High Street Heritage and Conservation Areas

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jack Brereton]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I very much agree that more should be done to document important historic buildings, because they are very emotive. That shocking incident in particular—the destruction of what was an important local historic asset in the south of Staffordshire—has had a massive impact on the local community. We have seen a massive outpouring because of the damage that has been done. I agree with my hon. Friend about the important role that local authorities should play when it comes to heritage and the maintenance of a designated list of the historic buildings within local areas.

Sticks like section 215 are sadly needed because sometimes even generous carrots, such as funding from the heritage action zone schemes and partnership schemes in conservation areas, are an insufficient lure. This is especially the case when it comes to absentee landlords, often overseas, who are interested solely in land value and are sometimes, I suggest, waiting for heritage buildings to get into such a poor state that they are able, or required, to demolish them, as we saw with the pub that my hon. Friend just mentioned.

We have actually had buildings falling into the street in Longton. The latest one, on Market Street, could have killed someone. I and others made multiple reports to the council about the perilous condition, but action was not taken until it was too late. The whole of Longton conservation area is on the heritage at-risk register, and is rated as very poor by Historic England. The whole of the historic Trent and Mersey canal through the city, including where it runs down the west of my constituency, is also registered as at risk. This is the cumulation of decades of inaction, under-investment, decline and a preference for tinkering at the edges. It has to change.

Where there has been a proper focus, such as on Trentham mausoleum in my constituency—the only grade I listed property in Stoke-on-Trent—the situation has greatly improved. There is now a clear path for getting the mausoleum off the at-risk register, on which it is now listed as being in a “fair” condition and described as “generally sound”.

Hopefully, the Office for Place will help to focus minds further. I certainly look forward to engaging with it and talking through where I think our sense of place in the south of the city is being undermined. I have done the same with Historic England and am grateful to that body for ensuring that parliamentarians are involved and informed. Having made the case to win funding from the Government, it is right that MPs play an important role.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Stafford has a number of similar challenges, with heritage buildings being closed on my high street, which is why I campaigned for the Shire Hall to be reopened—the Government recently gave us £1.6 million to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must do more to regenerate and reopen these historic buildings in Staffordshire, and that we must invest and level up in the west midlands?

[Jack Brereton]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and commend the work she has been doing in the town centre to bring some of those buildings back into use; they have such an important role. I know that Stafford faces challenges similar to those faced by many of the high streets across Staffordshire and the country, so I very much commend the work that my hon. Friend has been doing to raise these issues and encourage new usage in Stafford town centre.

We have been working hard in north Staffordshire—in Stoke-on-Trent—to attract Government funding. It is good that levelling-up bids and, indeed, the bids for the restoring your railway fund require the sponsorship of MPs for local projects to win national funding. We often see a bigger picture and are able to raise the hopes and concerns of constituents at a local level more broadly. It seems to me that the bigger picture is what the Office for Place is really all about. The bigger picture I see is that ceramics is not just our past, but our present and our future. Industrial heritage properties give our city a sense of place, but it is manufacturing, of which ceramics is most emblematic, that gives our city its sense of purpose.

It is that sense of purpose that means that our place in the world is more than just a kind of permanent stage, or a film set for a period drama. Of course, it is excellent for those purposes too—from time to time—but we cannot live in a period drama, and particularly not a gritty one. I am sure that the Office for Place gets that and recognises the huge potential of cities like Stoke-on-Trent, which have grown faster economically than other areas in recent times. I hope it shares my excitement that the UK has overtaken France to be the world’s eighth-largest manufacturer. Industrial decline must be left as a fiction for the movies.

The renewed sense of purpose in the manufacturing of our world-class goods is key to levelling up our city, and the sense of pride that we take nationally in our manufacturing base helps to drive that purpose locally. We like the fact that people all over the world still place extra value on ceramic goods that have “made in Stoke-on-Trent” written on them. I emphasise to the Minister that it is important for her to think of her mission as levelling back up, reversing decline and restoring our heritage and skillset to where they belong, which is at the very forefront of international manufacturing, engineering and technology. It is that rooted sense of purpose that built what is now our industrial heritage in the first place.

If the Minister were to walk around the Longton conservation area with me—she is very welcome to do so; I invite her to join me—she would see that that sense of purpose is still there in part, just as our sense of place is still there in part, but that it needs to reach its full potential. In the Potteries tradition, there are fantastic manufacturers of ceramic wares, such as Duchess China 1888, which makes world-class tableware that can be bought in the House of Commons shop, and across the road from that firm we have Mantec Technical Ceramics, which makes an array of advanced, technical and specialist products.

The Minister will know, because I say it often enough, that the gross value added of the ceramic sector has doubled in real terms since 2010. Its revival, and the revival of our wider local economy, is keeping alive heritage buildings that would otherwise be in the same state that the Crown Works is sadly in, following the loss of the famous Tams business, which occupied it until the financial disaster of the last Labour Government saw it close.

The Crown Works is a landmark building that I have been determined to save from gradual dereliction and all-too-frequent arson attacks. I cannot thank the Department, or indeed the Prime Minister, enough for the levelling-up fund. It has enabled me to work with the city council and OVI Homes to get together a scheme to save this heritage asset by repurposing it as retirement housing, which will in turn mean greater footfall and more town centre living. Thankfully, we are now seeing actual delivery at the Crown Works, which is the necessary final step.

As MPs for Stoke-on-Trent, we have frankly busted a gut to secure much-needed funding for a range of schemes across the city. We have had to watch with frustration as covid lockdowns and inflationary pressures delayed so much of what we believed, and were promised, could have been delivered by now. I hope the Government will look carefully at what has been delayed and work with councils— a number of councils, not just ours—to adjust the timeframes for the delivery of projects that sadly could not be met for reasons that were totally out of our control.

I am particularly keen to get the accessibility improvements for Longton railway station finalised and under way. If we look at the visitor numbers for the Gladstone Pottery Museum, and then the numbers of passenger entries and exits at Longton, we see a correlation in the ups and downs. If we look at the visitor surveys, we see causation too, with visitors opting to take the train to Longton and walk up to the museum. Perhaps as much as half the passengers who have used Longton station recently have been visitors to the museum. Preserving the beauty of this cherished asset, even with all its warts—such as the recent saving of its rare sash windows from a bygone age of long-outlawed industrial practices—is integral to Longton’s wider success as a must-see destination and working centre of contemporary manufacture. It is a living destination, steeped in the full narrative of ceramics history.

By preserving our unique industrial heritage, we continue to attract today’s leading international ceramicists—practitioners who could base themselves anywhere in the world—to Stoke-on-Trent, as the authentic world capital of ceramics. However, Stoke-on-Trent, including Longton, is sadly also an area of multiple deprivation, and we had been running up a down escalator just to stay still—never mind advance—even before covid hit. The council tax base is the second lowest in the country after Hull, which poses significant challenges in leveraging restoration funds from the private owners of heritage buildings. Of course, the Government understand that, because they have granted us national funding to help, including funding to reinstate residential accommodation above shops.

The delivery of schemes is now key. The schemes will be sustainable if, alongside wider public realm improvements, they encourage people to use the buildings that are saved on Market Street, Commerce Street, and up to the Gladstone Pottery Museum, for interesting new business and residential uses. Currently, though, the pedestrian journey between the station and the museum is unacceptably poor. Longton station has steps, but not lifts or ramps, and the historic Victorian ticket hall is boarded up—the transforming cities fund is supposed to be unlocking it. Transport is not the Minister’s Department, so I will not rehearse my frustrations with Network Rail and the council with her, except to say that if she wants to see a case study of how delivery has been stymied by covid, by inadequate resourcing and skillsets and by the intransigence of other bodies, she could use Longton station as an example.

The Government are driving levelling up by enabling funding, but they have caught councils and other bodies on the hop because submissions for funding are often reactive to the funds and are not part of an active wider local agenda that is driven by a coherent sense of purpose. I get why that is—the Government want to deliver on national priorities for their own sense of purpose in levelling up—but many councils do not have local schemes that are remotely shovel ready and perhaps bid for funds without really knowing how they will deliver them if something goes wrong. Some councils are not resourced to meet the match funding requirements of some national schemes, and some lack the specialist officers or the time to deliver what is agreed, for whatever reasons.

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

Clause 135 relates to the competence of architects. It was developed in response to a proposal in the independent review that advised that the Government and the Architects Registration Board should consider the current and future competence of architects on the register of architects. It provides the ARB with the power to specify the practical experience and training requirements for architects. That will enable the ARB to monitor the competence of all architects on the register. It allows the ARB to determine which practical experience or training should be assessed and how the assessment should take place.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Will architects be able to appeal against a decision taken by the Architects Registration Board to remove them from the register for not meeting the new competence requirements?

[Eddie Hughes]

An architect may appeal to the High Court if they are aggrieved by a decision taken by the Architects Registration Board to remove them from the register for not meeting the new competence requirements, but we will need to consider further how a non-judicial appeal route could be made available for architects to make such challenges in future. The clause sets requirements for the ARB to consult bodies representing architects as well as such other professional and educational bodies as it thinks appropriate. Currently, the Architects Act 1997 does not provide powers for the ARB to scrutinise competence after the initial registration and throughout an architect’s career unless an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct is brought before the ARB. This means that an architect may be practising for a prolonged period without any further proactive regulatory oversight.

Building Safety Bill (Ninth sitting)

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Shaun Bailey]

I should also have said in my previous contribution that it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair today, Mr Efford, and I thank you for your indulgence during our previous deliberations. You are being very generous with your time in the Chair.

I have a few questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister as well, dovetailing with what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said. The one concern I have is about individuals who purchase their property pre-completion of construction—because that does happen in these settings too—and what protections we can devise for that. I have seen it happen before: people have put down a deposit or spent significant amounts of money on legal and transactional fees to get to a particular point. I heard what my right hon. Friend said, and I agree that we are talking about extreme cases of individuals who are flouting the rules or not following them, but my concern is that as we embed new sets of regulations, issues often become apparent quite commonly and quite quickly. I am sure that those of us who have been Members much longer than I have will have seen the array of issues that arise when new legislation comes into effect during its initial implementation.

My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether he is open to a broader discussion about what we can do to avoid potential blockages in transactions as an unintended consequence of this. What we see is that people who are trying to let or purchase properties are left in limbo, with a back and forth for months on end, while stop notices are issued and remediation is done. Clause 37 seeks to ensure that remediation is taken, and, more importantly, that work in the initial process is compliant in the first place and we do not reach a situation where stop notices have to be issued.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that clause 37 takes forward the important recommendations in the review to ensure that building control authorities are issuing compliance and stop notices in relation to the contravention of building regulations. Does he agree that the clause will also strengthen the powers for the regulator and local authorities?

Building Safety Bill (Eighth sitting)

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

We certainly heard evidence that properties and buildings that are below 18 metres are generally less at risk than those above that height. The BRE Group has said that, as have the National Fire Chiefs Council and Dame Judith in her independent report. That is not to say, however, that we are not mindful that changes cannot take place in future. That is why we have set in place in the clauses a mechanism by which the Building Safety Regulator will have a duty to keep the safety of persons in and around taller buildings constantly under review. Indeed, when we reach it, we will see that clause 139 requires an independent and periodic review of the effectiveness of the building regulatory regime. We have put in place measures that will allow for an expansion of the in-scope regime following advice and recommendations to the Secretary of State by the Building Safety Regulator after a three-part test. We think we have been proportionate and have also allowed in the Bill sufficient scope for appropriate expansion if and when experts deem it necessary.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that 18 metres or seven storeys is a sensible starting point for the regime. I welcome that it is more ambitious than the 30 metres originally recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt. However, will he explain why he chose such a threshold, rather than a matrix of risks and specific factors?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I understand why some regard a matrix or a set of matrices to be a better mechanism to employ. The problem with a set of matrices is that they are subjective. It is possible that one assessor could rule that a building is in scope of the regime and another rule it or a similar building out of scope. That would create unnecessary confusion in the regime. It is much more sensible that we have an objective threshold that everyone understands, be they the experts on the gamekeeper’s side of the fence or those on the poacher’s side. Everyone understands what the rules are.

The hon. Members for Weaver Vale and for Brentford and Isleworth, who is no longer in her place, mentioned other potential buildings. I have explained how it is possible, through advice from the Building Safety Regulator, to expand the regime, but I simply reiterate my earlier point that some of those buildings, such as prisons, hotels and hostels, are subject to the Fire Safety Order. They tend to have multiple means of exit and signage appropriate to guests entering and leaving the building. They are governed by a different regime. The Ministry of Defence’s buildings have their own fire safety arrangements and the Crown has its own arrangements under the Building Act. Those provisions have not been introduced and enforced but, as this Bill goes through the House, we will consider whether the Building Act provisions that apply to Crown buildings should be put into force.

We are not blind to the fact that the regime can be refined and improved. As I say, that is one of the reasons why we want to use secondary legislation as a mechanism for delivering the Bill in the most effective way.

--- Later in debate ---

New paragraph 1D creates a power to enable building regulations to make provision about the supply and retention of information. This power will be used to require a golden thread—we have heard that term before, Mr Efford, and we will hear it again—of information to be created and maintained through the design and construction of high-risk buildings.

[Theo Clarke]

I welcome the Minister’s saying that there will be provisions to deliver the golden thread, which will be critical in helping to ensure that buildings are safe throughout their life, and I welcome the fact that new paragraphs 1C and 1D will contain requirements on the giving, obtaining and keeping of information and documents. Will this clause also ensure that developers will not be able to switch to cheaper and less safe materials during construction?

[Christopher Pincher]

I think it will—in fact I am sure it will—because it will require that, in design, construction and refurbishment, information that is needed to demonstrate compliance with specific building regulations is available. It will also require that information garnered through mandatory occurrence reporting, which we discussed in Committee last week, will be available, and there will be a clear legal requirement on duty holders to hand over that information. The power will also be used to require certain information about safety occurrences to be provided to the regulator. I will discuss that a little more in a moment.

New paragraph 1D also creates the power to make regulations to set out the information and documents that must be stored in the golden thread, and to set out standards that the golden thread must be held to. We know there is currently a lack of information about higher-risk buildings, which makes it difficult to design, construct and refurbish them safely. We are also aware that where there is that information, it is often not kept up to date, not accurate or not accessible. We believe that having accurate, up-to-date information is critical to ensuring that buildings are managed safely, and this new paragraph will ensure that the information is recorded and that it is accurate, kept up to date and accessible to those who need it.

Dame Judith’s review recommended that a golden thread be put in place for higher-risk buildings. We agree, and the recommendation is being executed, recognising that it is critical to ensuring that buildings are safe.

New paragraph 1E enables the implementation of a key recommendation of Dame Judith’s independent review: mandatory occurrence reporting, which I mentioned a moment ago, for higher-risk buildings going through the design and construction phases. Mandatory occurrence reporting is intended to provide a route by which valuable building safety intelligence and trends will reach the Building Safety Regulator and be shared with industry.

The effect of that proposed new paragraph is to enable regulations to be drawn up that require duty holders in design and construction to establish a mandatory occurrence reporting framework to facilitate the reporting of occurrences on site so that the duty holders, who have an obligation to report them to the regulator, become aware of occurrences in good time. Mandatory occurrence reporting will aid in driving intelligence-led enforcement on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, promoting safety-conscious culture change and improving safety standards and best practice across the built environment.

Proposed new paragraph 1F enables building regulations to prescribe the form and content of documents or information that must be given as part of a building control application. Those documents will be a key part of the new building control routes for higher-risk buildings. Proposed documents include a design-and-build approach document, a fire-and-emergency file and a construction control plan. The documents must demonstrate compliance with building regulation requirements and be realistic for the building in use—I made that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. That will ensure the consistency and quality of building control applications for higher-risk buildings.

The proposed new paragraph also allows for building regulations to set out how documents and information must be given. For example, it may be necessary to submit documents to the Building Safety Regulator via an online portal. It will also enable certain building applications to be refused if a document is not provided to the building control authority on request.

In order to check compliance, building control authorities must be able to inspect and test work, equipment, services and fittings, and to take samples. New paragraph 1G provides powers for building regulations to make provision for that. Building regulations will also be able to prohibit work from being covered for a period to allow the building control authority to inspect the work and to provide for the building control authority to cut into or lay open the work. Related amendments are also being made to section 33 of the Building Act to enable a building control authority to require a person carrying out the work to carry out tests of the work.

New paragraph 1A, which we discussed earlier, will allow building regulations to set prescribed timetables according to which building control authorities will need to determine applications—for example, gateway 2 applications, change control applications, and gateway 3 applications. That will help prevent unnecessary delays.

New paragraph 1H will allow building control authorities to extend that timetable where necessary, with agreement from the applicant—for example, if a development in hand is particularly complex. That will provide greater flexibility than under the current regime.

New paragraph 1I enables the drafting of regulations to allow persons affected by decisions made under the Building Act, or building regulations, to appeal against them. The Government supports the recommendation of Dame Judith’s independent review that the regulator must be “fair and transparent”. Where developers want to challenge a decision by a building control authority, it is right that they can do so. This clause makes provision to create routes of appeal to the regulator and the tribunal in England, and to Welsh Ministers or a magistrates court in Wales, whichever is appropriate. It also makes provision to set up procedural and administrative arrangements.

Building Safety Bill (Seventh sitting)

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Underlying our approach is the need to ensure an efficient and expeditious method of information sharing, whereby resolution is achieved.

It is also possible that, with effective information sharing, it will be possible over time for the Building Safety Regulator to understand the data flows between concerned residents and itself. The regulator will understand why information goes to ombudsman A or ombudsman N rather than to the regulator, and that will enable it and its multidisciplinary agencies better to communicate to involved parties what the correct and therefore most expeditious route to data sharing should be. By sharing data, everything can occur more quickly and people can be better informed.

Schedule 3 contains regulation-making powers enabling the creation of limited further information sharing gateways and duties to co-operate. For example, if evidence necessitated a change to the scope of the higher-risk regime, such that it proved essential that the Building Safety Regulator co-operated and shared information with further regulators, it is appropriate that regulations enable this.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. Schedule 3 clarifies information-sharing powers on building safety and standards between local authorities and fire and rescue services. Will he provide further information on how personal and confidential data is to be managed appropriately?

[Christopher Pincher]

We certainly do not want inappropriate data to be shared. As I said earlier, these powers and data-sharing rights relate specifically to the work in hand of the Building Safety Regulator. They do not override ordinary data privacy rules and requirements. We shall certainly—as this House will want to—monitor that that data is used appropriately.

Given the potential significance of new duties to co-operate and of information-sharing gateways, any regulations creating them will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a Committee of the House—if necessary, on the Floor of the House—therefore, there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on them.

Placing duties to co-operate and powers to share information on a statutory footing will encourage collaborative working to improve building standards and to ensure resident safety. That will all be done as expeditiously and transparently as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Building Safety Bill (Fifth sitting)

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

I certainly will, Mr Dowd.

Giles Grover from End Our Cladding Scandal referred to the many complexities that make up the layers of the building safety scandal, from waking watch to inflated insurance premiums and the funding lottery created by the limited size and scope of the building safety fund. Do the many clauses and schedules of the Bill respond to that immediate crisis? Does clause 2 do that? The answer is no. This is the very Bill that the Minister with responsibility for building safety, Lord Greenhalgh, said was the appropriate vehicle for responding to the crisis. If there were a prize for being consistently inconsistent, this Minister would win hands down—top of the premier league.

Moving on to the fundamental details of clause 2, many witnesses, including the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, welcomed the new building regulator and spoke of the constructive working relationship with the Health and Safety Executive, reaffirming the Minister’s statement and the evidence from other witnesses about the appropriateness of HSE. Other witnesses, such as Martin Boyd from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, spoke of the need to capture the residents’ voice, from the grassroots to the highest table of the new regulator, to help to establish and change that culture, and to improve the competence referred to in future clauses. Given the commitment highlighted in the previous social housing White Paper, for example, I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts about the residents’ voice.

The evidence from HSE management team seemed to indicate that they have the necessary resources to carry out the terms of reference of this new regulator.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this Bill does in fact make buildings safer, specifically because the Minister said in his opening remarks that HSE will now have the right expertise to oversee the regulator?

[Mike Amesbury]

I do hope so. Working together in Committee and across the Floor of the House, I hope we can contribute towards changing that landscape and making people and buildings safe. However, on resources, and this point was mentioned by—I know the Member has a Bolton seat, but do excuse me—

Building Safety Bill (Sixth sitting)

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Davies; it is a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship.

After that brief hiatus, I am pleased to return to consideration of the Opposition’s amendment 11. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and his colleagues for raising the important issue of climate change and the role of the new Building Safety Regulator. Because of the issues that we have with the amendment, I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept it, but I appreciate the opportunity that it affords us to set out the regulator’s new role in this area and the wider action that the Government are taking. I will focus on three areas of concern: the existing powers that the regulator will be able to utilise; the levers available elsewhere in Government; and the confusion that the amendment would, I am sure unintentionally, cause.

I can assure the Committee that the objectives of the Building Safety Regulator and its functions already give the regulator the remit it needs to focus on ensuring that our building regulatory regime takes the appropriate steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. The existing statutory objective around securing safety would cover safety issues resulting from climate change, including risks of overheating. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the regulator’s objective to improve the standard of buildings. Standards are defined broadly by clause 29, which we shall come to in due course.

Standards will include all the matters that can be dealt with by the building regulations. Section 1 to the Building Act 1984 ensures that building regulations can cover sustainable development, the protection or enhancement of the environment, and furthering the conservation of fuel and power. Paragraph 8(5A) of schedule 1 to the Building Act also allows for building regulations to cover flood resistance and flood resilience.

The Building Safety Regulator will be under a duty, under clause 5, to keep the safety and standards of buildings under review, including safety issues relating to the building, such as overheating or flooding. The regulator will be able to recommend to Ministers or to industry changes needed to buildings and building standards to mitigate those issues. Therefore, the regulator will already have an important remit to provide independent advice to Ministers and industry on ensuring that building standards are appropriate and mitigate the effects of climate change.

It is also important that the role of the Building Safety Regulator is seen alongside action that the Government are already taking to ensure that building standards are improved to tackle the challenge of climate change and ensure that homes are built more energy-efficiently and in a way that is better for our environment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for West Bromwich West alluded to. The Government’s new future homes standard will mean that from 2025 homes built to that standard will produce at least 75% fewer CO₂ emissions compared with those built to current standards. To pave the way to 2025, we are making changes now to part L of the approved documents to ensure that new buildings, both domestic and non-domestic, produce meaningfully fewer CO₂ emissions.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that clause 5 already deals with the issues set out in the amendment and that it is better to allow the Building Safety Regulator to lead on this work on building safety?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will come to later in my remarks. We want to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a clear remit and that its responsibilities are not confused or occluded by too much unnecessary verbiage.

The future homes standard will mean that homes in this country are fit for the future, better for the environment and affordable for consumers to heat, with low-carbon heating and very high fabric standards. We will be introducing a future building standard that will ensure that buildings that we use every day—cafés, shops, cinemas—will also be better built to ensure that they are more energy-efficient and produce fewer CO₂ emissions.

Covid-19: Housing Market

Theo Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I made it clear repeatedly in my statement that these arrangements apply to England. The Scottish Government will have to come to their own decision and be held accountable for it. With respect to social distancing, the guidelines are extremely clear, so I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and others did not purposefully mislead in that respect. Removal men and women, agents and those visiting other people’s homes need to respect the social distancing guidelines, which means staying 2 metres apart and using protective equipment where appropriate, as we set out in the guidance. For residents, that means being out of the home, in the garden or in another room at the time of the viewing, so that they do not come into contact with those visiting the property. That approach has been fully signed off by Public Health England and all the medical and scientific experts.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s welcome announcement that estate agents in Stafford can now reopen and that viewings can resume. Many of my constituents were in the house-buying process when covid-19 hit and will very much welcome this certainty. What steps will be taken to ensure that my constituents can undertake viewings safely and that estate agents can be sure that they are in line with the new Government guidance?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that thousands of people in Stafford, and across the country, will have been in a state of limbo and unable to move home. This announcement today will make a big difference to their lives and to the local economy in Staffordshire. With respect to the guidelines, they are clear, as I have already said, that people need to respect social distancing when in others’ properties. We are encouraging virtual viewings, which can be more sophisticated and may come at a cost, or can be as simple as the agent or homeowner producing a video on their smartphone and making it available to anyone interested in the property before they visit. With respect to show homes, we are strongly encouraging people to attend by appointment only to avoid unnecessary speculative visits.