they do not have the wealth to meet the remediation costs in full, and only in that situation, we propose that leaseholder contributions towards non-cladding defects can be recovered, subject to the fixed caps.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being able to be here since the beginning of the debate as I was at the rally with leaseholders.

Does the Minister agree that there is a conflict of interest issue? As I have seen in my constituency, which has many cladded buildings, it is often freeholders who do the assessments, which therefore do not have the necessary independence or checks and balances. Does he agree that it is worth having a building works agency, as Labour proposes, with independent assessors to do the work, so that residents can have confidence that there will be no more attempts to find ways to pass on the costs to leaseholders? We have had three fires in my borough since Grenfell, and it is vital that freeholders take the responsibility rather than passing on the bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Freeholders must ensure that their buildings are safe. We will have responsible people associated with each of those buildings to ensure that all the regulations are adhered to. The Building Safety Regulator will also ensure that buildings are safe. As ever, we want to learn as this process goes on, and I would be keen to continue to have dialogue with her as we progress with this.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very kind with his time. On the point about the building cost thresholds, he will know that the London median house price is £515,000, but in Runnymede and Weybridge it is £475,000. In fact, house prices in my constituency are higher than or equal to those in 25 London constituencies. Many of my constituents will be adversely affected but will not get the same benefit as those in London, despite having equivalent or higher house prices. As he reviews the policy going forward, will he consider looking at house prices on a regional basis, as opposed to inside London versus outside London, which negatively affects constituents such as mine?

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will be aware that we are trying to avoid any leaseholders having any contributions to make at all. The first port of call will always be the people who developed the building in the first place. I hope to come on a bit later to the valuation of properties, which might address some of his points.

Importantly, we proposed that those leaseholder contributions be subject to a firm cap and that costs paid out in the past five years count against the caps. The Government originally proposed that leaseholders’ contributions be capped at £10,000, or £15,000 in Greater London, and we believe that creates a fair balance. It is the Government’s assessment that the vast majority of leaseholders would pay less than the caps, and many would pay nothing at all. None the less, the other place voted to reduce leaseholders’ capped contributions to zero. I am afraid the Government cannot accept the amendments.

We believe that in those circumstances, setting the cap on leaseholder contributions to zero is not a proportionate approach. Placing the entire burden on freeholders and landlords in circumstances where they are not at fault and are not wealthy will only increase the risk that remediation that is needed to ensure that residents are safe will not happen at all. We are therefore restoring the caps at £10,000 outside London and £15,000 in London, as originally proposed, and have made a small number of other technical improvements to those measures.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his position on this very interesting Bill that is going back and forth. The one group of people who took the money right at the start for the developers and builders was the insurance companies. The developers could not have built those properties without having the legal protection of insurance. Sadly, the Minister has not mentioned the insurance companies once in this situation, but that is where the burden should fall, instead of on the leaseholders. Does he agree?

[Stuart Andrew]

Actually, the responsibility lies with those who built the building defectively in the first place. They are the ones we are chasing. I pay tribute— I should have said this right at the beginning—to officials in the Department, who have worked incredibly hard to get this new package of measures from the developers in place. It has not been an easy task, but they have done it with great passion and have been incredibly successful. As I say, it is the developers who should be paying, and we expect a minimal number of leaseholders to pay.

[Royston Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know he wants to get on. On insurance, which has been my bugbear as well, it is not just that many of the insurance companies insured the development beforehand, and therefore provided a warranty of sorts, but that since then they have increased premiums on leaseholders, sometimes by more than 1,000%. Does he have something to say about that particular activity from insurance companies?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Financial Conduct Authority to look at that, because it is an area of great concern. I hope to update the House on further progress in the near future.

Turning to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 6, the Government have accepted the principle of the Lords amendment, requiring the Building Safety Regulator to conduct a series of safety reviews. We believe the new version provides clearer drafting and a more practical and pragmatic approach. The amendment inserts a new clause that increases the time available to the regulator from two years to three, reflecting the time needed for the regulator to develop the capacity to carry out those reviews alongside all its other functions.

The new clause aligns the reviews with building regulations to address safety issues, focusing on the costs and benefits of measures to improve safety. It sets specific priorities for the regulator to review while fulfilling its duty under clause 5 to keep,

“the safety of people in or about buildings”,

under review. The scope remains true to the intent of the original amendment, and it is important to assure hon. Members that the reviews will be conducted within the principle of proportionality placed on the operation of the regulator’s building functions by this Bill.

I now turn to a number of technical improvements that the Government are proposing to Lords amendments. Lords amendment 93 inserted a new clause called “Remediation of certain defects”, which provides an overview of the leaseholder protection measures contained within the Bill. Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 93 make two minor and technical amendments to that new clause.

The first amendment, to leave out “under qualifying leases” at line 12, is a minor and technical amendment to reflect that some of the protections in schedule 8 apply to leases that are not qualifying leases. When the landlord is, or is linked to, the developer they will not be able to pass costs on to any leaseholders in the building, including non-qualifying leaseholders. The second amendment, at line 23, is a minor and technical drafting change.

I now turn briefly to Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 93 regarding trusts. I must take this opportunity to pass on my appreciation to the noble Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, who raised this matter through their work in the other place. I acknowledge the concerns raised about the use of trusts and how their misuse could undermine vital leaseholder protection provisions. The Building Safety Minister, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, committed on Report in the other place to consider this further. Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) amend clause 120 to ensure that a body corporate or a partnership can be regarded as associated with another if they are the beneficiary of a trust that has an interest in a relevant building. In other words, the existence of a trust will not enable a group of companies to evade their responsibilities under the leaseholder protections. We have also inserted wording into clause 130 so that beneficiaries of trusts can be considered for building liability orders—that is, can be required by the High Court to contribute to remediation. The remaining amendments to Lords amendments 107, 108 and 190 are consequential to the amendments I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it would not be appropriate for me to speak on behalf of the Welsh Government, and I do not think they would like that either. What is important is that all buildings across the United Kingdom are safe. I hope that we will all learn from each other to ensure that we achieve that objective, because the safety of the residents is paramount in this instance.

I hope that hon. Members will welcome all the changes that the Government have made, which I firmly believe address the key concerns that have been raised in Parliament. It is in all our interests to see this crucial Bill become law as quickly as possible. I hope that all hon. Members across the House will support the Government amendments, and look forward to seeing the Bill implemented so that we can get these buildings into a safe position and give the residents the reassurance that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Minister, Stuart Andrew.

[Stuart Andrew]

Once again, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. They have raised lots of very serious points and questions and have clearly demonstrated a long-standing commitment not only to their constituents, but to this wider issue. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for acknowledging that this piece of legislation is vastly different from what it was, and I apologise to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the necessity, I suppose, of the late amendments that we tabled. I hope that he agrees, however, that it is important for us to get the Bill on the statute book, and to start the process of making sure that people feel safe in their home. I was particularly struck by some of the contributions from my hon. Friends who mentioned that. I also thank all those who have been involved in campaigns; they have shown how hard-working campaigners can make a considerable contribution on a very serious issue such as this.

I will start by responding to some of the amendments that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) tabled. I thank him and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee for their prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill and their tireless scrutiny of the Government’s response since the fire at Grenfell Tower.

Amendment (e) to Lords amendment 184 states that no

“service charge is payable under a qualifying lease”

where the landlord is either a private registered provider of social housing or a local authority. It provides that funding to meet the costs concerned would come from the levy set out in clause 57. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to protecting leaseholders, but we will not be able to support the amendment. We are clear that those responsible for creating historical building safety defects need to pay to put them right. That principle should apply equally where the party responsible is a social housing provider or local authority. Social housing providers will not be subject to provisions that stipulate that building owners and landlords with a net worth of more than £2 million per in-scope building must pay all in-scope remediation costs. They will be required to pay in full only where they were involved in developing the building.

We are also introducing an ambitious toolkit of measures to allow those directly responsible for defective work to be pursued. Those measures include an extension to the limitation period under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years; a new course of action relating to product manufacturers; and provisions removing the protections afforded by special purpose vehicles and shell companies. We have been working closely with social housing providers to help them to understand the impact of these changes.

Amendment (f) to Lords amendment 184 provides that where

“the freeholder of a building is a local authority”,

remediation costs will be paid “in the first instance” by the developer of the building and otherwise through the levy set out in clause 57. Again, the Government will not be able to accept the amendment because developers are already expected to remediate their buildings, and as we have announced, developers have signed our pledge to commit to do that. We are also introducing the ambitious toolkit that I mentioned.

[Mr Betts]

I entirely accept that developers have promised to do what the Minister described, but what happens when developers have gone out of business and cannot do that? Where does that leave the social housing landlord?

[Stuart Andrew]

I committed earlier to continuing to work on the whole area of social housing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keen to deliver the ambitious affordable housing programme that we have announced. I do not want to see that affected in any way, so it is in my interest to ensure that we do everything we can in this area. I commit to our doing that.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister accept an invitation to come to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in due course to investigate the areas that are not currently covered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

How could I possibly refuse?

[Bob Blackman]

I apologise for taking part in a bit of a pincer movement on the Minister. He mentioned the 30-year rule; there will be developers who say, “We built under the regulations that existed over those 30 years.” Are we going to say to those developers, “No. As a result of fire safety issues, you must remediate those buildings in line with the regulations that are now in place, not those that existed 30 years ago”?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes. I think I am correct in saying that. Yes, I am; I have just double-checked.

Colleagues have mentioned the 11-metre rule, and I reiterate that they should please write to my Department if they are aware of buildings under 11 metres that are facing costly remediation. We are clear that costly remediation should not be undertaken on buildings under 11 metres, and we would be glad to look into specific cases and to question freeholders on why they are insisting on commissioning costly and unnecessary remediation works.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), let me say that we are retrospectively extending the limitation period under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act. The duty under the Act applies to those taking on work in connection with the provision of a dwelling, which includes architects and contractors whose actions have contributed towards defects, as well as developers.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

As I understand it, the difficulty is that a claim would need to be made on behalf of leaseholders by their landlord, who would insist on indemnity funding. The Minister and his advisers should get together with the Law Officers to find a practical way to ensure that claims to have a prospect of getting people to pay up, rather than people trying to resist. After Tony Pidgley sadly died, the new bosses resisted paying up to put right the defects in the Worcester Park block. That situation needs to be challenged.

[Stuart Andrew]

It is always wise for a Minister answering the Father of the House to take his sage advice, and of course I will speak to my officials.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked about valuations. I am aware there has been a discussion about how the Bill proposes to assess the value and banding of individual flats. The process set out in the Bill—further detail will be set out in regulations—takes the last price at which a flat changed hands, which will be recorded at the Land Registry, and uprates it in line with the national house price data produced by the Office for National Statistics. We recognise that this may produce a value that differs from the flat’s current market value, but we are using this approach for two specific reasons. First, it uses publicly available data and so avoids any potential for gaming the system. Secondly, it avoids the need to value a large number of flats individually, which would likely be both expensive and time-consuming and could delay the needed changes and improvements to those properties.

[Daisy Cooper]

Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation that the valuation might not meet today’s market value, which he also gave to me yesterday, does he accept that, precisely because the starting point is the most recent sale price, the owner of a flat might have to pay up to the cap to get remediation done, whereas the owner of the identical flat next door in the same block might not because the two flats sold at different times for different sums of money? That is simply not fair.

[Stuart Andrew]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s point, and I have committed to coming back to her after we have done further work in this area.

I am conscious that there will be a large number of Divisions in a moment, so I reiterate my thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is an incredibly important issue, and I am aware that my Department has a great responsibility to get it right. I hope that the direction set by the Secretary of State shows that we are determined to get it right for people who have been living in these worrying circumstances for too long.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 93.

Amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 93.

Lords amendment 93, as amended, agreed to.

Before Clause 117

Meaning of “relevant building”

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 94.—(Stuart Andrew.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

General Practice: Large Housing Developments

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I cannot think of a better way to start my day than by spending it with my colleagues. I offer my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) my congratulations and thanks for securing this important debate. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said, it has been useful and wide ranging. Hon. Members will understand that I may not be able to answer a number of questions about health here and now, but I will address some of the points that have been mentioned.

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for increasing access to GPs for his constituents. I know that he and everyone here wants our constituents to have timely appointments when they need them, and I am sure that everyone will agree that waiting weeks to see a GP is simply unacceptable.

When there is a growing population and a growing supply of new homes, it falls to Government to ensure that local services are not overburdened. Part of the problem is that in the past new development has not always been accompanied by real-world improvements in local infrastructure to serve the new community. When new homes are built, roads feel busier, schools appear to be over-subscribed and appointments for local surgeries and other healthcare provision are harder to book—I see that across my own constituency of Pudsey, Horsforth and Aireborough. It is an issue that often pits communities against new development because, too often, people feel that planning is something that happens to them, not something in which they are engaged. That needs to change and I say to all colleagues here that I get it.

We need to ensure that new homes automatically translate into new infrastructure, whether that be hospitals, GP practices, schools or parks and play areas, because they are all things that we rely on. I offer my praise to GPs who have worked incredibly hard in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) mentioned being kind to the staff at GP practices, which is an important message to relay.

It is important to say a few words about what should be happening, in order to reinforce the message to those who may be listening. Local plans are a way for areas to develop the communities they need. They are key to driving investment in the local area and securing the housing and jobs that our communities need. None the less, those plans should involve all the providers within those communities to ensure they are providing services to match the demands that new housing will bring.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is a thoughtful, considered and diligent Minister, and I hope he will be able to answer my question. If he does not have the answer, perhaps he can look for inspiration from his officials to his rear. Is he able to inform us how many planning applications have been turned down over the last year, two years or whatever timescale the records cover, as a result of lack of provision for health capacity and the needs of GPs? My guess is that the answer is probably zero, and that in itself sends a message to developers that they can get away with not having to bother with this.

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank my right hon. Friend for asking such a specific question. I do not have those figures to hand, but I will ensure that I get them to him. He makes a very valid point, and I will come on to some of the things that we are looking at to address exactly his points.

I was talking about local plans, which provide certainty for communities, businesses and developers. An effective and up-to-date plan is essential not only to meet an area’s housing requirements, but to create well-designed and attractive places to live, with the services that people need on their doorstep. We are already helping councils to put in place such robust and up-to-date plans. That includes encouraging visits from the Planning Inspectorate and specialist advice from the Planning Advisory Service to provide a range of specialist planning advice to councils throughout England.

Plans should be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators, and statutory consultees. They should seek to meet the development needs of their area, and that includes facilities that will be needed across health, schools and other areas. We recognise, however, that more work is needed. We want all infrastructure providers, including healthcare providers, to be much more engaged in the plan making right from the outset, because that is clearly not happening enough, as we have heard in the evidence of colleagues today. We will come forward on how we will do that as part of our reforms in due course.

Local plans are not the only means of improving services and building that vital infrastructure. There are clear regulatory frameworks for local authorities and developers to follow. The national planning policy framework, for example, states that local plans should aim for sustainable development, which means that new schools, hospitals and local services such as GP practices should be factored in from the outset. Proposed development should be shaped by effective engagement with the local community, so that planners and developers know what is really needed. In some areas, it might be new roads, bridges or bus depots, but in others it will be new nurseries or GP surgeries. That engagement should extend to relevant health bodies too, such as NHS trusts and the clinical commissioning groups, to ensure that any development helps rather than hinders local strategies to improve health and wellbeing.

Local healthwatch organisations have a role to play. They have a firm grasp on the concerns of people who use health and social care services. My Department strongly encourages planning authorities to consult them when new homes are being built, so that they can raise those all-important questions on the number of GPs needed. Equally, to some extent local plans should head some of that off before houses are actually built. I have, however, listened to what colleagues have said—I hear it loud and clear. Put simply, if a GP surgery is right in the centre of town and a new development is on the outskirts, it is obviously better to ensure that a new surgery is built closer to the homes it will serve.

We have touched on some of the funding. Hon. Members are aware that councils obtain contributions through a community infrastructure levy on new development and by negotiating section 106 planning obligations with a developer. That helps to create funding not just for housing, but to address local infrastructure needs. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, about £5.5m has been allocated to healthcare provision through such funding, and that should be spent on helping to provide GP practices.

I recognise, however, that there is an issue here about which we need to do more. We hope that part of the effective planning reforms that we are to introduce will answer some of that. Our ambition has always been to simplify the system and to ensure that development becomes synonymous with improved services, and healthier and happier neighbourhoods. That is why we are exploring the introduction of a new infrastructure levy to replace the existing system of developer contributions.

At the moment, we plan for that new levy to be payable on completion of development. That will replace the negotiation and renegotiation that we keep seeing happen. The new levy will not be negotiable and will maximise land value, so we get more for local communities. It will also bring much greater certainty on costs, on factoring expenditure into the price paid for land and, in turn, on delivering more vital infrastructure. Under our proposals, local authorities would be allowed to borrow against infrastructure levy revenues so that they could bring forward vital improvements to services, including expanding GP capacity, before the first spade of a new development even hits the ground.

That said, I recognise that we need to test the policy. Many issues have been raised. I cannot at this moment commit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a meeting, but I will raise with him the suggestions and comments made today, and I will meet my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to raise the points made, to ensure that we are prioritising, gearing up and keeping focus, so that we can see what more can be done, and so that we do not miss the opportunity provided by the new fund to get the necessary infrastructure.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister may not be able to answer, but may I tempt him to name the legislative vehicle by which the new infrastructure levy will be introduced?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Member will not have to wait too long before hearing which vehicle will be used; I hope it will be in a couple of weeks.

I want to touch on the issue of transparency. We have introduced infrastructure funding statements, which give people the opportunity to see what councils have done, but we can and must do more to give confidence to residents. That brings me on to community engagement.

As hon. Members will know, changes to the levy system are by no means the only improvement we want to bring to our planning system. One of the reasons why new development has not always been matched with tangible improvements to schools, nurseries or GP practices is that it has not always been easy for local residents to scrutinise applications or to make their voices heard. We need a faster, more responsive planning system, fit for the modern age. That means embracing digital technology and encouraging more residents to voice their views on what is being built in their community, and where.

I know that some of our previous proposals generated significant debate, to say the least, and it is therefore right that we paused for thought and took stock of different voices from across the planning sector and beyond, but on this ambition we are determined to make headway because we believe that it will result in more real-world improvements to services, which hon. Members all want to see.

My ministerial colleagues and I hope to announce a way forward soon so that the planning system supports our wider mission to level up communities in Bedfordshire and right across the country. The key point is that, at its heart, communities must be involved. Communities and neighbourhoods should be shaping the places in which they live, so that we have beautiful places with the necessary infrastructure and a democratic system that also considers environmental improvements. Neighbourhoods should have a big say in all of it.

Colleagues raised a number of other points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) never misses an opportunity to raise housing targets with me. She knows from our conversations and meetings that I understand the issue. If she will allow me, I will come back to her in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) has also been quick off the mark to come to see me to discuss the issues in his constituency. Again, I understand them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough talked, quite rightly, about wanting to support new housing but that we should be building places where people want to live, not just huge dormitory estates. There has to be a sense of community. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked me to double up with the Secretary of State after his report—I will make sure that I do that for him.

I will see my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) later today to discuss the issue of second homes and its impact on those working in the public sector. I hope we will have a constructive meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) talked about towns I know well. My mother-in-law lives in Addingham, so I will get an earful from her if I do not get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) talked rightly about the stark increase—from 16,000 to 26,000—in the number of patients at his surgery. That is absolutely an area we need to look at carefully. He also talked about all of the different funds that are available. I think that that is one of the most confusing issues, and it is something that I would like to address as we go forward.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about the new levy. We are currently working with local authorities, providers and industry to ensure that the levy works for everybody.

In closing, I reiterate that I have heard loud and clear the concerns of hon. Members. The frustration of our constituents when large-scale new developments are green lit and local services become increasingly congested is palpable for us all. I hope I have clearly set out what we have already done to address that, through local plans, NPPF and section 106 agreements. I have also reiterated that we intend to go much further, by creating a more streamlined, smoother planning system, which levels up infrastructure and local services in every part of the country. I say to my hon. Friends that I am committed to working with all of them to ensure that we can make that vision a reality.

Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 General Committees

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 31 January, will implement a commitment made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Philip Hammond, back in 2016 to extend the borrowing powers of mayoral combined authorities that have agreed debt caps with Her Majesty’s Treasury. That is reflected in the devolution deals agreed with the Government for North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. The extension is another important step towards empowering mayoral combined authorities to invest in the right infrastructure while giving local leaders the tools needed to stimulate local economic growth, increase productivity and seize the levelling-up opportunities available to their areas.

In the levelling-up White Paper, we set out plans to transform the fortunes of places across the UK by spreading growth and prosperity in areas that feel Westminster has forgotten about them. The paper set out a series of long-term missions to put us on a trajectory towards that goal, including one to give every part of England a devolution deal by 2030. Proper devolution is a central part of our levelling-up agenda. We want to give areas the powers that they need, along with a simplified long-term funding settlement. We are committed not only to extending devolution, but to deepening it.

The draft regulations will live up to that ambition, deepening devolution in North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in line with commitments that we have already given, by providing new and deeper powers to local leaders so that they can act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need, and be held to account by local citizens. Put simply, the new powers will allow those three combined authorities to borrow not only for their transport functions, but for any of the other functions conferred on them as a result of their bespoke devolution deals. Those areas will be able to make the most of new opportunities by borrowing for their investment programmes, delivering improved public services and greater prosperity for their areas.

At the moment, the primary legislation in place allows combined authorities only to borrow for transport or where the Mayor is also the police and crime commissioner. The primary legislation also provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, confer the ability to borrow for additional functions. The draft regulations provide specifically that the three named combined authorities may borrow for all their functions. Each of the three mayoral combined authorities, and each of their constituent authorities—15 in total—has given consent to the regulations.

If Parliament approves the draft regulations and they are made, the North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authorities will be able to borrow for all their functions. Through regulations made four years ago, that is already the case for the six other mayoral combined authorities. It is also the position for the generality of local authorities, which are empowered to borrow for all their functions.

In the same way as a local authority, combined authorities are subject to the requirements for borrowing provided under the Local Government Act 2003. The prudential borrowing regime requires that an authority can borrow lawfully only if it can demonstrate that servicing and repayments of debt are affordable. As such, that gives the necessary assurance that the proposed borrowing powers will be used appropriately. In the case of combined authorities, that ability to borrow is also subject to a debt cap agreed with the Treasury. Each agreed cap specifies the cumulative ceiling for the mayoral combined authority’s debt for 2021-22. The caps for future years are currently being agreed with all nine mayoral combined authorities.

The draft regulations will fulfil our existing promise to deepen the devolution deals of those three combined authorities and to extend their borrowing powers to bring them in line with the other six mayoral combined authorities. With that extension, they will be able to borrow to make the investments in infrastructure that are essential to an area’s growth. We believe firmly that that will also lay the groundwork for further levelling up in those areas. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank members of the Committee for their contributions. They are right to raise those questions. We have seen examples where things have gone terribly wrong and, of course, it is people’s money that is put at risk. Hon. Members have asked me specific questions. With respect, I will write to them with more detail and will now outline how the prudential borrowing process works.

Combined authorities are subject to the regime provided for in the 2003 Act, just as local authorities are. The underlying principle of the regime is that authorities can raise finance for capital expenditure when they can afford to service the debt without Government support. The key feature of prudential borrowing is that authorities are under a broad duty to determine and keep under review the amount that they can afford to borrow.

Regulations further specify that authorities must have regard to the practical rules for deciding whether borrowing is affordable, as laid down by the “Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities” issued by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Each authority sets its own prudential limit in accordance with the rules, subject to the scrutiny of external auditors. Authorities are required to balance their revenue budgets and not finance long-term revenue expenditure by borrowing. The Government are aware that some local authorities have taken excessive risk with taxpayers’ funds by investing primarily for profit, and pursuing novel and risky investments.

On 28 July 2021, the Government published the policy paper “Local authority capital finance framework: planned improvements”, which set out our plans to strengthen the capital system to prevent excessive risk.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s explanation and his answers to various Members. I appreciate that the regulations are limited in scope to areas in England that have an elected Mayor, but will he elucidate in relation to investments? The hon. Member for South Norfolk mentioned a golf course, but in my experience most local authorities have been selling off assets. When I was a member of the local authority, we had a huge caravan park, which we were compelled to sell off. I am aware that Mayor Ben Houchen bought an airport that is losing considerable sums of money. The Minister is saying that it is down to the elected Mayor and the combined authority to determine what is prudential and what is in the public interest, so would the measures cover such cases?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) —the Minister responsible for this area—to highlight the point made by the hon. Member for Easington. My understanding is that such matters are subject to external auditors, but I will happily give him a more detailed answer in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Consett Energy from Waste Plant

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

May I begin by echoing the opening comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) about the extraordinary address we received from President Zelensky earlier? That is one of the extraordinary moments I will take away from my time in this House, and we wish him and all the people of Ukraine the very best in their battle for freedom.

May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank him for his contribution? My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for his constituents on this issue and so many others, from upgrading the A66 to Durham’s county of culture bid. I know he has been trying valiantly for a number of months to secure a debate on this issue, and I believe this could be 10th time lucky. That speaks to the importance of the matter to my hon. Friend and the local councillors he is championing, Michelle Watson and Angela Sterling for Delves Lane ward. It is abundantly clear that that there are strong views among some of his constituents about the merits of this proposed energy plant.

I should also say that Adjournment debates on such matters reflect how important it is that Members continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire. Pressure from parliamentarians may not always be glamorous, but it is the cogs that make the wheels of Government and local government turn.

Without wishing to pour cold water over the entire debate, I must say from the outset that for propriety reasons I am unable to comment on the specifics of the proposal that is the subject of this debate. I know that an appeal against Durham County Council’s refusal of planning permission for the scheme has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate, and there will now be a public inquiry into the proposal overseen by an independent planning inspector. It is also possible that if the appeal were recovered it would fall to myself or one of my ministerial colleagues in the Department to decide on the case. So for all those reasons I am afraid I must say that it is not appropriate for me to express any view as to the merits or otherwise of the specific scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

However, given the subject matter of this debate it is worth my saying a bit about the principles that underpin and drive waste planning. The Government are clear that wherever possible waste should be reduced, if not fully prevented; but where prevention is not possible we must prioritise reuse and recycling over energy recovery or disposal to landfill. This sequential approach is at the heart of the Government waste policy, and that is reflected in planning policy requirements for plan making and decision making. In short, every paper bag, every glass bottle and every piece of scrap metal that is recycled is a small victory in our war against waste. That is one reason why the Government are committed to preserving material resources, promoting efficiency, and moving towards a greener, more circular economy.

Our resources and waste strategy sets out the Government’s bold ambition to properly manage residual waste in a way that maximises its value. It sets a clear target for 75% of packaging to be recycled by 2030, plus a 65% recycling rate for municipal solid waste. Crucially, this strategy also commits us to minimising any harm done to the environment as a result of managing waste.

This strategy is by no means the total sum of our actions. We are continuing to innovate and find new solutions to old problems in waste management, moving us towards a circular economy. They include a deposit return scheme for drinks containers, extended producer responsibility for packaging, and consistent recycling collections for all homes and businesses, as well as the plastic packaging tax.

On the specifics of planning decisions, councils are guided by the national planning policy for waste, which tasks them with meeting the needs of their areas in managing waste. This includes the need to undertake early and meaningful engagement with residents so that plans reflect as far as possible a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities when planning for sustainable waste management.

The ultimate responsibility for waste planning does sit with councils, and while decisions that they take must be informed by consultation, those are nevertheless their decisions to make. That underscores the importance of community campaigning and the vital role that local MPs such as my hon. Friend and the councillors whom I mentioned have in mobilising constituents for or against all forms of new development, including incinerators and waste plants. It would be nothing short of political suicide for any council to run roughshod over a community that is overwhelmingly against a new facility. Equally, if a council is deliberately hampering a development, the construction of new homes or vital infrastructure, the electorate can communicate its displeasure about that at the next set of local elections.

As my hon. Friend will know, my Department is committed to increasing community engagement with planning applications, digitising much of the old analogue systems and allowing people to see what development is proposed in their area at the touch of a smartphone. That will not just drive up resident engagement but make it easier for communities to voice their opposition or approval for something being built on or near the place that they call home.

Without making any prejudicial comments on the specifics of this live application, I can say that energy from waste is a proven technology and is established as the most common thermal treatment for residual waste—the kind that cannot otherwise be prevented, reused or recycled. While energy from waste plays a vital role in stopping unnecessary waste from reaching landfill, the Government’s view is that it should not be competing with greater efforts by the public to prevent waste, to reuse or to recycle.

In 2019, the incineration of municipal solid waste in energy from waste facilities accounted for more than 6 megatonnes of CO₂-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, but, according to our best estimates, energy from waste—even in electricity-only mode—is still a better option for processing municipal waste than landfill in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The Government also want to drive greater efficiency of energy from waste plants by encouraging better use of the heat that they produce in local developments. That brings the additional benefit of helping to reduce the carbon emissions that arise from heating our homes. As hon. Members will know, heat networks form a strategically important part of the Government’s plans to reduce carbon and cut heating bills for customers, both domestic and commercial.

When we discuss energy in waste, it is imperative to factor in the regulatory landscape. In October 2020, as part of the circular economy package, the Government legislated to include a permit condition for landfill and incineration operators. The permit meant that those operators cannot accept separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic for landfill or incineration unless such items have gone through some form of treatment process first and unless there is no better environmental outcome. The condition came on top of existing permit measures that already prevent acceptance of material that is, to all intents and purposes, recyclable.

All energy from waste plants in England are regulated by the Environment Agency and must comply with robust emissions limits set in environmental legislation. As hon. Members might expect, the Environment Agency assesses the emissions from new energy generated by waste plants as part of its permitting process and consults the UK Health Security Agency on every application that it receives. Needless to say, the Environment Agency will never issue an environment permit if a proposed plant has a significant impact on the environment or if it may cause harm to human health.

I hope that, at this stage, my hon. Friend will understand why I need to refrain from touching on the specific circumstances of the matter that he raised, but I hope that my statement has given useful context and background to this important wider debate. I conclude by thanking him again for his thoughtful contribution, which has enriched this debate and provided plenty of food for thought for us in Government. It helps us to understand people’s strength of feeling on these individual applications. We are completely committed to reducing waste and supporting the development of the kind of circular economy that regenerates, recycles and reuses whenever possible. I thank him for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come to the end of a truly historic and emotional day here at Westminster, with President Zelensky’s words still ringing in our ears and firmly in our hearts. We were privileged to hear President Zelensky’s address today and we stand with him and the very brave people of Ukraine.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to help support first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

Since 2010, more than 758,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through Government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and Right to Buy. In the levelling-up White Paper, we included this mission:

“By 2030, renters will have a secure path to ownership with the number of first-time buyers increasing in all areas”.

[Mr Dhesi]

Conservative choices have created a housing crisis by allowing developers to maximise profit, building housing for investment rather than good-quality, safe, secure, affordable homes. However, building more homes will not in itself solve the housing crisis if those homes are bought off plan by foreign investors before local people such as my constituents can even get a look in. In order to ensure that first-time buyers are not squeezed out by foreign investors and second home owners, will the Government support Labour’s proposal to allow them first dibs on new homes?

[Stuart Andrew]

Let me first make it clear that it is my keen ambition in this role to do everything I can to help more people on to the housing ladder. We have produced a great many schemes that help to achieve that purpose. We already have the First Homes scheme, which provides a 30% discount for local people, for whom those homes remain in perpetuity.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that last year saw the highest number of first-time buyers in two decades, under this Government, and will he pledge to do everything he can to increase that number in future years?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the increase in the number of first-time buyers. We are keen to ensure that it continues, and the levelling-up White Paper will be key to delivering that for as many people as possible throughout the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Matthew Pennycook.

[Stuart Andrew]

I accept that there are a number of things that we need to do in relation to the First Homes scheme. Homes England’s early delivery programme will provide a further 1,500 homes, but of course we will monitor these developments and do everything we can to help people get on to the property ladder. After all, achieving that has always been a huge principle of the Conservative party.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Despite the covid pandemic, more than 800 new homes were built in my constituency last year, many of them affordable for first-time buyers. More than 800 houses were built during the previous year, and more than 800 will be built this year. Does the Minister agree that the best thing we can do for first-time buyers is ensure that all constituencies build an ample number of high-quality, affordable homes?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having local authorities with well-developed local plans to ensure that they are ready and prepared to build the houses that their local area needs is incredibly important. The affordable homes programme that the Government have announced, with £11.5 billion-worth of investment, will help to secure that, so that we can try to deliver the 180,000 homes that that is expected to deliver.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the potential opportunities for Northern Ireland of the levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the role of planning processes in reducing flood risks in new housing developments.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

Ministers from our Department engage regularly with those from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flood risk. That includes the publication of our joint “Review of policy for development in areas at flood risk”, which looked at that very issue, and the updating of the flood risk policies in the national planning policy framework in 2021.

[Ruth Edwards]

Much of the flooding in villages across Rushcliffe has been linked to new developments built without increasing local sewerage and drainage capacity. How does my right hon. Friend think we can best address that problem through the planning system, to ensure not only that water companies are forced to take new development into account when assessing their infrastructure, but that developers are forced to pay their fair share? If we do not get this right, it will be all our constituents who continue to suffer.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right, and she is a superb advocate for her constituents, having already raised a number of issues with me since I have been in this post. The national planning policy framework is clear that local plans and planning decisions should consider flood risk from all sources, including overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems. Water and sewage companies are statutory consultees for local plans that set out an area’s development requirements, and can comment on planning applications. However, she is right that the right infrastructure must be put in place for the developments we see in our country.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Flooding is undoubtedly an important issue to be taken into account in the planning process, but there are other issues, one of which is the gender bias that exists in planning. I will be presenting a Bill tomorrow to attack that very thing. Are the Government considering as part of the planning in the levelling-up process how to ensure that gender neutrality is at the heart of major development designing?

[Stuart Andrew]

There will be a lot of announcements to come in the near future about our plans for planning, but the hon. Lady is right to talk about that whole aspect of it. My hon. Friend the Minister for Levelling Up Communities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) has just assured me that all equality issues are looked at in this area.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

We have the same problems in North East Hertfordshire, with towns such as Watton-at-Stone having flooding problems because of many new houses, inadequate storm drains and not enough balancing ponds. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts in talking to DEFRA to ensure that we get better storm drainage for the future?

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to raise that important issue. As we prepare all developments to ensure that they are tackling climate change, we should also look at the points he raises. I commit to him that I will speak on a regular basis with my colleagues in DEFRA.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to resolve the building safety crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

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

13. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of second homes in Devon and Cornwall between 2010 and 2022.

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

Data on second homes in Devon and Cornwall can be found on the Government’s council taxbase website. The number of second homes for council tax purposes was 28,126 in 2010, and is at 26,853 this year. The Government recognise the adverse effects that large numbers of second homes can have on some areas, and we have introduced a number of measures to mitigate those effects, including high rates of stamp duty tax for those purchasing additional properties.

[Luke Pollard]

More west country families are being turfed out of their homes through no-fault evictions, only to find those homes appearing on Airbnb a few days later. Every west country family should have a first home, but we are becoming known as a region of second homes and holiday lets. Will the Minister meet a delegation from the First Homes not Second Homes campaign so that we can look at how the Government can adopt Welsh Labour’s proposal to charge 300% council tax on empty properties and second homes that are empty for much of the year, and ensure that every family can have a first home?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue, which was one of the main topics that came up when I met several of my colleagues just last week. I am more than happy to meet the delegation, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and will try to arrange that as quickly as possible.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking with local authorities to help ensure the accountability of locally elected representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

T9. Corbett meadow is a beautiful meadow in my constituency that is at risk of development, but in the local plan it has been designated as local green space. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, when the final plan comes out, that should be respected?

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

Due to my role in planning, I cannot comment on specific plans, but national park policy empowers local communities by making it clear that they can designate areas of importance as local green space through their local plans. Such designations ensure that these important assets are provided with protection, reflecting their importance.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

T10. The airline Wizz Air has offered to fly Ukrainian refugees from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, and there are indications that Cardiff airport could be a destination for some of these flights. I understand that there have been initial discussions with the Welsh Government, but would the Secretary of State lend his support to co-ordinating a post-flight visa processing facility at Cardiff airport, so that Ukrainians fleeing the warzone can be brought to Wales quickly and safely?

High-rise Buildings: Remediation

Stuart Andrew Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Miller. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing it. As he mentioned, he has raised this issue with me before, even before I was in this new role as Minister. I know that he is passionate about trying to resolve many of the issues that his constituents face.

Other hon. Members have also raised important experiences that their constituencies have faced. One of the many things that struck me when I took on this role was the challenge that many of those constituencies have faced. Residents of high-rise buildings across the country probably went into those buildings with the dream of home ownership and the prospect of living in a nice new apartment, which rapidly turned into a nightmare the day they discovered that their flats were clad in dangerous and unsafe materials. That is why the contributions of hon. Members this morning have been so very important. I am deeply aware of the harrowing cases that many have discussed.

Although I am very new in post, I know and have known about the importance of remediation. I am obviously keen to get a grip of it during my time in this role, but I am also very keen to work with colleagues and to continue the cross-party relationship that has clearly delivered some important results for constituents. My door is always open to any colleagues who want to speak to me.

I will in a moment address some of the specific points that were raised. I want to reiterate that I hope that the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), will indicate to the House how seriously the Government take this issue. The whole package of measures that has been announced and the amendments being introduced in the other place as we speak show that there is a shift in addressing the issue. Those who live in high-rise properties can be assured that this matter is being taken seriously, and that we will address their safety concerns. We will also bring a good deal of proportionality into the issue; there are some people living in perfectly safe accommodation who are also feeling very frightened, so we need a sense of proportion.

To come to some of the points that were made, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich talked specifically about St Francis Tower and other buildings in the town. The lack of consultation with residents is, frankly, unacceptable. It does not cost any money to consult with the people who live in those buildings and to explain the processes that have to be undertaken. There are some elements that are necessary: some of the shrink wrapping ensures that residents do not face astronomical heating bills as a result of the cladding coming off. That said, we perhaps need to look at the types of wrapping. He says that he does not believe that there are any other ways. Lord Greenhalgh is dealing with the detail of those things, and I will speak to him when I get back to the Department about the really important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich raised.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about Mandale House and the lack of natural light. I do not think any of us could understand how that would feel—lacking the only source of natural light in one’s building. Those are the sorts of experiences that we have to listen to and learn from, because this will become a bigger problem as remedial works happen all over the country.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I know that when he gets his teeth into a subject, he does not let go—he is like a terrier—and he gave me a bit of a Christmas list of asks. He talked about developing a code of practice, and I will speak to Lord Greenhalgh about the merits of that. My hon. Friend raised the issue of compulsory purchases. That is a big ask, but these things are always worth exploring. I obviously cannot commit to that here, but it is an interesting point.

On the issue of a building safety register, for the high-risk buildings and buildings over 18 metres that are about to be occupied, there will be a register under the new Building Safety Regulator. However, if my hon. Friend has other concerns about that issue, perhaps we can talk about them later. Of course I will happily speak to my counterpart in Northern Ireland. Sharing best practice is right, as it is for the benefit of all the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland: it is important that we share the vital lessons that have been learned.

I hope that we have come a long way in recognising that this is an important issue that needs addressing and that that gives people confidence that the places they live in will have the remedial works that they need, so that they can get back to enjoying the houses and the accommodation that they are living in and enjoying the things in them. I get the point about my hon. Friend’s constituents’ plants; such things are important to people. Someone’s home is the most important place in their life and they want to ensure that they are able to enjoy it safely.

I will touch on the pace of remediation, because that is an important point. We are forcing industry to step up to the plate and take responsibility, of course, but we are also pressing ahead with getting dangerous cladding removed from buildings without delay. As I have said, we have provided the £5.1 billion to address fire safety risk caused by unsafe cladding on these buildings in order to protect residents and we have made great progress in making safe high-rise buildings with the most dangerous form of cladding—ACM cladding, the type that was on Grenfell Tower. Some 93% of all high-rise residential buildings identified with unsafe ACM cladding have now been remediated or have workers on site as we speak, finishing the job, and that rises to 100% in the social sector. For high-rise buildings with unsafe, non-ACM cladding, £1.073 billion has already been allocated from the building safety fund, with £945 million relating to the private sector and £128 million relating to the social sector. So, in total, 892 private sector buildings and 123 social sector buildings are proceeding with a full application to the building safety fund.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not put the Minister on the spot with a question, but I will just request that he go away and consider how we can speed up that application process, because far too many buildings without ACM cladding that have applied to the building safety fund face, even with the portal and the information on it, inconsistencies about the information that is said to be required and submitted, as well as very severe delays in receiving that funding. We are talking about remediation works that can take a year or two, but these buildings are not even at that point because they are still being held up in terms of getting a final award or final decision on remediation. Can he consider what more he can do to speed up that application process for all the buildings across the country that are affected?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will happily commit to go away and look into that issue for the hon. Gentleman, and I will get in touch with him afterwards to update him on that. It is important to say that we have also improved the information available to leaseholders and residents about the building safety fund, with the new online services that provide real-time updates, but I take the point that he has just made.

Clearly, the mental health aspect is a very important issue. I have outlined the steps that the Government are taking to meet a lot of the financial costs of removing the cladding and how we are doing everything within our power physically to speed up remediation. However, in response to the points that hon. Members have made today, I will also say that we also recognise that the building safety crisis has taken a very heavy toll on people’s mental health. Of course, my Department regularly engages with leaseholder groups who have shared with us terrible examples of people being sick to the stomach with stress over the last few years because they are trapped in homes that they are unable to sell or that they cannot afford to fix. We believe that bringing these matters to a swift conclusion through the measures that I have spoken about today is the best way to alleviate the stress and concerns of so many leaseholders.

We know that many residents living in these buildings, including many who have had to endure 24/7 waking watches or who have faced acute financial difficulties, understandably need access to proper mental health support. That is one reason we are working across Government to ensure that all people, regardless of their residential situation, get that help and support they need. Where residents in buildings fitted with flammable cladding need specific mental health support, we are encouraging them to contact their GP to discuss these issues and ensure they are referred to appropriate mental health services. I recognise that we have to look at that in greater detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage asked about the contribution of costs to waking watch being offset under the £10,000 cap, and I confirm that is the case. I am sure his constituent will be happy with that.

[Stephen McPartland]

On behalf of my constituents, especially those in Vista Tower, I would like to say thank you to the Minister.

[Stuart Andrew]

That is very kind. I want to conclude by saying that I know there is a united desire across the House to ensure that people are safe and that, more importantly, feel safe in their own homes. Debates such as this are incredibly important, as we work together to achieve that goal, protecting leaseholders while pursuing ambitious reforms, to create one of the strongest building safety regimes in the world. In doing so, we will ensure public confidence in the sector and bring about lasting change, to ensure that the industry always puts residents’ welfare first.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and everybody who has taken part in the debate that the Government will not take their foot off the gas in making buildings safe. We are determined to ensure that residents’ concerns are properly allayed, by driving meaningful change in the building industry, and ensuring that residents know that they are being properly supported and, more importantly, listened to. We can help drive the biggest improvements to building safety for decades, which will restore public confidence in our housing sector and create a robust, strengthened building safety system that places the welfare of residents at its heart. I conclude by praising again my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. I know he will not rest until his residents feel that they are being properly listened to, and have those remediation works done as quickly as possible. I look forward to working in this role with him in future.