Westminster Hall

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 13 May 2025

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to have secured this important and timely debate with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). Today, I speak with two hats on, as the MP for Battersea and as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

It is undeniable that churches and religious buildings have a positive impact on our communities in constituencies across the country, and I intend to show examples of this throughout my speech. Churches such as St Mary’s in Battersea do valuable work in their communities every day, and their contributions are often delivered at no cost to the state but with such a great return for the communities in which they serve. That is part of their vocation to serve—their desire to reflect the values of Jesus Christ through their faith, love, hospitality and service to their neighbours. I hope that this debate will allow us to recognise the incredible work of our local churches and other religious organisations.

A parish church is often central to the community. It is a hub around which a village, town or city has grown. It gives a great sense of place. Parishes have a specific duty to serve all their communities, regardless of faith, background or affiliation. Our churches are not just there for Sunday services; they are active seven days a week.

I must declare my interest as an attendee of Holy Trinity Clapham, or HTC, which is a grade II listed building. The church supports the needs of its communities through services for victims of domestic violence and young families’ support services, as well as by serving breakfast to more than 200 people every week. Similar Church of England churches and cathedrals support more than 31,000 social action programmes annually. They deliver more than 14,000 of those projects themselves, while other projects are hosted by churches and carried out in partnership with volunteers and supported by donations.

The National Churches Trust’s “The House of Good” reports, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, clearly show the community benefit of churches: every £1 invested in any church creates a return for the community of £16. Dare I ask where else the Government could get a return like that?

Although a core activity of churches is worship, they do so much more. They are pillars for community, social action, culture and heritage. They support the national economy, offer apprenticeships for key trade and craft skills and are collectively one of the largest commissioners of the arts in the UK. They are drivers of regeneration and place making. They are well on their way to achieving net zero by 2030 across all their buildings. They are involved in running or supporting food banks, groups for the elderly or vulnerable, and parent and toddler groups, often in the places where they are most needed. They offer warm spaces during the winter. During the winter months in Battersea, St Peter’s, St Michael’s, St Barnabas’s and the Ascension church host night shelters, which I had the pleasure of visiting last winter.

The UK has 15,000 historic listed places of worship in use across all faiths and denominations: churches, chapels, synagogues, mosques and temples. Approximately 12,500 of them are Church of England churches or cathedrals, and in the past decade the number of listed places on Historic England’s heritage at risk register increased to 969, some 911 of which are Church of England buildings.

The listed places of worship grant scheme was introduced by the last Labour Government under the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, and it has been a lifeline in maintaining those buildings. Although the Church welcomes the continuation of the scheme for an additional year, the reduction from £42 million to £23 million a year and the new cap of £25,000 per place of worship jeopardise the ongoing future of many projects.

We know that 94% of applications are under the £25,000 cap and will not be affected, but 260 Church of England churches will be. Although that makes only 6% of claims on the scheme, the impact will be huge. The retrospective implementation of the new scheme is causing immense difficulty, preventing responsible budgeting, commissioning work on multi-year refurbishment schemes and good stewardship of the buildings.

It is preventing craft businesses, such as masons and glaziers, from taking on apprentices, as they are unable to guarantee work. Obviously, it is adversely affecting our communities, particularly those most in need of support. There is no doubt we need a long-term solution beyond the year-on-year extension.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady and I have had a number of exchanges in the Chamber on this issue. In her role as a Church Commissioner, given the concerns she has raised about projects failing and craftsmen being put out of work, has she had any reassurance from the Government that schemes already started, even if above the £25,000 cap, will be allowed to progress so that the projects can continue?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Member is right that we have had many exchanges. He knows that I am firmly committed to ensuring that the scheme is extended and, more importantly, that schemes in train will be protected. I will come to that shortly.

It is time to give stability and certainty to these treasures of our built heritage. I will not list all 260 churches, as we do not have time. My own church of Holy Trinity, Clapham has raised more than £6.2 million for vital repairs designed to make the church more accessible to the local community. As I said earlier, it provides local communities with huge amounts of support, such as advice and advocacy on debt, providing hot meals and sport and social activities.

Other examples include Sunderland Minster, another grade II building, with a long-standing ministry to refugees and asylum seekers. It holds drop-in and collection days for food, clothes and children’s toys. All Hallows-on-the-Wall, London hosts a young person’s programme in its nave, which for 30 years has supported thousands of challenging and excluded young people across the city into work. Wells Cathedral’s “warm rail” initiative provides free donated clothes and winter coats, and offers a warm space and hot refreshments. Many churches support the warm welcome campaign in response to the cost of living crisis.

I share those examples to show the significant impact those churches have socially and economically. I know the Government recognise their impact and would not want to see any listed places no longer able to make their vital contributions to the communities they serve.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Member gives an eloquent account of how churches active in communities can have an impact. Another point concerns those buildings no longer being used for religious purposes. The Church of Scotland is divesting itself of a number of churches, including in East Neuk in my constituency. Does she agree that, even if those buildings are not being used for religious purposes, they need to continue as the community hubs she describes, with Government support?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point: churches are a place of worship, but they do so much more in their communities.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work she does on behalf of the Church. She occupies a very important role and commands considerable respect for what she has been doing. I wish to add to the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just made about the closure of churches, particularly in rural parishes, which is becoming an increasing problem. In my constituency, we have experienced difficulty getting the Church to recognise that it too has an obligation to stand by the side of local communities when those wonderful and precious buildings are to be closed as places of worship, and that it must help find a community purpose for them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Church cannot ignore its responsibility?

[Marsha De Cordova]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I fully agree.

I turn to some of the work that churches do. The Church Commissioners already contribute considerable sums from their funds to provide grants to Church of England dioceses and support many projects, particularly in underserved communities. The Buildings for Mission project has provided £9 million for dioceses for 35 locally based church building support officers, and grants for minor repairs and improvement. Through the cathedral sustainability fund, the Church Commissioners have provided £30 million of targeted funding for cathedrals since 2017.

But no one organisation can provide support on its own; we all need to pull together to support these treasures. A bid to the National Lottery Heritage Fund or other grant funding may rely on the listed places of worship scheme to match funding. Last year, the Heritage Fund announced £100 million to support places of worship over the next three years, and parish giving continues to be a form of local support, but I say again that that will not be enough to support the work that every church needs to undertake.

Aside from their social and economic impact, church buildings contribute to the creative and performing arts by providing hundreds of locations for amateur and professional arts of all genres for the Government’s Arts Everywhere initiative. England’s heritage generates a £45.1 billion gross value added impact, supporting more than half a million jobs, and our cathedrals attract millions of visitors, fostering local economies and preserving our cultural heritage. I am sure the right hon. Member for Salisbury will touch on that in his remarks.

Does the Minister agree that our churches make an invaluable contribution to our communities? Will he raise with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport the following three key things that the Government could do to support these valuable community assets? First, will the Government make the listed places of worship scheme permanent, without a cap, for each place of worship beyond March 2026? It is vital that those churches are supported so they can continue to serve their communities.

Secondly, will the Government prioritise support for projects that are already under way and/or for which contracts were signed before the cap was introduced? I highlighted a number of churches in that position; the overall figure is estimated to be 260.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Would the hon. Lady’s second question for the Minister include All Saints Mudeford, which burned down two years ago? The rebuilding process cannot be started because of the extra burden of VAT, so the church is raising money for that.

[Marsha De Cordova]

If that church is on the list of 260, it would be, but I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman follows that up with me after the debate so we can look into it.

Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a new capital funding scheme for listed places of all faiths and denominations? Finally, would my hon. Friend the Minister, when he is liaising with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, agree to meet me and representatives of some of the churches that are affected by the changes to the listed places of worship scheme, to listen to their experiences and find a solution? I think we can all agree that if we do not find a way forward, the impact will be great.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I remind all Back-Bench colleagues to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

09:45

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I commend my friend, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for opening this co-sponsored debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. This is a useful and important opportunity for colleagues across the House to draw attention to the considerable impact that churches and church buildings play in their communities.

I will make some points about the listed places of worship grant scheme, and I will reflect on and amplify some of the points that the hon. Lady has made about the social impact of church buildings. I will also spell out some of the opportunities that the Government could consider with respect to capital grants. However, I first reflect on what the hon. Lady said about her own church, Holy Trinity Clapham. Jago Wynne, rector of that church, has been a personal friend of mine for 25 years. Let us not underestimate the leadership role that many rectors and vicars play, outside their core remit of preaching the gospel, in raising funds to maintain and extend the missions of their churches. Next year, Holy Trinity Clapham will celebrate 250 years of existence; it is rooted in the Clapham Sect. Jago said to me this morning, “This is a mission project, so that the building can be a blessing to the community, not a barrier.” The church now finds itself £1 million short because of the changes to the terms of the listed places of worship scheme. As the hon. Lady has set out, there are 260 other churches facing similar challenges. They have undertaken a considerable fundraising effort, the works are under way, and now they face a deficit. Some may be able to meet the gap, but others might not.

I am privileged in Salisbury: I live in the shadow of the cathedral and worship at Saint Paul’s.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I would like to reflect on the words of the hon. Gentleman. My three brothers spent many happy years as choristers at Salisbury Cathedral. As the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said, churches are the backbone of our communities; as she also said, some 969 in England alone are at risk due to crumbling roofs and vanishing heritage funding. Recently and famously, my party was mocked for fixing church roofs, so I can only surmise that the more Liberal Democrat MPs there are, the better. Having said that, instead of leaving congregations and communities up and down the country seemingly praying for a miracle, can the Minister comment on whether the Government will commit to making the listed places of worship scheme permanent, and to removing the cap?

[John Glen]

I am trying to avoid making party political points, but the hon. Lady does tempt me, because at St Paul’s in Salisbury—where I go to church and where my grandmother went 100 years ago—we recently had a win in the local elections over a member of her party. That says something about the commitment that Chris Taylor has to the St Paul’s community.

I have visited many churches in Salisbury—including St Mark’s, and St Mary and St Nicholas, the famous Italianate church in Wilton, where the Rev. Mark Wood does a fantastic job—where we are seeing growth in the congregations, but also constant anxiety about how the fabric of those buildings can be maintained. The buildings are integral to the vibrancy of the communities that they serve. They are a source of great encouragement and a convening point for community activities, which have a big impact across all age groups.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The point about community activities is ever present in my constituency of Carlisle, so I profoundly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is almost 35 years since St James Church in Carlisle, the church I was christened into, set up an op-shop in the community of Denton Holme to repay the loan it had taken to expand its parish centre. I am delighted to say that that op-shop remains today. It has been joined by a coffee shop, which is a real community hub in Denton Holme. But more than that, the diocese of Carlisle took on that op-shop model. Today, there are five shops, all specifically located in communities on our larger estates in and around Carlisle where there is real need. It is not just the goods that they are selling, but the fact that they have a model that is about outreach into those communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ability of our churches to diversify and innovate is one of their great strengths?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point. Every Member present today will have a vivid portrait in their mind of an impact that a church makes in their community. It is quite different in different places, and evolves according to the needs of that community. I will not go through every single church that I have visited over my 15 years as Salisbury’s MP, but the range and depth of their impact is considerable.

Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of Ramsbury in the diocese of Salisbury, is, coincidentally, the co-lead on church buildings for the Church of England, which has 16,000 buildings, 42 cathedrals and 300 major parish churches. Of those, 12,500 are listed. That is nearly half of grade I listed buildings in our country. Contrary to elsewhere in Europe—France, Germany and Italy, for example—there is no central church funding for building works. While it will always be right that people look to the local community to raise funds, we have to examine what we have done in the past and what we might do in the future, given that churches and church buildings are a delivery vehicle for community services alongside local authorities, and how we can embed that understanding in public policy so that churches are supported and become a sustainable force into the future.

The first point I want to make is about the listed places of worship scheme. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) gave an assurance of continuity for one year, which I suspect is related to the spending review. On 11 June, we will have some clarity over what is happening on a multi-year basis—that cannot come soon enough. The point has been made about the 260 buildings that are in progress and outside the cap. The Government need to address that. Typically, this excellent scheme, which Gordon Brown set up in 2001, was underspent— I remember being Chief Secretary and seeing that the line was £42 million, and it was usually in the 20s. That money will be netted off at the end of the year, but I respectfully say that this is so valued that the Government must reconsider stopping those 260 buildings and putting them at risk of not achieving what they need to complete the works so that we are not left with a deficit.

In my constituency, I think the figure in the last year was £93,855. That is a considerable amount of money, and it makes a lot of difference on individual projects. That will have covered 15 or 20 projects.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Church of St Mary Magdalene in Stockland Bristol in my constituency has been planning since 2019 for extensive repairs and to turn the church into a community hub. Due to the changes in the listed worship scheme, it finds itself £300,000 short. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an enormous sum for a small community to raise?

[John Glen]

It is, and I wish St Mary’s parishioners well in all their endeavours. There is scope for the Government to come out of this in a very positive way in June by looking back over what they can do to put this right.

For my second point, I want to spend a few moments reasserting the impact that church buildings have on local communities. The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned “The House of Good” report. One of my constituents, Luke March, has been working for 10 years as chairman of the National Churches Trust, which put that report together, and it makes for interesting reading. We are talking about enormous support for communities, working with local authorities. The National Churches Trust report talks about how the care for those in need is worth twice as much as the total spend on adult social care by local authorities. There is a risk—I recognise this from my ministerial experience—that we say, “Well, this is going to happen anyway,” so we can bank that, and then worry about our overall budget. The Minister must recognise—he will know this from his own constituency—that there is often a synergy between statutory-funded local authority provision and the provision of churches working together. We need to look at embedding that understanding in policymaking.

The hon. Lady mentioned the value of church buildings as a source of encouragement and fun, through arts and cultural experiences. I massively recognise that at Salisbury cathedral: the flower festival this week, Sarum Lights, the number of visitors to evensong, the “From Darkness to Light” services—all of those things. Sixty-two per cent of church spaces are useful for leisure-time music performances, and they are used as such. Then there is the other side: the food banks, warm spaces, or acting as a venue for Alcoholics Anonymous, debt counselling, grief counselling, youth clubs and parish meetings.

Last year the independent Khan review looked into social cohesion and resilience. As the Minister will know, it understandably focused on the financial vulnerability of councils, but I reinforce the point that churches can surely be an effective and investable vehicle to deal with some of those deficits. Putting right the issue with the grant scheme can give more security to more buildings going forward. In its report, “Pillars of Community”, the Centre for Social Justice asserts that 12 out of its 29 policies for community thriving are supported by the presence and role of churches.

My third and final point is about capital grants. There is a considerable precedent here, although, as a former Chief Secretary, I feel anxious about that constant demand for more money. I recognise that, but we did find money from 2014 to 2018 for the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund, which benefited 57 Anglican and Catholic cathedrals. The roof repair fund gave £55 million over a similar timeframe and was administered by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The heritage stimulus fund gave grants for programmes of major works as part of the culture recovery fund after covid in two tranches in 2021 and 2022.

The public finances are clearly challenged, but there is enormous willingness in many communities where the Government are doing something to match that funding. There is an enormous opportunity for a multiplier effect. It is usually easier to secure capital funding than revenue funding. A Chancellor is always looking for small items, or good news stories, as George Osborne did back in the day, so I urge the Minister, when he plans his budget and finalises what is happening in these final weeks, to recognise that this would be a great opportunity to find a capital grant scheme for match funding from philanthropic and charitable giving that would be really popular and welcomed across the House.

I will not detain colleagues for much longer, but I want to emphasise that we must fully acknowledge the enormous contribution that our church buildings make and the value-add that they provide—spiritually, socially and in looking after the most vulnerable people. I call on the Minister to take to heart the cumulative effect of all that he will hear this morning and reflect on the impact of church buildings, which is felt across our country. There are just four weeks until the spending review on 11 June. There is time for a late addition and to put a few things right; this would be a great opportunity to do so.

I also want to give thanks to all those church leaders—not only in the Anglican Church, but in all denominations—who do so much to achieve positive outcomes for people in our communities. They do so alongside their formal ministry of preaching the gospel, but the impact they have, and what they speak of Jesus Christ to their communities, is instrumental in the mission they have. I hope that we and the Government can acknowledge that and assist them in the maintenance of this vast estate of church buildings, which is so important to our country.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We will need to move to Front-Bench speeches at just before 10.30 am, so if colleagues can keep their speeches to around three minutes, we might get everybody in.

09:59

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to hail the amazing contribution of churches and religious buildings in our local communities. It is not an exaggeration to say that almost every religious building offers invaluable service to its local community. We see that especially in times of national hardship, such as during the pandemic and in the cost of living crisis, but we also see it in everyday life. Holy Trinity Clapham, which is in my constituency and which is my hon. Friend’s church, is a clear example of the impact that churches and other places of worship can have on their local community. It is the largest Church of England church in the diocese of Southwark, with around 800 worshippers each Sunday, a number that has tripled in size over the past decade.

The work of Holy Trinity Clapham has touched so many people in the community. Like so many other churches that we have already heard about, it ran a significant food bank during the covid pandemic, supporting those who were unable to afford basic goods or to get to a supermarket. To carry on that work, the church has established a breakfast club that feeds approximately 200 people every week. It also runs youth clubs, works with ex-offenders, puts on courses for those who have suffered from domestic violence, prepares couples for marriage, and does so much more. Holy Trinity Clapham is not just a place of worship; it is a community hub.

Members may also be intrigued to know that Holy Trinity Clapham is the church where William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect worshipped. Continuing that legacy, Holy Trinity has worked with other organisations to help to tackle modern day slavery. It has also extended support to other churches and communities in the area, having sent teams of people to help revitalise other struggling churches and communities in Brixton, Vauxhall and Mitcham. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the right hon. Member for Salisbury have expressed words of support for Holy Trinity’s vision and I am sure the church is very grateful for that.

To facilitate the plans to expand its work, Holy Trinity has begun a project to make its building more suitable for the modern day. It has raised a total of £6 million, with £4.5 million coming through donations from the congregation and the remaining £1.5 million coming from successful grant applications. That is a huge amount of work that the church has already done on its own. The whole project is a massive undertaking, but Holy Trinity has managed to raise the funds and the works will take place over the next 12 to 18 months, or so we hope. As we have heard today, the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, and particularly the £25,000 cap, have put those plans in doubt. Holy Trinity had assumed that it would be able to recoup most of the VAT on the £6 million project and it entered into a number of contracts on that basis and on the assumption that the scheme will continue. Now it faces the prospect of an extra £1 million in expenditure.

The church does not have that money, nor does its already generous congregation. However, without finding that extra £1 million—or unless the Government introduce an exemption for places of worship that had already signed contracts for projects set to conclude in 2025-26, before the cap is introduced—the project will have to be brought to a temporary halt and potentially a permanent one. I am sure Members will agree that that would be a great shame, with hugely negative repercussions for the local community and those who rely on the church’s services, as well as more widely in the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, which the church was hoping to reach.

Holy Trinity Clapham is not the only church impacted by these changes. It serves as a very clear example of the impact they will have on the estimated 200 churches across the country whose restoration projects have been placed in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to support churches that have already begun their restoration projects, and stick to the agreement—or the belief—that the churches had when they began them? This morning’s debate has been filled with many shining examples of the crucial role that churches and places of worship play in their local communities, and it would be a great shame to lose that. I hope the Minister shares that sentiment.

10:05

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the joint sponsors, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), on obtaining this very important debate, which highlights the important role that churches play in our local communities. I will give a few examples of that.

Last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Yes, there was a grand national service across the road in Westminster Abbey, but there were civic services up and down the country to mark the occasion. I attended one that had been arranged by the Mayor of North East Lincolnshire. He is a Catholic, so we attended the Catholic church last Thursday evening. Amazingly enough, while we were there, we heard of the election of the new Pope. Just as an aside, I would say that perhaps the Catholic Church has something to teach the Church of England in the speed with which it appoints its head. We desperately need a head of the Church of England, and that it takes a year to come up with a candidate is staggering. I am sure the hon. Member for Battersea has relayed that point already, but I emphasise it again. VE Day showed the importance of church buildings and the role of the Church within our national and civic life.

On Sunday, it was National Fishing Remembrance Day. Part of my constituency has a ward in Grimsby, which is noted for fish. Sadly, the deep sea fishing industry is no more, but many people in the area worked as trawlermen or were connected with the industry. It is still vital to the area. At the service I attended, Canon Mullins from Grimsby Minster drew links between VE Day and the fishing industry. The great west window in Grimsby Minster depicts St Peter and the fishermen going out into the Sea of Galilee. In 1943, two bombs landed on the minster, or St James’ church as it was then, shattering every window in the church. The original drawings still existed, so many of the windows were recreated, but the new west window paid tribute to the fishing industry.

Any country church or churchyard tells the story of the local community. This weekend was an open weekend for many churches in Lincolnshire, and on Saturday, I visited St Mary’s in Broughton, a village close to Scunthorpe. I heard there from a local historian who lives across the road from the church. He was extremely knowledgeable about the history of virtually every brick in the building. He pointed out to me that it was one of four churches in Lincolnshire to predate the Norman conquest, and guided me to the evidence for that. I was a bit disturbed by that because the church that I attend regularly in Scartho in Grimsby, St Giles and St Matthews, has what is claimed to be an Anglo-Saxon tower dating to 1042. I pointed that out to the historian and he said, “Oh no, it must be at least 50 years later than that”, but nevertheless, it points to the long history of the stories that churches tell of their local communities.

One of those other four churches in Lincolnshire that was referred to as pre-dating the conquest is St Peter’s—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to any more churches, I gently pointed out to him that he is well over his three minutes. It is not a formal time limit, but I am trying to get everybody in.

[Martin Vickers]

My apologies, Sir Jeremy. In that case, I will conclude by saying that our churches and cathedrals play such an important part in our local communities. The National Churches Trust is conducting a survey at this time, which I urge Members to take part in to refer to the importance of the churches in their local communities.

10:10

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this important debate.

Our churches and religious buildings are so much more than the stone and bricks and mortar that they are made from, but if their walls and roofs fall down, then what we lose is far greater too. In Derby, we are blessed to have churches, Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and Muslim mosques, and in the middle of our city, we have our cathedral. Next year, it enters its 100th year as a cathedral, although its tower dates back to the 16th century. It is our tallest building at 212 feet—that height is rather firmly imprinted on my memory, having abseiled from the top of it for charity alongside my then nine-year-old. Inside the tower is the oldest ring of bells in the world. The oldest is more than 500 years old, older than the tower itself, and they peal out across the city. At our VE day celebration, there was a commemorative peal that lasted three hours, which was no small feat for the bell ringers, the youngest of whom was 10 years old.

The coming together of people of all ages always strikes me in our churches and religious buildings, and the churches in our city have groups from the little nippers to the university students coming together at St Alkmund’s or the monthly tea for older people at St Peter’s. I had lots of really interesting studies and stats about loneliness and crossing generational divides, but given the three-minute limit I will have to leave those out.

We have heard from many Members, and I am sure we will hear more, that the work done in our churches is so often there to meet the wider need in our communities, with food banks, community cafes and warm spaces such as that at St Philip’s church in Chaddesden, to name just one. Often, it is in our churches and religious buildings where we see examples of humanity at its best and looking after one another. Nearly 80% of Church of England buildings host more than 31,000 social action projects a year, and His Majesty’s Treasury Green Book estimates that for every pound invested in our church buildings, the benefit to communities is over £16.

Our religious buildings are often opened up for wider cultural events as well as social action. At Derby cathedral, people have heard Queen by candlelight. Again, I had a whole list of other events, but Members will have to look them up for themselves. The incredible sound of Derby cathedral choir fills the cathedral most days, giving moments of peace and reflection in busy lives and what feels like an uncertain world.

I would like to give a final example of the work of our church going out beyond their walls. Derby cathedral has a music in schools programme that is currently working with more than 900 children weekly across 17 different schools. To hear their voices fill the cathedral creates moments in time that nourish the soul. Those buildings were built with the knowledge that they would build communities and lift the health, education and culture of Derby and of every part of our country. I would ask that the Minister ensure that all the social good carried out within the bricks and mortar—but which extends so far beyond them—is taken into account when decisions on funding are made.

10:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading today’s debate. I extend my heartfelt thanks to all who are gathered here today and, furthermore, to all who support the work of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, of which I am privileged, honoured and humbled to be the chair.

I want to give a perspective on churches and their impact on communities, and I will describe three countries where they are important. Churches and religious buildings have long played an essential role in our communities. They are places not only of worship but of support, guidance and service. In my constituency of Strangford, I have seen churches that run food banks, offer support to the elderly, provide youth programmes and bring people together across the community—including my own Baptist church in Newtownards, which I love and am grateful for. Those buildings serve the whole person—not just spiritually, but practically—and it is important that we do that.

I want to focus first on Morocco and the challenges that religious buildings face around the world. The recent destruction of minarets—symbols of religion and cultural identity—has caused great distress. Those structures are much more than buildings: they are central to the spiritual life of the community. For many Moroccans, the minaret is a sign of their faith and history; losing it is about not just architecture, but identity, culture and the right to express their beliefs.

Secondly, just a week or 10 days ago, on a parliamentary visit to Egypt—I encourage our Christians here to do the same—I had the opportunity to visit one of the evangelical churches in Cairo. It is a congregation of 1,800, with 600 children who attend its services on a Sunday morning. Pastor Youssef Samir’s words were, “It’s a golden age for churches.” That should be encouraging for each of us here—although we see persecution and discrimination across the world, we can also see a country trying to come to terms with that.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On that point, unfortunately, it is not a golden age for churches everywhere in the United Kingdom. We need to do more to highlight what those buildings offer, because many people take them for granted and put them to one side, simply because of their age and historical context.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

To put the situation in Egypt into perspective, each church, irrespective of denomination, has the police and army on guard 24 hours a day. In 2013, Christian churches were burned and Christians were murdered. Today, however, the opportunities have changed, and there will be a new church in upper Cairo.

In Jordan, churches and mosques have been working hand in hand to support Syrian refugees by offering shelter, food and education. Those interfaith efforts are rooted in the power of religious communities, and the spaces that those communities occupy serve as a powerful reminder of what is possible when freedom of religion or belief is respected and protected. That includes ensuring that places of worship remain accessible, protected and supported.

I end on a Scripture text, as I often do in these debates, because I think it is important. Isaiah 56:7 says:

“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

That is not just a call to protect buildings; it is a call to safeguard the freedom to worship. Every individual, regardless of faith, should be able to worship freely without fear of persecution or obstruction. When such places are attacked, it is an assault on the fundamental right to practise our faith, to live according to our beliefs and to do so without fear. Let us continue to support efforts to ensure that churches and other religious buildings remain places of peace, welcome and faith. Let us speak out for those whose right to worship in safety is still denied.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We have five more speakers and about 10 minutes left, which means, I am afraid, about two minutes each.

10:18

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I will speak quickly. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

In a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year, I was pleased to note that there are an impressive 138 listed places of worship in my constituency. I am very proud of the work they do; they enrich our lives in so many ways. More disappointingly, I recently noted that I am the Labour MP with the highest number of places of worship on the heritage at risk register—13. I hope that reflects the sheer number of churches locally, rather than our desire, or not, to look after them.

Earlier this year, I was delighted that, despite the difficult economic situation the Government inherited, they confirmed that they would extend the listed places of worship grant scheme, providing £23 million to enable important restoration work. That includes many places in my constituency that have been busily co-ordinating their improvement plans, because churches, particularly in such rural areas, are often the heartbeat of the community.

A couple of weeks ago in the village of Welney, on the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire border, I was pleased to join St Mary the Virgin church to mark its 100th community coffee morning. That initiative was started during covid by Laura and her husband Antony, along with Marie, Guy, Sue, Karen, Shirley and Tracey. They estimate that they have now had more than 3,000 visits, which is very impressive for a small village. As nice as the cake was—as I can attest—they also, more importantly, provide a warm space in the winter, bring people together, reduce isolation and much more. I commend them for their efforts. It was through the church in Welney that I heard about fen skating—I urge hon. Members to look it up; it is a really important part of our heritage in South West Norfolk.

Although I am the Labour MP with the highest number of churches on the heritage at risk register, the second on that list is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I gently suggest to the Minister that I am sure that the Prime Minister will be very interested in ensuring that the Government continue to support churches and commit to a long-term plan for the listed places of worship grant scheme.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

We will find out in a few minutes.

10:21

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for leading the debate. Let me be clear: we do not own these buildings. We are simply their caretakers and custodians for a future generation. Our job is not to profit from them, but to protect them—ideally without charging them 20% for the privilege. These places, whether they are cathedrals, churches, mosques or gurdwaras, are much more than bricks and mortar; they are history books made out of stone and community centres made out of marble.

Let us take, for example, Leicester cathedral: a 12th-century gem so ancient that it gets a shout-out in the Domesday Book. It gives our town a sense of awe and is a much-needed break from the concrete jungle around it. It is also home to King Richard III, who spent 500 years lying low in a car park before getting the royal treatment. Some even say it was his reburial that triggered the greatest miracle in modern sporting history—Leicester City winning the premier league. Was that a coincidence, or was it divine intervention?

Those buildings do not just have beautiful backstories. As many hon. Members have mentioned, they are where the lonely find company and the hungry are fed. Just last week, I visited the Geeta Bhavan mandir in the Clarendon Park area of my city, and the commitment to sustainability and the environment was much more progressive than in half the tech start-ups in Shoreditch. Another example is the local gurdwara, the Guru Amar Das, which serves hundreds of meals daily with no questions asked. In fact, the only question asked is, “Do you want some more?”, to which the answer is always, “Yes”.

This unity and service crosses boundaries—I am a Muslim, and I volunteer for a Sikh charity, the Midland Langar Seva Society, which operates out of a church and serves people of all faiths and no faith. That is what community looks like and what Britain looks like—it is not an island of strangers. I say to the Minister that we cannot put a price on such things, so let us not be the generation that taxes them; let us be the generation that funds them for future generations. Beauty, service and spiritual refuge deserve relief and not receipts.

10:23

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I will keep my remarks fairly short. As many Members present know, churches in my constituency are much more than just places of worship. They are vital hubs for community cohesion and provide crucial resilience in the face of events such as Storm Éowyn and Storm Arwen, particularly for the most rural parts of the constituency. They are marks of local identity and symbols of the rich history that Northumberland, the north-east and Newcastle have to offer.

Northumberland is often called the cradle of Christianity due to Holy Island, also known as Lindisfarne, but Members will appreciate that, in my view, the west of the county has far more to offer than the coast—my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is not here. We benefit greatly from that religious history through the great amount of tourism coming in and the huge involvement of local communities.

Organisations and churches operate throughout the Tyne valley and the more rural parts of the constituency, particularly the Holy Cross Anglican church in Haltwhistle, St Mary the Virgin in Throckley, St Mary Magdalene in Prudhoe. Hexham abbey is one of the most iconic buildings that my constituency and the north-east have to offer, not just because I will be getting married there later this year, but because there has been a church on that site for around 1,300 years. For anyone interested in history, it has been there since Queen Etheldreda made a gift of lands to Wilfrid, the Bishop of York, in roughly the year 674.

The constituency is home to more than just Hexham abbey. Bywell is the only village in England with two surviving Anglo-Saxon churches. In Bellingham, St Cuthbert’s has been attracting worshippers for over 800 years, dating back to at least the 13th century.

Such churches are not simply relics, attractions or bits of our history that have seen their day and are now merely decorations. They are the beating heart of our communities and they provide a community spirit in Northumberland that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. I am tremendously proud to represent all of them. They also provide a crucial venue for hosting constituency office surgeries and for meeting individual members of the community.

10:25

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Yeovil has some truly beautiful religious buildings, and polling of the general public shows that 75% of people agree that church buildings are important for society. Holy Trinity runs a baby bank, supporting three to four families each week with essential items for newborns, such as nappies and baby grows. The church also has a thriving eco-garden cared for by volunteers. St John’s has the Gone Fishing café, which is very popular in the community. It also hosts Christians Against Poverty once a week, providing support services.

Almost half of all grade I listed buildings in England are historic churches. Over 900 churches are at risk, according to Historic England’s heritage at risk register. That is why the listed places of worship grant scheme for church repairs is so important. The scheme allows congregations of all faiths to recover the value added tax costs of vital repairs to the listed buildings, making it the most universal and accessible source of relief.

I was glad to see that, following public pressure, the Government extended the scheme until March 2026, but with a lower cap of £25,000 towards repair costs. I thank the Minister for writing to me to confirm that following my early-day motion on the topic. I am concerned about the introduction of the cap, and I urge the Government to make sure that existing claims are honoured under the previous agreement where no cap existed.

In conclusion—I am under time, which is good—churches are not just for the faithful, but for all communities, whether that is local groups and clubs, charity workers and the vulnerable, or people celebrating weddings and christenings or mourning the passing of loved ones. Religious buildings play an important role in key moments throughout our life, bringing us together as a community. That is why we must do all we can to support these fantastic buildings as cornerstones of our British society and culture.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity, as I am sure is Brian Mathew.

10:27

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading the debate.

For over 20 years, the Government have run the listed places of worship grant scheme, which allows listed churches, chapels and other places of worship to reclaim VAT on the costs of repair. That grant scheme has been renewed every few years, and it needs to be renewed again in full if communities are to be allowed to keep what is often their heart and soul in good order, and in doing so, keep themselves healthy.

Any reduction in the scheme would be a disaster for listed places of worship. Nearly half of all grade I listed buildings in England are churches. Those buildings are largely run by volunteers who have to raise the funds needed for repairs. The ability to reclaim VAT on such works makes an enormous difference, particularly when the cost of all building work has increased substantially.

Historic churches are not only places of spiritual importance, but architectural and cultural landmarks. They offer a window into our past, reflecting the diversity of our communities and our shared history. They also do a tremendous amount to support local communities, often hosting or helping to run services such as food banks, youth clubs, and drug and addiction support, which contribute to health and social welfare across our country—from rural idylls to inner city neighbourhoods.

Without the scheme, many historically and architecturally significant buildings will quite simply face neglect, and even closure. That would not only have a severely negative effect on local communities, inevitably impacting the most deprived communities the most, but result in a loss of this hugely significant heritage. By continuing the listed places of worship grant scheme, the Government can ensure that those treasures are protected for future generations as places that promote beauty, education, community cohesion and tourism.

I have received 40 letters from 24 church communities in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes. Those churches are quintessential to what makes up the best of our nation; they should be celebrated, visited and utilised, because that is what they were built for in the first place.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and self-discipline. I now call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

10:30

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), on securing this important debate.

As a Liberal Democrat, I am primarily interested in the fixing of church roofs, as the Leader of the Opposition has so keenly pointed out, so it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. Actually, I take her statement as a compliment, because such work shows an interest in our communities, which is what we have all displayed during the debate.

Across the United Kingdom, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of worship have long stood at the heart of our communities. They are not just architectural landmarks, but vital, living institutions, and it is the people who make them. They are the anchor points of community life, and today, more than ever, they remain places of refuge, service and solidarity. Historically, churches have provided more than spiritual guidance, although that is their primary service. They have funded hospitals, built schools and supported the most vulnerable long before the modern welfare state. They were, and still are, the institutions to which many of us turn first in times of hardship and crisis.

Today, their role has evolved. The 40,000 churches across our country offer mental health services, youth clubs, after-school programmes and warm spaces. Churches are responsible for running the majority of food banks in the UK. They often step in where the state has stepped back. Before the pandemic, churches and other places of worship were co-ordinating around 35,000 social action projects, including 8,000 food banks, 4,000 parent and toddler groups—more about them later—2,600 breakfast clubs and 2,400 night shelters for homeless people. Around 2.6 million in the UK sought help from churches during the cost of living crisis, the majority for food but a significant number to access a warm space, too. These are extraordinary numbers: they represent not just acts of charity, but the fabric of care that binds our communities together, thanks to the dedication of the religious institutions that continue to serve them.

I know this from personal experience. Prior to my election last summer, I was a full-time dad—I think I am the only newly elected MP who was a full-time dad in the lead-up to my election. With my daughter, I regularly joined the Highbury congregational church play group, just around the corner from my house, and Little Notes baby music class at St Mark’s. I am particularly thankful for the role that those two churches have played in our family life.

I would like to thank the religious groups that support our most vulnerable in my town. At St Michael’s church in Whaddon, the Cornerstone centre plays a vital role in looking after people who need a bit extra to get by, ably supported by the Rev. James White, who is a truly wonderful man. It also hosts community counselling services to help people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. I have seen that work in action when I have visited and the responses of the people who use those services. It is truly moving to see the change that those services can stimulate in the people who need that. At St Gregory’s Roman Catholic church and among those who attend the Quaker meeting house in Cheltenham, there is a community working very hard to support refugees and asylum seekers. They do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for securing the debate. I know my hon. Friend is a big fan of soft play centres, so will he join me in thanking the deans, priests and vicars of Brecon cathedral, St Mary’s church in Brecon, Kensington church in Brecon and St David’s in Llanfaes—unfortunately, I cannot name all the churches and religious institutions in my constituency—for providing soft play centres that are much needed and much appreciated by local residents, and in thanking them for all of the other services that they provide to young parents in our communities?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely—as the parent of a toddler, soft play centres are a vital service that I use. I am sure that all around my hon. Friend’s vast constituency, there are far more soft play centres in the various churches, and I join him in saying thank you. The individuals who volunteer deserve our thanks, although they never ask for it.

Churches also act as an economic driver. Anglican cathedrals alone contribute £235 million to local economies and support around 6,000 full-time jobs. The tourists visiting those sites—I almost said Tories, although I sure they like to visit churches, too—spend an extra £128 million per year. The heritage value of the buildings is a testament not only to the faith of Britain but to our enduring cultural history.

In the centre of my constituency is Cheltenham minster, which is our oldest building at more than 850 years old. It now sits next to one of our newest buildings, the Minster Exchange development, which is a hub for tech and cyber businesses. The fact that Cheltenham’s oldest building sits next to a building at the forefront of modern technology is a testament to the enduring social utility of religious spaces throughout the ages. That is why it should concern us that so many churches—more than 900, as I understand it—are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register. The Church of England’s repair bill of more than £1 billion is a matter of huge concern for the cultural life of our nation.

We welcome the Government’s recent decision to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme until 2026. That is good news, and we seek confirmation that it will be renewed after that. However, we remain concerned that the new £25,000 cap may limit its effectiveness, and believe that outstanding claims under the previous, uncapped arrangement should be honoured. We are also concerned about the long-term sustainability of these institutions. In the past decade, more than 3,500 churches have closed in the UK. In Scotland, 40% of churches are at risk of closure, and in Wales nearly a quarter have already shut their doors. This is not just about religion, but about community life. We ignore the value of that at our peril.

10:36

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate. I also thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for all that she does for churches, and for her eloquent speech and argument. My right hon. Friend highlighted the important role of churches in the community, especially when it comes to leadership. I thank both Members for making the case for Holy Trinity Clapham.

Last week, we celebrated VE Day. During the day’s events, I was struck by the many references to community and spirit, which often related to street parties and dancing, but also frequently to the important community role of parish churches, chapels, cathedrals and minsters, both 80 years ago and today. I attended a moving beacon- lighting service at Elmdon church in my constituency. I was privileged to meet a 96-year-old veteran and ex-para, Frank Spencer, whose charitable endeavours included jumping out of a plane at the age of 92—perhaps an idea for the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), if she wanted to graduate from abseiling down churches.

With the peal of bells echoing throughout the country as part of a nationally co-ordinated effort, it was clear how important churches and religious buildings are to local people. Many people’s real-world experience of places of worship is not of the grandeur of St Peter’s or St Paul’s, but often of an ancient, parochial building or hall used as a meeting place or hired venue for birthdays, or as a soft play centre, as has been mentioned. It may be a space that offers some quiet time at Christmas or Easter for reflection and a sense of something deeper. Other communities open the doors of the local synagogue, mosque or temple, which fulfil a similar function and sit just as prominently and importantly in local life.

Just a few weeks ago, I visited the Balsall common Parkinson’s café at the Balsall common methodist church, where I met a 30-strong community group committed to helping people with Parkinson’s. Crucially, the church offered the venue free of charge, providing the group with an invaluable space to support local people in navigating the complexities of life with Parkinson’s.

Over this last cold winter, which saw the Government’s cut to the winter fuel payment, an army of churches and other places of worship, including 485 Church of England churches, played a vital role in providing safe and warm spaces for those in the cold. Communities also make countless donations of food and clothes every year via places of worship—a point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I thank all our places of worship, especially our churches, for all that they do.

For many churches, however, the future of their support schemes looks far bleaker than they perhaps expected. Many will be celebrating the election of the 267th supreme pontiff—I send my warmest congratulations to Pope Leo XIV—and others might be getting ready to welcome a new Archbishop of Canterbury; I am less brave than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), so I will not be commenting on church affairs. However, hundreds of these churches will also be looking to the future. They will probably be less thankful to the Government for their cut to the much-valued listed places of worship grant scheme. The scheme has been a lifeline for many churches and other places of worship seeking essential and fundamental repairs by helping to cover the VAT incurred on repair costs, within certain limits. I will focus on churches, because Historic England’s heritage at risk register found that of the 969 places of worship at risk in 2024, 959 were churches. Indeed, between 2023 and 2024, 55 places of worship were added to the list.

Nationally, the established Church of England—the mother Church of global Anglican communion—has a backlog of repairs to churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with an annual repair bill of about £150 million. Hon. Members might think that, confronted with those worrying statistics, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would be working tirelessly to ease the burden on places of worship, but unfortunately they would be wrong. The Government’s response to the repairs crisis has been one of delay, confusion and cuts. After leaving those community assets in the dark by continuously delaying the announcement on the scheme’s future, the Government finally came to this place to confirm the fears of many: there will be cuts to the scheme and to the lifeline of many of our historic churches and places of worship.

As I have previously said in this Chamber, many of my Meriden and Solihull East constituents have told me about their concerns about their beloved places of worship. One told me that the cut

“would be a disaster for listed places of worship”,

and that the ability to reclaim VAT

“makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.”

Many Members have made that argument in this debate.

Sir Philip Rutnam, chairman of the National Churches Trust, said, after the funding was slashed, that the scheme

“simply does not provide enough certainty or support for”

churches,

“who need more time to plan and deliver repairs…We strongly believe that the scheme should be made permanent—it’s vital to help these buildings stay open, serving local people, and it’s the poorest and most isolated who will suffer most if these buildings are forced to close.”

He highlighted that local people—indeed, communities—will suffer if places of worship are forced to shut their doors for good due to the miserly actions of a Government way out of their economic depth.

Furthermore, this all comes despite the fact that the scheme offers tremendous value for money. As the National Churches Trust has shown, every £1 invested in a church generates £16 of social good.

I call on the Government to end the dithering and ensure that this is the final time they leave our community assets in the dark. The Minister must confirm whether the Government plan to continue the scheme beyond the one-year extension, which does next to nothing for the confidence of those responsible for the affected buildings and communities. They must protect our national heritage with pride, not leave it crumbling in the dark shadow of bureaucratic delays. I gently say to the Minister: the Opposition often ask the Government to stand for something, so why not stand for our churches?

10:42

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Good morning to everybody in the Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for the significant work that she does.

I will respond to some of the points that hon. Members raised and set out the Government’s position on this topic. Given the subject of the debate, it seems fitting to begin by reflecting on some religious terminology. I understand that among Christian communities it is common to remind one another that, biblically, “church” refers not only to a physical building but to a gathering of people assembled, united by their Christian faith. Nevertheless, for most the word “church” invites images of Christian places of worship, be they the Gothic cathedrals in the shire counties or the churches of all denominations in towns and cities across the country, which were built not just as places of worship but as anchors of the communities they serve. They serve not only the community’s spiritual needs, but its social needs, and many stand in support of the local school, the community hall and more. Many churches, including in my town of Oldham, are buildings of note whose status and heritage have stood for generations.

There are many modern parish churches on estates around the country. Town planners would often draw up the ideal community, with local schools, shops, pubs and, alongside them, places of worship, which were always seen as integral to a thriving community.

We also know that church buildings often welcome through their doors not just Christians, but those of all faiths and none, because they are a wider anchor of the community. That can equally be said of places of worship belonging to other faiths and belief communities, including mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples. The public service and care for their neighbour enacted by faith and belief groups are not just words; they are seen in actions that are often very practical and grounded in the place they live in and represent.

That brings us to the focus of this debate: the importance and impact of religious buildings in communities. There are an estimated 40,300 churches in the UK, according to the National Churches Trust, plus many places of worship belonging to other faiths and beliefs. The invaluable contribution of religious buildings to the built landscape of our nation cannot be overstated. My noble Friend Lord Khan, the Minister for Faith, has made more than 120 visits since last July, including to places of worship, and seen at first hand how they serve their communities.

Only last week, the Minister for Faith spoke at the Shah Jahan mosque in Woking, marking VE Day and the sacrifice of Muslim soldiers in defence of our country. The mosque, built in 1889, is the oldest purpose-built mosque in the country. The Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha gurdwara in Birmingham, which the Minister for Faith visited in December, was built in the 1970s, following the arrival of Sikhs from India and East Africa. The Nishkam campus includes not only a place of worship, but a school, a health centre and a social enterprise that serves all members of the local community, regardless of faith.

We have heard numerous examples of how religious buildings are being used to build more compassionate and resilient communities. I can think of a number of churches, mosques and temples in my area that reach out and offer support to the homeless, provide food banks and do an amazing amount of charity work. We have heard about services based in those buildings for older people, younger people and marginalised groups, from food banks and community kitchens to vaccination centres and now modern family hubs. I will add the work that my Department funds through the near neighbours cohesion programme, which often operates out of places of worship, bringing together people from diverse background to collaborate on initiatives that improve their local community.

Sadly, because these buildings matter, they can become the focus of hate for those who seek to sow division in our communities. We saw that in the wake of the tragedies in Southport last summer, when the local mosque became the target of thugs participating in violent disorder. What those criminals did not anticipate was the response of local people, Muslims and many non-Muslims alike, to protect and rebuild that mosque. But protecting religious buildings from violence cannot be just the responsibility of local citizens. The Government are committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion at their chosen place of worship, and to ensuring that our streets and communities are safe.

That is particularly important at a time when attacks on synagogues and mosques in the UK, and worldwide, have risen. In 2025-26, up to £50.9 million is available to protect faith communities and their places of worship. That includes £18 million for the Jewish community protective security grant, £29.4 million for the protective security for mosques scheme and for security at Muslim faith schools and £3.5 million for the places of worship and associated faith community centres of all faiths.

We know that those measures, though vital, do not necessarily address the deep-seated issues that lead to the need for such protections in the first place. I am sure we all wish they were not needed at all. That is why my Department is leading the cross-Government effort to develop a longer-term, more strategic approach to community cohesion, working in partnership with communities and local stakeholders, including faith and belief groups, to rebuild, to renew and to address those deep-seated issues.

As part of that ambition, the Government recently announced a plan for neighbourhoods: £1.5 billion to invest in 75 areas over the next decade, highlighting the Government’s commitment to repairing fractured communities, bringing people back together and ensuring that people see a visible difference and improvement in their communities. Local neighbourhood boards will provide a space for community representations, which could include those from faith and belief communities, to help shape how the funding is delivered through their local neighbourhood. That could include discussions on the role of places of worship in serving their local communities.

Religious buildings help to make up not just the physical, but the social fabric of our nation. They are a record of our history, a resource for our present and an asset for the future. That is why this Government have continued to fund the listed places of worship scheme. It was due to the difficult fiscal circumstances that we inherited that the scheme’s budget was reduced to £23 million from April 2025. Despite that, the evidence of previous years suggests that that sum should meet the demand, with 94% applying to the scheme for less than £25,000 and more than 70% applying for less than £5,000.

It is worth noting that there is also a range of support for listed places of worship via DCMS and the Department’s arm’s length bodies. For instance, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has committed to investing around £100 million between 2023 and 2026 to support places of worship. In exceptional circumstances, listed places of worship may also be eligible for Historic England’s heritage at risk funding, and in February DCMS announced an additional £15 million for 2025-26 for this sector.

The Churches Conservation Trust also funds repairs to and maintenance of more than 350 churches in its portfolio. Moreover, town and parish councils are civil local authorities, and in that capacity may choose to support the upkeep of religious buildings, which support the development of other community assets.

In addition to the critical day-to-day work of providing spaces that help to meet the needs of local people, churches and religious buildings also often host events of national commemoration and celebration. Examples include the funeral of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, His Majesty the King’s coronation and services of remembrance in every community across the country—moments when religious buildings become sites of history and stir the nation’s collective soul. That has also been movingly evident in the images of St Peter’s basilica in Rome over the last few days and weeks, with great crowds gathering to pay their respects to the late Pope Francis, and scenes of jubilant celebration to mark the election of Pope Leo XIV.

I thank the Members who secured this debate, the right hon. Member for Salisbury and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, and those who participated in it for providing the opportunity to demonstrate—

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is making a good speech responding to the debate, but I raised three points at the start: making the scheme permanent, prioritising support for those projects that are already under way and looking at a capital fund. Will he respond to those specific points?

[Jim McMahon]

I did my best to outline the range of different funding available to local churches and places of worship; this fund is just one of a number. On my hon. Friend’s particular point about the continuation of the fund, Members will appreciate that any matter of future funding is a matter for the spending review, and every Department across Government will make a submission to that.

[John Glen]

Of course the Minister is absolutely right in what he has just said. However, he will also be very aware that within the budgets he is responsible for, there will be capital underspends in-year, so there will be an opportunity for him to make the case to his Secretary of State and to the Treasury, to say, “Should some of that underspend be allocated to these works in progress—the 260 projects that anticipated a VAT return that they do not have?” I urge him to consider taking that opportunity. It would be a very savvy and politically sensible way of proceeding, and would earn him a lot of credit.

[Jim McMahon]

What I can say is that the passion, enthusiasm and commitment shown by all Members here today in talking about the importance of these places of worship—not only the historical status they give to a place in terms of belonging and sense of pride, but how they act as a community anchor for the future—is absolutely appreciated. Our wider work in terms of the plan for neighbourhoods, with the £1.5 billion that we have announced, and the wider work that we are doing, for example on community ownership, is all part of this process.

In my own constituency, the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, which was built in 1955, has now unfortunately closed. Members might think that a 1955 church would be quite mundane in its feel and architecture, but there is a significant grade II listed memorial in that church, designed by George Mayer-Marton, which is a significant focal point for that community. We are working locally to see how we can marshal funds from different places. I give that as an example of how—as everyone in the Chamber will know from their own communities—there is never just one fund that provides answer to the question; we must blend different funding streams together to make these schemes add up. The importance that Members have given to these local schemes is appreciated and supported by this Government.

To directly address the question from the right hon. Member for Salisbury about capital underspends, we will look at that in the round and across the whole range of interventions that the Government take to support local communities. However, I will certainly take the enthusiasm of this debate back to other Ministers in DCMS and make the point to the Minister for Faith, who I am sure is following today.

In a way, we finish where we started: recognising, through the contributions that Members have made, just how important these buildings are as both places of worship—something that has an important role to play in our society—and as places to convene. They are places for people of all faiths and no faith to get the support they need to live a decent and fulfilled life in their community.

10:55

[Marsha De Cordova]

I think Members across the Chamber will agree that this has been a good-spirited debate. It has not been party political, because churches and places of worship are present in all our constituencies. We have heard some good examples of the significant role and impact of our listed places, whether they are providing a breakfast club, a warm space or wonderful musical recitals—I feel I need to be invited to Derby cathedral at some point. The Government cannot afford not to act to ensure that these places are protected, so I hope that the Minister will take that message back.

I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for co-sponsoring this debate, showing how we can work across party on issues of common interest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who made a wonderful speech on the importance of our church, Holy Trinity Clapham—a thread throughout the entire debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers); I will take back his point about the speed with which we appoint our archbishop.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam)—let us hope that one day Leicester will be back in the premier league, not least for my own family interest—for Yeovil (Adam Dance), and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for their speeches. I also thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for their interventions.

Finally, I thank the many church leaders for their leadership, for their selfless service and for the incredible work they are doing in our communities and constituencies up and down the country. I thank each and every Member who spoke, and all those who continue to raise this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities.

Venture Capital: Access

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to venture capital for people from ethnic minority and other underrepresented backgrounds.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Venture capital in the United Kingdom is a unique and valuable industry that supports many smaller innovating companies with high growth potential. Our VC market accounted for £8 billion of investment in 2023. It is the largest VC market in the world after the US and China, and the largest in Europe by a considerable margin. As the CEO of the UK’s trade body for venture capital, the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, eloquently put it:

“Venture investment helps turn ideas, research and development into thriving businesses, generating economic growth, stimulating innovation and creating jobs and opportunities across all nations and regions in the UK.”

However, while our VC market is growing and strong, it is highly inequitable. For ethnic minorities, women and many other communities which there is either insufficient data or insufficient time to discuss today, our system of venture capital does not work. Businesses with founders from those communities receive a disproportionately lower percentage of VC deals and of total VC funding. With their priority of growth, the Government must do more to ensure that the venture capital market in the UK is inclusive and accessible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland we have the Minorities Recognition Awards, which launched the innovators grant competition for ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland. It has been a successful collaboration that offers entrepreneurial individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who are resident in Northern Ireland and have a novel business idea a choice to apply for a grant of some £10,000 to further develop their ideas. But to make it go further and work better, does the hon. Lady agree that the devolved institutions could benefit from further funding for the likes of these grants to potentially bridge funding gaps and ensure that people from all backgrounds can have the opportunity to succeed? I believe that many people have that ability.

[Sarah Olney]

I entirely agree that we need to do more to bridge that gap. I am delighted to hear about some of the efforts already being made towards that goal in Northern Ireland.

In 2022, 10% of first-time equity deals went to all-ethnic minority teams, with 19% of total investment value. However, while I welcome the broadly representative nature of these first-time equity deals, they are unequally distributed within ethnic minority communities, with only 0.24% of venture capital funding between 2009 and 2019 going to black founders. On a similar note, all-white teams accessed a mean investment of £224,000, whereas teams with one or more ethnic minority founders received an average of £49,000. All-ethnic minority teams received an average of £94,000—less than half of what all-white teams received.

I am proud to be a member and former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners, which has not only supported ethnic minority business owners, but considered the intersection of diverse characteristics, including gender and ethnicity, on access to finance, which I will come on to later. I am proud to welcome Diana Chrouch, who provides the secretariat for the APPG and does amazing work on behalf of ethnic minority founders.

I am pleased to note the recent successes in the financial industry. In particular, I welcome the work of the Lending Standards Board on creating their access to financial services for ethnic minority-led businesses code. While that was an important and significant step towards greater equality, the Lending Standards Board does not directly cover venture capital, instead covering other financial instruments for investment. With the LSB acting as living proof that positive change can happen, and given the statistics I have mentioned, it is time for the Government to step up and ensure that that success is replicated in venture capital, and that we can tackle the inequality within VC.

Lack of equality for venture capital investments is not only an issue in relation to ethnic minority communities; female founders are also far less likely to secure this kind of investment. In 2022, a report by the British Business Bank found that only 13% of first-time equity deals went to all-female founder teams, representing 6% of total investment value, and that there had been no statistically significant improvement in this during the past decade. The data is even more worrying for women from ethnic minorities: only 0.02% of the total amount invested through VC went to black women entrepreneurs. One of the most damning statistics of the inequality within the venture capital system is outlined in a 2023 British Business Bank report: only 3% of individuals in senior investment and non-investment positions were women from ethnic minority backgrounds, and concerningly, zero black women were found in positions of seniority in VC firms at the time of the study.

I am sure that many of us are aware of this as an issue affecting founders and business owners across the country. However, this inequality was highlighted to me by a constituent of mine in Richmond Park, who is the founder of Parli-Training, a business that has supported the Northern Irish and Scottish devolved Governments, NATO and even parliamentary offices in this very House. In the years leading up to and including 2024, it employed 170 people and, at its peak, generated a £250,000 in turnover. Despite that strong performance over many years, my constituent, who is a woman from an ethnic minority community, was recently denied investment from the Greater London Investment Fund. In her correspondence with the fund manager, she was told that the fund would not be viable for someone like her because she would be viewed as a risk, that those who access the funds usually come from wealthy backgrounds, and that the only funds available to female-led businesses in London usually take the guise of a grant. My constituent was told that she should try to find a grant that suited her business, or start a GoFundMe. Clearly, something has gone wrong.

Of course, a long discourse on the issue at hand can only go so far. What entrepreneurs from affected communities need is for the Government to take meaningful action to ensure that the UK’s venture capital industry is accessible and inclusive. The first thing we need is greater transparency in the reporting and recording of data, particularly for venture capital deals. That has been championed by many leading voices in the venture capital sector and by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners.

Ladi Greenstreet, CEO of Diversity VC, has said:

“There is a significant amount of power in reporting. Simply measuring the problem creates momentum for change”,

whilst the July 2023 British Business Bank report stated:

“Venture capital firms should participate in industry-wide surveys and make D&I data on their investments public”—

an effective action to improve diversity.

Furthermore, a November 2023 report by the British Business Bank in collaboration with other leading trade bodies outlined the

“scarcity of comprehensive data on ethnic minorities particularly at the intersection of gender and ethnicity.”

One measure that I hope the Government will consider is integrating the reporting of diversity data within venture capital tax reliefs. As recommended by the Treasury Committee’s 2023 report, provision of diversity statistics as a requirement for eligibility to receive the enterprise investment scheme or the seed enterprise investment scheme tax reliefs and the venture capital trust tax reliefs may be an effective way to improve reporting statistics, and to push companies to act on this important issue.

Secondly, I urge the Government to take more robust action to support women in finance and venture capital, including through the Treasury’s women in finance charter and the British Business Bank’s investing in women code. Despite their success, the schemes continue to be voluntary initiatives with relatively low levels of uptake, meaning that their progress in improving diversity in venture capital is too slow and restricted. For instance, the women in finance charter is currently signed by 400 companies covering 1.3 million employees, but there are more than 80,000 companies and 2.5 million employees in the UK’s financial services industry. On the other hand, signatories to the British Business Bank’s investing in women code accounted for 47% of venture capital deals, meaning that over half of VC deals would not fall under the code. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Treasury Committee in 2023: will the Government consider mandating the Treasury and the British Business Bank to adopt a “comply or explain” policy with regard to both the WFC and the IWC?

I should note that the Treasury Committee also outlined that, should diversity statistics and reporting not improve quickly enough, it would be wise to consider calling for compulsory membership instead. With these changes, the Government can strengthen existing processes to ensure that women are not negatively impacted.

Another key call from groups including the British Business Bank concerns diversity at the top, referring to the lack of diversity in key bodies, including investment committees, which often have ultimate decision making on where capital is allocated. Too often, investment committees are made up of members with similar characteristics and backgrounds, leading to groupthink and the preservation of the status quo—a status quo that we know is inequitable.

In its July 2023 report, the British Business Bank recommended pushes for greater diversity in these leading committees as a crucial opportunity for greater accessibility and inclusion, with a correlation between diverse investing groups and diverse investment recipients. As recommended by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, would the Minister consider requiring VC firms to adopt and implement a strategic investment inclusion framework, modelled after the Lending Standards Board framework, to dismantle structural barriers?

In conclusion, the Government have said that their priority in this Parliament is growth, but what good is growth if it is not accessible to all our communities? We are cutting ourselves off from a key source of that growth if we continue to enable barriers to accessing investment for all the excluded groups I have mentioned. The Government are committed to supporting businesses, but what good is that commitment if a number of businesses are excluded, whether deliberately or not, from finance and investment?

Our venture capital system continues to be unrepresentative of our communities, and the Government must do better to tackle the issue. The Government have long championed themselves as a Government of change, but many entrepreneurs looking for venture capital have so far seen more of the same from this Government. I hope that the Minister has heard the points made in this debate and takes meaningful steps to resolve the injustice we see in our venture capital industry, which hinders businesses, damages growth and continues a legacy of inequality.

11:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I will begin in the usual way by congratulating the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this debate. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who seems to represent the whole of Northern Ireland in Westminster Hall. The hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly referenced the impressive work of Diana Chrouch, as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners. I am grateful to her for the challenge that she poses to Government on this issue. Perhaps unusually for a Minister, I hope that she will continue to challenge us in this space. She is absolutely right to say that although there has been some progress, we need to do an awful lot more.

It was a pleasure to join the hon. Member for Richmond Park and other members of the APPG for ethnic minority business owners at the King’s awards for enterprise reception in April, recognising current holders of the King’s award and encouraging more ethnic minority business owners to apply. There were some really inspiring stories from some of the ethnic minority business owners there who had won the King’s award. I welcome the work of the APPG in encouraging other ethnic minority business owners to apply for the award.

We do not do enough in this country to encourage and celebrate entrepreneurship among a range of under-represented groups, be it ethnic minority owners, on which the hon. Lady has rightly concentrated, or disabled entrepreneurs, women-led businesses or businesses led by veterans. We know there is more to do in this space, which is one reason why, last month, we launched a call for evidence on access to finance, to look at a range of issues facing small businesses in their access to finance. As part of that, we are considering particular challenges for ethnic minority business owners and other groups that I have referenced.

Preparing for today’s debate, I was struck by the quote from Meghan Stevenson-Krausz, the joint CEO of Diversity VC, summarising the latest findings from the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association. She said,

“Progress? Absolutely. Enough? Not even close.”

That is an excellent summary of the position and reflects the collective sense of urgency right across the VC industry, which I welcome. The BVCA study, to which Meghan was referring, is a good example of the progress that has been made, but, as a result, it underlines how far we still have to go. That 2025 report on diversity in UK private equity and venture capital covers 370 firms and over 14,000 employees, which is a significant proportion of the industry. It differentiates between roles, such as membership of investment committees, which take the key investment decisions, and junior or middle-ranking posts.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park cited an earlier report from the British Business Bank in her speech. That more recent report focuses on the VC sector itself. I will share some of the most striking findings. The encouraging headline is that 18% of investment professionals in the study are from an ethnic minority background, reflecting the UK population as a whole, and one third of that cohort are women. That matters because the most significant predictor of backing diverse entrepreneurs is the diversity of the decision makers themselves. One argument made is that the 18% overall figure masks a concentration in more junior roles, and there is some truth in that criticism. It takes time to progress to a decision-making position on the investment committee, so one would hope and expect that that disparity lessens as overall numbers improve. It is less pronounced than I expected. The study found that the proportion of ethnic minority staff was 25% in more junior roles, 19% at mid-level and 16% on the investment committee. The numbers at more senior levels have risen since the last survey and the trend is going in the right direction. But, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly said, there is still more progress needed.

The final point I found striking was the representation of different ethnic groups. Within that 18% total, 11% were from an Asian background, while just 2% identified as African or Caribbean. For a black entrepreneur seeking investment, that 2% is perhaps the most relevant figure. As I am sure the hon. Lady and other hon. Members would agree, it is the individual experience that matters. Each individual has their own identity, which the term “ethnic minority” does not fully capture. When it comes to levels of venture capital itself, I welcome the data that the hon. Lady cites on first-time equity deals, with the number of deals for all-ethnic minority teams rising from 5% in 2013 to 10% in 2022. I share her concerns about the unequal distribution across different ethnic minority communities and agree that there is certainly more to be done, as I have previously alluded to. I was disappointed to hear about the very unfortunate experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent in applying for investment from the Greater London investment fund.

We have said that progress is happening but is insufficient. What more can we then do? The hon. Lady made a very eloquent case for compulsory data gathering and membership of industry codes. I will certainly reflect on the arguments that she makes on each of the different points that she raised. The hon. Lady will understand that I am, sadly, not the only Minister that has to be sympathetic to her case. I will certainly draw the attention of other colleagues in Government to the points she has made.

Taking her example of the investing in women code, that is growing year on year. The hon. Lady noted that signatories already accounted for some 47% of venture capital deals. When this year’s report is published, she will find that that figure has grown further. I have asked my officials to ensure that the hon. Lady gets an advanced copy. The power of a voluntary code or a pledge, such as the women in finance charter, is that it signals a shared commitment. Membership of a compulsory scheme perhaps merely signals compliance. For example, the invest in women taskforce has successfully raised a £255 million fund from its members to invest in women entrepreneurs. This private sector-led, Government-backed initiative has been effective in part because it is voluntary and not constrained by moving at the speed of the slowest.

[Sarah Olney]

I just want to highlight that part of my pitch was that we could do more to encourage that voluntary take up. Anything compulsory would be very much a last resort. We should be encouraging voluntary take up in the first instance.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am completely with the hon. Lady on that point and recognise that is exactly where Government can play a useful role in getting behind industry-led initiatives. We have certainly been doing that in the context of the invest in women taskforce and are also working with the Lending Standards Board on the code that it is developing. More broadly, we have the benefit of world-leading experts in this area, notably Professor Monder Ram, who leads the Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship at Aston University. Professor Ram’s comprehensive report “Time to Change: A Blueprint For Advancing the UK’s Ethnic Minority Businesses”, which was prepared in partnership with NatWest, was launched in 2022 and sets out the £75 billion potential in unlocking growth of ethnic minority businesses. As a Government committed to growth, that is a huge win for the UK if we can do more to unlock that potential. My Department plans to become an implementation partner for Time to Change, joining organisations such as the West Midlands combined authority and Be the Business. We will be working in partnership with Professor Ram’s centre to implement the recommendations of the report. I can tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park that by happy happenstance, I will visit Professor Ram at Aston University later this week.

To shift the dial, there has to be a shared drive to improve things. I pay tribute to the pressure that the hon. Lady and the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners are placing on Government and on the industry more generally. I hope hon. Members will see the issues of access to finance for under-represented groups addressed in the Government’s small business strategy, which we aim to publish later this year.

Just yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the Lilac review here in Parliament. Its report considers the experience of disabled entrepreneurs and how investors and the financial services sector can better meet their needs. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Michelle Ovens and Small Business Britain for their work in driving that review. It was a genuine pleasure to co-chair the review and in a similar way to this, many of the issues that came up around access to finance in that work generate significant questions for Government that we will seek to address in the months ahead. There are obviously similarities between our discussion here today around the needs of ethnic minority business owners and the needs of disabled entrepreneurs. For example, we know from research published by the British Business Bank that ethnic minority-led businesses are not as likely to be using external finance as white-led businesses. There is no lack of demand, but what ethnic minority-led businesses are pointing out to us is that when they apply for bank loans they are significantly more likely to be turned down, at 49% compared to 32% for white-led businesses. That appears to reflect differences in credit ratings, which suggests that that form of assessment may be insufficient. That view is supported by the fact that community development finance institutions, which are relationship-based, perform much better. In 2023, 24% of CDFIs’ business lending went to ethnic minority-led businesses and 41% went to women-led businesses. Similarly, the British Business Bank offers start-up loans for new businesses, of which 21% have gone to ethnic minority entrepreneurs and 40% to women.

Information is a key enabler to closing the finance gap. The British Business Bank research that I referred to earlier found that under-represented entrepreneurs are, overall, less confident about obtaining information on the different finance types and providers available. I urge all Members to point ethnic minority-led businesses in their constituencies to the resources available to them—particularly to start-up loans if the business is less than three years old, which are run through the British Business Bank, the CDFI that serves their local area, and more generally to the range of online information available from the British Business Bank.

The small business strategy, which the Government are working on, will begin to address the information gap and enhance our business support offer later this year. In the meantime, my Department has participated in events such as the UK Black Business Show, and we will join Founderfest 2025 to support entrepreneurs. We will continue collaborating with NatWest, Professor Monder Ram and the all-party group for ethnic minority business owners and others to advance this agenda.

I return to the summary from Diversity VC:

“Progress? Absolutely. Enough? Not even close.”

I welcome the constructive challenge that the hon. Member for Richmond Park posed of Government policies, and I share her sense of urgency on this issue. Through our industrial strategy and small business strategy, and partnerships with the private sector, we will seek to accelerate progress so that all entrepreneurs have a fair chance to secure the investment they seek to unlock the potential of their businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Local Housing Need Assessment Reform

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

14:30

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of the standard method for assessing local housing need.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

Everyone agrees that across much of the country, homes have become far too expensive either to rent or to buy. There is less consensus on the best way to get things back under control. I will argue that throughout the history of the standard method for assessing local housing need, that method has been part of the problem, not the solution.

For a long time, the free market ideology we followed was to build houses randomly until the price came down. Ever since the days of Margaret Thatcher, who single-handedly killed off the public sector contribution, we have never got anywhere near to keeping up with demand. In recent years, the strategy has been to set stiff compulsory building targets and, to that end, the Government introduced the standard method.

We were told that the method would produce clear, objectively determined house building targets for every local authority. We were assured that they would be equally and fairly distributed in line with genuine local need. We can now confidently say that that failed. Many authorities got nowhere near their number. Sometimes that was through dragging their heels, but often it was because their individual targets were outright bizarre and unachievable.

Meanwhile, the system has kicked up terrific public anger and opposition, which in itself gets in the way of success. At times, the Government have resorted to wielding a bigger stick or they have backed off in the face of Back-Bench pressure. Under the present Government, we are heading back towards the big-stick approach. There is almost no attempt to win consent.

I will argue not only that the standard method failed to do what it says on the tin, but that the failure was inherent from the first. It never stood a chance. Far from solving the affordability crisis, the method has significantly contributed to making that crisis worse, and it will continue to do so even under the remodelled version announced before Christmas, because it is based on a false premise.

To be absolutely clear, this is not about national targets. Whether we aim nationally for 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 homes a year is a separate debate, and I hope we will not get sidetracked by that today. It is easy to tweak the standard method to meet whatever national target we want it to meet, but in practice, national targets have been not much better than slogans, such as Boris Johnson’s 40 new hospitals, which never existed in reality. Instead, it is the local target as applied to individual planning authorities that matters.

Broadly speaking, the standard method compares local house prices to local wages to estimate an affordability ratio, and it adjusts targets upwards if that shows prices to be unaffordable. The sums have been fiddled with many times since the method was introduced, and I do not doubt that such a process will continue. That is where the first big failure comes in: the standard method is supposed to provide an objective assessment of local housing need but, if we were honest, we would acknowledge that it is actually designed to reflect national need.

For example, in my constituency, the growth target based on existing households should now be 527 a year, but our poor affordability ratio takes us all the way up to 1,329 a year, and that is before we add on more for our neighbours. That is a whopping uplift by any stretch of the imagination. The face of Horsham district is changing at breakneck pace. Villages such as Billingshurst and Southwater are on the way to doubling in size in less than a decade. That is not because Horsham is experiencing some kind of spectacularly large birth rate; it is just an arbitrary calculation.

Once again, to be clear, I wholly accept that this is a national problem and that we need national solutions. Every area, including Horsham, has its role to play, but it is insulting people’s intelligence to describe that as a local need, when we plainly have nowhere near enough locals to go around, and they mostly cannot afford the new homes anyway. If we keep telling obvious lies to people, how will we ever win public consent? This brings me to the next big failure of the standard method, which is that there is no meaningful public scrutiny. Most local councillors do not understand how it works, sadly, let alone the general public. The standard method is never an election issue, yet it has a massive impact on our communities. In this case, ignorance is not bliss. It is a big reason why Conservative councillors have, election after election, proclaimed their commitment to allocating brownfield sites over greenfield yet somehow ended up doing the exact opposite. They cannot do anything to stop the logic of their own inflexible system. The standard method is a kind of mathematical bulldozer, sweeping aside our open spaces.

The single worst failing of the standard method is that it fails in the very purpose that it was supposed to be designed for. In Horsham, as in many areas, the average price of a new house is higher than that of our existing stock. Ironically, the more houses we build, the worse our affordability ratio gets, and the higher our target will be next time around. The standard method does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. The more housing that is built, the more the method asks to be built, with no obvious mathematical limit.

I stress again that I completely agree that building many more houses than we have over the last 40 years is an essential step on the path to affordability. However an obsession with one arbitrary number, without thinking what goes into it, does not work. It is actually getting in the way of success. We have to focus attention on the type of housing we are permitting, not simply the raw total. The standard method is based on a false premise, because many things affect prices besides the house building rate.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and sorry I missed the first minute of his speech. I warmly congratulate him on the point that he is making. I agree that what he describing is a false premise, in the same way that the targets themselves are based on a delusion. The delusion is that private developers would be prepared to collude with Government to drive down the price of their final products in order to deliver affordable homes. That clearly is not the case. The combination of these two things is working against what the Government are trying to achieve, which is to meet housing need.

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The system is working almost to the reverse of what was intended.

In my constituency of Horsham many people either work for London businesses or perhaps have traded down from a more expensive London property. From their point of view, Horsham represents excellent value. The official affordability ratio does not reflect real working conditions in Horsham for locals, and therefore overstates local targets.

Local councillors all strive to get the best for their communities, but the way we receive targets under the standard method destroys our negotiating position with developers. Developers are not stupid. They can work out as well as anyone else how many sites are needed to meet our targets. They have no need to concede on civil amenities or on affordable housing because they know that, at the end of the day, they have got the council over a barrel.

I have no issue with a private developer seeking to make a profit—what else do we expect them to do?—but do not rely on them to do social planning. In areas like Horsham, years of free market ideology have turned councils into mere editors of private developer proposals. We build on greenfield sites because they are the only ones that get presented. There is literally nothing else to choose from in Horsham. The free market approach to affordability does not work for the housing market. Competition has driven prices up, not down. In Horsham we would arguably be better off if we granted a monopoly to one single developer and let them push down local land prices.

To add insult to injury, we also have the standard method’s bullying friend, the housing delivery test. I am not sure whether there ever was a carrot in this process, but the HDT is definitely the stick. Failure to meet targets can ultimately result in losing local control over planning altogether. It is a Catch-22 situation: the developer controls the rate of delivery, but the council pays the price if targets slip. Heads they win, tails we lose.

In fact, the single biggest factor that influences prices has nothing to do with house building. It is availability of credit. If interest rates were to double tomorrow, the price of a mortgage would soar and we would see a house price crash, yet all that would happen without a single new home being built. A succession of policies under the Conservatives only served to make the problem worse, not better. Subsidies such as Help to Buy or stamp duty holidays simply inflated prices further, like a giant Ponzi scheme. The market adjusts, and the subsidy ends up in the pockets of developers until the next upward turn in the spiral.

Therefore, any analysis of UK house building must take into account the key role of finance. Since Thatcher, houses have come to be seen not simply as homes but as investments. In line with that, the explosion of the buy-to-let market in the 1990s correlates suspiciously closely with overall house price inflation. Older generations benefited from decades of property asset inflation, but today it is getting harder and harder to board that train. Putting all that together, it is clear that the standard method is getting its social sums all wrong.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He mentioned some of the incentives for first-time buyers. Through the stamp duty discounts, we saved the typical first-time buyer around £6,000 on their purchase, which helped about 640,000 young people get on to the housing market. Is he saying that he is not interested in that and that it was the wrong thing to do to help those first-time buyers on to the housing ladder?

[John Milne]

For the individuals who benefit, no one can argue with it. It is the same with the sale of a council house—if you are the family that gets it, it has clearly given you a massive uplift. What I am saying is that we have a national societal problem to solve in the housing market in general. We have a certain amount of money to put towards it. That was a subsidy. There are far better things to do with that subsidy that do not inflate prices further, as that simply eats up the subsidy.

As I was saying, putting all that together, it is clear that the standard method is getting its social sums wrong. The affordability ratio is actually a lousy proxy for actual housing need. What we need to do is factor a proper analysis of local housing conditions back into the system. That should include an assessment of local homelessness rates, the need for social housing, pensioner poverty and all the other factors that make communities tick. We also need to find a clear role for neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood plans started as a great way to bring local consent and local knowledge into housing, but from the day the standard method was introduced, they have been effectively overruled. In the latest planning reforms, they were completely marginalised and were not even mentioned.

How can we change the standard method to do the job it is supposed to do? I suggest at least two inputs: a local needs calculation, which focuses on helping local people into the homes they need, and a national needs top-up. Having a separate national needs figure will help us to focus on the delivery of new towns. When our housing needs are as great as they are, new towns are essential. In contrast, the standard method spreads targets indiscriminately across every area. It leads to endless incremental add-ons to existing settlements until they begin to lose their identity altogether. In rural areas such as mine, the standard method has an inherent tendency to create low-density suburbs. Not only do they tend to be more expensive houses, but they use two or three times as much land as they strictly need to.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this valuable debate. Does he agree that, as well as causing the issues he described, incremental building contributes to problems with the sewerage systems? If a developer builds 50 houses here, 50 houses there and 50 houses elsewhere, and each one is considered on its own merit, it does not warrant an upgrade to the sewerage systems, so the water companies do not upgrade, systems become overloaded and we start getting sewage in the water.

[John Milne]

Yes, it makes strategic planning very difficult. Provision of infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, is a major problem and not sufficiently built into the planning system to compensate for it. It is easier in urban centres where the infrastructure is already in place.

This is the reason we have contrived to have perhaps as many as 1.5 million unbuilt permissions nationally, at the same time as a national housing shortage. That is because too many of them are permissions for unaffordable and, therefore, unbuildable homes. There is a degree of land banking but, for the most part, developers build as fast as they can sell. If they are serving only the top end of the market, that will be slowly. As Oliver Letwin described in his excellent 2018 report, sadly unacted on by the Government of the day, we need far greater variety in housing type.

As much as 80% of housebuilding is aimed at the top 20% of the market. The fastest way to fix that is to build a guaranteed quota of social housing. My party is asking for 150,000 a year. I guarantee they would be snapped up like hot cakes, as fast as they could be built. There is a fundamental difference between permissions and actual, physical houses. If all we ever think about is permissions and alleged impediments to permissions, we will never get to grips with the problem. Wrong permissions do not increase supply, they suppress it. Wrong permissions bake high land prices into the system. Handing out more permissions like confetti simply chokes the system with unbuildable sites that will hang over the market for a generation. There are lots of ways the standard method could be reinvented, but any future form must empower local authorities to deliver social housing in significant numbers from day one. How we do that is up for grabs, but somehow it must be done.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I intend to give the lead Member two minutes at the end of the debate at 3.58 pm. I will call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats at 3.28 pm. I will not impose a formal speech limit for the time being. I hope there is time for everybody to come in.

14:47

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for bringing this timely debate for all of us to consider. Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should say that it is universally accepted that, irrespective of the Government in power, over the past 20-odd years hardly any housebuilding has happened. The last time there was a proper housebuilding programme in place was in the ’70s, ’60s and ’50s. I am going back in time, but it has not happened in a number of years. It does not matter which political party has been in charge.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way. By way of correction, during the period of our last 10 years in office, there was an average of 207,000 net new home additions every year, which was higher than in the 1970s.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I know, but that is still not a sufficient amount. Some of those houses did not come through. There was an amount of housing that needed to be done and was not done. It was done in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, which cannot be denied. We need to build more homes, including more affordable and social homes. This is an important debate because it asks Government and builders to look at how to assess local housing need.

In Bolton, more than 20,000 individuals are on the social housing waiting list. Families face an 18-month wait for a three-bedroom house, with 800 to 900 applicants for each available home. Many are referred to the private sector, where of course the rents are very high, increasing the financial strain on already struggling households.

The current methodology for assessing local housing need fails to capture the realities on the ground. It overlooks income disparities across our country, the availability of affordable housing and the specific needs of our communities. That disconnect results in inadequate housing provision, leaving many without suitable options. There are homes out there that could be used to reduce housing waiting lists, but they need substantial work to bring them up to standard.

In my constituency recently, I hosted a roundtable with housing providers as well as homelessness charities, and one of the things that they asked for was a ringfenced fund to help social housing providers to make their stock fit for purpose, release more housing and give more people the homes that they desperately need. In the private rented sector, what is called affordable housing is often not affordable, because many of my constituents are on the minimum wage or living wage and they are not able to afford homes that people in the south or in other parts of the country might think are reasonably affordable. They are not affordable for those living in Bolton and the surrounding areas, because “affordability” is based on market prices, not what people are earning locally. It is all about the central, national figure, whereas we should be looking at local wages and what is affordable to people there, as opposed to somebody in a more prosperous part of the country. Of course, the current system also allows landlords to charge higher rents and make profits because they are taking advantage of the fact that the need for homes is greater than the availability.

We have to understand that housing is not merely about shelter; it is about dignity, stability and opportunity. It is not a coincidence that often the people we find in the criminal justice system have come from an economically and socially deprived background, and housing is a big part of that. We saw during the covid time that in poorer areas, where many people live in one house, there was a higher rate of covid being spread among them as opposed to people who lived in large houses, where they could properly and safely quarantine themselves. In a lot of the smaller houses where many people were living, they were not able to do so.

There are a lot of reasons why a decent home is important for everyone. What I ask is that we all work collaboratively, and certainly I try hard to ensure that individuals and families in Bolton South and Walkden have access to safe, affordable and appropriate housing. I therefore welcome the Government’s plan to create 1.5 million homes. I wish them luck and hope they will be able to achieve that. It is a welcome—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton may laugh, but at least it is an initiative. It is a great initiative, a great thing to work towards, a great aim to have, because if we do get there, that should hopefully alleviate a lot of the challenges.

I wish the Government great luck on this and hope it will happen. In the meantime, could we have some additional funding, especially for social housing?

14:53

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Mrs Hobhouse, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair—I think, in my case, for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and bringing us together to discuss this important matter.

It is very good to see this Minister in his place. I thank him and his Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government colleagues for their engagement on these issues. I have been in this place on more than one occasion to talk about related issues, including about how national parks work relative to local authority planning areas. I am grateful to his colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning for also meeting me separately as well as corresponding. Today, I am going to talk not about those issues, but about the algorithm overall and how it works and, in particular, about the affordability ratio and how it works—or, more correctly, does not work.

We know that the Government are looking for a big uplift—a 50% increase—in the number of housing completions, but in areas such as mine in Horsham, the increase is much greater than that. In my local planning area the target is up from 575—already a pretty punchy annual target—to more than 1,100, which is effectively a doubling. It is not a north/south thing, it is a rural/urban thing. Rural areas throughout the country have some of the biggest increases, such as in the rural far north-west and far north-east. There have been really big increases in the target, and at the same time major conurbations are seeing much lower increases in their numbers—typically 16% or 17%. Some places, including parts of London and Birmingham, are actually seeing the numbers go down at a time when we are trying to build many more homes. Sometimes it is thought that this is correcting a historical imbalance—that homes have not been built in the countryside for all these years—but that is not the case. Proportionately over the last couple of decades, in the rate of additions of homes per 1,000 existing dwellings, the predominantly rural areas have seen a greater build-out rate than predominantly urban areas.

I do understand that the Government need a formula—the 0.8% of housing stock multiplied by the five-year average affordability ratio, minus five, divided by five, multiplied by 0.95, plus one. It looks okay. Trust me: it looks logical if we break it down, but the truth is that in practice, it is not working. It is not delivering what all of us want to see, or what the Government want to see, which is a material, sustainable increase in housing stock in the places where people need it.

The affordability formula matters so much more now because of that 0.95. It used to be 0.6, but since it has gone up, it has made the affordability ratio do that much more work. There are multiple aspects to query, such as whether to use workplace-based earnings or residency-based earnings. I think both of those things are relevant, and a comprehensive formula would probably use both. Whether earnings or income is used makes a difference, because it means capturing only the working population or the retired population as well. Crucially, the formula lumps all types of housing together, so it does not distinguish between the cost of a starter home and a two-bedroom flat, a one-bedroom flat or a three-bedroom house in these different places.

Echoing what we heard from the hon. Member for Horsham, I have lots of people coming to my surgery who are unable to afford a home; probably everybody in this room has lots of people coming to their surgery in the same position. Some of those people are looking for social housing and there is a shortage of that, but when most people come to our surgeries and talk about the unaffordability of homes, they mean the affordability of a home they can buy—a decision that, I am guessing, most of us made at some point in our 30s or 40s. However, many more homes get built every year and I still get the same number of people coming to my surgery saying that they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder.

We want there to be more affordable homes in both senses, both the public sector sense, in what I call “capital A” affordable—social rent, part-ownership and all that—and for young couples and young families to be able to buy a home and invest in their security and that of their children. But the problem is that, other things being equal, the best returns for developers are on larger, five-bedroom or four-bedroom executive homes in large plots of land outside of town centres, which are very aspirational homes for people to buy. Although there is nothing wrong with that, it does not address the needs of the people coming to our surgeries saying that they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder. Therefore, because we have high unaffordability ratios, we get lots more houses being built but they tend to be five-bedroom, four-bedroom executive homes disproportionately. That makes the area even more unaffordable on average, because the average price of a new build house is greater than the median price of the existing housing stock, so over time the formula ratchets up the price. It just says, “However many more homes you build, you will need to build more and more.” Honestly—there is no mathematical logic to it. We should be trying to address the actual need.

I ask Ministers to look again at the formula, not to get rid of it but to change it. Development targets must be sustainable and reasonable in different areas of the country, and crucially they must target the addition of homes that people can afford to buy, so that over time affordability ratios improve.

14:59

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing the debate. I intend to keep my remarks relatively short. I want to make it clear from the outset that I am speaking not to score political points or to point a finger, but to share my experience, which I hope will be useful.

I recognise the immense challenges that local authorities, such as mine in Harlow, face. Only yesterday, housing officers, led by the wonderful Cara Stephens, supported a number of families forced to leave their homes because of fire safety concerns. The challenge is partly caused by a lack of social housing.

Before I came to this place, as well as being a local councillor, I spent two years working for a homeless charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes, so I saw the challenge from both sides. Like the hon. Member for Horsham, I saw the reliance on the private rented sector. I have raised this issue a number of times, not because I think the previous Government had any malicious intent—absolutely not—but because when they raised the housing allowance of universal credit, it led to the private sector in Harlow raising rents, which ultimately meant that the state spent more money on benefits and it just went into landlords’ pockets. I ask the Minister to consider that point.

Streets2Homes had the resource to do what local authorities often cannot: sit down with those making homeless applications and really get to the root of the problem. Clients often said to me that during the process of applying for council housing, they felt dehumanised. The lack of council housing meant that it often became a tick-box exercise for housing officers. I recognise why that is the case, but for the person applying for housing—if they face homelessness, they may be suffering a huge amount of anxiety and mental health issues—it was not suitable.

On the substantive point that the hon. Member for Horsham made about housing need and local allocation, there is cross-party agreement about the need to build council and social housing in Harlow, although there is a limit to the amount of housing we can provide. I often say that Harlow is a very small district, and it is very much built up to its borders, so would the Minister comment on how local government reorganisation will potentially impact that? I have regular conversations with the Conservative leader of Harlow council, and we both agree that we need to build housing, but Harlow is limited in where it can be.

The new standard method includes consideration of the affordability ratio and average wages. I enjoyed the maths equation from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—as he knows, maths is one of my favourite things to talk about. Will the Minister touch on how the method will help constituencies such as mine?

I am concerned that the increase in the cost of private sector renting means that more and more people are reliant on social housing, so there is even greater need. I did not agree with the local authority’s decision to remove band 4. In Harlow, when there is an application for a council house or a homeless application, there are four bands: 1 to 4. The administration decided to remove band 4, which I opposed, mainly because I think it just pretends that the issue does not exist. There is a need for social housing, given the increase in the cost of the private rented sector.

Permitted development, which was a quick fix by the previous Government, has had a huge impact in Harlow. I echo the points that the hon. Member for Horsham made about housing conditions. He is right to champion new towns. Harlow is a fantastic new town—I am obviously proud to represent it, and I am proud of its sense of community—but one of the issues that new towns face is that things were built at the same time, so the houses need repair and wear out, almost, at the same time. I will never again defend anything that Margaret Thatcher did, but one thing I will say about the right to buy is that it allows housing stock to go into private ownership, so that repair is not then an issue for the council. However, my issue with right to buy is that it did not replace the stock and led in part to the issue we have now.

The other issue that Harlow faces—I am just throwing them all at the Minister now—is land banking. I take the hon. Member’s point about there not necessarily being a desire to land bank, although I think there is an element of that in Harlow. Finally—I said I would not speak for very long and I have managed six minutes, so apologies for that, Mrs Hobhouse—the housing crisis is without doubt one of the biggest crises this country faces. I absolutely welcome the Government’s attempt to tackle it, and I will do everything I can to support them to do so, because I have seen at first hand the impact that a lack of housing has on my community.

15:06

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate.

In West Dorset we face growing housing challenges. Young families are struggling to find homes in villages where they were raised, key workers cannot afford to live close to their jobs, and older residents wanting to downsize find too few suitable options. We need more homes, but they must be affordable, well designed and rooted in the needs of the people who live in them. For the record, our landscape is—in my totally unbiased opinion—the most beautiful in the country, with over 70% of West Dorset falling within the protected national landscape, or area of outstanding natural beauty, as it was formerly known. It is a landscape at the heart of our £320 million tourism economy. Housing policy must reflect the balance we need to strike between delivering homes for our residents and protecting the places that define our communities.

Building more homes must not mean building the wrong homes in the wrong places. The standard method for assessing local housing need currently fails to reflect the complex reality of rural communities such as West Dorset. Rigid housing targets, imposed without flexibility or enough local insight, risk forcing inappropriate developments on these precious areas, undermining the very qualities that sustain our economy and our environment. We need a system that empowers local authorities to deliver the right homes in the right places and with the right infrastructure.

In West Dorset, 78% of homes are under-occupied, with nearly 46% having two or more surplus bedrooms. It is not a crisis of space; it is a crisis of sustainability. Nearly half our population is over 55, and many older residents are living in homes that are simply too large for their needs and are unable to downsize while staying in the communities that they love, while young families are priced out of moving in, or moving back to the communities where they grew up.

It is not just about numbers; every home must come with the infrastructure it needs. Too often, developments in our area go ahead without the GPs, schools, dentists and roads needed to support them, let alone the sewerage system. In West Dorset, our sewerage infrastructure is outdated and overwhelmed. Last year alone, we saw 4,200 sewage spills. It is an environmental and public health disgrace, yet water companies are still not statutory consultees when housing need is assessed or developments are approved. This must change. If the Government are serious about protecting our environment while building new homes, they must require water companies to be involved from the outset, to ensure that the infrastructure can cope and that new homes do not just add to an already failing system.

In constituencies such as mine, many homes sit empty for most of the year, driving up prices and hollowing out our towns and villages. We must give councils the tools to tackle this through planning powers and council tax premiums, and by properly assessing the impact of holiday lets and second homes when calculating housing need. The Liberal Democrats believe that this should be a local authority-driven process. Councils know their areas best. They should have the powers to set planning fees, buy land at fair prices and shape the future of their communities. Development should be community led, not developer led.

If the Government want to build 1.5 million homes, which are sorely needed, then we must reform the standard method so that it reflects reality. Let us give local councils the tools and flexibility to deliver the homes and residents they need in ways that infrastructure and environment can support, as well as taking occupancy rates into account, in order to identify the needs of people to downsize and stay in their communities, and also make water companies statutory consultees, because we cannot build a sustainable future on crumbling foundations. West Dorset does not need imposed numbers. It needs good, affordable homes that work for local people, protect the land and restore trust in the system.

15:10

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for setting the scene so well. I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Jim Shannon]

It is good that we understand the importance of these issues. The Minister is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and as he engages with relevant Ministers there, as he always does, he will be asking these questions and talking about the matter. I look forward to his response.

The hon. Member for Horsham set the scene well. I am flabbergasted to hear from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) that the water companies do not play a role in planning. In Northern Ireland, there cannot be any planning application without contacting Northern Ireland Water. It is important to have the input of a major facility that looks after sewerage and storm water and that will set out the systems for any development. I understand the Liberal Democrats will possibly table an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on that and it would be great if Government accepted it. That would be the easy way of doing it. I am sure when they listen hard to what others say, they will understand that is the way forward.

I have heard the comments made by the hon. Member for Horsham on the issues surrounding local house prices and the comparison to the cost of living and people’s wages. In my constituency of Strangford, and specifically within the Ards and the North Down borough, new house builds are more expensive than current housing stock, causing higher targets to be set and ultimately limiting affordability for people to buy. The University of Ulster has stated that the average house price in Ards, Strangford and North Down as of 2022 was £221,000. The Northern Ireland average was £200,000, so we are already above the norm in my constituency. That was three years ago, so it will be even higher now.

The banks of mum and dad and of grandpa and grandma are so important to many young people. I am not better than anyone else and never profess to be, but we will help our children achieve their home goals. Where there is the ability to do so, it is important to do it and help them get on the first rung on the ladder. The thing is that not everybody can do that, and that is why it is important that Government have an input into the process.

In late May 2024, it was announced that 100,000 private and social homes would need to be built over the next 15 years, so by 2039. One third of those, about 33,000, will be social homes. It is so important to have social homes in place and to have availability of social housing stock for those who cannot buy their homes and get on the first rung of the ladder. To look realistically at waiting lists, nearly 48,000 households are on the waiting list for a social home and about 36,000 of those are in housing stress, meaning that they are in priority need. In the social sector there is a huge need for additional homes and there is clearly a disjoint between the need for homes and the allocation by which people can get one.

One of the biggest issues I had as a councillor back when I was first elected in 1985 was housing. Housing matters took priority. It is probably more about benefits now than it is about housing, but at that time it made me very aware of the need for those who wished to have social housing. Again, I am not better than anyone else but I have always pushed for extra social housing in my constituency. We will have a fairly major development in the Castlebawn site in Newtownards, which is a brown site that will have about 120 social housing units of all sorts—for disabled people, families and elderly people, and there will some flats in there as well. It will be a mix of all that is needed in the Ards area. It will only scrape at the surface, as we need many more.

I have been proactive in ensuring that social housing units become the norm. Yet it seems we see the housing reality focused on new developments that range between £200,000 and £250,000 to purchase, which is not within everybody’s pocket. For the majority, it is simply not doable. That is not to mention the need for social housing accommodation due to the extortion that is the private rental sector. Again, remembering that the wages in Northern Ireland are lower than they are on the mainland, rental accommodation in Newtownards is between £750 and £1,000 a month for a two-bed property. In many cases it is completely out of touch with the issues that need to be dealt with.

I will conclude, Mrs Hobhouse, as I know others wish to speak. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for raising these issues. They are applicable to all our constituents across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in one way or another. There is hope that over time we can do better to look at the issues on the ground as opposed to the overall targets in figures.

I wish the Government well; it is churlish of anybody not to wish the Government well with the 1.5 million or 1.4 million new houses that they wish to build. It helps the economy and provides housing opportunities for those who can purchase them and for those in need of social housing. At the same time, more must be done in engagement with the devolved Administrations to tackle the issues. I am very keen to see the Minister engage with and speak to those in the Northern Ireland Assembly, in particular to the Minister responsible, to see how we can learn from each other. These great nations can learn from each other: the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and English. We are better together. The Scots Nats are here together, so they cannot object to that. We can learn from each other and do better as a result.

15:15

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, for the first time, I think. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this vital debate. My constituency of Chichester has been grappling with serious housing challenges, which have been continually worsened by a deeply flawed planning process. The demand for social housing vastly outstrips supply. Private rentals are prohibitively expensive, and sky-rocketing house prices have made home ownership increasingly out of reach for those who have grown up in my constituency.

Housing developments should enhance our communities, delivering affordable, sustainable homes alongside essential infrastructure, but the current approach does the opposite. The standard method for assessing housing need imposes arbitrary national targets on local authorities, which ignore the specific needs and constraints of each area. It fails to deliver genuinely affordable homes and does little to reflect local demand or geography. As my hon. Friend highlighted, the standard method fails to address above-inflation house price rises. Our average house price in Chichester, according to the Office for National Statistics, is £454,000. In just one year, to February 2025, the price of a semi-detached house in Chichester rose by 8.1%, yet Chichester has seen huge-scale development in recent years. Meanwhile, the average salary in my constituency is under £30,000, which is below the UK median.

When new homes are delivered, they often enter the market at prices higher than the local median, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. That artificially inflates the affordability ratio, which then increases future housing targets, creating a vicious cycle that drives prices even further out of reach. It does nothing to address the real challenges that my constituents face in getting on the housing ladder. Instead, it leaves new developments affordable only to those who are moving into the area, not those already living there. At the same time, councils face an uphill battle in trying to ensure that developments, required by the same standard method, include adequate levels of social and affordable housing.

At present, we have over 2,000 families on the wait list for social homes in Chichester. Any development of 11 homes or more is expected to provide at least 10% as affordable housing. Both Chichester and Arun district councils, which sit within my constituency, request 30% social and affordable housing in their local plans to address some of the unmet need locally, but those targets are continuously undermined by viability assessments submitted by the developers, because of the high land prices in our constituency.

A recent example is a 2,200 home development to the west of Bersted, approved by Arun district council on the basis that it was included in the Conservative local plan from 2022. There is strong opposition in the community to the proposal, not only because those homes will add to the strain on local infrastructure, but because only 10% of those homes will be “affordable”. The very definition of affordable is fundamentally flawed when even 80% of unaffordable is still unaffordable for so many people. The developer claimed that a higher proportion of social and affordable homes on the site would have made the project commercially unviable, so the council was left with no power to enforce its requested levels of social and affordable houses.

That is why I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, calling on the Government to adopt a separate social housing target. I am sure that would be welcomed by local authorities up and down the UK, because they are best placed to know what their communities need, not the developers that are trying to build in them.

The standard method also fundamentally fails to consider any geographical constraints, which ties the hands of councils during land allocation. In my area, 70% of Chichester district is covered by national park, with an additional 5% designated as national landscape at Chichester harbour. That means that our ambitious housing target, which has doubled under the Labour Government, must be met within just 25% of available land, yet the housing target remains unadjusted.

We need a method for assessing local housing that actually works for communities—one that recognises local constraints, delivers genuinely affordable housing, protects the national landscape and ensures that every development contributes positively to the places that we call home. This will not change until the top-down approach of the standard method for assessing local housing need is reformed to genuinely reflect community need, and until local authorities are given the power to challenge and regulate developers effectively. I beg the Minister to look again at the standard method so that we can truly address the local housing need for areas such as mine in Chichester.

15:21

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) not only on securing the debate, but on the very erudite manner in which he took us through the issues and correctly analysed the weaknesses of the system. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I note that, before her, the omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the importance of seeing this across the piece—not only in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland—but he forgot to mention Cornwall. Well, I will forgive him for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham recognised the need for a needs assessment, as it is an essential building block to resolving the issues. It is the methodology currently used that is both flawed and inevitably inaccurate, and sometimes leads the process in the wrong direction. I do not think it is ill-conceived in itself; rather, the interrelationship between that and the target-setting process is flawed. The target-setting process ends up with house building targets—we have housing need and then we have the house building targets.

If we were to set targets to reduce need—rather than for developers’ greed, if one were to put it in pejorative terms—we would approach the matter in an entirely different way. Let us take Cornwall—I know it well and I live there. I have also worked there as a professional in the sector as a chief executive of a housing charity delivering affordable homes—during my nine-year sabbatical from this place—so I know how this market works. Over the last 60 years, the housing stock in Cornwall has almost trebled—it is one of the fastest-growing places in the United Kingdom—yet the housing problems of local people have got worse. We cannot necessarily deduce from that fact that building homes is therefore harmful to meeting local housing need; however, the build targets are not in themselves the answer. The answer ought to be setting targets to reduce need, and that can be done if one has a robust method to do it. Not only would that be better for planners, councillors and others who want to meet the local need in their communities, but it means that when applicants come forward with their planning applications, they would have to demonstrate not how many homes they can build towards a target, but how much need they can address by delivering their projects. Although the Government’s aims and policies are laudable, they need to look at the dynamics of how need and their build targets interrelate with each other.

In my intervention, I referred to the delusion—it is a belief adopted by successive Governments of all parties, including, I am sorry to say, our own—that developers will somehow collude with the Government to drive down the price of their final product. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to the unviability of schemes that cannot be delivered with enough affordable homes, but that is only because of the way in which the methodology is used to permit those developments to go ahead in the first place. Once planning permission is granted, not only does the setting of high targets often create hope value on every piece of land around every community—which starts to make them unaffordable before the planning process has even started—but once the planning process is established, the value of the land becomes so great that the scheme becomes unviable for delivering affordable homes. The whole system is built to fail.

I am afraid to say that we need to look at the methodology for delivery—that is, the building of a new lower rung on the affordable housing ladder of “in perpetuity” intermediate market homes, which needs to have a life of its own. We need to address the problems that a lot of social housing providers have in delivering homes, which is that they are prevented from delivering homes in low house price value areas, and low-income areas, because of the cost-to-value ratio. A lot of people probably do not understand that the places that need the homes most, where the incomes are lowest, are the most difficult to deliver on because of the cost-to-value ratio, which has to apply before providers can go forward with their schemes.

There is a whole set of other methods that could be used to address the issue, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham on what he has achieved. I hope the Government are listening, because this is a constructive debate. We are not attacking the Government, but urging them to adjust their approach in order to achieve the outcomes we all want to see.

15:27

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this debate, and hon. Members from across the House on their excellent contributions. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am still a sitting councillor at Teignbridge district council.

The Liberal Democrats support housing targets, but believe we need to win the case for that housing within the communities we represent, and that enforcing them from Whitehall without community consent will continue to fail to deliver the homes we need. Homes must be built to meet local need and not be driven simply by developers seeking the highest profits. Development has brilliant potential for providing a wealth of opportunities to rural communities, but that can be realised only by genuinely involving those communities in the decisions that affect them. That means the right houses in the right places.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to make housing a priority, given the desperate number of people denied the basic right to a safe and warm home. The Conservatives’ poor commitment to house building has left 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need. The Conservatives let developers get away with building housing to poor standards, and without GP practices, schools and community infrastructure, which are badly needed. They also let them off the hook for leaving land for housing unbuilt and new homes empty. We believe everyone has a right to a safe and secure home, but without more support for councils, more people will be left without access to quality and affordable housing. The previous Conservative Government forced councils to do more and more with less and less, plunging many into financial crisis.

Although we have welcomed this Government’s commitment to our call for multi-year funding settlements, with additional pressure on councils to accept national insurance contribution changes, it is essential that they are funded robustly to achieve those aims.

We have been disappointed by the Government’s reluctance to commit to a target for social house building. In addition to an overall target for new homes, the Liberal Democrats would target 150,000 new social homes to tackle the housing shortage and homelessness crisis. We are committed to ensuring that house building does not come at the expense of our environment. The Government should not be either delivering house building or protecting our environment; they can and must do both.

We welcomed the Government’s recent announcement that they are adopting the Liberal Democrat policy and wording mandating all homes to be built with solar panels, in a solar rooftop revolution. We also welcome the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill to ban no-fault evictions and create a national register of licensed landlords. We believe that these steps are crucial to overcoming the housing crisis. Liberal Democrats have long called for leasehold reform to make house ownership fairer and more accessible—we have been campaigning against leasehold since Lloyd George introduced the people’s Budget.

On the specifics of the standard method, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, who pointed out that it does not and cannot work—as did the right hon. Member for, I believe, the Isle of Wight.

[Damian Hinds]

Well, I have been there, but I represent East Hampshire.

[Martin Wrigley]

My apologies to the right hon. Member.

Since 2018, when the Conservative Government introduced the so-called standard method, which was supposed to calculate housing need, the country has suffered from a top-down, dysfunctional system that fails to prioritise the importance of affordability or the infrastructure necessary to support new development. The constant tinkering, with the introduction and subsequent withdrawal of various failed algorithms, has led to the near paralysis of our planning system. That came on top of the central Government’s starving local planning authorities of the resources they need to function, and the lack of direction as a result of no fewer than 13 changes of Conservative Housing Minister in the nine years from 2015.

It is illiberal, and contrary to the interests of a community-led planning system, to remove options for how to assess housing need from local communities. Although the standard method of assessing housing need is likely to be followed by most authorities, councils with the resources and ability to assess housing need in ways more suited to their areas should be permitted to do so. All housing need assessments are, in any event, subject to the same scrutiny by the Government’s inspectors.

In the district of Teignbridge, in which my Newton Abbot constituency sits, the average house price in 2019 was just under 11 times the average income. After a substantial increase in housing targets due to the standard method calculations, that ratio is going up, and the average house price is now over 11 times the average income. Housing developers build homes only as fast as they can sell them and at the price they need to protect their profit and viability, given the often extortionate prices they have paid for the land. Asking them, via the flawed standard method, to build more to reduce the price is much like asking the owner of a gold mine to increase extraction to a level that reduces the price of gold. It will not happen.

A big part of the solution is to build more council homes, and I am proud to have overseen the resumption of council house building at Teignbridge for the first time in 30 years. I urge the Government to help more councils build more council homes to help more people.

15:33

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and congratulate him on securing this important debate.

I am afraid this is just another example of the two-tier society that this Government are presiding over. We have had two-tier taxes and two-tier justice and now we have two-tier targets. That is the reality, and it militates against the basic British principle of fairness. I will go through the numbers in a second, but Labour’s own council leaders have called the Minister’s targets unrealistic and impossible to achieve. The leader of West Lancashire council used exactly those words: “impossible and unrealistic”. The targets are unachievable.

I am in no way, shape or form a nimby. Unlike 15 of the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, I have never objected to any developments in my constituency as a Member of Parliament or as a member of the public. I am absolutely on the side of young people who want to get on the housing ladder and those on lower incomes seeking affordable homes. The only way to deliver that is to deliver more homes. I am not against the Minister’s 1.5 million target, but it will be very challenging. We should look at the data: over the last 10 years we were in office, average net housing additions were 207,000 a year. That was the highest level for 50 years—even higher than in the 1970s, because we were knocking down an awful lot of houses back then.

The targets have been driven by the change from assessment of housing formations to a measure of stock already delivered in an area, with a multiplier on top for affordability, but they are totally unfair. London has seen an 11% decrease in its target, Leicester a 32% decrease and Birmingham a 38% decrease. Coventry has seen a 55% decrease in its housing target, yet the neighbouring authority of North Warwickshire has had a 123% increase. That is despite the fact that North Warwickshire, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said of his authority, has over-delivered on its housing targets. Nuneaton, another bordering authority that is over-delivering, has had a 75% increase in its housing target compared with Coventry.

I am trying not to be too parochial but in my neck of the woods, York, which has been under-delivering massively against its housing target for years and years, and had not had a local plan since 1956—it has just got one in place, thank God—has seen a 19% increase, yet neighbouring North Yorkshire, which is my local authority, has had a 199% increase, despite significant over-delivery.

Of Members who have spoken in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has had a 100% increase in his area; the hon. Member for Horsham a 48% increase; the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) a 63% increase; the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) a 72% increase; and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) a 66% increase. I like the Minister and we get on very well, but his authority in Nottingham has had a 32% decrease. How can that be fair? It is against the basic principle of fairness. Yes, there is a 50% increase in delivery across the board, but why have some targets been decreased and others massively increased? That is simply unfair.

Those are not anecdotal cases. Based on information from the House of Commons Library, across the board, mainly rural areas are seeing an average 71% increase and urban areas an average 15.6% increase. On top of that there is the duty to co-operate and strategic planning, which is likely to see even more houses going into rural areas. There is no justification for that unfairness. It also sits against the principle that the Government say they adopt, as we did, of a brownfield-first approach.

Brownfield development is the least controversial approach, and it is what we would all like to see, but it is complex and costly, particularly in a world of increased costs of delivery. Over the past few years, developers have seen a 40% increase in costs of building. On top of that is the building safety levy, the Building Safety Regulator, biodiversity net gain, the future homes standard, section 106, the community infrastructure levy and the remediation of brownfield sites. Those things, and the Government’s policy on grey belt, will mean that more and more development will be pushed from urban areas into greenfield and green belt.

What the Government are doing with the national planning policy framework cannot be divorced from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Trojan horse that they called grey belt. What they sold to the public as being a few former garage forecourts or wasteland is far from that. It is greenfield and green belt. The Minister cannot shake his head. There used to be protections between villages to stop them merging, and they have gone. There used to be protections to stop villages merging into towns, and they have gone. This is not about grey belt; it is a fundamental change to green belt.

Of course, this is not about targets. It would be pointless to have this debate and just talk about targets—we have to talk about delivery. The 1.5 million homes are a huge ask. The reality is that to hit that target for England, for the rest of this Parliament, delivery will need to hit not 207,000 a year, which we averaged, but 375,000 a year. That is a 180% increase—a doubling.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Mrs Hobhouse, on your chairmanship and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate, which has been well-mannered and thoughtful on all sides. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is giving a fighting and boisterous speech, but I remind him that we both stood on manifestos that contained numbers of new homes that we would build. In fact, his party’s number was bigger than the Government’s: it was 1.6 million. If we are going to talk about facts and how we deliver these things, let us talk about sense and pragmatism, and not rhetoric, because, unfortunately, what he is saying now is not what he said at the election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Good for the hon. Gentleman for reading our manifesto—not enough people did, I am afraid. He is right: we did set a more ambitious target, which I am not against. As I said right at the start, I am in no shape or form a nimby. However, I am for honesty and fairness. The point is that the housing targets have been moved away from certain types of area where people tend to move. They tend to move from rural to urban to take their first job or start their first business, as I did, but the targets are going from urban to rural.

The Minister faces many challenges alongside the huge number he has set himself. The Office for Budget Responsibility and Homes England have said that the number targeted is impossible. Let us see. I wish him well for delivery, although not on the skewed figures that we have discussed today. There are real challenges here, as the Minister knows: things such as the Building Safety Regulator; the skills issue; small and medium-sized enterprises, which build a far smaller proportion of homes than they used to; and making sure that we get first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.

We have tabled a number of amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will solve all these problems, and I very much hope that the Minister will look at them. One of them proposes no solar on any best and most versatile land. I am sure that the Minister will look at that, because it would potentially leave space for more British farmland to produce fantastic food. We have also tabled amendments on protected landscapes—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has a significant section of protected landscape in his patch, which is bound to constrain supply, but no recognition has been made of that—and on ensuring that there is no plus or minus beyond 20% in any of these targets, which would be fairer. We will also seek to amend the national scheme of delegation, which disgracefully removes votes from councillors, and restore the protections for the green belt. As some in this excellent debate have said, we need a better mix that is more suited to demand in local areas.

I very much hope that the Minister will support those amendments, but, because I feel that he will not, I will make one plea to him: please, look at the Building Safety Regulator. There is a queue of 18,000 homes with planning consent that are waiting six months or more for an answer from the Building Safety Regulator. That is a huge bottleneck in supply. I hope that the Minister will at least touch on that point.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I know that the Minister has quite a lot of time, but I ask him to leave two minutes for the Member in charge to wind up.

15:44

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

Thank you for that clear direction, Mrs Hobhouse; it is very helpful.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate and on his leadership. He clearly articulated his concerns on the revised standard method for assessing local housing need. He set us off on a good course: this has been a very strategic debate, which is not always the case with debates about housing. I have a disclaimer that I and colleagues in the Department always read out at this point about our inability to comment on individual matters or individual local plans, but colleagues have not tempted us in that direction. That is very important, and it set the tone for an excellent debate. I will cover many of the points that the hon. Member and others made in the course of the conversation.

The debate has been relatively non-partisan. I think the shadow Secretary of State slightly missed the memo, but I like him as much as he likes me, and I know he does not mean it and that his instinct is always to work constructively. I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will want to do so. At this very minute, colleagues from all parties are upstairs discussing in great detail the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide us with a vehicle for many important changes. Clearly, there will be lots of debates to come on very important amendments.

Multiple members have said that we are in the middle of a really acute housing crisis. I get out of bed every day, as do my colleagues, because 160,000 children live in temporary accommodation. As mentioned by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), that is the tip of the iceberg of the multiple millions who are under-housed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, their housing and under-housing has profound impacts on their opportunities and life chances. That has been in the spirit of this debate. We made that signature commitment at the election to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament exactly for those people, because they need decent housing to build decent lives and decent communities.

Home ownership is out of reach for too many. Too few homes have been built, and too few are genuinely affordable. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the bank of mum and dad—that ever-present and indeed growing feature that now seems inevitable for people of my generation or those who are perhaps are a bit younger, but was not a feature of my mother’s generation. That is such an important issue of social justice. We must build more homes, and they must be in places where people want to live and work. The planning system has to underpin that, but as the hon. Member for Horsham said, the history of that is chequered. Indeed, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we have all had our stake in that. I certainly approach this in the spirit of humility. We want to get this right.

I will now turn to the work of the previous Government. We must have a method that is clear and transparent. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about what it looks like in detail. At least it is there in detail for people to say, “I don’t like this element of it. I think this is weighted wrongly”. It is clear, it is transparent, it is there, and it produces the numbers. That is the basis for plan-making. I do not want to make a political point out of this, because the right hon. Gentleman is proud of the previous Government’s record on housing, but we have had a little test of the alternative in the final year of the last Parliament, and there was a sense that targets were out the window. I do not think that was a very effective decision, and the impact on housing starts is a matter of public record.

I do not think we have heard much of an argument for not having a method at all, but without one, the situation tends towards stasis. That is why last December, following consultation, we implemented a revised method that is aligned with our ambition of a million and a half new homes over this Parliament. There is one point that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Horsham about, although I appreciate that it may well be a separate debate: I do not think we can decouple the national target and the local target. If the local target does not meet the national target or the national target does not tally with the local target, there will be disconnect and frustration.

This target and this method point us towards 370,000 homes. The formula incorporates a baseline of local housing stock and is adjusted upwards to reflect affordability pressures. Areas where unaffordability is most acute see the largest adjustment. We think that supply is an issue here alongside demand—I disagree slightly with a couple of colleagues on that point. However, I think it is really important for those watching to hear this stated from the Front Bench: this method does not exist in a vacuum. It is the underpinning of the development of local plans, which have been and will be the cornerstone of our planning system. The plans take into account all the development needs of a local area, including affordable housing.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) about the challenges facing her local authority in ensuring that its plan holds, but the fact that it has that 30% target is a sign that local authorities can put on record the nature of housing that they want in their communities. Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives, if it is an arm wrestle with developers, it has that guiding document at least to halt it, because we know that the alternative is a lack of planning that exposes communities. They make up the bedrock, and we want all communities to have one. York is always a prime example—I am overjoyed that York has got to that point after more than six decades. That community is better protected in terms of development, and it will also deliver more effective development. It is a win for all.

I cannot concede the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham that councillors do not know enough; I think that they do. There is a point about local authority resourcing and planning, and we made that commitment at the previous Budget. We want councillors to have the skills to feel empowered, but crucially, as the hon. Gentleman said, local communities also need to feel empowered. I cannot agree that housing and development is not an election issue; I think that it is. The 1.5 million homes target was very much a feature of what we said at the general election. I want to empower local authorities and people to have their say on plans, because they are a bedrock. If they want development that is sustainable, of the right type and in the right place, perhaps on brownfield sites, the local plan is the route to that. It means engaging with it in a way that goes beyond the questions of, “Should there be development? Is our development target too high?” We need to get to, “Where is it going to happen? What type does it need to be?” That is, I believe, the way to deliver the development that they want.

A number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), have mentioned local circumstances. Indeed, last week, he and I were talking about West Dorset in the context of having the right parking in the right places. Things like that are facilitators and enablers of place. The standard method is a starting point to inform the preparation of local plans. Once local need has been assessed, authorities can establish the number of new homes that are to be provided in the area. That takes into account evidence showing what land is available and any constraints on development—for example, those relating to national landscapes, areas at risk of flooding and other relevant matters.

That approach recognises that some areas—as, I think, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said—will not be able to deliver the figure provided by the standard method. If they can justify that fully in their local plan during examination by an independent inspector, they can make that case. However, of course, they must only adopt a plan that is legally compliant and sound. It must be consistent with national policy, supported by evidence, and we want the views of local people to be taken into account.

A point was also made about brownfield sites. We want local authorities to make sure that they maximise those sites, and I think local authorities want to do that too. We also want them to be sensible about where they review green-belt land. I think there are different types of land within the green belt. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire characterised it as a Trojan horse; that is not our intent. Who is best placed to make that assessment? It is, of course, the local authorities, by leaning into it. The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point, as did the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, about whether it is a question of urban versus rural. I do not think that that is the case. Hon. Members will see in our approach to growth in city regions the importance of those regions to the economy; they are places where people want to live, or where people cannot currently access housing.

As the Minister for town centres, I can say that we are enthusiastic in the Department about communities taking control of their town centres, notwithstanding challenges about permitting development. In future, town centres will not be purely retail; the mix will be retail, leisure and, of course, there will also be a need for accommodation. That mix should be locally owned. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned new towns. It will not be a case of: is it urban, rural or new town? It is going to be everywhere; the mix will be a bit of everything. Similarly, it will involve big builders and SMEs. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton shares my enthusiasm for getting SMEs building. It is going to be the entire mix.

I am conscious of time, but I want to address the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about water and local housing. Of course, water is important. National policy is clear that housing must have water infrastructure. There are clear expectations that local authorities should work with each other and the infrastructure providers to ensure that housing has that infrastructure. I think that, in general, they are doing that and ensuring that the water supply is sustainable. The companies have a statutory duty to provide new water and sewerage connections. I appreciate that the subject needs to be seen in the round, but that goes back to the need to have an effective, comprehensive local plan, which local authorities can use as their guiding document. They can then say to the water companies, “We do not want you to look at 50 houses at a time; we want you to see it in the round.” That is the sort of leadership that we want.

There are larger issues that colleagues have raised frequently. I would be stretching the scope of this debate if I talked about the behaviour of those who manage water, but we could have a whole new debate on it. Of course, there is an independent review ongoing on the regulation of the water sector for the UK and Welsh Governments. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford, as I often do, that we are very active in talking to the Northern Ireland Executive on a variety of issues, particularly on building safety. I always talk to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about their approaches.

On strategic planning, this is a chance to have a higher level but still localised view of the best sites, working and collaborating with local planning authorities. That is an exciting innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) asked how that will butt up against local government reorganisation. Of course, those partners will be part of that, but there will still be a local planning authority so that people can submit their views on a local plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, the hon. Members for Chichester and for Horsham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about affordable and social housing. There can be no doubt about the commitment of this Government and the Deputy Prime Minister to social housing, genuinely affordable homes and homes for social rent. We have already put our money where our mouth is by committing £800 million in-year for the affordable homes programme, and a further £2 billion injection at the 2025 spring statement. Alongside that, there are new flexibilities for councils and housing associations within the AHP and in how they use right to buy.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I commend the Government on their work to change the local connection rules to ensure that veterans can access social housing. In our region, the local authority has come in off the back of that and given veterans the highest priority banding for social housing. Will the Minister take a moment to commend our local council for that reform, which comes off the back of the work that the Government are doing?

[Alex Norris]

That excellent innovation by the local authority reflects one of the needs that the public want to see met.

In my final minute, I want to address the point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made about the Building Safety Regulator. It is right that we have a regulatory framework in place; we have seen the consequence of not having one. It has to protect people but also enable building. There is a moral imperative to ensuring that people are safe in their homes, but also to ensuring that people have homes. The BSR is a relatively new regulator—it has only been in place for a couple of years—and obviously the Building Safety Act 2022 is a relatively new part of the scene.

We are working very closely with the BSR to ensure that its operational processes are as effective as possible. Where that is a challenge, we have made more money available. I speak with the industry about that in great detail, as I am sure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does, so he will know the conversations that we are having. I totally accept that we need to ensure that the BSR is working effectively, because it is a really important part of having a safe system.

I reiterate our determination to build the homes that the country needs. Through the standard method, we have the right tool to get to 1.5 million homes. In that context, local people will have the leadership they need to deliver what that looks like locally.

15:58

[John Milne]

I thank the Minister for his reply and all Members for their very interesting contributions. One thing that is really striking is that we see the same problem up and down the land. It may manifest itself locally, but it is a national problem.

Like many Members of this Parliament, I come from a local council background—I was the cabinet member for planning in Horsham district council—so I have personal experience of trying to get what we needed for the community out of the plan and developers. It was a battle. My reaction to the changes made to the standard method and to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently in Committee, is to say, “Would that have given me the tools I needed to do the job? Would it have improved my chances?” I feel that the answer is, “Not really, no.” That is the standard by which I judge it.

Changes to the standard method could really enhance—make or break, actually—what the Government are doing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is not just a technicality on the side, but a crucial interface. I realise that the Minister will be a bit distracted, given that the Bill is going through Parliament right now, but I hope that in the fulness of time he will take a closer look at the measure, because it can be revised at any point and does not require legislation. I again thank everybody for a very good-natured debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of the standard method for assessing local housing need.

Defence Industries: North-East

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Luke Myer will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

16:01

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for defence industries in the North East.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on how the Government can step up to support the strong defence industry in our region. I thank my hon. Friends here today and the many manufacturers, both big and small, from across the region for meeting me recently to discuss the issues that they face. This topic is of great importance to our constituents and to our nation, and I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions.

Last week marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. It was a moment to remember not only the courage of those who fought on the frontline, but the grit and sacrifice of the men and women who powered our industry at home. The north-east has never stood on the sidelines when it comes to national defence. Our proud industrial capabilities have always served this country well, in times of peace and conflict. Our region forged the steel that built the tanks, ships and munitions during those years. Our docks sent supplies to the front. Our communities gave sons and daughters to the war effort. That legacy is written in the fabric of the towns and villages in our region and it lives on today.

In our region, there are some 2,500 jobs directly in the defence sector and many thousands more in the supply chain. There are large prime contractors—for example, BAE Systems, which has had a footprint in our region since world war one and today employs more than 400 staff in Washington, and the nearby Rolls-Royce, which runs excellent apprenticeship programmes. It was a pleasure to meet one of its apprentices, Lucy from Gateshead, in Parliament recently.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the importance of the defence sector right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Something that is also important and that he has rightly spoken about is the need for apprentices. The Government have given a contract to Thales in Northern Ireland, and through that there will be 200 new jobs and 20 new apprentices. Does he agree that when it comes to defence contracts right across this great United Kingdom, they need to involve apprentices, to build for the future and to ensure that we have those skills?

[Luke Myer]

I absolutely agree. The investment that is coming to Thales will mean thousands of advanced air defence missiles that will be supplied to Ukraine. That is a really important cause, and of course there will be a benefit to the entire supply chain across the United Kingdom as well.

Strong national defence starts well before the battlefield. It is about the skilled workers in our factories—

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for giving way. I wanted to intervene just after his description of the excellent existing capabilities and proud defence industry history in the region, to add the caveat that nowadays, sadly, we have the fewest defence jobs directly supported by Ministry of Defence spending of any of the regions—there are 1,600 according to recent MOD figures—and the lowest amount of MOD spend by region, at £380 million. Those jobs and that spending are obviously welcome, but the figures are below those for the next lowest region, which is Yorkshire and Humber, and in some regions, such as the north-west, which obviously has a significant cluster with BAE, Barrow and things like that, spending reaches £7 billion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that imbalance represents something of a missed opportunity, given the region’s defence heritage and the passionate, patriotic nature of the workforce, who would probably love to work in the defence industries? Does he agree that we need to ensure that when the increased national spending is rolled out, some of that imbalance is addressed and the north-east is restored to its historical role as one of the flagship regions for defence manufacturing in the UK?

[Luke Myer]

I agree. The increase in defence spending an opportunity to uplift regional economies and tackle regional inequality. However, I do not want to talk down our region because we do have firms, large and small, that are contributing to our national security and industrial resilience, including Babcock in Newcastle, Nifco in Stockton, Merlin Flex in Hartlepool, Draken at Teesside airport, Tees Components in my constituency, and many others. I am proud to champion Tees Components, a family-run business based in the small village of North Skelton. It delivers world-leading precision engineering for projects including our Astute-class submarines. That is our region in action.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Merlin Flex from my constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting Merlin Flex recently, and people there have talked in such positive terms about the growth and expansion that they are seeing. Does he agree that the unprecedented, record injection of cash that the Labour Government are putting into defence has the ability to transform regions such as ours? Does he also think that it is critical that we support the small and medium-sized enterprises that need help to access those funds?

[Luke Myer]

I completely agree. I have one note of caution for our region: although we have fantastic manufacturers and SMEs, it is important for our regional economy—the one my hon. Friend and I share—to have a proper skills pipeline. There is a real job for our combined authority and our mayor to step up and work with education providers to ensure that proper planning is in place. My hon. Friend has a fantastic college in his constituency—Hartlepool college, which has inspirational leadership from its principal, Darren Hankey—but such colleges need to be joined up with local manufacturers, so that there is a proper skills pipeline.

All those manufacturers are vital for delivering local skills. Many of them offer advanced training and apprenticeships and ultimately provide high-quality, well-paid jobs in the areas that need them most. I recently met various manufacturers, both prime and SME, to discuss the issues that they face. They strongly welcome the Government’s decision to identify defence as one of the eight growth sectors in the industrial strategy. One manufacturer told me that it “puts defence in a different place” from where it was before. Manufacturers also welcome the decision to increase defence spending to 2.5%, the strategic defence review, the progress on trade with the US and the decision to step in to save British Steel. This Government are stepping up, not stepping back, and putting our strategic industries on a secure footing.

Just four months ago, I spoke in this Chamber during a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on the challenges that SMEs face in defence procurement. I called for better access for SMEs to the pipeline. I was therefore pleased to see the Government’s recent commitment to set direct SME spending targets, and I hope that the Minister will provide further clarity on when those will be published. As it stands, SMEs in the defence sector are often contracted for one-off, short-term jobs, and that can create challenges. The unpredictable, project-based nature of the contracts makes it difficult for companies to commit to the up-front capital investment needed to grow.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her recent visit to our Teesside defence and innovation cluster, where many small businesses, such as those my hon. Friend described, experience challenges in accessing procurement contracts. Does he agree that it is important for the Ministry of Defence to try harder to engage with small businesses further down the supply chain to help them develop capability, and to create visibility for them so that they can be sure of continuity of contracts and can invest in their own businesses and future growth?

[Luke Myer]

I agree. The best way to ensure that we are building the right approach to procurement is by listening directly to the SMEs that operate on the procurement frontline. I am grateful to the Minister for visiting Teesside to meet the defence and innovation cluster, and for visiting NETPark to meet other businesses. It is clear that she is listening, and that is welcome and appreciated.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

This Government are absolutely determined to reset public procurement for SMEs. In places such as Darlington, we have fantastic SMEs that employ local people, drive local growth, have great terms and conditions, and are a source of local pride. For too long, those SMEs have been missing out because they do not have the bandwidth on a day-to-day basis to put in bids for these contracts, let alone to then offer huge incentives and massive savings, as some of the bigger clients and players in the field can. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be great to hear from the Minister about the work that she is doing with the Cabinet Office to strengthen public procurement, and to make sure that public money gets into our communities in Darlington?

[Luke Myer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. By boosting SMEs we boost not only the defence industry, but other sectors, because many of these SMEs are working on dual-use technology, which has a strong crossover with other areas.

Ultimately, growing our sovereign capacity by building more in Britain is a smart and strategic move that will pay off in the long run, both for our national security and our economic growth.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for this excellent debate and the Minister for the leadership that she is showing—I was grateful for her recent visit to NETPark in Sedgefield in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another significant benefit of more work going to SMEs? Warfare is changing at such a rapid pace that we need to take hold of innovation and the innovative products being delivered by our SME community in Sedgefield and around the country, so that we are battle-ready for the future.

[Luke Myer]

Absolutely. One of those innovative projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency is a semiconductor plant, which the Government stepped up to save with £20 million of investment. That is exactly the kind of active Government and leadership that we need.

The previous Government set up procurement processes with a singular focus, which was awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. That may seem sensible on the surface, but in fact, it has stifled British growth and ultimately cost the taxpayer more. To give an example from Middlesbrough, a local company was forced to step in and finish works that were initially being done by a contractor in south-east Asia, which had been chosen purely because it was the cheapest at the time. Time and time again, we have seen Conservative Governments make decisions on industrial policy that erode our manufacturing base, see jobs disappear overseas and weaken British industry. That Middlesbrough business was there to pick up the pieces and finish the job, but the delay was wholly unnecessary. It ended up costing the British taxpayer more than if we had simply built in Britain from the start.

We need an approach that prioritises British values over mere price. This is about not just securing the cheapest deal but ensuring that every pound we spend strengthens our national security. We must grow our sovereign capacity and put British business first, and support our local economies in the process.

It is also time that we took a more intelligent and long-term approach to defence procurement—one that does not cost us more and builds the kind of capacity that we need here at home, especially in the current global climate. For industries to invest and grow, and train apprentices and support communities, we need to move away from short-term projects and annualised budgets. Businesses need long-term clarity. That will give them stability to plan for the future with confidence.

One SME I spoke to feels that the industrial strategy will help with that, but we can do more to give further confidence to the supply chain, especially through rapid and clear decisions on projects and support for the up-front capital investments that they need to make. This is about investment not only in specialised equipment, but in people. In our region, the jobs in this industry are high-skilled, well-paid and secure, and many of the manufacturers invest strongly in skills and apprentices.

[Lola McEvoy]

In my Darlington constituency, we have a fantastic engineering firm called Cummins. I recently visited the plant, and I want to bring hon. Members’ attention to the fact that they have automated a lot of their processes and, in doing so, have grown their workforce. They have upskilled, reskilled and hired more on the basis of bringing in new technologies. That kind of employment practice is second to none, and we want more of that across our region. As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, our values around hard graft mean that we are ripe for more defence and manufacturing investment.

[Luke Myer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which just goes to show there is a false dichotomy between jobs and automation. A business can be grown well by embracing the future, so I commend Cummins on the work it is doing in her constituency.

The industry needs a strong skills pipeline. There is a role for Government to support these businesses by making sure our workforce has the skills to meet the demands of the coming decades. As I mentioned before, there is also a role for our regional mayors to play in making sure there is a more joined-up local skills landscape and working with education providers and manufacturers to get the best people into the best jobs.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I was lucky to go a secondary school that was sponsored by BAE systems, and we benefited from that investment. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is focusing on not only the importance of the Government procuring British, but the social value that employers can add, which includes ensuring that they offer apprenticeships and invest in training. Does he agree that we should be encouraging the Government to prioritise the businesses that demonstrate good practice in these areas?

[Luke Myer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He and I both worked in the education sector prior to coming to this place and working in policy. It is about joining up those two things, and making sure that people have access to opportunity. So many people across our region have the can-do attitude to succeed, but they are held back by lack of opportunity. Through skills and training we can make sure that they can get into industries such as this, where there are decent well-paid jobs for the future.

One group of people who can bring an extraordinary skillset to our workplaces is veterans. Not only can the defence sector support our armed forces but our armed forces can support the defence sector by establishing routes to civilian employment for those who have served. In my constituency I have recently seen the strength and tenacity of our veteran community. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Veterans and People for coming to my constituency to listen to veterans, particularly on the issue of mental health. Operation Valour, which was announced last week, will help to join up employment, health and other services for veterans across the north-east. I believe that by trusting our veterans and giving them opportunities, we can contribute to their mental health and wellbeing and offer them purpose and community after their service, as well as strengthen our businesses.

This is an important time for the Government to strengthen our defence industry in the north-east. We have already seen the Government stepping up, with £20 million to save the Aycliffe semi-conductor plant, the £173 million contract for Draken at Teesside airport, the creation of steel jobs for Teesside, the £9 billion contract for Rolls-Royce to power Britain’s nuclear submarines, and the clarity brought by the strategic defence review and the industrial strategy. This Government are making significant investments in Britain’s security. By going further for British defence industries, we not only strengthen our national security, but support local jobs and regional growth. There is no better time to act than now, and there is no better place to invest than our region, where we have the track record, the potential and the drive to lead the way.

16:17

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

It is great to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on securing the debate and shedding light on the vital defence industry in the north-east, and particularly his part of the region.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for accompanying him to show the great strength of will among elected representatives in the north-east to boost and push the development of their defence industries. I congratulate them all on the contributions they made. I have managed to visit some, but not all of the constituencies represented here today. I know that people will now ask me to go to the other ones, and we will have to bear that in mind as time goes on.

As we heard today, defence makes a considerable contribution to the north-east in terms of jobs, investment and growth, but my hon. Friends have also made clear that a huge contribution could be made beyond what has already been done. The nation as a whole needs us to boost our defence industries, and this Government are determined to do that. It is clear that the world is becoming much more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. At the same time, the Government face the challenge of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces to meet those threats better, after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out.

We are conducting the strategic defence review to assess fully the threats we face and to determine what capabilities we need to meet them. It is also why we brought forward an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with plans to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament; and it is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy. We cannot continue to spend money in the MOD as we spent in the past. We have to get better value. There is no point in increasing spending if we pour some of it down the drain. We have to do things better, and that is what defence reform is about.

The defence industrial strategy is in part about how we can transform procurement to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about the need for us to do procurement better and reform it. He mentioned some very good small firms, including Tees Components, which I know to a degree. It is a family firm in a small community that does wondrous things.

There is enormous potential in north-east communities for innovation and dual-use technologies, but the way we do procurement now positively excludes small companies from being able to participate, partly because it takes us so long to do it and partly because of the requirements on the firms to prove all kinds of things and produce all kinds of documentation that they do not normally have the staff to produce. BAE Systems might, but a small family firm does not. The system excludes small firms and they end up, at best, in the supply chains of the primes, which is fine as far as it goes, but does not enable them to show us what they can do in terms of agility and innovation.

My hon. Friends will recall the Chancellor’s announcement in her spring statement that we are going to reform defence procurement. Part of that reform will be to speed up getting to contract. The average time to contract is six years, which is ridiculous in the current situation. Procuring a nuclear submarine might take a bit longer than procuring the latest drone, so we are going to segment our procurement arrangements to recognise the fact that not every contract is the same.

We will do this in three layers. One layer will be major programmes, on which we will aim to cut the time to contract from the current average of six years to three years. The second layer is developing new upgrades—a new radar for one of our platforms, for example. For that segment, we aim to get to contract within one year instead of within three. At the faster end—I will not say the smaller end—we aim to get to contract for novel and agile dual-use technology within three months. That will challenge the MOD, but we are determined to do things better and make sure that our spending gets better value and better capability faster into the hands of our warfighters. Many companies in the north-east will be able to benefit from this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland will recall that the Prime Minister announced the formation of an SME hub, which ought to enable small firms to plug into the available opportunities and help them to know where to get finance, which is a problem for small firms. We need a clearer idea of what the capabilities are to enable them to plug their ideas and their dual-use technology into the opportunities that are available.

The establishment announced by the Chancellor of UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget this year, which has already started, means that there is more money available for dealing with innovative and novel technologies. The Chancellor also committed us to making sure that there is a ringfenced budget that will increase to 10% of our acquisitions budget.

I therefore think the prospect is good for our small and innovative firms. When I go to trade fairs, go on constituency visits and do roundtables to find out what industry wants, I meet many of these small firms from around the country, including the north-east—I have met some on a couple of occasions in the north-east. Many of them say the same thing: “We need a way in. We need to know what you are doing, and what you want and when you want it. And we need to be able to engage faster and more effectively.” I hope that we will be able to do that.

It is going to require wholesale reorganisation, and us to learn how to do things differently, but I will just say to this Chamber and to my hon. Friends that the efforts we have put into supporting Ukraine show that we can do things faster, we can procure better, and we can ensure that we get capability into the hands of warfighters who desperately need it on a much faster timescale than we have done traditionally. The people who have done that are the same people in the MOD who have traditionally done the slower, more long-term, more stately work. It is just about risk appetite and about what we want them to do.

With the strategic defence review publication coming up shortly, in due course, and with the defence industrial strategy also to be published—not at the same time, but not too far away from that—we ought to have an obvious and transparent framework, backed by resources that are guaranteed to be increasing into the future. That is not something that industry has had in the past, which is something that it has always complained about, telling us, “We need a demand signal. We’re not going to invest until we know that you really want this long term.”

I think we will have the kind of ecosystem and opportunities that small firms and large firms in the north-east, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are here today, will be able to take advantage of to grow and bring forth their agility, ideas, energy, and patriotism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said, many people in the north-east who work in the defence industry are very proud of doing so and really do want to support our country in its defence and security needs. They will be that much more motivated because there will be more opportunities.

I know that my hon. Friends, who are here in numbers today to represent the north-east, will make sure that I know what the opportunities are in the north-east and what more can be done, and I will rely on them to do that. I cannot get out of the office as much as I might like, so I rely on right hon. and hon. Members to let me know what is going on, what the issues are and what the problems are. I hope that, between all of us, we get into a position to boost our defence industries in a way that not only increases our defence and security, and our ability to deter our potential adversaries and, if needs be, make sure that our warfighters are properly equipped, but leads to regional growth and job opportunities, real lives and careers for our young people and our older people who work in the defence industries and in dual-use technologies, and also enables us to grow our economy as a whole, nationally.

I know that if we get this right and harness the skills, capabilities, commitment, good sense and effort of people who work in the defence industries, we will be in a much, much better place. It is a win-win for all of us—not only for my hon. Friends, but for the north-east and for the nation as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered flooding and planning and developer responsibilities.

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and to discuss how we can help the Minister to tackle the tsunami of inland flooding that is sweeping so much of the country—not just my beautiful Mid Norfolk constituency, but many other areas. The presence of so many colleagues from different parties and counties speaks volumes about the scale of the problem.

I will start in December 2020, when I fully woke up to the scale of what was coming. It was a lovely Christmas in Mid Norfolk when the phone started ringing, as it did for many colleagues in our part of the world. Along with many people, I spent that Christmas week baling out constituents, clearing out sewage and getting Anglian Water to pump out houses. It happened in not just one village, but seven or eight across Mid Norfolk. At that point, I realised the scale of what was coming and why the issue had been becoming increasingly prevalent in the constituency letterbox. Following that, I set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership with the 14 worst affected villages, as a result of which we set out 15 very practical things that we in Norfolk could do. We set up the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance with the county council, and this year we held the first Norfolk flood summit.

I want to update colleagues on some of that work and flag some of the things we have identified. I commend the Minister for the grip she has exerted on the problem since arriving in office. She is on the cusp of having the chance to do something quite significant for generations to come. I want to highlight the things we are particularly suffering from in Mid Norfolk, explain what the problem is in our part of the world—it is different in different parts of the country—and set out some suggestions that I hope the Minister will take on board in the flood review that she is leading.

To that end, I have arranged an all-party flood summit on 2 June with the four all-party parliamentary groups. It says something that four APPGs have been set up—standing room only—in order to deal with flooding. Of the 400 or so new MPs who have arrived in Parliament, I think 100 have put flooding very high on their list, so this is a big issue; it is no longer marginal. I want to say something about the importance of gripping it at scale, so that future generations do not have to experience the horrors that our constituents have. In other words, I want to put wind in the Minister’s sails to do something that Whitehall often struggles with. As a veteran Minister myself, I know that the sticky-tape solution is often the tempting one to reach for, but this issue, as the Minister knows, requires a structural change in the way we think about water across our economy.

Mid Norfolk—the clue is in the name—is not a maritime constituency. I am talking today about inland flooding, although I appreciate that there is also a coastal flooding problem. One of the issues in Norfolk is that we have had so much coastal flooding that the focus has been on that, and not so much on inland flooding. My constituency is largely made up of Breckland, the glacial clays and sands—a clue: it should not be flooding. It is dry—very dry. Where there is water and sand, there is very productive agricultural land. Yes, we have some lower-lying, very beautiful areas—the chalk streams, the Wensum valley, the Yare and the Tud—where we should not be building, not least because they are sites of special scientific interest and hugely strong habitats, but they are also prone to flooding.

So why is Mid Norfolk flooding? That is the question I hear hon. Members asking, because it should not be flooding. Other areas should be, but not Mid Norfolk. There are several answers, but I will first explain the scale of what has happened in the last five years. There has been serious flooding in 22 of my villages, by which I mean sewage washing between houses, and more than five houses affected at one time. There are plenty of houses that are near a ditch or river and get some flooding; I am talking about at-scale, serious flooding, with chronic consequences for the people affected. I will give an example. At Mill Lane in Attleborough there is a culvert that was terribly designed in the 1970s. No one has taken responsibility for it, and the four houses at the entrance to the culvert have flooded every year for 10 years. Last autumn, 100 houses around Mill Lane flooded. That is when people really started to wake up and understand.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. As soon as I walked in, a colleague looked at me in astonishment and said, “Is there flooding in west Hampstead?”, and I said, “Actually, there is.” It takes only a heavy rainstorm to fill all the homes in my constituency with water and sewage.

I intervene at this point in the debate because we, too, have a Mill Lane—not the same one—in west Hampstead that has been flooded. The risk of surface water flooding has not been taken seriously, which is strange, because properties in danger from surface water flooding outnumber those in danger from rivers and seas by two to one. I am proud that our friends in City Hall are actually publishing their surface water strategy tomorrow, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that developers also have a role to play in managing surface water flooding? I am sure he will address that, but I want him to know that there are others in this room who agree with him about the role of developers.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes a brilliant point; at the risk of opening the floodgate of interventions too early, I will absolutely come on to her point at pace, so that Members from across the House can pile in.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is absolutely right. One of the problems—if I can put forward the reasoning behind what he is referring to—is the old system of building houses, not just in Norfolk, but right across this whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Having the storm drain and the sewage within the one system is the way they did it 40 or 50 years ago, in the houses we grew up in. That creates a problem for the houses built around that time. Every time there is heavy rain—rain no longer comes lightly, but comes in hurricane-like storms—it brings a deluge of water. The system is not able to cope with that, so does he have a solution for moving forward? This is about not just new developments, but the old developments and the old houses. What was okay years ago is not okay today.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member—I am tempted to say my great and hon. Friend, since we have spoken in this Hall together so many times—is absolutely right. My constituency has 130 villages and three towns. At the last boundary review, I lost Wymondham because the rest of my patch has had 10,000 new houses built in the last 10 to 15 years. Very few constituencies, apart from possibly that of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), have had as many houses built as mine.

That is part of the issue, but another part of it is that developers are tending to build on the outskirts of villages and towns, because it is the easy place to dump commuter housing, but they are not upgrading the drains. Little villages that have happily existed and been able to drain themselves for years and cope with some growth, are now finding huge problems with the existing drainage infrastructure not being able to cope, which leads to the sewerage problem.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the point about new developments, does he agree with the Liberal Democrats that making the water companies statutory consultees in the planning process would mean that developers cannot build where the infrastructure cannot account for the new houses?

[George Freeman]

That is a very good point, and I do agree—in fact, I will go a lot further than that, if Members will allow me to get to the radical, central elements of my Bill. However, I do agree that that is absolutely something we need to do.

Across Mid Norfolk, the 23 villages—I will not list them all—go from Old Buckenham in the deep south east, through Wretham, Hockham, Rocklands, Thompson, Watton, Saham Toney, Cranworth, a cluster of co-adjacent villages, north Elmham, Billingford, Lyng, Elsing, Yaxham, Mattishall and right up to Weasenham in my north-west frontier, which should not be flooding. That tells us that this flooding is not just geomorphological. It is the result of housing and the lack of investment in the drainage infrastructure.

The truth is that the patient people in Mid Norfolk—they are pretty patient, given that they have had me as an MP for 14 years—are getting really impatient with this. There is a contract between the state and the citizen whereby if they pay their taxes and buy a house, while they do not expect that much these days, they do expect that their house will not flood because of systemic and structural failures of national infrastructure. When it does flood, and they call, hoping that someone will come and pump it out, they expect the water companies, to whom they are paying very high bills, to be there and to help. However, the service and the responsiveness has not been there—at least until they are able to sit on the answering machine and ring enough times that eventually a tanker arrives. People are fed up with that and with the fact that this has been coming for quite a long time, so they are very excited by the fact that the Minister is gripping this issue.

Let me spin through the problems, as I have experienced them in Norfolk. It is, of course, climate change; let us not undermine the importance of that. Last year we had the eight wettest months on record, one after another. That is not happening for any weird, strange, unexplained reason; it is happening because of climate change. The issue is also that in my part of the world we are building a lot of houses—but the country has to build them, so I do not think that not building houses is the answer. The devil is in the detail.

Another problem is that our agricultural practices have changed. In my part of the world, a proud farming county, we now have a lot of contract farming. The big landowners are often things like pension funds and are remote. The farming is not done by a local landowner, but by contract farmers on a very tight, low-margin contract, with huge bits of kit, roaring around trying to get the job done and scratch a living. In the old days, on the farm I grew up on, in a rainy month we would go and mend the fences and clear the ditches, but that work does not tend to be in the farming contracts. Our county councils have also seen their budgets hammered by the rising cost of social care and through some of austerity 1.0. There is a basic maintenance problem.

We also have a big planning problem. The point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was a good one, but the real problem in my patch has been that because of the five-year land supply, good planners have said, “Well, we don’t want to build here, and we shouldn’t build there,” as well as holding statutory consultations. Many of the big developers have then land banked—they have taken their permissions where they know they are going to get them and have not built them out—and then invoked the five-year land supply.

The five-year land supply was a sensible coalition policy designed to ensure that a 20-year plan could not be ignored, but it has been used to blow the whistle and say, “You are not building out at your five-year land supply, so we will now invoke the freedom to dump where we want.” It is a win-win. They then dump 100 houses outside Yaxham and 200 outside Mattishall—they want to go near Norwich, dump on the outskirts of a village near a road, move on and not invest. That is what has driven a lot of the problem.

Statutory consultation is fine, but this is also a planning issue. Part of what my Bill addresses is that we must somehow ensure that when developers are building like that, it should not just be that they are statutorily consulted and go through the tick boxes. The only way to make them take this seriously is to say, “Look, if you build, and within five or 10 years of your building there is significant flooding that never used to happen in that area, you’re going to be on the hook for upgrading the drains. You’re going to be on the hook for doing the repair work.” We have to create a fiduciary financial liability that makes the directors of those companies say, “I think we’d better upgrade; we’d better do the investment up front, rather than relying on consultations.”

In the end, somebody has to pay. To be fair, the water companies have got to pay more, but we are also asking them to pay billions to improve pipes, build reservoirs and stop leaks. Somewhere in the system we have to find a bit more money to do the upgrade of the traditional drains and improve the infrastructure. It behoves us all to give the Minister some solutions. Where will the money come from? Nobody in Mid Norfolk wants to pay more council tax; it is already very high and it is going on social care. One answer is from the developers.

There is another problem, however. When someone in Mid Norfolk picks up the phone and asks who is in charge, there are 36 organisations in Norfolk with responsibility for flooding prevention. In Whitehall that probably seems like a low number, but in Norfolk people only want one. We do have one: it is called the local flood authority. It is great, but it has no money and no power.

The good news is that in addition to the LFA we have the internal drainage boards, which have been looking after flooding since about 1550; they really know their ditches and dykes. Colleagues with agricultural constituencies—I can see them nodding—will know that these are the very local experts who know about hydrology and water and how it all works. The problem is that their budgets have either been cut or not maintained to keep pace with demand.

There are quite a small number of areas—I think15 to 20 districts—particularly in the east of England, such as the fens, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and other areas, that have a very high incidence of flooding. The other problem is that where they are being hit, the IDBs have to be propped up by the district councils, which means the residents in those areas are then penalised as funding is—quite properly—diverted into flooding. That is funding that they are not getting into their public services. There is a huge problem with the allocation of funding.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member, my county colleague, mentioned internal drainage boards. For every pound that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council in my constituency collects in council tax, 43p now goes to internal drainage board levies, which is completely unsustainable. Does his draft Bill address IDB levies and call for a permanent, full-time solution to the funding issue?

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here.

The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally.

Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to an end, because it is a very short debate and many Members want to come in?

[George Freeman]

Certainly. Do we have 90 minutes?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We have 60 minutes.

[George Freeman]

I am sorry; I thought we had 90.

We have to put funding in the hands of people who have responsibility. Thirdly, I want to create planning liabilities for development companies so that they have a proper incentive—not just a vague instruction—to upgrade the drainage.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Earlier today, I met Thames Water and Sutton and East Surrey Water representatives to discuss that very issue. They all agreed that, as professional consultees, their contributions are not given the same weight as those of statutory consultees. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) has already mentioned this, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that some thought should be given to making them statutory consultees, as a minimum for medium to large developments?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is all part of the planning mix and we have to get it right.

My last point is about data. When an area floods, we reach for data and ask, “How bad is it? How much worse is it than it used to be?” It is striking that there is not a properly collected dataset. I have a map with dots for all the flooding in my Norfolk patch, but it does not seem difficult to have a properly collected national flood heat map at the Cabinet Office to see where the flooding is coming. If it is coming much more quickly in Mid Norfolk and, I suspect, in many other areas, the Cabinet Office needs to be aware that that is a growing national critical infrastructure resilience issue.

Locally, we need flood maps to prepare for which places are likely to flood this winter. As the former Minister with responsibility for the Met Office, I know that it has amazing data and can now predict when, for certain areas, when it rains to such an extent over in the west, the surge will hit because of the geomorphology. We can now make predictions with AI and other tools, but they are not being done properly. There is a lot more we could do with data.

Forgive me, Mrs Hobhouse—I thought this was a 90-minute debate. I am conscious of time and how many hon. Members want to get in, so I will close. I look forward to hearing the comments from hon. Members from all parties.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should be bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I wish to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.8 pm, so I am imposing an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes.

16:48

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing this important debate. I am very limited by time, but I want to raise the recent flooding at Meadow Mill in my constituency on new year’s day. I thank the firefighters, police officers and council staff for supporting residents. Thankfully, none of the flats in the mill was flooded, but the electricity and water supply were lost. One of the key points that I want to raise in the limited time that I have is that the Environment Agency needs more funding for flood defences in Stockport.

Several residents have contacted me or come to see me. One told me that the repair costs for her car due to the flooding were approximately £320. Another told me that they had to pay more than £1,000 in temporary accommodation costs, which really adds up. The Meadow Mill residents association has been doing a lot of work on those issues, and Martin Doherty MBE has been contacting utility companies to support residents over electricity charges that seem to be inconsistent. Stockport council is Liberal Democrat-run, but I have been working with it and it has been making representations to the Environment Agency and the Government that it needs more funding to support residents.

My final point is on insurance costs. Many residents, whether they are tenants or own their property, face significantly higher insurance costs because of flooding. I think that experience will be replicated across the constituencies of MPs in this Chamber, and something needs to be done about it. The flooding is not caused by the residents, but they are facing much higher costs for insurance and to protect themselves.

I met the Environment Agency recently, and I thank all its staff, but I do not think that it has a plan for increasing flood defences, particularly in Stockport. I urge the Minister, who I know is hard-working and diligent, to make representations on that point.

16:50

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing today’s wide-ranging debate. It is hard not to get stuck on flooding, developer responsibilities and planning, but I will try to focus on just two key points in the short time that I have. My criticisms of the planning system are well recorded in Hansard, as is my support for the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make water companies statutory consultees, which we need to see happen.

My constituents in Chichester know how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful part of the UK, but we are seeing sites that have been identified as at risk of flooding still being approved for development if they are classified as strategic development sites in the local plans that were written based on an outdated flood risk methodology. That is deeply concerning for my communities, which are watching fields flood year on year and then seeing houses built on those very fields.

The situation has been worsened by historical planning failures. The previous administration at Chichester district council allowed the local plan to expire, which left developers to ride roughshod over areas such as the Manhood peninsula, a fragile, low-lying coastal region that is increasingly vulnerable to extreme flooding. Climate change is exacerbating the already serious flood and erosion risks on the English coast. In 2018, the Climate Change Committee said:

“the current approach to coastal management in England is unsustainable in the face of climate change.”

The flood risk modelling fails to reflect the lived experience of many of my constituents. The Manhood peninsula has already seen numerous floods since 2012, which have displaced families from their homes and caused widespread fear that does not go away once the water has receded.

I would like to talk briefly about coastal squeeze. Natural England estimates that 58% of the salt marsh habitat in Chichester harbour has been lost since 1946, and that we are losing around three football pitches-worth of salt marsh every year. To address those concerns, I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make national landscapes, such as the one responsible for Chichester harbour, statutory consultees in the planning process. I hope that Bill Committee members on both sides of the House will support it, because places such as Chichester harbour are crying out for a seat at the table so that they can relay their concerns about the planning process for areas of significant scientific importance.

16:53

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing this important debate. As the Member for Shrewsbury, flooding is always a priority for me, as it is for my residents, businesses and local services, because our historic town is encircled by the beautiful yet powerful River Severn. Some of my residents have been flooded over 20 times since 1998, and our active Shrewsbury Business Flood Action Group is providing valuable support for them. They often struggle to find affordable insurance to cope.

On funding, I thank the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for investing over £16 million this financial year in projects that protect communities such as mine all along the River Severn catchment. As the newly elected chair of the River Severn Partnership, I am delighted to see a suite of demonstrator projects that will develop nature-based solutions upstream for longer-term resilience. DEFRA is demonstrating its understanding and commitment to the scale of this issue and rising to the challenge.

In terms of datasets, which I know the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about, DEFRA already published new online data on the Government website in January that show the updated risk of flood from the combined sources of rivers, seas and surface water. For the first time, surface-water flooding is incorporated into that new national flood risk assessment, and that will help individual residents and businesses to know whether the risk is coming downstream or up through their drain gullies—or sometimes both.

In March, DEFRA then incorporated that dataset to update the flood zone planning maps that are often used by local authority planning officers and developers. We now have accurate risk assessments for all development sites, which I know environmental campaigners are really keen to hear. We finally have a Government who understand that we need to stop building on areas at risk of flooding, and we have delivered the data, the mapping and the intelligence to inform those local decisions and uphold that approach.

Finally, in terms of local agencies and their responsibilities, I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that I have secured an inquiry through the Environmental Audit Committee to examine flood preparedness and response. It will look particularly at the fragmentation of responsibilities across many agencies, and its impact on budgets and on how we can best co-ordinate. I hope that we can provide some helpful recommendations to the Minister, and perhaps find some efficiencies and ways to work better together towards prevention rather than cure. As with the demonstrator projects along the River Severn, Shrewsbury is once again leading the way.

16:56

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing the debate. As in much of the country, we in North Norfolk have been told by the Government that we need to identify significantly more sites for housing. Let me be absolutely clear: we do need more homes, including homes that local people can actually afford, so that they are not stuck waiting endlessly on housing lists or left in temporary accommodation, but rushing to build homes without proper provision for flood alleviation or sustainable drainage would be a bad idea and incredibly costly. Let us imagine a young couple who, after years of saving and planning, finally moving into their first home, but it floods because corners were cut and developers were not held to account. That is not just a policy failure; it is a failure of basic fairness.

That failure does not just affect new homeowners. If we add more pressure to our creaking infrastructure without investment, we risk backed-up drains and flooding for the people who have lived in those communities for years. The previous Government promised to implement schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require developers to include sustainable drainage systems, but they never delivered.

One place that would benefit hugely from such a system is Ludham where, following the Government’s new mandated targets, a development proposal for 12 houses has expanded to 60 houses. That has caused significant concern for locals due to the history of flooding in the area. If it were to go ahead, it could be feasible only with real action on the surface water and drainage issues that the area faces.

Although North Norfolk district council does an excellent job of pushing developers as hard as it can, it needs the Government to provide it with the legislative teeth to achieve more. I hope that the Minister is in conversation with her counterparts at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we make sure that there is joined-up thinking about flooding in future planning legislation.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Hawkhurst parish council and Southern Water recently came to see me to complain about a number of developers in my constituency who have mixed surface run-off with foul water, which is illegal. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we of course need big housing developments, if developers are proven to have illegally mixed surface run-off and foul water when building them, they should have to make good what they did?

[Steff Aquarone]

Unquestionably, and a slightly more sympathetic approach should be taken to historical instances in which householders’ surface water drains have been connected to foul water systems, which they may not even realise. For developments that have been built since that law, it is absolutely unquestionable that developers should do that.

Finally, we must consider seriously the impact of man-made climate change on flooding. When we place responsibilities on developers, we must make sure that new developments do not deal just with the floods of the past or those of today, but with the worst floods that are yet to come. Henry Cator is chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, which my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, mentioned. His voice is given deserved reverence in Norfolk when speaking about these issues, and he has said that climate change will create a new level of extremes that we must be ready for. Simply planning for the current levels will be wasted in years to come.

I look forward to working with hon. Members on both sides of the House on this issue. It needs proper cross-functional work from the Government if we are to ensure that the much-needed homes of tomorrow are built sustainably and that the circumstances of the communities that those houses will serve and join are protected and improved.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have to reduce the speaking time to two minutes. I remind hon. Members that if they take interventions, it eats into the time of those who are on the call list.

16:59

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his excellent work in securing this debate.

I want to speak about the experience of constituents in my Reading constituency and outline the nature of local flooding, as well as some possible solutions. I endorse the work that the hon. Gentleman is doing to bring local landowners and others together and support the work that the Minister is doing on the matter.

We have two issues, or possibly three, with flooding in our area. The two major rivers, the Thames and the Kennet, have smaller streams and brooks running into them. We also have a problem with surface water flooding; I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), who mentioned that issue.

Residents face the most appalling disruption to their lives when their homes are wrecked and muddy water, often polluted by sewage, gets in. It can take months, or even more than a year, to dry out the home and clean it properly. It is the most awful situation for any family. I have heard stories of water coming in at odd times of day or night, of people being woken in the middle of the night by flood alarms, and of water coming up through the floorboards under Victorian houses, where there is a void. All of this is truly awful.

At a recent public meeting in Southcote, serious concerns were raised about the lack of joined-up communication between major landowners, particularly private landowners in the Kennet Meadows area and the neighbouring Southcote community in Reading. Some owners are not active in clearing ditches and other watercourses or in removing branches that have fallen into the Holy Brook, which is a channel that comes back into the Kennet. It needs much more attention, and I would like to see more joined-up working.

Finally, I thank neighbouring MPs, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), for their work on the matter.

17:01

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing this important debate.

I wish to speak about the effect on the residents of South West Hertfordshire. In the five and half years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been distressed by how many residents come to me about this issue. A problem that starts as a trickle very quickly has a massive impact on their life. Flooding now has real, lived effects; it is not just a remote risk. Residents face home damage, traffic disruption, economic loss and, increasingly, mental health impacts.

Rickmansworth lies at the confluence of three rivers: the Colne, the Chess and the Gade. It has a historic canal network, including the Grand Union and Batchworth canals, and surrounding waterways. In recent years, we have increasingly seen the overtopping of canals and a fast-rising water table during heavy rainfall. Problem hotspots include Church Street, the aquadrome and Ebury Road in Rickmansworth. Surface water flooding is worsened by urban development, inadequate historical infrastructure and bad planning. Unfortunately, we do not have an up-to-date local plan, so design guidance is not yet being adhered to by developers, because there is no requirement to do so.

Planning must begin with flood resilience. Bad planning does not just affect us; some of the structures we build today will last for decades, if not hundreds of years. If we get it wrong now, it is very difficult to retrofit and correct with a developer, who typically makes a profit and leaves.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In places such as Maulden in Mid Bedfordshire, we too often see inappropriate or poorly maintained sustainable drainage, which contributes to worsening flooding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plans for 1.5 million homes can be considered a success only if they can tackle such problems so that everyone can live in a dry home?

[Mr Mohindra]

I agree 100%.

I commend my parish councillors, the volunteer flood wardens and the residents of Croxley Green, Rickmansworth and Batchworth who step up during these difficult times. Flooding is now a structural challenge, not an anomaly. We must act now by embedding resilience in planning, forcing developer responsibilities and investing in essential infrastructure.

17:04

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I have two quick points to make. When I was first elected to Norfolk county council in 2013, social care was about 40% of the total budget. When I left 12 years later, a few months ago, it was more like 60% and was rapidly increasing towards 70%. That means less money for maintenance. The highways maintenance backlog in Norfolk is about £70 million. That is drains, gullies, ditches and dykes. Frankly, far too many flooding incidents are preventable. I strongly urge the Minister, in the great work she is doing, to look for a cross-departmental solution. Local council funding is crucial.

I referred earlier to the operational aspects of internal drainage boards. We must not underestimate the role that IDBs play. They are very cost-efficient, they are incredibly experienced and they know their area. When I visit the IDBs in my patch, and there are dozens of them, I find that the staff have 10, 20 or 30 years’ experience. Their costs are increasing, mainly because of electricity; it is expensive to make the pumps run. More importantly, the pumps are old. Walking into some pumping stations is like walking into a museum: they are 50 years old.

There is a huge risk of failure, at the very time when we need pumps working because of the increase in rainfall and flooding incidents. I strongly urge the Minister to look at capital funding for IDB pumps. It may only be when IDBs are gone that we realise how crucial they are. They exist in a relatively small number of areas, but in those areas they are critical pieces of infrastructure.

17:06

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his excellent speech. I have several points to make in the short time that I have, so here goes.

I agree with the hon. Member that when people are flooded either by surface or river water, the response is often chaotic. In Gobowen in my constituency, it is not clear who is responsible for closing the road. When vehicles drive through, there is a big bow wave, and the flooding in shops and homes becomes much worse. I fully endorse his point about better co-ordinating the response for people who have been flooded.

Insurance is hard to get. Homes built since 2009 are not covered by Flood Re’s remit. The remit ends in 2030, leaving people stuck in potentially unsaleable and unmortgageable homes. I know that the Minister is looking at Flood Re and its remit, so I would be grateful if she gave us a bit of an update. I should have declared at the start that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, so I have an interest.

After people have been flooded, it is often hard to get help. The “frequently flooded” criteria do not catch all homes in rural communities, because the density is not there. I know that the Minister is looking at that; I would be grateful for an update.

Farms are hit very badly, and they are storing an enormous amount of water upstream. Will the Minister be working with her colleagues in the Department to consider how the sustainable farming incentive and similar plans might be used to help people to store water upstream and prevent flooding downstream?

Finally, in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Government are not taking the once-in-a-generation opportunity to deal with the increased likelihood of flooding. We have talked about having water companies as statutory consultees in planning; about implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 so that SuDS have statutory guidance and are properly maintained; and about ensuring that houses are not being built in inappropriate places. The current guidelines do not achieve those objectives. I hope that the Minister will work with her colleagues to make those requirements statutory.

17:08

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. In the village of Playhatch, my constituent Suzzanne wakes up most days to flooding on her doorstep. Afraid that her children will touch sewage, she carries them, wearing wellington boots, to the bus stop. The area should not flood, and she was reassured of that point by the previous occupiers of her property. In this case, the cause is not increased rainfall; it is development.

Development is not supposed to put additional burdens on the drainage system, yet all too often the lived experience of residents is different from what is in the plans. Local knowledge is insufficiently valued. When that happens, can we expect anything less from our residents than dogged resistance to new housing?

I welcome new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled as an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act. It is an important step in requiring flood risk to be taken into account ex ante.

Ex post, my new clause 89 would require developers to assess the real-world impact of development five years after completion. Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve a development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations. I urge all hon. Members to review my new clause and sponsor it. It would give residents security over the future of their homes when development is taking place.

17:10

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

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and follow all the wonderful speeches in this important debate. I say a massive thank you to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing the debate and for introducing it with great style and knowledge, as always.

I think that my constituency is the wettest represented in this Chamber, certainly in England, although there is possible competition from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns).

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tim Farron]

Go for it—contest the space.

[Ms Minns]

Carlisle floods, as the hon. Member knows all too well, but it is not beyond the wit of responsible developers to build in a way that reduces the trauma of flooding. There is an excellent example in Carlisle, where Story Homes built townhouses with garages underneath that are designed to flood, but in a way that protects the residents. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do more to encourage developers to be responsible and innovative in their design?

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member is 100% correct. It is interesting that some of the older properties in my constituency are the ones that are most resilient. In many cases, they were built hundreds of years ago to resist flooding, or for it not to be the end of the world when it does flood. The design of the new buildings in Carlisle absolutely measures up, and we should do more of that.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?

[Tim Farron]

I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct.

Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment. It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today.

Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.

New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is.

I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million.

I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

17:15

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.

I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.

While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.

The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.

The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.

I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?

17:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and especially the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for calling the debate and providing an opportunity for us to hear about and discuss how the planning system can best manage and mitigate flood risk. I am delighted to be here, obviously, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, but I recognise that some of the points made were about amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so apologies if I cannot speak about amendments under a different brief. I will of course make sure that any points made are heard by the relevant Minister.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for raising the issue of surface water flooding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about internal drainage boards, and I will address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about flooding and insurance and made important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about flood action groups, and I want to take a moment to say thank you to all the flood action groups, wardens and volunteers in communities up and down our country for the work that they do. Helpfully, my hon. Friend addressed some of the concerns and questions around maps, so she saved a chunk of my speech, which is great, because I have not got much time to speak on that, although I will talk a little more about maps.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said, when I arrived, “You will see the same faces as we do in all these debates.” But that is good, because it shows what a tireless champion he is, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), in every flooding debate. It would not be the same without them—that is all I can say—so I thank them very much for coming here and, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, raising their concerns.

I met the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk back in April to discuss his proposals, and it was a really informative and helpful discussion. He raises important topics, which I have taken incredibly seriously and gone away and had a look at, because as he rightly said, climate change is bringing more extreme rainfall and rising sea levels, and it is a priority for this Government to protect communities from the increased risk of flooding.

I am not sure where the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), got the idea that we were cutting funding for flooding. That is not the case. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26—for the construction of new flood schemes and the repair and maintenance of existing ones.

[Tim Farron]

I am asking the question because the Government and Chancellor have said that there is no commitment beyond the end of this financial year. We do not know whether the Government are cutting or increasing spending, and we want to know. Many flood-hit communities are desperate to hear what the Chancellor’s plans are beyond this financial year.

[Emma Hardy]

Okay, I take the point. We have just invested a record amount over two years; it is the greatest amount that has ever been invested in flood defences. Of course, any future announcements are part of the spending review. The hon. Member has been in this place a very long time and understands that very well, but I hope that he can see that there are deeds, not words, in the fact that we have invested that record amount.

I pay tribute to the flood partnership of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. I think that is a great example of the vital role that partnerships have in bringing together all parties with an interest in flood resilience. I think it is a really good model for other people to take away.

The comments from Opposition Members about the personal experience of flooding, the impact on mental health and the impact on communities were very well made.

It was good again to hear about natural flood management and some of the work that we are doing to alleviate flooding. That is a positive way of doing it for nature as well as for flood alleviation.

I would like to talk a little bit about planning and flood risk, although I am of course mindful that I am speaking on a slightly different brief from my own. We are committed to building the homes that the country needs, while maintaining the highest levels of flood protection. The national planning policy framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is necessary and where no suitable sites are available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant. Development must also be safe for its lifetime—a point made by hon. Members—should not increase flood risk overall and should provide wider sustainability benefits.

The Government, through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, published the revised NPPF in December 2024. That clarified how the sequential test should be applied to development in areas of flood risk and encouraged the use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments. The Government are considering whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year. I will ensure that all the contributions regarding amendments are heard by Ministers in the relevant Department.

We are strongly committed to requiring standardised SuDS in new developments. These should be designed to cope with changing climatic conditions, as well as delivering wider water infrastructure benefits, reducing run-off, and helping to improve water quality, amenity and biodiversity. It is important to ensure appropriate adoption and maintenance arrangements are in place—that was another point that was raised.

We believe that those outcomes can be achieved through either improving the current planning-led approach using powers now available or commencing schedule 3 to the Water and Flood Management Act 2010. A final decision on the way forward will be made in the coming months. As mentioned, there have been changes to the national planning policy framework to support increasing SuDS. The NPPF now requires all developments to use SuDS where they could have a drainage impact. These systems should be appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposed developments.

I will briefly mention the flood maps. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk and I have discussed some of the mapping, which is called NaFRA2. Hon. Members can put in their postcode, and it will show their flood risk now and up to the mid-century for streets and areas. The information has been collected by the Environment Agency from around the country. It is really impressive. It is the first time that we can see surface water risk; before, flood maps showed only coastal water or river flooding. They are important maps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury mentioned, they need to be used by developers and local authorities. They are free and available for anybody who wants to see where there is risk and where there are concerns.

Internal drainage board funding is an important issue that was mentioned by a few hon. Members. We recognise the essential work of the IDBs in supporting greater resilience for farmers and rural communities, so I was pleased to announce an additional £16 million boost to the IDB drainage fund in March this year, bringing the total funding that we have announced since being in government to £91 million from the previously allocated £75 million. That was only in March this year, so they have just had that extra £16 million.

That important investment will allow IDBs to modernise and upgrade assets and waterways to ensure they are fit for the future. When I was in opposition I went to see some of the pumping stations myself, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that some of them are in desperate need of upgrading. IDBs can apply for that £91 million to ensure they can get the needed upgrades.

We are working with MHCLG, the IDB sector and local authorities on a new research project. The project is looking to review IDB costs and funding, including, importantly, whether any changes are needed to the IDB funding model. I hear the point that some hon. Members made about how it feels unfair that some communities face increased council tax because of this issue. The review is expected to start this summer, and will last around a year. We will consider the findings carefully.

Through our plan for change, the Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth. We will maintain the highest levels of flood protection while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and deliver 1.5 million homes. I thank everyone for their contributions.

17:28

[George Freeman]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for guiding us this afternoon. I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the—I think—16 colleagues from across the House who have spoken; the rule of 10 normally applies in this place, so there are many others who would have wanted to come. That shows the Minister how much interest there is in this issue.

This is a serious national problem that can only be solved locally, and the local solution is the key. It is getting worse fast. In Norfolk, 1,000 houses have been flooded and 200 have had internal floodwater in the past 18 months. That did not happen five or six years ago. It is getting bad, and it is costing the county and the country a fortune. This quarter—Q1—there was £200 million-worth of approved claims, which is up by £67 million on the previous quarter. This is getting a lot worse very fast.

On behalf of all those people who are very nervous and worried—one constituent was so worried about this that they took their own life—I urge the Minister to be bold and brave. I urge her to strike a blow for local communities and local experts, and give them the power and funding to do what they know how to do best.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered flooding and planning and developer responsibilities.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.