New Homes: Developers, Housebuilders and Management Companies

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I start by declaring my interest as the owner of an investment property held on a long leasehold basis. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing this important debate.

I have concerns about the plight of owners of freehold homes, who often face unreasonable charges and sharp practices at the hands of developers. So-called “estate charges” for the maintenance of roads and common areas are often levied by the developer who built the estate in the first place. It is unfair that that type of homeowner cannot challenge the reasonableness of those charges, and that they have no access to dispute resolution or tribunals, meaning that they do not enjoy rights equivalent to those granted to long leaseholders under the current rules. I fear that that is allowing inappropriate practices to occur. One of my constituents has told me of his anger and unhappiness at the high level of charges to which he is subjected, with no effective means to dispute or resist them. The Government have indicated a willingness to legislate to give freehold owners some rights similar to those enjoyed by leaseholders, and I think it is time that they got on with it. I urge them to include some additional protections for freehold homeowners in the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill.

As others have done, I strongly condemn abusive practices in relation to leaseholders. I very much support the work of the Competition and Markets Authority in investigating rip-off practices such as the doubling of ground rents every few years. As I said on Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill, there is a case for allowing the continued use of ground rents in large apartment blocks. The complete exit of professional freeholders from the market, which is the expected consequence of the abolition of ground rents, would leave leaseholders moving into such buildings with extensive financial and legal responsibilities, so as the Bill goes through, it is worth considering whether some leaseholders in some new blocks might want the option of leaving the stewardship of their block to a professional freeholder.

I will turn to the planning system, which others have addressed with great insight. I have put on the record many times my concerns about the proposed reforms in the “Planning for the future” White Paper. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s indication that he is willing to think again about those plans, and I look forward to a clear public statement about his views on the White Paper. I do not believe that the way to deliver the homes we need in this country is to strip people of their right to have a say in what is built in their neighbourhood.

There is a range of factors that slow down house building in this country but that have nothing to do with the planning system, and I will set out a few ideas on how we can ensure that the right homes are built in the right quantities in the right places. As a principle, any changes we make to the planning system should increase, not undermine, local democracy. They should strengthen and simplify the local planning processes to ensure that development is led by communities, not forced on them against their will. National housing targets should be advisory, not mandatory, and developers should not be able to use them to try to force local councils to agree to inappropriate development. Housing should sit within an integrated long-term development plan for urban regeneration to prioritise the Government’s levelling-up commitments.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is speaking many words of wisdom. In my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland, the council rules are a wee bit more stringent and strict. For instance, if a developer wants to develop a number of houses, they must make a financial commitment to infrastructure, including roads, and set land aside for leisure, shopping and education. That is all part of the integral planning regulations, and the requirements change as they go through each phase of the planning process. Does the right hon. Lady, whom I know has much knowledge of Northern Ireland, agree that when considering changes and how things can be done better, the Minister should look to Northern Ireland?

[Theresa Villiers]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are certainly aspects of the Northern Ireland planning system that we could usefully learn from, but it has its drawbacks as well. However, I feel strongly that developer contributions should be ring-fenced for the local communities that are directly affected by the new homes. Too often—certainly in England—such contributions end up being distributed to a broader area and those who bear the burden of the new development do not necessarily get the benefit of the developer contributions.

We should use home building as a core part of efforts to regenerate cities and communities in the north and midlands. Many of those areas have seen population declines over the past 50 years, but new housing and infrastructure could help to reverse that trend.

We also need to address land banking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage proposed, we could introduce a “use it or lose it” rule for land-banked permissions. An agreed start-by date could be imposed and permission could be withdrawn if that deadline was not met, and “start-by” should mean significant initial works and not digging a few holes or a trench. We could also impose end-by dates, after which council tax is payable on every home that is planned, regardless of whether it has been built or not. There is also a case for introducing a rule to limit the number of applications that can be made in relation to the same site, which would bring to an end the exasperating practice of developers coming back again and again, with multiple applications being turned down, which effectively turns the planning process into a war of attrition with planners and local residents.

There is a strong case for a character test in planning, so that if people have a poor track record in development or there are other reasons to doubt their ability to deliver, they can be blocked at the planning stage. I believe that sites that have been illegally prepared for building—for example, where tree felling has taken place illegally—should be made ineligible for future planning applications, and I would certainly like to see the penalties increase for illegal tree felling by developers.

Lastly, we could provide tax incentives for elderly homeowners to downsize, for example by reducing stamp duty.

As the Secretary of State contemplates which reforms to take forward and which to reject, I hope that he will listen carefully to the concerns that have been expressed in this debate. We must not let our rush for new homes compromise our environmental commitments or destroy our green and pleasant land, and we must not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s, when poor quality high-rise housing blighted the lives of millions of people.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I must emphasise that speeches should last for no more than six minutes, please. Otherwise, other Members will not get as much time in which to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T5. The housing targets that are being asked of outer London boroughs such as Barnet are simply too high. Will the Secretary of State lower them so that we can halt urbanisation and save the suburbs?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend has spoken frequently and passionately about the importance of a balanced approach to the assessment of housing need across the United Kingdom. It is certainly true that the way in which we assess it needs to be updated. I think it only fair to say that every part of England—indeed, every part of the United Kingdom—will have to share in making sure that we can meet the housing needs of the next generation, but we are seeking to achieve a fairer and more equitable distribution of need across the country.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is incredibly knowledgeable in this area. I remember discussing my ten-minute rule Bill with him at the time. I completely assure him that we will proceed with caution and seek advice from experts both across the House and outside the House. I look forward to discussing this with him again in the future. I also take this opportunity to thank the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—I am delighted to see him in his place—for all the work that he put in in driving forward this agenda. Back in January, he announced measures to make buying a freehold or extending a lease cheaper and easier for many leaseholders.

I now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Ground rent is usually paid annually by leaseholders to their freeholder or landlord, but, crucially, no tangible service is provided in return. The industry is also familiar with the term, “peppercorn rent”, to describe a token or nominal rent used as a payment in forming a contract, which typically is not actually collected in practice. Historically, ground rents were generally very low. The past two decades have seen a surge in properties sold with significant and escalating ground rent. At its worst, this practice can lead to properties becoming unsellable. These unfair practices have caused real misery for those affected and, in turn, have undermined the reputation of the leasehold system. Regardless of whether the ground rent is a nominal peppercorn or thousands of pounds, the fundamental issue is that no meaningful service is provided in return. We want to end this for new leases, and that is why we are legislating so that new residential long leases will have no financial demand for ground rent. Instead, nothing more than an actual peppercorn can be collected from the leaseholder.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will the Minister acknowledge that the situation is slightly different in relation to retirement housing, where the practice has been for ground rents to more or less fund the shared spaces, and ground rents have been part of making retirement housing viable? Will he take care to ensure that the Bill does not have unintended consequences for retirement housing?

[Eddie Hughes]

The reason why we extended the timeframe for the introduction of this legislation for those properties is to allow people time to adjust their business models, so that they can cope with the change in legislation. To avert the risk of possible future shortages of peppercorns, and to ensure that our meals continue to be well seasoned, I should clarify that we do not expect any landlord to require the actual payment of a physical peppercorn each year. In reality, the new genuine peppercorn rent for future leaseholders means that they will not pay the rent.

The specifics of the Bill apply to residential long leases in England and Wales of over 21 years for which a premium is paid. The inclusion of the requirement for a premium clarifies that normal and legitimate practices relating to rack rents can continue. For leases regulated under the Bill, the rent demanded will not be any more than literally one peppercorn a year.

Following much careful deliberation, we have arrived at a broad and flexible definition of “rent”, using the real-world meaning, and therefore including anything in the conventional nature of rent. The Government are clear that landlords should retain the ability to collect legitimate charges. The definition will ensure that landlords can still collect legitimate charges where the market reserves them as rent, such as charges for services, including building maintenance. The broad definition will deter freeholders or landlords from trying to circumvent the new system by disguising ground rent as a different charge. It will also enable appropriate tribunals to make sound judgments on whether a leaseholder has in fact been charged a prohibited rent.

We plan to leave no loopholes for unscrupulous individuals, so we are also banning the charging of an admin fee for collecting peppercorn rent. Where a prohibited rent or administrative charge is paid, leaseholders will have the right to apply to the first-tier tribunal in England or the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales. Provided that the tribunal deems the payment inappropriate, the relevant authority can then order the amount to be repaid. In the case of prohibited rent, that must be within 28 days and potentially also with interest.

There are a limited number of exceptions from the provisions of the Bill. The first is leases used purely for a business purpose. The intention behind the Bill has never been to reduce business leases to a peppercorn rent, so through careful consideration, we have excepted business leases that include the use of a dwelling in any way that protects the interest of residential leaseholders and commercial landlords. For mixed-use properties, such as a flat above a shop, the exception will apply only if the residential use significantly contributes to the business purpose of the lease.

Community-led housing may have few other feasible funding schemes that they can use to continue to grow developments that benefit the community, rather than secure profits. To maintain this growth, we have excepted community-led housing schemes. Home finance plan leases are also excepted. That includes regulated home reversion plans, such as equity release and rent-to-buy agreements, where the consumer purchases the freehold at the end of the term. We will also allow shared ownership landlords to continue to collect a market rent on their share of the property. That practice is integral to the shared ownership model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes an investment property that is a flat held on leasehold.

I join other Members in strongly condemning the abusive practices that have prompted this legislation, including the sale of new leasehold houses where there is no justification, and spiralling ground rents that double every few years. All the rip-off practices about which we have heard in the Chamber this evening are simply not acceptable. I, like others, very much welcome the investigation initiated by the Competition and Markets Authority into some of the major developers in relation to unfair contract terms and what looks like mis-selling.

It is clearly right to legislate to stop sharp practices in the leasehold sector. It is also correct not to apply the ban on ground rents to existing leases, as that would retrospectively impact on long-standing investments, many of which are held by pension funds that support millions of people in their retirement. Instead, the Government will be helping existing leaseholders by making it easier to enfranchise or buy themselves out of ground rent obligations, and through their second-stage reforms.

As the Bill proceeds through Parliament, we need—as I said in my intervention earlier—to consider the retirement homes sector, where, as we have heard, ground rents are often being used to generate the capital to fund communal areas and shared facilities. Including retirement homes in the ban could affect future investment in this type of much-needed housing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, there is a case for considering a technical change to the Bill so that at least the retirement homes built but not sold prior to the commencement of the Act in 2023 are covered by the current rules, rather than the new ones.

A second potential alteration that should be looked at carefully is whether to allow the continued use of ground rents for some large, complex apartment blocks. This matter has been raised with me by a constituent who is worried that the exit of professional freeholders from the market, which is the expected consequence of abolishing ground rents, will leave leaseholders moving into such buildings with extensive financial and legal responsibilities. These complexities are intensified if there is mixed residential and business use.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee acknowledged this issue in its 2019 report and advocated at least a temporary exemption for large, mixed-use buildings. If this carve-out were made, there would need to be a robust code of conduct to ensure that the remaining freeholders acted fairly. Violation of such a code should be subject to enforcement mechanisms. Having spoken to my constituent and his colleagues in the professional property sector, I think we need seriously to consider whether some leaseholders in some new blocks might want to have the option of leaving stewardship of their block to a professional freeholder.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Would the code of conduct to which she refers—for those kinds of complex developments—include a cap on ground rents of, say, £100 or 0.1% of the value, whichever was lower, to ensure that the ground rent was always affordable?

[Theresa Villiers]

We would certainly need a cap, and the sort of levels that my hon. Friend mentions sound reasonable to me.

Let me turn to how this legislation will interact with new building safety laws. New building safety legislation will impose stringent responsibilities on freeholders, whether they are professionals or just flat owners who are banded together to manage their building. Frankly, not all leaseholders will want to take on such liabilities, yet this Bill will mean that for new flats, residents—whether they want this or not—will be jointly responsible for the safety, maintenance and upkeep of the apartment buildings in which they live, regardless of the size or complexity of those buildings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted in his earlier intervention, worrying research in a 2019 report commissioned by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Built Environment Forum Scotland indicates that the removal of professional freeholders in Scotland has contributed to buildings falling into disrepair. A key problem that has been identified is that difficulties in securing a majority agreement among leaseholders and getting all flat owners to fund the repair works needed can significantly slow down remedial work, and that pushes up costs.

[Matt Rodda]

I appreciate that the right hon. Lady wishes to make a point about the importance of shared ownership and the difficulties of managing the shared parts of a large block of flats. Has she looked into the way that this issue is managed in other countries, given that all western countries other than the UK do not have the leasehold system? Surely there are ways to manage communal areas other than by maintaining leasehold, which involves all the difficulties that we have heard about.

[Theresa Villiers]

The fact that English property law is unique does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, but I acknowledge that it is important to look at how other countries manage these issues. That is partly why it is instructive to look at what has happened north of the border. Of course, Scotland has a different legal system. Leasehold and commonhold have been a fundamental part of its system for a long time, and it seems that, in some instances, that is making it more difficult to keep buildings in a decent state of repair.

This is a very important Bill, but it needs careful scrutiny if we are to ensure that it protects leaseholders effectively from abusive and unscrupulous practices, operates fairly and avoids unintended negative consequences for the very people whom it was designed to protect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

In both cases, it was sheer luminous talent.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T9. Will the Minister take action to stop the Mayor of London building over suburban station car parks in places such as High Barnet and Cockfosters, given the damage that it will do to public access to public transport, particularly for people with impaired mobility?

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

My right hon. Friend campaigns assiduously for her constituents in this regard. She and the House will know that the national planning policy framework makes it very clear that houses and other properties should be built in a sustainable way in sensible places, but she will also know—partly because of the campaigning that she brought to bear in this regard—that we have told the Mayor of London to amend his policy to allow for a tall buildings provision in local planning, enabling local authorities to say where they want tall buildings and where they do not. That will afford local communities much greater protection as to where tall buildings should or should not be built, thanks partly to my right hon. Friend.

Post Office Update

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We absolutely want sub-postmasters to give evidence. There is obviously a cost implication in extending the inquiry and making it statutory. I am working through that process with my colleagues in the Treasury, and we want to make sure that everybody and anybody who has been affected can come forward to give that evidence with confidence, no matter what their financial situation is.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

My sympathy goes to everyone affected by this appalling scandal. Looking to the future, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways that we can support sub-postmasters and the post office network, which means so much to our constituents, is by using it to deliver more Government services? Up to now that been made difficult by EU procurement rules, which we can now change?

[Paul Scully]

Those are exactly the things that each Government Department that has traditionally used the Post Office will continue to explore. None the less, the Post Office does not necessarily just need to be limited to Government services. There are plenty more things that it can do to modernise and ensure that it better reflects customer demand. I push the chief executive Nick Read on this point, although he does not need pushing on it because he is very front-footed on the situation himself.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

No, it has not been kicked down the road. We are clear that any reforms we bring forward will be required to consider the needs of our labour market today. That is why we are continuing to work with stakeholders to understand the needs and challenges of modern workplaces, to ensure that our vision of the labour market is fit for purpose. We will bring forward the employment Bill in due course.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that Uber should pay its drivers more because that is good for those drivers but it is also good for the licensed taxi drivers who feel that they have been subjected to competition from Uber in recent years that is aggressive, unfair and predatory?

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend knows that I am also Minister for London, so I take a keen interest in these important issues. The people who drive black cabs —that premium product—do amazing work throughout; they are icons of London. However, we must get the balance right between having a free market and making sure that the flexibility of the labour market is not impeded by any encroachment on workers’ rights and what is due to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend in Houlton, and I pay tribute to Urban&Civic, which I know well. It is a developer that has carefully masterplanned large sites and tried, where it can, to weave in trees, public realm and public spaces, which is exactly the right way forward. I was pleased to see that it has now been taken over by the Wellcome Trust, which says something about the sort of projects that it will take forward in the future: high-quality, sustainable communities. I have made it a personal priority to ensure that new developments are well-planned. That is why we brought forward the national model design code, and we are also changing the law so that all new streets that are built in this country will be tree lined.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support local authorities during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

The Government have allocated more than £8 billion directly to councils since the start of the pandemic. In addition, councils will receive more than £3 billion of support in 2021-22 for both additional expenditure and loss of income. That takes the total support committed to councils in England to tackle the impacts of covid-19 to more than £11 billion.

[Theresa Villiers]

I sincerely thank Ministers for the substantial financial support they have given to local government at this difficult time. May I appeal to them to continue that, not least to enable local authorities to play their part in supporting people to live healthier lives with more exercise and recreation, so that we can generate the broader health recovery that this outbreak tells us we need?

[Luke Hall]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right. This is why it is so vital that we have provided a 4.6% cash-terms increase to local government next year—a real-terms increase. I am delighted that in Barnet that means a 5% increase in core spending power—another £14 million next year to spend on local priorities, just as she mentions. Funding and supporting local government, which has been the backbone of our response to covid-19, remain an absolute priority for this Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not think my right hon. Friend needs any reminding; he of course was the Chancellor who gave us the business rates holiday that has supported hundreds of thousands of businesses on every high street across the country. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait till the Budget next week, where the Chancellor will be setting out how he intends to continue supporting businesses and jobs in all parts of the United Kingdom over the course of the year.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State condemn the astonishing decision by the Mayor of London to spend thousands of pounds on a committee to take down statues and rename streets? Is this not a good reason to vote for Shaun Bailey as the new Conservative Mayor of London?

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. It does speak to the priorities of the current Mayor of London that he would devote so much time to statues and street names, rather than to the things that really matter to people in London, which are tackling crime, ensuring they do not have to pay his 10% mayoral precept on their council tax and ensuring that good-quality affordable homes are built in the places people want to see them.

Planning for the Future

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate.

The proposed algorithm linked to the White Paper would more than double the annual housing target for the borough of Barnet to 5,744 units a year. That would place intolerable pressure on an area that is already building thousands of new homes—it is already playing its part in tackling the housing shortage. The numbers proposed in the algorithm for London and the south east would be impossible to deliver without significant urbanisation of the suburbs, encroachment on the green belt, or both. They would inevitably mean the construction of hundreds of high-rise blocks of flats, changing the landscape and the skyline forever and permanently blighting the local communities that we represent in this House; the open, low-rise, leafy suburban environment could become a thing of the past.

Even before these reforms come into operation, there are currently around 3,500 new homes proposed, and at various stages in the planning process, just in my Chipping Barnet constituency. Strong opposition is felt, for example, towards development proposals for Victoria Quarter, Colney Hatch Lane, Whalebones and—most controversially of all—for the station car parks at High Barnet and Cockfosters, just over the borough boundary. The reality is that more or less every brownfield site is already in the pipeline for development; there is simply no space for thousands more flats.

Page 54 of the White Paper suggests that these astonishingly high targets might be delivered by redeveloping streets of semi-detached homes. They call it “gentle densification”. To come anywhere near delivering these numbers using such a method would require the mass compulsory purchase and demolition of suburban streets. That is not remotely realistic, is not acceptable, and would be anything but gentle.

It is also unacceptable for the White Paper to deprive local communities of a say over building in designated growth zones. A faster process for creating a local plan is no substitute for input by residents and the local councillors they elect in a formal planning application process.

Finally, the White Paper indicates that as long as a building meets certain design standards, it should go ahead—even if it is far more dense than was previously acceptable under longstanding planning principles. This is an attempt to substitute nationally set design standards for rules on character, height, massing and bulk. However, as the Barnet Residents Association points out in its response to the consultation,

“a block of flats is still a block, no matter how tastefully it might be presented”.

This tendency is already evident in the Mayor of London’s draft plan, and I am deeply worried that if we pursue it in the White Paper as well, it would lead to the removal of the vital protections enshrined in planning rules. In conclusion, our suburbs, extolled by John Betjeman in his Metroland poems, are often underappreciated, but the people who live there form the bedrock of much our economic and civic life. Today, I call on the Minister to give us an early Christmas present. Tinkering with the algorithm will not be enough; let us junk that algorithm and scrap much of the White Paper, so that we can save the suburbs and defend our local environment.

The Future of the High Street

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I do not think there can be any doubt that high street businesses and workers have suffered immensely throughout this pandemic. Despite support, many businesses have sadly gone under. We have already heard about the calamity that has befallen the Arcadia Group and Debenhams, and I might as well mention the Edinburgh Woollen Mill, where 21,000 jobs are at risk. Those collapses have knock-on effects—the supply companies will lose an estimated £250 million in business from the collapse of Arcadia alone—so the vitality of our high streets is crucial to all of us.

It is a truism to say that many aspects of our lives have gone online during the pandemic—working from home and shopping from home, most obviously. That has given those who have been fortunate enough to do that a better work-life balance, and perhaps it has simply accelerated trends that were already in evidence in how we use our high streets and town and city centres. The pace has been quickened.

The change presents a number of challenges for our infrastructure—most notably, how the transport network is configured—and for the footfall in our town and urban centres. We can expect a great deal of upheaval as the way we use those centres to work, rest and play changes in the time ahead of us. It is therefore imperative that we allow the inevitable transitions that are about to take place to happen in a way that does not leave the centres of our towns, cities and smaller communities entirely at the mercy of market forces, with property assets stranded in the hands of those who are unable to develop them or adapt what they own, or who find themselves hide-bound by planning and development objectives that prevent them from responding appropriately to the new reality.

Direct investment from the Government is one way that we can try to facilitate some of those changes. The Scottish Government have invested £4 million for towns, smaller settlements and business improvement districts, and a further £18 million from its economic stimulus package to add to existing funds in the town centre capital fund. Business improvement districts, which bring together local small businesses to work together in the common interest and improve the overall urban environment, have had a tremendous impact. To bring footfall back, we need to bring people back, create a vibrant streetscape and ensure our towns, villages and city centres are as accessible as they possibly can be for absolutely everyone. We must ensure that the services that we desire to access physically are within easy reach of all, whether they own a car or however they transport themselves about. Everything must be within easy reach and as accessible as it possibly can be.

If we want vibrant urban centres, we need a vibrant economy. The UK economy grew by just 0.4% in October. The SNP has today called for a £98 billion fiscal stimulus to match the scale of those that other equivalent European countries have already put in place. The best way to ensure that businesses recover is to allow them to do what they would ordinarily seek to do, so we need to do all we can to help them survive, thrive, adapt and emerge on the other side.

I will talk about some of the measures that we need. We need to stop money leaving businesses. Business rates have been mentioned already. That is what has allowed many retail, leisure and hospitality businesses to cling on in this time. It is absolutely imperative, notwithstanding the review that the Minister spoke about, that that sort of relief for business costs is allowed to continue.

The Scottish Government are absolutely committed to carrying on with that, but because of the fiscal framework, an equivalent commitment needs to happen in England before that money feeds its way through the Barnett formula to Scotland to allow that to happen. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance in Scotland has written to the Chancellor about that to seek clarity about the approach to non-domestic rates in England and future reliefs. I do not believe that a response has arrived yet, but I hope that a favourable response is forthcoming very soon.

We also need to ensure that money goes to people to maintain demand. It was only after immense pressure and the need for a lockdown right across England that the furlough scheme was extended. Although we obviously all have great hopes for the vaccine, the Government must be absolutely clear that if, heaven forbid, further lockdowns are needed, that support will remain for individuals. The £20 uplift to universal credit must be made permanent. We should also look at increasing statutory sick pay to enable people to buy the things they need and keep that demand in the economy.

I have mentioned the vaccine, which will obviously be key to giving people the confidence to come back into our urban centres. I know that the Government have shown a marked aversion to level playing fields over the last few days, weeks and even hours, but we certainly need one in our retail environment. Online retail has certainly brought many benefits to people, particularly through the pandemic, through home shopping, and it has allowed lifestyle businesses to thrive in better times. However, if we get this wrong and do not rebalance taxation between physical and online retail, it will hollow out our town centres. My party has consistently campaigned to close tax loopholes and end corporate tax avoidance. If we can close those loopholes and get a better balance, we could pay for the consequences of the pandemic without burdening and punishing workers, while also maintaining the health of our high streets.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about online retail giants not paying their fair share of tax, does he welcome the extensive action that this Conservative Government have taken, introducing a world-leading digital services tax and leading the international work in the OECD that we need to ensure a long-term resolution to make sure the internet giants pay their fair share of taxes?

[Richard Thomson]

I absolutely welcome anything that ensures a better balance of taxation, and that example shows the importance of co-operating internationally. Much time has been taken up in this House pursuing a theoretical sovereignty, but we may be about to find some of the limits of the practical sovereignty we can get. However, certainly I am all in favour of making people pay what they can in taxation and doing so on a collaborative international basis.

That brings me neatly on to my next point, which is about tax-free shopping. The Government have announced their intention to withdraw tax-free shopping. That will have a deleterious impact on our airports, particularly our regional airports, and also have a massive impact on tourism. Much of the tourism traffic that comes into all parts of the UK is led, at least in part, by the opportunities for tax-free shopping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

As everyone has acknowledged, high streets have had a tough time for several years because of the shift to online shopping, and that trend has been intensified by the covid outbreak. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have tried to campaign in support of local town centres such as High Barnet, New Barnet, East Barnet, Hampden Square, Whetstone, Friern Barnet and all the other small shopping parades in my constituency. I pressed for reductions in business rates, and was pleased to be able to help persuade the previous Chancellor, Philip Hammond, to do that in two successive Budgets. But I do think that the Government need to go further to reform the system in order to reduce business rates for small independent retailers, and to ensure that the big online retailers pay their fair share of tax.

I welcome the introduction of the digital services tax and the international work being led by the UK Government on this important issue, but if our high streets are to survive and thrive, we need urgently to get to the end of this covid crisis. The Government’s programme of covid support has been bigger than anything ever attempted in our nation’s history, including an 18-month business rates holiday, furlough for 9.6 million jobs and £11 billion in business grants. But the only way to safeguard the future of our high streets is to get hospitality businesses fully reopened, especially the wet pubs, which have suffered the greatest restrictions over the longest period. We now have rapid mass testing and the delivery of the vaccine, so I urge Ministers to get covid restrictions lifted the moment that it is safe to do so, including the controversial 10 pm curfew. Let people get back to the pub for a few drinks with their friends and family once again—and please, please, please do not put London into tier 3.

If our high streets and town centres go into terminal decline, it would be a huge loss to our society and our communities. If we value them, we need to use them. Therefore, I encourage everyone, in a covid-secure way, to head out to their local shops, restaurants and pubs, both in the run-up to Christmas and in the months to follow. Our local businesses and high streets need us. It is time to back Barnet and give them our support.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

To flip the question slightly, I know that a number of people up and down the country have been appreciative of the Government’s increase in universal credit to make sure that we can help them through this particularly acute time. Clearly, as I say, we will continue to work not only to support people who are out of a job but to make sure that we can create jobs and opportunities for them to get back into good work.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Retail is at the heart of our local high streets, and the Government’s huge programme of support has been vital in keeping it going. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging my constituents to back Barnet and to come out and shop local on small business Saturday?

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend absolutely nails it, as usual, in supporting her independent retailers—her small businesses. They are the backbone; 99.7% of businesses in this country are small and medium-sized enterprises. She is absolutely right, and I encourage everybody, both in Barnet and across the country, to shop local and get out there and spend money where possible to make sure that there is a high street to enjoy for years to come.