Westminster Hall
Tuesday 15th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 4 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
09:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Doctor Morrison. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, and I'd like to thank the backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. And to all honourable and right honourable members for their participation today. More than nine years after Grenfell claimed all of those lives, we must ask whether the systems intended to protect residents and delivering the safety and security they deserve is truly working. There has been progress. The Building Safety Act, the building safety regulator and remediation funding have strengthened our collective national response.
But legislation must lead to safer homes. Funding must lead to completed works, and residents must be able to move forward with their lives. Today, I will address three interconnected issues the protection of residents during remediation, the operation of PA 980, and the competence of those making critical safety decisions, and the position of non-qualifying leaseholders. And I'm going to begin by drawing on an experience directly connected to my own Surrey Heath constituency.
Surrey Heath is, by any definition, a semi-rural constituency where you wouldn't necessarily expect this issue to have particularly reared its head. Yet the correspondence reaching my office from Camberley, our principal market town, shows how deeply the problems that we're talking about today continue to affect ordinary households across the UK. We must judge the system by the experience of the residents who depend on it. And at Dorchester Court, one of my constituents has lived in their shared ownership home for 20 years.
They're unwell, unemployed and at risk of losing that home. They need to sell. But unresolved building safety and AWS one issues have taken that choice away. Another resident has lost two prospective buyers because lenders would not offer mortgages on that property. Now, Cala Homes, the original developer, has accepted full responsibility for life critical remediation. But residents say they still have no clear timetable for those works to be delivered or completed.
Now, accepting responsibility is only the beginning. Until the work that's required is completed, residents remain trapped. And it's a repeat pattern across the country. People need to move because of illness, unemployment, caring responsibilities are just simple changes in family circumstances. Their lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely. While developers, building owners and managing agents decide what happens next. I would absolutely be delighted. I
But legislation must lead to safer homes. Funding must lead to completed works, and residents must be able to move forward with their lives. Today, I will address three interconnected issues the protection of residents during remediation, the operation of PA 980, and the competence of those making critical safety decisions, and the position of non-qualifying leaseholders. And I'm going to begin by drawing on an experience directly connected to my own Surrey Heath constituency.
Surrey Heath is, by any definition, a semi-rural constituency where you wouldn't necessarily expect this issue to have particularly reared its head. Yet the correspondence reaching my office from Camberley, our principal market town, shows how deeply the problems that we're talking about today continue to affect ordinary households across the UK. We must judge the system by the experience of the residents who depend on it. And at Dorchester Court, one of my constituents has lived in their shared ownership home for 20 years.
They're unwell, unemployed and at risk of losing that home. They need to sell. But unresolved building safety and AWS one issues have taken that choice away. Another resident has lost two prospective buyers because lenders would not offer mortgages on that property. Now, Cala Homes, the original developer, has accepted full responsibility for life critical remediation. But residents say they still have no clear timetable for those works to be delivered or completed.
Now, accepting responsibility is only the beginning. Until the work that's required is completed, residents remain trapped. And it's a repeat pattern across the country. People need to move because of illness, unemployment, caring responsibilities are just simple changes in family circumstances. Their lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely. While developers, building owners and managing agents decide what happens next. I would absolutely be delighted. I
09:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
thank the honourable member for giving way. I can think of at least two buildings in my constituency that have been determined urgent, life critical but can't be remediated because of delays to getting the certificates they need from the building safety regulator. And that leaves residents facing large insurance costs being unable to sell, being stuck with damp and mould and a whole range of other issues. So does the honourable member agree? And you may well be coming to this, but the building safety regulator also needs the resources so that residents aren't left trapped in these homes for years.
09:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm incredibly grateful to the honourable lady who I know represents a Bournemouth seat. I have exactly the same issues in my constituency as well. Report certification not being received in time, often frustrating sales. And as I'll come on and say very often driving up things like insurance premiums in in the long term and those lives of the very residents that the honourable lady mentions cannot be placed on hold indefinitely whilst whilst they those who have the whip hand decide what happens next.
And the problems don't end when remediation begins at Northcote. Another development in my Camberley constituency. Residents undergoing remediation through the Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association have reported restricted daylight and ventilation, broken windows and water leaks, issues that are challenging at the best of times and almost unbearable during a long, hot summer, such as the one that we've just had when temperatures inside properties were regularly reaching 40 degrees. Some have described deteriorating mental health and feeling increasingly insecure in their own homes.
Scaffolding, sheeting, noise and disruption may be unavoidable for a time, but poor communication, unresolved damage and unhealthy living conditions are not acceptable. Clear information, prompt repairs and credible completion dates should be the basic expectations throughout the remediation process. So can I ask the minister to outline how residents will be protected during remediation works, especially during hot summer periods and cold winters? And I think I maybe heard an intervention for my lunch.
And the problems don't end when remediation begins at Northcote. Another development in my Camberley constituency. Residents undergoing remediation through the Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association have reported restricted daylight and ventilation, broken windows and water leaks, issues that are challenging at the best of times and almost unbearable during a long, hot summer, such as the one that we've just had when temperatures inside properties were regularly reaching 40 degrees. Some have described deteriorating mental health and feeling increasingly insecure in their own homes.
Scaffolding, sheeting, noise and disruption may be unavoidable for a time, but poor communication, unresolved damage and unhealthy living conditions are not acceptable. Clear information, prompt repairs and credible completion dates should be the basic expectations throughout the remediation process. So can I ask the minister to outline how residents will be protected during remediation works, especially during hot summer periods and cold winters? And I think I maybe heard an intervention for my lunch.
09:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, and I appreciate you taking the intervention. I'm struck that you used the phrase collective national response to start your remarks. As a Scottish MP, we. I am always conscious that this is a UK wide endeavour, but there are four different governments that can be looking at this. And if you accelerate work in one part, you can put a pressure on the resources available to do it in another. So I wonder if he agrees with me that that collective national response has to be considered in a UK sense.
It can't just be considered under the remit of the relevant department in Westminster. And we looked at this issue in the Public Accounts Committee on 21st March 2025, and one of the conclusions said given the lack of progress to date, the remaining challenges ahead, we are sceptical about the adequacy and achievability of any remediation acceleration plan to ensure that scepticism.
It can't just be considered under the remit of the relevant department in Westminster. And we looked at this issue in the Public Accounts Committee on 21st March 2025, and one of the conclusions said given the lack of progress to date, the remaining challenges ahead, we are sceptical about the adequacy and achievability of any remediation acceleration plan to ensure that scepticism.
09:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman. He is absolutely right to say that one of the main handbrakes to remediation is a national resourcing issue. There's just simply not enough fire safety engineers and specialist companies who can do this remediation work to ensure a fast timescale. And that's not just a problem that exists between Scotland and England. It exists within the regions of England itself. But I entirely accept the honourable gentleman's point that a coordinated national solution is the very best response that we could hope for, for our residents, so that this work is undertaken in a timely and efficient manner.
And I'm grateful to him for his intervention. And a second question for the minister related to this particular topic. How will those responsible be held to enforceable timetables so that residents will have certainty and transparency from companies completing the remediation works? Now, the examples I've already cited concern the pace and conditions of remediation. But before any work begins, someone must decide what work is required. And that brings me to the PA's 9980, the framework used to assess fire risks in the external walls of existing residential buildings.
The government has committed to making the standard mandatory for relevant external wall fire risk assessments, but its interpretation will influence the work that's carried out. The funding available and the conditions in which residents are expected to live. A proportionate response and approach is, of course, sensible. Assessors should consider the building as a whole, including its materials, construction and wider fire safety arrangements. The work undertaken should reflect the risk that the building actually presents, but that approach relies heavily on professional and subjective judgement.
Residents need confidence that those judgements are competent, consistent, transparent and properly scrutinised when assessments of the same building reach different conclusions, remediation can be delayed, funding becomes harder to secure, lenders lose confidence and residents are left wondering whose judgement they can ultimately trust. There is a particular concern where combustible materials that would not be permitted on some comparable new buildings are allowed to remain on existing homes. An assessment may conclude that the immediate risk to life is tolerable, but residents may still face higher insurance premiums, difficulty securing a mortgage and a reduction in the value of their property.
They may be told that their building meets the required standard, while continuing to feel unsafe and financially trapped. The Royal Artillery Keys illustrates this problem clearly, and at this point I would like to pay tribute in particular to Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner, and many members here may have heard directly from Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner related to that building and indeed, for the residents it contains . Royal artillery keys is a large private residential development in Thamesmead, built by Barratt Homes in 2002, and is home today to around 1000 residents.
Barratt homes proposed approach there, assessed under PA 980, would leave some combustible panels in place on the basis that the remaining risk is tolerable. But residents, not unreasonably, remain concerned both about the safety of that approach and its financial consequences. They report that annual service charges have risen from £3000 to £6000, with much of that increase linked to insurance. And that's a phenomenon confirmed by the Association of British Insurers, who in October 2025 reported that buildings that were only remediated to the PA 980 may face persistently higher premiums than those remediated to a higher standard.
In other words, residents persistently paying higher insurance premiums in perpetuity because of decisions that were made and and not just by this government, but by developers. In the past. Some of those residents cannot sell without accepting a substantial reduction in the value of their home. Residents have already drawn to my attention and my attention to a fire safety engineering report, which states that leaving the panels in place is not the most appropriate fire engineering solution for that building.
Already, there is contestation between the different approaches that are being recommended. Where does that leave residents? The reliability of these decisions ultimately, of course, depends on the subjective competence of the people making them. So to summarise, will the minister say whether the government will publish the findings of its audits and reviews into the application of PA's 980, and what steps are being taken to ensure greater, greater consistency in its use? Also, where PA's 980 assessments result in combustible materials remaining in place, how will the consequential impacts on insurance premiums, mortgage availability and property values be assessed and communicated to residents? I would absolutely give way.
And I'm grateful to him for his intervention. And a second question for the minister related to this particular topic. How will those responsible be held to enforceable timetables so that residents will have certainty and transparency from companies completing the remediation works? Now, the examples I've already cited concern the pace and conditions of remediation. But before any work begins, someone must decide what work is required. And that brings me to the PA's 9980, the framework used to assess fire risks in the external walls of existing residential buildings.
The government has committed to making the standard mandatory for relevant external wall fire risk assessments, but its interpretation will influence the work that's carried out. The funding available and the conditions in which residents are expected to live. A proportionate response and approach is, of course, sensible. Assessors should consider the building as a whole, including its materials, construction and wider fire safety arrangements. The work undertaken should reflect the risk that the building actually presents, but that approach relies heavily on professional and subjective judgement.
Residents need confidence that those judgements are competent, consistent, transparent and properly scrutinised when assessments of the same building reach different conclusions, remediation can be delayed, funding becomes harder to secure, lenders lose confidence and residents are left wondering whose judgement they can ultimately trust. There is a particular concern where combustible materials that would not be permitted on some comparable new buildings are allowed to remain on existing homes. An assessment may conclude that the immediate risk to life is tolerable, but residents may still face higher insurance premiums, difficulty securing a mortgage and a reduction in the value of their property.
They may be told that their building meets the required standard, while continuing to feel unsafe and financially trapped. The Royal Artillery Keys illustrates this problem clearly, and at this point I would like to pay tribute in particular to Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner, and many members here may have heard directly from Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner related to that building and indeed, for the residents it contains . Royal artillery keys is a large private residential development in Thamesmead, built by Barratt Homes in 2002, and is home today to around 1000 residents.
Barratt homes proposed approach there, assessed under PA 980, would leave some combustible panels in place on the basis that the remaining risk is tolerable. But residents, not unreasonably, remain concerned both about the safety of that approach and its financial consequences. They report that annual service charges have risen from £3000 to £6000, with much of that increase linked to insurance. And that's a phenomenon confirmed by the Association of British Insurers, who in October 2025 reported that buildings that were only remediated to the PA 980 may face persistently higher premiums than those remediated to a higher standard.
In other words, residents persistently paying higher insurance premiums in perpetuity because of decisions that were made and and not just by this government, but by developers. In the past. Some of those residents cannot sell without accepting a substantial reduction in the value of their home. Residents have already drawn to my attention and my attention to a fire safety engineering report, which states that leaving the panels in place is not the most appropriate fire engineering solution for that building.
Already, there is contestation between the different approaches that are being recommended. Where does that leave residents? The reliability of these decisions ultimately, of course, depends on the subjective competence of the people making them. So to summarise, will the minister say whether the government will publish the findings of its audits and reviews into the application of PA's 980, and what steps are being taken to ensure greater, greater consistency in its use? Also, where PA's 980 assessments result in combustible materials remaining in place, how will the consequential impacts on insurance premiums, mortgage availability and property values be assessed and communicated to residents? I would absolutely give way.
09:41
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Would you agree with me? Just said about the publication of the audit, which I think hopefully everyone will agree. Would he agree with me that that should be shared across the nations of the UK in order that all of our executives Parliament in Scotland, Wales and the Executive in Northern Ireland can take the appropriate action where it is appropriate.
09:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman from Northern Ireland, and I think he parallels the case made by the honourable member from Stirling. This has to be a national level approach, and I hope that the government will share information with the devolved administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom and indeed with all members in this House, so that we can adequately support the residents who are affected, and certainly not just in England. The experience of the separate AWS.
One process shows what happens when confidence in those professionals breaks down. One Surrey Heath constituent accepted an offer of on their apartment for £260,000, and that's for a flat originally bought for £316,000. Now they were quite prepared to accept a loss of £56,000 simply to move forward with their lives. But even then the sale collapsed because the buyer could not obtain a mortgage. After lenders stopped accepting the buildings. AWS one form, which had been signed by the now notorious Adam Kislyak of Triphala Limited, the Institution of Fire Engineers.
Of course, subsequently suspended Mr. Kislyak's membership and registration in 2024 , following findings under its disciplinary process. It announced his expulsion on the 5th of March 2025, following even even more complaints. And in March 2025, alongside my hon. Friend the member for Saint Albans, I met with the Building Safety Minister to raise concerns about Mr. Kislyak and his behaviour. My office has identified at least 9EWS1 forms issued through trial fire in Camberley alone that have subsequently been rejected by lenders, and that is why independent verification is so essential, including where an earlier assessment concluded that no remediation was required.
Because what we now know is that Adam Kislyak was faking EWS1 forms suggesting that buildings were entirely safe when they in fact contained combustible material. The consequences of failure in this area can be immediate. At the courtyard in Camberley, a couple reported receiving 5EWS1 forms that were not accepted before a sixth finally satisfied the relevant requirements. That delay pushed their purchase beyond the stamp duty deadline and left them with an additional bill of nearly 4500 pounds.
They had no control over the assessment process yet bore the cost when it failed. Therefore, when does the Minister expect statutory regulation of fire engineers to be introduced and given the degree of subjectivity involved in PA's 980 assessments and the potentially life changing costs passed on to residents, how can leaseholders have the confidence in the system that lacks a fully regulated profession? Failures in assessment can impose substantial costs. The next question is who should be expected to pay them? The Building Safety Act introduced welcome protections and ensured that many leaseholders would no longer be expected to meet the cost of failures they did not cause.
Some non-qualifying leaseholders may also receive support because of their landlord landlord's responsibility, a developer commitment or the funding arrangements applying to their building. But significant gaps remain. Once a lease is classified as non-qualifying, that status can remain attached to it. When the property is sold, someone buying their first and only home can therefore inherit the consequences of the previous owner's circumstances and become exposed to significant remediation costs. They have no involvement in the original construction and no responsibility for the defects, yet the current system can still leave them with the bill on the 10th of April 2025.
In response to a written question, the then building Safety Minister and said the government was was looking closely at how to sunset the in perpetuity status of leases that do not qualify for protection. So can I ask the minister to update us on that work, and will the government bring forward proposals to protect those who bought what they reasonably believed would be a safe and secure home? The government promised remediation. The government's Promise to Remediation Bill provides an opportunity to resolve these outstanding problems and turn commitments into delivery.
Under its plans, buildings over 18m should be remediated by the end of 2029. Buildings from 11m to under 18m should be remediated or firmly scheduled by then, with 2031 intended as the final completion point. Those ambitions are absolutely welcome, but meeting them will require accurate building data, secure funding, skilled contractors and effective independent inspection. And , as we've heard today, proper resourcing for those agencies across the United Kingdom. It will require costs to be recovered from those responsible, including developers and construction product manufacturers.
Residents have already spent years waiting. Deadlines will mean little unless they are enforceable and backed up by the capacity required to meet them. So can I ask the minister when these duties will become legally enforceable, and how will the government ensure that funding, workforce and regulatory capacity are in place to deliver them? And now, just a few words of conclusion. The lesson of Grenfell is that building safety depends on the whole system working.
Sound regulation, competent professionals, effective oversight and accountability. When things go wrong. When that system fails, danger can remain unaddressed and residents can be left trapped in homes they cannot sell, paying costs they cannot control. Behind every assessment, funding decision and remediation timetable is someone trying to protect their family, preserve their savings or move on to the next stage of their lives. The bereaved and survivors of Grenfell deserve justice, and my constituents in Surrey Heath and constituents across the country deserve safe homes and confidence in those entrusted to protect them.
More than nine years on, we must take every reasonable step to prevent another loss of life and ensure that those still living with the consequences of this crisis can finally move forward.
One process shows what happens when confidence in those professionals breaks down. One Surrey Heath constituent accepted an offer of on their apartment for £260,000, and that's for a flat originally bought for £316,000. Now they were quite prepared to accept a loss of £56,000 simply to move forward with their lives. But even then the sale collapsed because the buyer could not obtain a mortgage. After lenders stopped accepting the buildings. AWS one form, which had been signed by the now notorious Adam Kislyak of Triphala Limited, the Institution of Fire Engineers.
Of course, subsequently suspended Mr. Kislyak's membership and registration in 2024 , following findings under its disciplinary process. It announced his expulsion on the 5th of March 2025, following even even more complaints. And in March 2025, alongside my hon. Friend the member for Saint Albans, I met with the Building Safety Minister to raise concerns about Mr. Kislyak and his behaviour. My office has identified at least 9EWS1 forms issued through trial fire in Camberley alone that have subsequently been rejected by lenders, and that is why independent verification is so essential, including where an earlier assessment concluded that no remediation was required.
Because what we now know is that Adam Kislyak was faking EWS1 forms suggesting that buildings were entirely safe when they in fact contained combustible material. The consequences of failure in this area can be immediate. At the courtyard in Camberley, a couple reported receiving 5EWS1 forms that were not accepted before a sixth finally satisfied the relevant requirements. That delay pushed their purchase beyond the stamp duty deadline and left them with an additional bill of nearly 4500 pounds.
They had no control over the assessment process yet bore the cost when it failed. Therefore, when does the Minister expect statutory regulation of fire engineers to be introduced and given the degree of subjectivity involved in PA's 980 assessments and the potentially life changing costs passed on to residents, how can leaseholders have the confidence in the system that lacks a fully regulated profession? Failures in assessment can impose substantial costs. The next question is who should be expected to pay them? The Building Safety Act introduced welcome protections and ensured that many leaseholders would no longer be expected to meet the cost of failures they did not cause.
Some non-qualifying leaseholders may also receive support because of their landlord landlord's responsibility, a developer commitment or the funding arrangements applying to their building. But significant gaps remain. Once a lease is classified as non-qualifying, that status can remain attached to it. When the property is sold, someone buying their first and only home can therefore inherit the consequences of the previous owner's circumstances and become exposed to significant remediation costs. They have no involvement in the original construction and no responsibility for the defects, yet the current system can still leave them with the bill on the 10th of April 2025.
In response to a written question, the then building Safety Minister and said the government was was looking closely at how to sunset the in perpetuity status of leases that do not qualify for protection. So can I ask the minister to update us on that work, and will the government bring forward proposals to protect those who bought what they reasonably believed would be a safe and secure home? The government promised remediation. The government's Promise to Remediation Bill provides an opportunity to resolve these outstanding problems and turn commitments into delivery.
Under its plans, buildings over 18m should be remediated by the end of 2029. Buildings from 11m to under 18m should be remediated or firmly scheduled by then, with 2031 intended as the final completion point. Those ambitions are absolutely welcome, but meeting them will require accurate building data, secure funding, skilled contractors and effective independent inspection. And , as we've heard today, proper resourcing for those agencies across the United Kingdom. It will require costs to be recovered from those responsible, including developers and construction product manufacturers.
Residents have already spent years waiting. Deadlines will mean little unless they are enforceable and backed up by the capacity required to meet them. So can I ask the minister when these duties will become legally enforceable, and how will the government ensure that funding, workforce and regulatory capacity are in place to deliver them? And now, just a few words of conclusion. The lesson of Grenfell is that building safety depends on the whole system working.
Sound regulation, competent professionals, effective oversight and accountability. When things go wrong. When that system fails, danger can remain unaddressed and residents can be left trapped in homes they cannot sell, paying costs they cannot control. Behind every assessment, funding decision and remediation timetable is someone trying to protect their family, preserve their savings or move on to the next stage of their lives. The bereaved and survivors of Grenfell deserve justice, and my constituents in Surrey Heath and constituents across the country deserve safe homes and confidence in those entrusted to protect them.
More than nine years on, we must take every reasonable step to prevent another loss of life and ensure that those still living with the consequences of this crisis can finally move forward.
09:47
09:47
09:47
09:48
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you very much indeed, doctor Morrison, it's a pleasure to serve under your chair, and I delight to be called. First, I congratulate the honourable member for Surrey Heath on securing this important debate and an important opportunity for me to raise many issues that my residents are facing, very similar to those that he has just described with the minister, and I welcome the minister to her place as well. And in doing this, we do remember all of the victims and survivors of Grenfell.
And I'd like to thank all the people who've been campaigning on cladding all across the country. I've been here many times talking about cladding, and yet here we still are. And that is my frustration. Chair, I would like to thank the previous Minister for Building Safety for her work on the remediation bill. The member for Chester, North and Neston. This bill will place stronger legal duties on landlords and freeholders to remediate unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects within clear time frames, and is very welcome.
I'm grateful to the previous Minister for meeting with me to discuss a number of long running cases that I face in Putney, but I'm glad that the new minister will continue that important work. I welcome the work of the Remediation Enforcement Unit as well, and the leadership of Lord row and the work of the Building Safety Regulator. But my main point is that I don't know why they are causing so many delays. I understand that the remediation unit has 69 people working for it, and the building Safety regulator 500, and I would ask the minister to look into their work and find out why it is that they are not able to move ahead.
So many developments at the pace there needs, there's long delays, there's lack of clear guidance and lack of connection between different bodies involved. As I will demonstrate, I'd like to draw the minister's attention to several developments that are covered by the developer remediation contract with major developers such as Barratt and Taylor Wimpey. Despite those contractual commitments, many residents in these developments continue to face lengthy delays before remediation. Works which have been agreed and funded can begin or be completed.
In some cases, fire safety remediation has been delayed because structural defects need to be addressed first. And clearly, if there's problems with the cladding, often that will go with problems with the building in entirely. In others, residents are waiting for final fire risk assessments for SEWS1 forms for remediation, plans for contractor appointments, for updated certifications for smoke extraction systems, or for the installation of cavity barriers. And in all of these, it's the people in the buildings who are having to face chasing this up.
So in one of my developments in my constituency, they've been waiting for Network Rail to give permission for work on rear elevation works. Network rail did not respond to the many repeated efforts by the project team to obtain the position permission, and so a specialist contractor had to be hired just to get this response from Network Rail, which added on a lot of costs for leaseholders. For another, many other defects have been found in the buildings of a really large development.
At the same time, hundreds of families have moved out and moved back, and they've just been told that they're all going to have to move out again in, in, in a rotor system. All the time. They've been fighting for the remediation. They've been worried about the safety of their building. They've had waking watch and they're not. And they are not able to sell their homes if they want to. They cannot get on with their lives.
The impact that this six years of fight has had on all of those residents is unacceptable. They can't sell or remortgage their homes. They live in uncertainty about when their buildings will finally be made safe. It's affecting social housing tenants too, for some really badly affected social housing in Wandsworth, in the specifically the Eliot and Wentworth blocks in Wandsworth town, they have been waiting for the building safety regulator to give the go ahead.
They can't have the essential kitchen replacements and heating system replacements and other work in the building done until the cladding remediation is done. The council submitted the application on the 31st of March and the Building Safety Regulator statutory response time for works to existing higher risk buildings is eight weeks. Immediately, the building safety regulator asked for an extension, and that's worrying in itself, and the council is still waiting for a response. Here we are in September.
These works will take 18 to 24 months and these blocks are in serious need of repair. But also the repair that's that they're waiting for as well. So while I recognise that developers have obligations under the developer remediation contract, my constituents are understandably asking what more can be done by that unit, by ministers, by the building safety regulator when progress stalls for different reasons. The challenge is not whether a developer has signed up to a contract, but how quickly remediation can move through the assessment, approval and delivery stages, especially when there are other bodies involved.
So to conclude, can the minister explain how the government intends to support and expedite remediation at developments already covered by the developer remediation contract? What steps can be taken to remove barriers that are delaying works to speed up assessments and approvals, and ensure that developers deliver at pace? The new legislation is very welcome, but leaseholders trapped in affected buildings need to know that existing remediation programmes will also be accelerated. They deserve not only stronger rules for the future in terms of the new bill coming up, but urgent action on the buildings that already have been waiting far too long for remediation to be completed.
Thank you chair.
And I'd like to thank all the people who've been campaigning on cladding all across the country. I've been here many times talking about cladding, and yet here we still are. And that is my frustration. Chair, I would like to thank the previous Minister for Building Safety for her work on the remediation bill. The member for Chester, North and Neston. This bill will place stronger legal duties on landlords and freeholders to remediate unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects within clear time frames, and is very welcome.
I'm grateful to the previous Minister for meeting with me to discuss a number of long running cases that I face in Putney, but I'm glad that the new minister will continue that important work. I welcome the work of the Remediation Enforcement Unit as well, and the leadership of Lord row and the work of the Building Safety Regulator. But my main point is that I don't know why they are causing so many delays. I understand that the remediation unit has 69 people working for it, and the building Safety regulator 500, and I would ask the minister to look into their work and find out why it is that they are not able to move ahead.
So many developments at the pace there needs, there's long delays, there's lack of clear guidance and lack of connection between different bodies involved. As I will demonstrate, I'd like to draw the minister's attention to several developments that are covered by the developer remediation contract with major developers such as Barratt and Taylor Wimpey. Despite those contractual commitments, many residents in these developments continue to face lengthy delays before remediation. Works which have been agreed and funded can begin or be completed.
In some cases, fire safety remediation has been delayed because structural defects need to be addressed first. And clearly, if there's problems with the cladding, often that will go with problems with the building in entirely. In others, residents are waiting for final fire risk assessments for SEWS1 forms for remediation, plans for contractor appointments, for updated certifications for smoke extraction systems, or for the installation of cavity barriers. And in all of these, it's the people in the buildings who are having to face chasing this up.
So in one of my developments in my constituency, they've been waiting for Network Rail to give permission for work on rear elevation works. Network rail did not respond to the many repeated efforts by the project team to obtain the position permission, and so a specialist contractor had to be hired just to get this response from Network Rail, which added on a lot of costs for leaseholders. For another, many other defects have been found in the buildings of a really large development.
At the same time, hundreds of families have moved out and moved back, and they've just been told that they're all going to have to move out again in, in, in a rotor system. All the time. They've been fighting for the remediation. They've been worried about the safety of their building. They've had waking watch and they're not. And they are not able to sell their homes if they want to. They cannot get on with their lives.
The impact that this six years of fight has had on all of those residents is unacceptable. They can't sell or remortgage their homes. They live in uncertainty about when their buildings will finally be made safe. It's affecting social housing tenants too, for some really badly affected social housing in Wandsworth, in the specifically the Eliot and Wentworth blocks in Wandsworth town, they have been waiting for the building safety regulator to give the go ahead.
They can't have the essential kitchen replacements and heating system replacements and other work in the building done until the cladding remediation is done. The council submitted the application on the 31st of March and the Building Safety Regulator statutory response time for works to existing higher risk buildings is eight weeks. Immediately, the building safety regulator asked for an extension, and that's worrying in itself, and the council is still waiting for a response. Here we are in September.
These works will take 18 to 24 months and these blocks are in serious need of repair. But also the repair that's that they're waiting for as well. So while I recognise that developers have obligations under the developer remediation contract, my constituents are understandably asking what more can be done by that unit, by ministers, by the building safety regulator when progress stalls for different reasons. The challenge is not whether a developer has signed up to a contract, but how quickly remediation can move through the assessment, approval and delivery stages, especially when there are other bodies involved.
So to conclude, can the minister explain how the government intends to support and expedite remediation at developments already covered by the developer remediation contract? What steps can be taken to remove barriers that are delaying works to speed up assessments and approvals, and ensure that developers deliver at pace? The new legislation is very welcome, but leaseholders trapped in affected buildings need to know that existing remediation programmes will also be accelerated. They deserve not only stronger rules for the future in terms of the new bill coming up, but urgent action on the buildings that already have been waiting far too long for remediation to be completed.
Thank you chair.
09:53
09:54
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. Could I thank the member for Surrey Heath for obtaining this debate and the very excellent way that he presented the case this morning, because this is an issue that causes unbelievable levels of stress to many of our constituents. And I think we should just briefly contrast the complications of multiple ownership, private sector developments and so on to get remedial action taken to bring about safety and security for our constituents compared to the relative speed and efficiency with which local authorities dealt with the problem of cladding after Grenfell, in the case of my own borough of Islington, they immediately surveyed every property, discovered unknown suspect cladding in a couple of places and got on with it straight away, and it was resolved very, very quickly.
That was in 2018. And here we are now, eight years later, where I have a considerable number of leasehold properties that have been built over the recent past, over the last 20 years or so, where the residents, as the member for Surrey Heath pointed out, can't move, can't sell, want to move on and they are paying massive levels of insurance costs. So the first question to the minister is the excessive insurance costs that many residents are having to pay is not their fault.
It shouldn't be their responsibility. It should absolutely be the responsibility of the developers who caused the problem in the first place. And if the developers no longer exist or are not prepared to pay it, then surely there is a default position that the government as a whole should be prepared to pick up that level of compensation, because I'm finding people getting deeply into debt just to insure their own flat and at the same time unable to move on.
And so there are just a number of very quick points I want to make about local events, local issues that I have raised many times with the with the government. The first one is the Drayton Park development. Could I say thank you to the Minister and her predecessors for at last getting to a situation where Galliard Homes have been approved for government funding to help cover part of the fire remediation costs. I'd be grateful if she could assure me how quickly that work will now be completed.
This has been subject to endless correspondence between my office, the local authority and many others, just to try and get this remedial work done for the properties on Drayton Park in my constituency. And the second one is the works that need to be done for Newlon housing on the Queensland Road site, which is adjacent to the Arsenal football ground. Remediation works have been delayed, apparently mostly because of delay. Complications created by Newlon.
But again, I've raised this with directly with the minister and her predecessors, and I'd be grateful if she could assure me that that work will now be done. Many lease extensions were granted have been granted over the years, but again, the complication is that those people living there have not seen the work done, see their lease being eaten up. As the years go by, the value of the place reducing, and therefore they are losing out in lots of ways as a result of this.
And that, of course, leads on to the wider issue of leasehold reform. But that's not the subject of of today's debate. And the the other one I want to raise is one that I have raised many times in the past, and I'm quite unclear where we've reached on. It is that of Hybrid Gardens, where Aviva, with the developers of it, there was an issue about wooden railings on balconies there, which were clearly deemed to be a fire risk, and the issue has gone on for a very long time, and once again, the residents are stuck without any certainty of what their future is going is going to be.
And so I won't take up any, any much, much more time. Mr. Morrison, I'd just like to say that we have a responsibility to get this done quickly. When the fire happened at Grenfell, obviously there was enormous shock all over the country and it was disgusting and disgraceful. Everything had happened at Grenfell. We know that we don't want another Grenfell anywhere else. Local authorities have managed, whether by and large, to get the issue sorted out.
It's the miasma of insurance companies, leaseholders, ultimate freeholders, developers that disappear and go bust. Fire, fire safety engineers that are in short supply or non-existent in many places. And at the end of the day, all the stress lands on our constituents. That's just not right and not fair. And I think we need to get it sorted. Thank you.
That was in 2018. And here we are now, eight years later, where I have a considerable number of leasehold properties that have been built over the recent past, over the last 20 years or so, where the residents, as the member for Surrey Heath pointed out, can't move, can't sell, want to move on and they are paying massive levels of insurance costs. So the first question to the minister is the excessive insurance costs that many residents are having to pay is not their fault.
It shouldn't be their responsibility. It should absolutely be the responsibility of the developers who caused the problem in the first place. And if the developers no longer exist or are not prepared to pay it, then surely there is a default position that the government as a whole should be prepared to pick up that level of compensation, because I'm finding people getting deeply into debt just to insure their own flat and at the same time unable to move on.
And so there are just a number of very quick points I want to make about local events, local issues that I have raised many times with the with the government. The first one is the Drayton Park development. Could I say thank you to the Minister and her predecessors for at last getting to a situation where Galliard Homes have been approved for government funding to help cover part of the fire remediation costs. I'd be grateful if she could assure me how quickly that work will now be completed.
This has been subject to endless correspondence between my office, the local authority and many others, just to try and get this remedial work done for the properties on Drayton Park in my constituency. And the second one is the works that need to be done for Newlon housing on the Queensland Road site, which is adjacent to the Arsenal football ground. Remediation works have been delayed, apparently mostly because of delay. Complications created by Newlon.
But again, I've raised this with directly with the minister and her predecessors, and I'd be grateful if she could assure me that that work will now be done. Many lease extensions were granted have been granted over the years, but again, the complication is that those people living there have not seen the work done, see their lease being eaten up. As the years go by, the value of the place reducing, and therefore they are losing out in lots of ways as a result of this.
And that, of course, leads on to the wider issue of leasehold reform. But that's not the subject of of today's debate. And the the other one I want to raise is one that I have raised many times in the past, and I'm quite unclear where we've reached on. It is that of Hybrid Gardens, where Aviva, with the developers of it, there was an issue about wooden railings on balconies there, which were clearly deemed to be a fire risk, and the issue has gone on for a very long time, and once again, the residents are stuck without any certainty of what their future is going is going to be.
And so I won't take up any, any much, much more time. Mr. Morrison, I'd just like to say that we have a responsibility to get this done quickly. When the fire happened at Grenfell, obviously there was enormous shock all over the country and it was disgusting and disgraceful. Everything had happened at Grenfell. We know that we don't want another Grenfell anywhere else. Local authorities have managed, whether by and large, to get the issue sorted out.
It's the miasma of insurance companies, leaseholders, ultimate freeholders, developers that disappear and go bust. Fire, fire safety engineers that are in short supply or non-existent in many places. And at the end of the day, all the stress lands on our constituents. That's just not right and not fair. And I think we need to get it sorted. Thank you.
09:59
09:59
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you doctor. To serve under your chairmanship. And I welcome warmly the minister to her post. I have met most of her predecessors. I don't need to keep meeting her. I just hope she will be taking up the points that we've raised. And I congratulate the honourable member for Surrey Heath for laying out so very clearly my cut to my speech in half because, sadly, it's a bit like Groundhog Day.
We've all been here before and we've raised these issues. And I think that last peroration by my hon. Friend from Islington North summarised the complexity that the Minister and the government has to grapple with. It's not just government that is part of this challenge, but the government has to be part of the solution. I should say at the outset, Doctor Morrison, I don't name any of the developments that I'm talking about, because my residents obviously would feel very concerned about them being blighted.
And I think there's some have been some improvements. The building safety regulatory is getting better, the delays have reduced. But of course, as well as dealing with these existing historic issues, it's also working with new developments. So Hackney Council has had a good track record of building council housing. And some of that has been delayed with the building safety regulator. Those things, those delays I understand now reduced substantially. But I do hope that the minister will look closely at this in her in her new role, and make sure that she is working as efficiently as possible.
And skills remains a really big issue. Woeful lack of activity. Back in 2018, some of us were here raising this issue about training fire safety training engineers. That takes three years to train them. Had anyone been doing that then we would be in a much better place now. So I think that is one of the key things. The mortgage issue is something I wish to raise because as recently as the 3rd of September, I had a letter from the government from the Honourable Baroness Blake of Leeds, who wrote to me repeating what I've had from government ministers of different parties over time, that there are ten mortgage companies that were lenders that will lend on property with dangerous cladding.
But we constituents , can I point this out to constituents, keep referring them to these ten companies, but there's always a reason why it can't happen , because those those companies will obviously have certain criteria which are often just not met. So I think we need to be really clear. If government is sending that sort of information as routine, it needs to be absolutely accurate. Insurance is a huge and ongoing problem. And I have you know, I've had now two developments where only one insurer took part in the tender process for the insurance of the building, because insurers are just pulling out from this and something that the Treasury Select Committee is keen to look at.
But I think there is a real role for government here. And as I say, I've spoken to predecessors of hers into the last government and all the way through, and this is a nut that is not yet been cracked. So I think I think I probably speak for everybody in this room, every member of this room, that we would be happy to lend our weight and effort to help the minister tackle this issue with insurance companies, because we cannot have properties that are effectively uninsurable or bankrupting residents.
I think as the honourable member for Islington North said, people going into debt to pay their insurance premiums, let alone if they have a claim to make. So the lack of skilled contractors is, well, at least back in 2022. In the Public Accounts Committee report, when I was chair of that committee and we we asked then for work to be done and nothing has been done. And then there's this very serious issue raised by the honourable member for Surrey Heath as well, about tolerability.
I have a very expert constituent. I'm very happy to introduce the minister to who came to my advice surgery this summer, and he's written to me a number of times. We've had a number of exchanges, as he has with the Department, about the changes in British standards since Grenfell, specifically about the building materials. Instead of having set standards, the fire safety is now done on measures of tolerability, which he says means there is now a scale of standards depending on the individual who does the fire safety assessment.
That's why, after Adam Kiszczak affair, where a number of AWS one forms were forged, other people qualified to do the AWS one certificates came to different conclusions. That means that two buildings that were tolerable in Hackney alone were then said to have issues that required remediation. He also said this is why the insurance has become so expensive, as they're not certain of the standards, and that will no doubt be having an impact on the mortgage lenders too. This needs to be resolved, and this is much more fundamental than just a government.
You know, with respect to the minister having people in banging heads together, saying sort it out. This is actually fundamental to why Grenfell happened in the first place. It was the biggest public safety failure in several generations. The permanent secretary of the department at the time, I know, spoke to several of her predecessors to see who could see this coming. And this is one of those things where change has happened here and there and everywhere, and no one saw what the cumulative impact of that would be on Grenfell.
And obviously there were other shocking aspects to the Grenfell situation. This is an opportunity for the minister who is a very capable woman, and we're all delighted to see her in her post to really grapple with this issue and tackle this once and for all. This may not help our immediate residents, but it's got to be something that works for the future. So my simple asks, are will the minister get working on this mortgage lender issue and make sure we are sending accurate information and also working with mortgage lenders, not just to get them to sign up to a list saying they support lending, but actually be really clear about the criteria that will allow them to lend.
Look again at insurance and at skills and then please, minister, tackle this issue of tolerability.
We've all been here before and we've raised these issues. And I think that last peroration by my hon. Friend from Islington North summarised the complexity that the Minister and the government has to grapple with. It's not just government that is part of this challenge, but the government has to be part of the solution. I should say at the outset, Doctor Morrison, I don't name any of the developments that I'm talking about, because my residents obviously would feel very concerned about them being blighted.
And I think there's some have been some improvements. The building safety regulatory is getting better, the delays have reduced. But of course, as well as dealing with these existing historic issues, it's also working with new developments. So Hackney Council has had a good track record of building council housing. And some of that has been delayed with the building safety regulator. Those things, those delays I understand now reduced substantially. But I do hope that the minister will look closely at this in her in her new role, and make sure that she is working as efficiently as possible.
And skills remains a really big issue. Woeful lack of activity. Back in 2018, some of us were here raising this issue about training fire safety training engineers. That takes three years to train them. Had anyone been doing that then we would be in a much better place now. So I think that is one of the key things. The mortgage issue is something I wish to raise because as recently as the 3rd of September, I had a letter from the government from the Honourable Baroness Blake of Leeds, who wrote to me repeating what I've had from government ministers of different parties over time, that there are ten mortgage companies that were lenders that will lend on property with dangerous cladding.
But we constituents , can I point this out to constituents, keep referring them to these ten companies, but there's always a reason why it can't happen , because those those companies will obviously have certain criteria which are often just not met. So I think we need to be really clear. If government is sending that sort of information as routine, it needs to be absolutely accurate. Insurance is a huge and ongoing problem. And I have you know, I've had now two developments where only one insurer took part in the tender process for the insurance of the building, because insurers are just pulling out from this and something that the Treasury Select Committee is keen to look at.
But I think there is a real role for government here. And as I say, I've spoken to predecessors of hers into the last government and all the way through, and this is a nut that is not yet been cracked. So I think I think I probably speak for everybody in this room, every member of this room, that we would be happy to lend our weight and effort to help the minister tackle this issue with insurance companies, because we cannot have properties that are effectively uninsurable or bankrupting residents.
I think as the honourable member for Islington North said, people going into debt to pay their insurance premiums, let alone if they have a claim to make. So the lack of skilled contractors is, well, at least back in 2022. In the Public Accounts Committee report, when I was chair of that committee and we we asked then for work to be done and nothing has been done. And then there's this very serious issue raised by the honourable member for Surrey Heath as well, about tolerability.
I have a very expert constituent. I'm very happy to introduce the minister to who came to my advice surgery this summer, and he's written to me a number of times. We've had a number of exchanges, as he has with the Department, about the changes in British standards since Grenfell, specifically about the building materials. Instead of having set standards, the fire safety is now done on measures of tolerability, which he says means there is now a scale of standards depending on the individual who does the fire safety assessment.
That's why, after Adam Kiszczak affair, where a number of AWS one forms were forged, other people qualified to do the AWS one certificates came to different conclusions. That means that two buildings that were tolerable in Hackney alone were then said to have issues that required remediation. He also said this is why the insurance has become so expensive, as they're not certain of the standards, and that will no doubt be having an impact on the mortgage lenders too. This needs to be resolved, and this is much more fundamental than just a government.
You know, with respect to the minister having people in banging heads together, saying sort it out. This is actually fundamental to why Grenfell happened in the first place. It was the biggest public safety failure in several generations. The permanent secretary of the department at the time, I know, spoke to several of her predecessors to see who could see this coming. And this is one of those things where change has happened here and there and everywhere, and no one saw what the cumulative impact of that would be on Grenfell.
And obviously there were other shocking aspects to the Grenfell situation. This is an opportunity for the minister who is a very capable woman, and we're all delighted to see her in her post to really grapple with this issue and tackle this once and for all. This may not help our immediate residents, but it's got to be something that works for the future. So my simple asks, are will the minister get working on this mortgage lender issue and make sure we are sending accurate information and also working with mortgage lenders, not just to get them to sign up to a list saying they support lending, but actually be really clear about the criteria that will allow them to lend.
Look again at insurance and at skills and then please, minister, tackle this issue of tolerability.
10:04
10:04
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you doctor. Pleasure to serve under your Chairship this morning. I want to thank my honourable friend and constituency neighbour for Surrey Heath for securing this debate. In my constituency of Woking, residents have been the direct victim of construction failures. The Victoria Square development, a new shopping centre with two residential towers and another tower containing a hotel, is a glaring example. It was all built by Sir Robert McAlpine. This development was meant to help my town grow and ensure that we can build new homes, grow our economy, but instead it's put Woking on the map for all the wrong reasons.
The original opening date was meant to be October 2020. However, after broken cladding failures, it opened in Halloween 2024 and it's continued to be a horror ever since. After the hotel opened, cladding panels fell off, leading to road closures that disrupted local businesses and inconvenienced residents massively with their day to day lives. This was next to the main road, the a road in the town. One time the road was closed after just being open for 11 days because another panel had fell off.
The road was closed during Christmas and we all know how important that time of year is for businesses. I asked town centre residents and businesses to tell me how this impacted them. One family owned restaurant told me their bookings had dropped and unfortunately had to cut staff hours. A carer's agency said their staff were constantly being delayed in delivering necessary care to vulnerable people, all because Sir Robert McAlpine didn't build the building properly in the first place.
Thankfully, the road has now reopened and the cladding panels have now only recently been properly secured, according to the Chartered Institute of Building. Under the common law of negligence, losses are purely. If they're purely economical losses. They're just not recoverable. However, this could be included under contract law. Why is this not standard practice for building projects? So I asked the minister will her and her department look at making this standard practice as part of forthcoming legislation? Just a stone's throw away is another building safety issue in Woking.
The Eastgate building has sat abandoned since late 2023, when over 100 residents were evacuated after a report identified significant structural defects. It's been it's been years since and the developer says the building is safe. The owner says otherwise. After I got involved last year, independent testing was carried out. Despite it being completed for many months now, the results still haven't been released. There's no way both sides can be right in this situation.
I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Does the minister agree with me that the testing needs to be released immediately, and one of the parties must either admit their wrong, whether that's residents allowed back in explained why a wrong structural testing was given, or that the developer needs to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation. These two examples from my constituency of Woking show there is a pressing need for stricter oversight.
Strong, direct respective enforcement and clear accountability for those that are responsible. It is shocking that we're in a country where to become a lawyer or a teacher, you need to have a university degree, maybe two to be accredited. But yet I could go to Bmq, buy some materials, and become a cowboy builder tomorrow without a license. The construction industry is an unregulated Wild West sector. I know the Federation of Master Builders have been calling on the government to introduce mandatory licensing testing for UK construction firms.
Does the Minister agree with me and them, and will they include it in forthcoming legislation? I urge the government to listen. I better not with timing. I urge the government to listen to members present and take the necessary steps to deliver the building safety and accountability that people back home in Woking and across the country deserve.
The original opening date was meant to be October 2020. However, after broken cladding failures, it opened in Halloween 2024 and it's continued to be a horror ever since. After the hotel opened, cladding panels fell off, leading to road closures that disrupted local businesses and inconvenienced residents massively with their day to day lives. This was next to the main road, the a road in the town. One time the road was closed after just being open for 11 days because another panel had fell off.
The road was closed during Christmas and we all know how important that time of year is for businesses. I asked town centre residents and businesses to tell me how this impacted them. One family owned restaurant told me their bookings had dropped and unfortunately had to cut staff hours. A carer's agency said their staff were constantly being delayed in delivering necessary care to vulnerable people, all because Sir Robert McAlpine didn't build the building properly in the first place.
Thankfully, the road has now reopened and the cladding panels have now only recently been properly secured, according to the Chartered Institute of Building. Under the common law of negligence, losses are purely. If they're purely economical losses. They're just not recoverable. However, this could be included under contract law. Why is this not standard practice for building projects? So I asked the minister will her and her department look at making this standard practice as part of forthcoming legislation? Just a stone's throw away is another building safety issue in Woking.
The Eastgate building has sat abandoned since late 2023, when over 100 residents were evacuated after a report identified significant structural defects. It's been it's been years since and the developer says the building is safe. The owner says otherwise. After I got involved last year, independent testing was carried out. Despite it being completed for many months now, the results still haven't been released. There's no way both sides can be right in this situation.
I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Does the minister agree with me that the testing needs to be released immediately, and one of the parties must either admit their wrong, whether that's residents allowed back in explained why a wrong structural testing was given, or that the developer needs to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation. These two examples from my constituency of Woking show there is a pressing need for stricter oversight.
Strong, direct respective enforcement and clear accountability for those that are responsible. It is shocking that we're in a country where to become a lawyer or a teacher, you need to have a university degree, maybe two to be accredited. But yet I could go to Bmq, buy some materials, and become a cowboy builder tomorrow without a license. The construction industry is an unregulated Wild West sector. I know the Federation of Master Builders have been calling on the government to introduce mandatory licensing testing for UK construction firms.
Does the Minister agree with me and them, and will they include it in forthcoming legislation? I urge the government to listen. I better not with timing. I urge the government to listen to members present and take the necessary steps to deliver the building safety and accountability that people back home in Woking and across the country deserve.
10:08
10:08
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, sir. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd just like to thank the backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. And the honourable member for Surrey Heath, who is so ably set out the issues that our constituents face in this situation. Dartford, unlike perhaps many city centre constituencies, isn't somewhere you'd necessarily associate with high levels of building safety problems. But we continue to see issues including new and previously unidentified ones.
The first, and perhaps key point I want to make is the length of time that these issues are continuing to take to resolve. When I was first elected in 2024, I was contacted by residents of a set of four blocks Ingress Park in Greenhithe, who had a long standing fire safety issue. First identified as far back as 2019, which found that flats had combustible material in the balconies and inadequate fire breaks. Frighteningly, for residents, there was even a fire on site in 2023, which left four people injured, bringing home the need to get the building sorted.
I've supported residents over the last two years, bringing together the developer and the managing agents to try to overcome the various obstacles that have appeared to getting the works done, and it was honestly with a sense of relief that I visited the buildings last week to see that the work was finally underway, with an end in sight for residents to the cost and uncertainty with which they had been living. And this case is, I think, from the contributions of others and conversations I've had with other MPs, indicative of how these cases can drag on for years, even where the developer has identified the need for remediation works and agreed to fund it.
The second issue I just wanted to raise today is that I'm fairly astonished by the fact that we are still continuing to discover new issues. Now, partly this is due to the now well-publicised issues with fire safety surveys undertaken by Trial Fire and Adam Mckisack, which the member for Surrey Heath and other members have mentioned, who was expelled by the Institution of Fire Engineers. But one instance which brings it home to me how serious this was is Heron Court in Ebbsfleet, within my constituency, where residents have recently had a waking watch imposed upon them by managing agents Firstport, who obviously receive much attention in this place but once again have taken action without the agreement of residents or with the builders of the buildings.
Two of the four blocks at Heron Court are very slightly over 11m in height and therefore in the scope of the Building Safety Act. In this instance, there is a dispute between Firstport, the managing agents, and Taylor Wimpey, the developer, about the fire safety report that's been undertaken with one party not happy with it. Negotiations over access for a further inspection have been ongoing since the start of the year, to try to clarify what work is indeed needing to be undertaken, and this has left leaseholders in the building facing the bill for the 24 hour waking watch, while having no levers to bring the other parties together to move the issue forward.
I've asked to meet with Firstport and the developer in the coming weeks to try to find a way forward and seek assurances that leaseholders won't be hit with the costs of the waking watch. Particularly surprising is that some of the new issues occurring are, I think, in buildings built well after the terrible events at Grenfell in 2017, when lessons should really have been learned already. So I hope when the minister responds and I welcome her to her place, that she will be able to confirm that it remains the case that leaseholders should not be bearing the costs of these waking watches.
The first, and perhaps key point I want to make is the length of time that these issues are continuing to take to resolve. When I was first elected in 2024, I was contacted by residents of a set of four blocks Ingress Park in Greenhithe, who had a long standing fire safety issue. First identified as far back as 2019, which found that flats had combustible material in the balconies and inadequate fire breaks. Frighteningly, for residents, there was even a fire on site in 2023, which left four people injured, bringing home the need to get the building sorted.
I've supported residents over the last two years, bringing together the developer and the managing agents to try to overcome the various obstacles that have appeared to getting the works done, and it was honestly with a sense of relief that I visited the buildings last week to see that the work was finally underway, with an end in sight for residents to the cost and uncertainty with which they had been living. And this case is, I think, from the contributions of others and conversations I've had with other MPs, indicative of how these cases can drag on for years, even where the developer has identified the need for remediation works and agreed to fund it.
The second issue I just wanted to raise today is that I'm fairly astonished by the fact that we are still continuing to discover new issues. Now, partly this is due to the now well-publicised issues with fire safety surveys undertaken by Trial Fire and Adam Mckisack, which the member for Surrey Heath and other members have mentioned, who was expelled by the Institution of Fire Engineers. But one instance which brings it home to me how serious this was is Heron Court in Ebbsfleet, within my constituency, where residents have recently had a waking watch imposed upon them by managing agents Firstport, who obviously receive much attention in this place but once again have taken action without the agreement of residents or with the builders of the buildings.
Two of the four blocks at Heron Court are very slightly over 11m in height and therefore in the scope of the Building Safety Act. In this instance, there is a dispute between Firstport, the managing agents, and Taylor Wimpey, the developer, about the fire safety report that's been undertaken with one party not happy with it. Negotiations over access for a further inspection have been ongoing since the start of the year, to try to clarify what work is indeed needing to be undertaken, and this has left leaseholders in the building facing the bill for the 24 hour waking watch, while having no levers to bring the other parties together to move the issue forward.
I've asked to meet with Firstport and the developer in the coming weeks to try to find a way forward and seek assurances that leaseholders won't be hit with the costs of the waking watch. Particularly surprising is that some of the new issues occurring are, I think, in buildings built well after the terrible events at Grenfell in 2017, when lessons should really have been learned already. So I hope when the minister responds and I welcome her to her place, that she will be able to confirm that it remains the case that leaseholders should not be bearing the costs of these waking watches.
10:12
10:12
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Big thank you to the honourable member for Surrey Heath for raising this debate. Honourable member often brings important, vital debates to Westminster Hall, and I'm always very glad to come along and support him for for his requests. And hopefully the Minister is welcome to our place as well. She's a busy lady. Last night in the adjournment debate and like you never slept in her back in Westminster Hall the next morning.
So we wish you well. Minister, in the role that you play, building safety around remediation is required to fix serious safety defects in residential buildings where these defects could put residents at risk. At the end of July 26th, more than 4500 residential buildings in England measuring some 11m or more in height, have been identified as having unsafe cladding and requiring remediation. The figure had increased by some 228 in just one month, so there's a growing problem.
Unfortunately, this demonstrates that the demand for remediation works is continuing to outpace the rate by which works are being completed. We do need to remember, Mr. Chairman, that behind these stats are real people. Sometimes the buildings that are thought. But the fact is, it's what happens upon the people living day to day in these buildings and living with a constant uncertainty about the safety of their own homes. The pressure and the stress are almost overwhelming.
Many report facing significant financial pressures due to insurance premiums and difficulties in selling their properties. We've seen reports of some leaseholders in London losing around £100,000 on the value of their flats as a result of a five year delay in remediation plans and works following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. We have seen the potential for fatal consequences because of failures and delays in building safety remediation, and I believe lessons must be learned from this. I want to give a quick perspective, if I can, as chairman of Northern Ireland.
More than £2 million has been paid to managing agents through the cladding safety scheme. However, despite the support, the support hundreds of people in Belfast are still living in high rise buildings with cladding that has raised serious fire safety concerns, including buildings containing some of the very same materials which caused the Grenfell tragedy. So, Minister, my request to you would be has the minister and I know it's early days for the Minister, and I understand that the minister had the opportunity to talk with the relevant Minister, the Northern Ireland Assembly, to give them details of what they're doing here to help us back home, maybe do it better when the overall number of high rise residential buildings in Northern Ireland is relatively small compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
That cannot mean that the standard of protection afforded to residents should be any less. It never should. Every resident deserves to know that their home is safe, regardless of where they live. Considering this, does the minister agree that more must be done to accelerate the mediation of unsafe cladding in Northern Ireland and ensure that residents are supported throughout the process? Again, that emphasises, I believe, my request and comment on the end.
Mr. chairman, very conscious of your your indication for time. Residents deserve safe, secure homes. They should not be left in limbo, facing rising costs and uncertainty while they wait for the buildings they call home to be made safe. It just isn't fair.
So we wish you well. Minister, in the role that you play, building safety around remediation is required to fix serious safety defects in residential buildings where these defects could put residents at risk. At the end of July 26th, more than 4500 residential buildings in England measuring some 11m or more in height, have been identified as having unsafe cladding and requiring remediation. The figure had increased by some 228 in just one month, so there's a growing problem.
Unfortunately, this demonstrates that the demand for remediation works is continuing to outpace the rate by which works are being completed. We do need to remember, Mr. Chairman, that behind these stats are real people. Sometimes the buildings that are thought. But the fact is, it's what happens upon the people living day to day in these buildings and living with a constant uncertainty about the safety of their own homes. The pressure and the stress are almost overwhelming.
Many report facing significant financial pressures due to insurance premiums and difficulties in selling their properties. We've seen reports of some leaseholders in London losing around £100,000 on the value of their flats as a result of a five year delay in remediation plans and works following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. We have seen the potential for fatal consequences because of failures and delays in building safety remediation, and I believe lessons must be learned from this. I want to give a quick perspective, if I can, as chairman of Northern Ireland.
More than £2 million has been paid to managing agents through the cladding safety scheme. However, despite the support, the support hundreds of people in Belfast are still living in high rise buildings with cladding that has raised serious fire safety concerns, including buildings containing some of the very same materials which caused the Grenfell tragedy. So, Minister, my request to you would be has the minister and I know it's early days for the Minister, and I understand that the minister had the opportunity to talk with the relevant Minister, the Northern Ireland Assembly, to give them details of what they're doing here to help us back home, maybe do it better when the overall number of high rise residential buildings in Northern Ireland is relatively small compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
That cannot mean that the standard of protection afforded to residents should be any less. It never should. Every resident deserves to know that their home is safe, regardless of where they live. Considering this, does the minister agree that more must be done to accelerate the mediation of unsafe cladding in Northern Ireland and ensure that residents are supported throughout the process? Again, that emphasises, I believe, my request and comment on the end.
Mr. chairman, very conscious of your your indication for time. Residents deserve safe, secure homes. They should not be left in limbo, facing rising costs and uncertainty while they wait for the buildings they call home to be made safe. It just isn't fair.
10:15
10:15
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you. Mr.. Serve under your chairmanship. And thank you to the honourable member for Surrey Heath for securing this debate. I will keep my comments brief as you request. I did want to put on record, though I was still the team accountability at mace for this area in my portfolio, and it was my colleague Sam Kennedy who took on the delivery of that. And I'm sure her work has made buildings safer in the long term.
And I just want to make sure that her work was recognised, because I forgot to say so last time I spoke here on this topic. Doctor Morrison, the building safety regulator, was a serious bottleneck. And when we spoke about this, we heard I couldn't go to a single panel event, round table. My LinkedIn was full of complaints about the BSR and their performance, but I would say the performance change has been substantial under Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley. And given it's a public sector organisation that has changed so quickly, I don't think we can have this debate without recognising the substantial change I think they've made to the BSR.
And the performance stats show that. But as colleagues have mentioned, there are still areas to improve. So rather than focusing on what's happening now, perhaps I'll focus on what I think comes next. I think there are two big issues for the department to focus on. Firstly, the implementation, the building safety levy in Scotland. This has already been paused because of concerns over viability and how that is implemented into such a complex system. And I think for England, the Department does need to look at that with the bringing forward of the remediation Bill.
How does the implementation implementation of that levy apply, and does it actually impact on us delivering the homes that we need? Is it the solution now in a reformed system? But the main point I want to talk about is the remediation bill itself, which I know is yet to be introduced, and I hope it contains a number of measures to address some of the issues that colleagues have talked about. Firstly, enforcement deadlines moving from targets set for the remediation plan into enforceable targets with the equipment, with the enforcement unit properly equipped to deliver them a clear answer on buildings under 11m.
I really welcome the government's extension of funding to buildings under 11m, but I understand the funding pot is constrained by budget rather than the scale of the problem. So much more collection of evidence needed to understand what money we need to make sure no building in the UK is unsafe. A resolution for non qualifying leaseholders, who have been excluded for years now and still across our constituencies, facing large bills and addressing the challenge of defect liability periods because there has been consultation on extending to 15 and 30 years, which sounds great for a principle developer or contractor, but that's not mirrored then in the Defects Premises Act and how that rolls through the supply chain.
One of the big two big winners, unfortunately, from this process have been the legal profession and the insurance profession. I have heard countless stories of contractors who have been encouraged to secure additional pay to pay for building safety, only then to be caught up by the insurers through every single technical loophole they can put, they can pull to avoid paying, which ultimately means there are buildings and homes across the country that are ready to be lived in, that cannot get insurance because of the actions of the insurance sector, and there are contractors failing.
We see increased number of collapses, contractors in the construction sector, but certainly the big winners from all of this have been the lawyers. I have unfortunately heard of schemes where the legal fees outweigh the cost of remediation, and there has to be something done by government to address this. Ambulance chasing in some cases, the legal profession on this, making millions out of trying to address a problem that homeowners inherited. And Doctor Morrison, I would say thank you to the National Housing Federation and Real Estate UK and many others across the sector who keep us informed.
But I want to extend those thanks further down the chain, because without the stories that come up from the contractors and the supply chains working on this, the reality of trying to fix the problem day to day, we don't get a true scale of the challenges that we face. So would the minister agree with me that we have to make sure, alongside listening to trade bodies, leaseholders, freeholders, developers, we need to make sure we're down in the supply chain and talking to those suppliers and installers to understand what it's like on the ground.
And I just want to make sure that her work was recognised, because I forgot to say so last time I spoke here on this topic. Doctor Morrison, the building safety regulator, was a serious bottleneck. And when we spoke about this, we heard I couldn't go to a single panel event, round table. My LinkedIn was full of complaints about the BSR and their performance, but I would say the performance change has been substantial under Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley. And given it's a public sector organisation that has changed so quickly, I don't think we can have this debate without recognising the substantial change I think they've made to the BSR.
And the performance stats show that. But as colleagues have mentioned, there are still areas to improve. So rather than focusing on what's happening now, perhaps I'll focus on what I think comes next. I think there are two big issues for the department to focus on. Firstly, the implementation, the building safety levy in Scotland. This has already been paused because of concerns over viability and how that is implemented into such a complex system. And I think for England, the Department does need to look at that with the bringing forward of the remediation Bill.
How does the implementation implementation of that levy apply, and does it actually impact on us delivering the homes that we need? Is it the solution now in a reformed system? But the main point I want to talk about is the remediation bill itself, which I know is yet to be introduced, and I hope it contains a number of measures to address some of the issues that colleagues have talked about. Firstly, enforcement deadlines moving from targets set for the remediation plan into enforceable targets with the equipment, with the enforcement unit properly equipped to deliver them a clear answer on buildings under 11m.
I really welcome the government's extension of funding to buildings under 11m, but I understand the funding pot is constrained by budget rather than the scale of the problem. So much more collection of evidence needed to understand what money we need to make sure no building in the UK is unsafe. A resolution for non qualifying leaseholders, who have been excluded for years now and still across our constituencies, facing large bills and addressing the challenge of defect liability periods because there has been consultation on extending to 15 and 30 years, which sounds great for a principle developer or contractor, but that's not mirrored then in the Defects Premises Act and how that rolls through the supply chain.
One of the big two big winners, unfortunately, from this process have been the legal profession and the insurance profession. I have heard countless stories of contractors who have been encouraged to secure additional pay to pay for building safety, only then to be caught up by the insurers through every single technical loophole they can put, they can pull to avoid paying, which ultimately means there are buildings and homes across the country that are ready to be lived in, that cannot get insurance because of the actions of the insurance sector, and there are contractors failing.
We see increased number of collapses, contractors in the construction sector, but certainly the big winners from all of this have been the lawyers. I have unfortunately heard of schemes where the legal fees outweigh the cost of remediation, and there has to be something done by government to address this. Ambulance chasing in some cases, the legal profession on this, making millions out of trying to address a problem that homeowners inherited. And Doctor Morrison, I would say thank you to the National Housing Federation and Real Estate UK and many others across the sector who keep us informed.
But I want to extend those thanks further down the chain, because without the stories that come up from the contractors and the supply chains working on this, the reality of trying to fix the problem day to day, we don't get a true scale of the challenges that we face. So would the minister agree with me that we have to make sure, alongside listening to trade bodies, leaseholders, freeholders, developers, we need to make sure we're down in the supply chain and talking to those suppliers and installers to understand what it's like on the ground.
10:19
10:19
10:19
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
It's a pleasure to have you here today. And my thanks go to the honourable member for Surrey Heath in securing and introducing this debate, in doing so ever so comprehensively and ever so well. One of the first emails I received when I was elected in 2024 was from Tillicoultry residents who had been told that RAC was present in their roofs. I remember being really moved at how these people have been affected in so many different ways.
They have experienced immense stress and uncertainty at being evacuated at short notice and three years later they are still separated from their personal possessions. Family heirlooms passed down through generations, photo albums, souvenirs, jewellery, items that you cannot put a financial price on. Some have had to move to temporary accommodation, hotels or rented properties that will never feel like home. The feeling of being unable to put down roots has taken a toll on mental health.
Having to still pay mortgages on uninhabitable properties has taken a toll on financial health. These people's lives have been turned upside down. But the most heartbreaking and scandalous part of their story is them feeling like they have been ignored. Confusion over repairs and the cost of them have been a hallmark of years of substandard communication from the council. Homeowners have struggled to get responses to emails or phone calls about their ongoing situation, meaning people have not been able to make informed decisions.
And these are huge decisions to make. Some homeowners have ended up selling their property at a vastly reduced price, just to get it all over and done with, in an attempt to move on with their lives. After a recent meeting at the start of this month, the council accepted the information in some instances could have been presented more clearly. That was welcomed. But it's not enough. And I have to say that the SNP council administration, who run the council, need to reflect on the lack of leadership displayed during this whole sorry saga.
Both the Council and the local Clackmannanshire and Dunblane MSP, who is the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, no less, have been found utterly wanting. They have been so ineffective at getting the Scottish Government to step up and do the right thing for the Tillicoultry residents and the SNP government have utterly abandoned the Tillicoultry residents. It is a disgrace that it took two years for the Cabinet Secretary for housing to meet with the residents, and the outcome of that meeting a dereliction of duty instead of taking meaningful action to sort this mess out.
They just wanted to blame Westminster. But the Tillicoultry residents, they know that housing is a wholly devolved matter. This is the Scottish Government's responsibility in finishing the Tillicoultry RAC. Residents just want the council and the Scottish Government to treat them with empathy, compassion and fairness. That's not too much to ask at all. These people are in their hour of need.
They have experienced immense stress and uncertainty at being evacuated at short notice and three years later they are still separated from their personal possessions. Family heirlooms passed down through generations, photo albums, souvenirs, jewellery, items that you cannot put a financial price on. Some have had to move to temporary accommodation, hotels or rented properties that will never feel like home. The feeling of being unable to put down roots has taken a toll on mental health.
Having to still pay mortgages on uninhabitable properties has taken a toll on financial health. These people's lives have been turned upside down. But the most heartbreaking and scandalous part of their story is them feeling like they have been ignored. Confusion over repairs and the cost of them have been a hallmark of years of substandard communication from the council. Homeowners have struggled to get responses to emails or phone calls about their ongoing situation, meaning people have not been able to make informed decisions.
And these are huge decisions to make. Some homeowners have ended up selling their property at a vastly reduced price, just to get it all over and done with, in an attempt to move on with their lives. After a recent meeting at the start of this month, the council accepted the information in some instances could have been presented more clearly. That was welcomed. But it's not enough. And I have to say that the SNP council administration, who run the council, need to reflect on the lack of leadership displayed during this whole sorry saga.
Both the Council and the local Clackmannanshire and Dunblane MSP, who is the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, no less, have been found utterly wanting. They have been so ineffective at getting the Scottish Government to step up and do the right thing for the Tillicoultry residents and the SNP government have utterly abandoned the Tillicoultry residents. It is a disgrace that it took two years for the Cabinet Secretary for housing to meet with the residents, and the outcome of that meeting a dereliction of duty instead of taking meaningful action to sort this mess out.
They just wanted to blame Westminster. But the Tillicoultry residents, they know that housing is a wholly devolved matter. This is the Scottish Government's responsibility in finishing the Tillicoultry RAC. Residents just want the council and the Scottish Government to treat them with empathy, compassion and fairness. That's not too much to ask at all. These people are in their hour of need.
10:23
10:23
10:23
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Doctor Morrison, and it's a pleasure to serve the committee with you in the chair. And I congratulate my hon. Friend for Surrey Heath on a very important debate today and, as others have said, setting it out so clearly in my hon. Friend for Woking, for all the hard work he's doing dealing with the Halloween horror of panels falling in the town centre. But I'd like to start by paying tribute to the 72 victims of the Grenfell disaster.
No debate should go past without recognising how grotesquely they were failed by the systems that were meant to protect them. So let's not forget what the public inquiry panel, chaired by Judge Sir Martin Moore-bick, said in their report on the disaster and I quote, on building inspectors, we have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressure of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind effectively serving the public interest.
And similarly, on the building research establishment, it sacrificed rigorous application and principle to its commercial interests, and I will return to commercial interests shortly. The remediation bill, announced in the King's Speech, is expected to make it a legal requirement for every fire risk appraisal of external walls to be carried out according to the publicly available specification, or PaaS 9980. As we've heard, which is produced by the British Standards Institution, this document, this is the document that decides in law whether a leaseholders building requires remediation or is considered safe.
The draft of that consultation that went out recently, the final one, has only just been published. Should the draft should at least worry us and every leaseholder in the country, and we need to know whether its deficiencies have been fixed. The first is, it says that the failure of a building to meet benchmarks in the building regulations at the time the building was built, and I quote, should not be used as the sole basis for determining the outcome of the fire risk assessment.
So a building can still pass the pass 9980 test, even if it is found and proven. It did not comply with the building regulations in force at the time it was built. The Fire Safety Order manages fire safety and occupied buildings on the assumption that buildings met the building regulations when they were built. The remediation regime should require the same standard that developers should have met when they constructed the building in the first place, and the others? The others are, and continue to be required to meet in building, in constructing buildings and meeting building regulations.
Because what? Because what is remediation if it's not about making a building meet the standards, it should always have met Doctor Morrison. Quite frankly. What is the point of having building regulations for leaseholders in this position if they're not to be enforced in the circumstances as clear as this? Can the Minister reassure leaseholders that the newly published standard will require regulation, the remediation of failures to comply with the building regulations that were in force at the time of construction? The question also point to a worrying failure to enforce building regulations more generally, going far beyond fire safety, which could lead to an unfolding tide of undiscovered construction failings.
More generally, for me, any notion that profit the profit motive has a continuing role to play. After what we've heard from Sir Martin Moore-bick and the Grenfell Public Inquiry panel report any notion that profit motive should continue to have a role in building inspection following those tragic events is really unacceptable and cannot be sustained, in my view. Doctor Morrison, I'm disappointed that the building control panel has recommended continuing private sector and therefore profit seeking roles in building inspections.
That is what has got us into this mess, and it won't get it out of it, won't get us out of it. And liberal Democrats are calling for building control services to be in-house in local or regional authorities, or otherwise not for profit. The second deficiency is the gap between tolerable and low, which we've heard about in 1980, where an appraisal finds a tolerable risk. The draft allows the work needed to bring that risk down to low to be delayed.
The commentary on clause seven suggests recommending that performance of the external wall components be upgraded. And I quote if when there is any refurbishment of the external walls in future, if and when it's not good enough for families that have to live with unsafe homes, with the knowledge that our external walls contain flammable material, sometimes that is more flammable than the materials used on the ground. Fail tower, and the leaseholder pays for the wait in insurance premiums and mortgage difficulties, and living in a building that is only partially safe to too many.
It also renders useless the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, because the Building Safety Act protection is applied to unsafe cladding and cladding is not considered unsafe. If components are found to pose a tolerable risk, are they unsafe and why shouldn't they be removed to reduce the risk to lone? We've heard about challenges getting insurance. If the buildings were remediated to the standard, they should have been built to in the first place and all flammable materials removed, there wouldn't be any problem for residents to get insurance, and developers cannot be asked to come back and finish the job under those circumstances, because the developer remediation contract only requires a building to be brought up to the tolerable standard.
So can the minister confirm whether the newly published standard will require all work needed to reach a low risk outcome to be undertaken at the same time? These are not technical quibbles. The department's own figures, published in August, show that of the 4600 buildings being monitored, only 1800 have completed remediation and over 2000 of the 4600 remediation required have not even started. That's 46% of buildings with unsafe cladding where nothing has begun nine years on, as other members have pointed out, and the department estimates that somewhere between 1100 and 2600 more buildings are in scope and have not yet been identified.
Meanwhile, leaseholders continue to struggle under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering huge increases in premiums and so on. Many developers and building owners have passed the costs of remediation work onto tenants and leaseholders, putting many quite unfairly in serious financial peril. Liberal Democrats, following our policy on the great property rip off passed by our conference last year, are therefore calling on the removal of all such flammable cladding, whether above or below 11m as soon as possible, without tenants or leaseholders, including non-qualifying leaseholders, having to pay.
After all, those buying leases place their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down. The fault was not theirs to list. The searches would have shown that buildings and building regulations homeowners were misled and it wasn't their fault. They should not have to pay a penny towards that work. That's why my colleague, the noble lady lady, Lady Pinnocks Leasehold remediation Bill, which had its second reading in the other place on Friday, would protect leaseholders in buildings of any height and put developers, contractors and manufacturers on the hook for the costs.
So in concluding, Doctor Morrison, I asked the minister six things if the minister will come back to the House and set out what the changes are between the consultation draft and the recently published powers 9980, published the other day. Will the Minister make clear that a building which is found to fail the building regulations that were in force when it was built must be remediated back to the Building Regulations standard, and that work needed to reach a low risk outcome is done once, not
No debate should go past without recognising how grotesquely they were failed by the systems that were meant to protect them. So let's not forget what the public inquiry panel, chaired by Judge Sir Martin Moore-bick, said in their report on the disaster and I quote, on building inspectors, we have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressure of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind effectively serving the public interest.
And similarly, on the building research establishment, it sacrificed rigorous application and principle to its commercial interests, and I will return to commercial interests shortly. The remediation bill, announced in the King's Speech, is expected to make it a legal requirement for every fire risk appraisal of external walls to be carried out according to the publicly available specification, or PaaS 9980. As we've heard, which is produced by the British Standards Institution, this document, this is the document that decides in law whether a leaseholders building requires remediation or is considered safe.
The draft of that consultation that went out recently, the final one, has only just been published. Should the draft should at least worry us and every leaseholder in the country, and we need to know whether its deficiencies have been fixed. The first is, it says that the failure of a building to meet benchmarks in the building regulations at the time the building was built, and I quote, should not be used as the sole basis for determining the outcome of the fire risk assessment.
So a building can still pass the pass 9980 test, even if it is found and proven. It did not comply with the building regulations in force at the time it was built. The Fire Safety Order manages fire safety and occupied buildings on the assumption that buildings met the building regulations when they were built. The remediation regime should require the same standard that developers should have met when they constructed the building in the first place, and the others? The others are, and continue to be required to meet in building, in constructing buildings and meeting building regulations.
Because what? Because what is remediation if it's not about making a building meet the standards, it should always have met Doctor Morrison. Quite frankly. What is the point of having building regulations for leaseholders in this position if they're not to be enforced in the circumstances as clear as this? Can the Minister reassure leaseholders that the newly published standard will require regulation, the remediation of failures to comply with the building regulations that were in force at the time of construction? The question also point to a worrying failure to enforce building regulations more generally, going far beyond fire safety, which could lead to an unfolding tide of undiscovered construction failings.
More generally, for me, any notion that profit the profit motive has a continuing role to play. After what we've heard from Sir Martin Moore-bick and the Grenfell Public Inquiry panel report any notion that profit motive should continue to have a role in building inspection following those tragic events is really unacceptable and cannot be sustained, in my view. Doctor Morrison, I'm disappointed that the building control panel has recommended continuing private sector and therefore profit seeking roles in building inspections.
That is what has got us into this mess, and it won't get it out of it, won't get us out of it. And liberal Democrats are calling for building control services to be in-house in local or regional authorities, or otherwise not for profit. The second deficiency is the gap between tolerable and low, which we've heard about in 1980, where an appraisal finds a tolerable risk. The draft allows the work needed to bring that risk down to low to be delayed.
The commentary on clause seven suggests recommending that performance of the external wall components be upgraded. And I quote if when there is any refurbishment of the external walls in future, if and when it's not good enough for families that have to live with unsafe homes, with the knowledge that our external walls contain flammable material, sometimes that is more flammable than the materials used on the ground. Fail tower, and the leaseholder pays for the wait in insurance premiums and mortgage difficulties, and living in a building that is only partially safe to too many.
It also renders useless the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, because the Building Safety Act protection is applied to unsafe cladding and cladding is not considered unsafe. If components are found to pose a tolerable risk, are they unsafe and why shouldn't they be removed to reduce the risk to lone? We've heard about challenges getting insurance. If the buildings were remediated to the standard, they should have been built to in the first place and all flammable materials removed, there wouldn't be any problem for residents to get insurance, and developers cannot be asked to come back and finish the job under those circumstances, because the developer remediation contract only requires a building to be brought up to the tolerable standard.
So can the minister confirm whether the newly published standard will require all work needed to reach a low risk outcome to be undertaken at the same time? These are not technical quibbles. The department's own figures, published in August, show that of the 4600 buildings being monitored, only 1800 have completed remediation and over 2000 of the 4600 remediation required have not even started. That's 46% of buildings with unsafe cladding where nothing has begun nine years on, as other members have pointed out, and the department estimates that somewhere between 1100 and 2600 more buildings are in scope and have not yet been identified.
Meanwhile, leaseholders continue to struggle under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering huge increases in premiums and so on. Many developers and building owners have passed the costs of remediation work onto tenants and leaseholders, putting many quite unfairly in serious financial peril. Liberal Democrats, following our policy on the great property rip off passed by our conference last year, are therefore calling on the removal of all such flammable cladding, whether above or below 11m as soon as possible, without tenants or leaseholders, including non-qualifying leaseholders, having to pay.
After all, those buying leases place their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down. The fault was not theirs to list. The searches would have shown that buildings and building regulations homeowners were misled and it wasn't their fault. They should not have to pay a penny towards that work. That's why my colleague, the noble lady lady, Lady Pinnocks Leasehold remediation Bill, which had its second reading in the other place on Friday, would protect leaseholders in buildings of any height and put developers, contractors and manufacturers on the hook for the costs.
So in concluding, Doctor Morrison, I asked the minister six things if the minister will come back to the House and set out what the changes are between the consultation draft and the recently published powers 9980, published the other day. Will the Minister make clear that a building which is found to fail the building regulations that were in force when it was built must be remediated back to the Building Regulations standard, and that work needed to reach a low risk outcome is done once, not
10:30
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
It's done once, not deferred to some future refurbishment. Whether leaseholder protections will be extended to every leaseholder and every defective building, including the hundreds of thousands excluded from the building safety regime. And will the government commit to driving profit making commercial interests out of every part of running our building control inspections and out of official product testing certifications, and to making physical inspections the norm. Once again, in every development. What more penultimately? What more will the government do to end delays that the building safety regulator.
And finally, will the government confirm that remediation bill will provide for cladding manufacturers to be pursued to pay their share of the costs of remediation, which were very much partly their cause? We welcome the legally enforceable duty to remediate on pain of criminal sanction, and we still do. But a duty to remediate is only as good as the standard it is measured against. And commercial interests should have no place in policing commercial projects for safety and building regulations.
Residents in Taunton, Wellington, in London and across the country deserve nothing less. And above all, the victims of this terrible disaster at Grenfell, an avoidable disaster deserve justice.
And finally, will the government confirm that remediation bill will provide for cladding manufacturers to be pursued to pay their share of the costs of remediation, which were very much partly their cause? We welcome the legally enforceable duty to remediate on pain of criminal sanction, and we still do. But a duty to remediate is only as good as the standard it is measured against. And commercial interests should have no place in policing commercial projects for safety and building regulations.
Residents in Taunton, Wellington, in London and across the country deserve nothing less. And above all, the victims of this terrible disaster at Grenfell, an avoidable disaster deserve justice.
10:32
10:32
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take part in this debate today on building safety and remuneration of residential buildings. And I want to start by thanking the member for Surrey Heath for securing this important debate and eloquently setting out lots of issues within this sector. This is a vitally important issue, as many honourable members and Right Honourable members have rightly said, no one should be forced to live in an unsafe home. A great deal of progress has been made in recent years to improve our housing, and the share of unsafe homes has seen a decline in the last decade, but we must go further.
The need to press ahead is as true now as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 72 people. The last conservative government began the remediation work straight after Grenfell. This included the introducing of financial protections for leaseholders, from the costs relating to remediation of unsafe cladding systems put in place by the developer remediation contract. The latter has ensured that major developers pledge to remediate life critical safety issues, fire safety issues in buildings over 11m that they have played a role in developing or refurbishing over the last 30 years in England, although some developers should be taken to task for not acting quickly enough and leaving constituents to fend for themselves.
The last government was also responsible for putting in place £5.1 billion through the Building Safety Fund and the Cladding Safety Scheme to recover cladding costs for repairs of buildings over 11m, where no responsible developer could be identified. The opposition welcomes the continued progress being made by the current government to implement the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry's recommendations, especially regarding remuneration remediation. Sorry . Residents expect to see the inquiry's recommendation implemented in full and remediation work completed swiftly and safely.
However, for far too long that has not been the case. The building safety regulator, established through the Building Safety Act in 2022, was set up with good intentions for stronger regulatory oversight. Whilst it has done much to oversee remediation, it has worked at an unsustainably slow pace and I know the Minister will be keen to point out that gateway two decisions, namely approvals, are coming in at a faster rate. But this is after years of delay.
The regulator made just 118 decisions on remediation applications in the 12 week period to the 31st of August 2026, with some older cases seeing a median average of 33 weeks to see a determination made. Looking towards the end of July 2025, just 39% of identified buildings have seen their remediation works completed, and barely more than half of remediation works to unsafe cladding start or finish. That means of the estimated 250,000 dwellings with unsafe cladding in the private and social sector that are 11m over or over in height, 104,000 have not even started remediation.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have seen what happens when fire safety issues in flats are not addressed. Earlier this year, there was a six storey block in Waltham Cross which had known issues with cladding and no working alarm. Residents were told on the day before the Easter weekend they would have to evacuate their homes that evening because their management company had stopped funding the waking watch. This is where someone is paid to patrol the building to look out for fires.
Local authorities were forced to intervene and extend the waking watch. Unfortunately, residents were able to stay, and weeks later, Homes England and the department supported the installation of a suitable alarm and detection system. I am relieved that there were no fires in that block, and that residents did not have to be evacuated in the end. However, leaseholders ended up paying thousands of pounds for the waking watch and were left worrying about the risks of fire to their homes or being removed from their homes at the last minute.
This could have all been prevented if the remediation works had been carried out when first fire safety concerns were raised. I hope the minister will use this time to outline how the government plans to ensure all buildings with fire safety issues are made safe before the situation gets so serious. I want to conclude by reiterating the opposition's firm and unwavering commitment to safe and decent housing, especially through the remediation efforts started after the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire.
We will continue to support the government and work across this House to increase the pace of remediation work, improve the building safety regulator and remove dangerous cladding and other materials from homes right across the country.
The need to press ahead is as true now as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 72 people. The last conservative government began the remediation work straight after Grenfell. This included the introducing of financial protections for leaseholders, from the costs relating to remediation of unsafe cladding systems put in place by the developer remediation contract. The latter has ensured that major developers pledge to remediate life critical safety issues, fire safety issues in buildings over 11m that they have played a role in developing or refurbishing over the last 30 years in England, although some developers should be taken to task for not acting quickly enough and leaving constituents to fend for themselves.
The last government was also responsible for putting in place £5.1 billion through the Building Safety Fund and the Cladding Safety Scheme to recover cladding costs for repairs of buildings over 11m, where no responsible developer could be identified. The opposition welcomes the continued progress being made by the current government to implement the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry's recommendations, especially regarding remuneration remediation. Sorry . Residents expect to see the inquiry's recommendation implemented in full and remediation work completed swiftly and safely.
However, for far too long that has not been the case. The building safety regulator, established through the Building Safety Act in 2022, was set up with good intentions for stronger regulatory oversight. Whilst it has done much to oversee remediation, it has worked at an unsustainably slow pace and I know the Minister will be keen to point out that gateway two decisions, namely approvals, are coming in at a faster rate. But this is after years of delay.
The regulator made just 118 decisions on remediation applications in the 12 week period to the 31st of August 2026, with some older cases seeing a median average of 33 weeks to see a determination made. Looking towards the end of July 2025, just 39% of identified buildings have seen their remediation works completed, and barely more than half of remediation works to unsafe cladding start or finish. That means of the estimated 250,000 dwellings with unsafe cladding in the private and social sector that are 11m over or over in height, 104,000 have not even started remediation.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have seen what happens when fire safety issues in flats are not addressed. Earlier this year, there was a six storey block in Waltham Cross which had known issues with cladding and no working alarm. Residents were told on the day before the Easter weekend they would have to evacuate their homes that evening because their management company had stopped funding the waking watch. This is where someone is paid to patrol the building to look out for fires.
Local authorities were forced to intervene and extend the waking watch. Unfortunately, residents were able to stay, and weeks later, Homes England and the department supported the installation of a suitable alarm and detection system. I am relieved that there were no fires in that block, and that residents did not have to be evacuated in the end. However, leaseholders ended up paying thousands of pounds for the waking watch and were left worrying about the risks of fire to their homes or being removed from their homes at the last minute.
This could have all been prevented if the remediation works had been carried out when first fire safety concerns were raised. I hope the minister will use this time to outline how the government plans to ensure all buildings with fire safety issues are made safe before the situation gets so serious. I want to conclude by reiterating the opposition's firm and unwavering commitment to safe and decent housing, especially through the remediation efforts started after the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire.
We will continue to support the government and work across this House to increase the pace of remediation work, improve the building safety regulator and remove dangerous cladding and other materials from homes right across the country.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you doctor. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am grateful to the honourable member for Surrey Heath for securing this really important debate. And I thank all members for coming this morning. Rightly, a number of members have raised the really tragic incident at Grenfell Tower. Nine years on, and as a London MP, I still vividly remember that night on the 14th of June 2017. I remember that night because a week earlier, my son was born on the 7th of June and watching the TV throughout the night, thinking you were watching a horror film because you just saw flames and you saw black pieces, not knowing that the black pieces coming out of the building were actually people jumping.
And it is right that this house is united and continuing to scrutinise the pace of remediation and the support available to those affected. Many residents across the country have lived with the uncertainty about the safety of their homes, the financial security and their ability to move on with their lives. We recognise the impact that building safety issues can have, not only on people's homes, but also on their wellbeing and peace of mind.
Nine years on after Grenfell, we have to be honest to say that there can be no justification for unsafe buildings remaining unaddressed. While significant progress has been made, more than 4000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents continue to face consequences of failures they did not cause. That is why this government is committed to speeding up remediation, ensuring that those responsible bear the cost of making buildings safer and strengthening protections for leaseholders and residents.
Our objective is clear to remove barriers to remediation, speed up delivery and ensure people can feel safe and secure in their homes. Since the launch of the Remediation acceleration plan, more than 420 additional buildings over 11m have been completed. Cladding remediation through the government funded scheme and the Development developer remediation contract, meaning around 35 more 35,000 more residents are now living in safer homes. Government has approved 2.1 billion of funding for cladding remediation since the plan was launched, and has committed to more than 1 billion to accelerate remediation in the social housing sector.
But we recognise that further action is needed. We are considering how we can go further to protect residents, particularly those who fall outside existing protections, and to ensure that no responsible party can avoid its obligations. That is why we will build on the foundations established by the Building Safety Act through the forthcoming remediation Bill and our wider programme of building safety reforms. The Bill will provide greater clarity and certainty about about which buildings require remediation and the standards that must be met.
It will strengthen regulators ability to check delay and non-compliance. It will improve routes to recover remediation costs away from those responsible, and ensure that residents have a pathway to remediation, even where responsibility entails. Entities fail to act or are unable to meet their obligations. Taken together, these reforms will strengthen accountability across the system and help ensure buildings are made safer and faster. I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate.
The honourable member for Surrey Heath raised the issue of past nine, nine, eight zero and the honourable member for for Taunton and Wellington also raised this in his remarks. Members will know that past nine 980 was developed by the Building Safety Standards Institute and we sponsored the BSI to review and update this to ensure it remains fit for purpose and it captures the best practice in looking at the learning. Since it was introduced in 2022.
As the honourable member outlined, BSI published an updated and update to PA 980 yesterday, and I do not agree with the honourable member's characterization. PA 980 provides an industry wide accepted methodology to enable qualified and experienced assessors to undertake the fire risk appraisal of external walls. It provides a consistent and proportionate building specific approach to the risk of the assessments, and it helps to achieve the right solutions for each building.
Keeping residents safe while preventing unnecessary and disruptive works. The update highlighted that it has improved clarity of the structure and usability of past nine 980, with the aim of achieving greater transparency and consistency by assessors. It does not, however, materially change how risks are assessed, so fire risk appraisals of external walls are undertaken using a previous version of PA 980. They will remain valid and will continue to do so.
The government remediation programmes require fire risk appraisals of external walls to be undertaken using this methodology methodology to further safeguard the quality and ensure consistency in assessments. The remediation Bill will mandate how external wall assessments are being carried out to align with our best practice remediation programmes , and ensure that a nationally consistent approach to remediation work. It will also establish mandatory auditing of fire risk appraisals. Fire risk, external walls, appraisals in law, and this requirement will help reinforce trust in both the assessors and the outcomes.
I hope that this will help reassure members. A number of honourable members and Right Honourable members rightly mentioned the issue with the fire risk assessors. Fire risk assessors do perform a critical safety role, and it is essential that they are actually fully complied and competent. We have therefore accepted the four recommendations in the Grenfell Tower Tower inquiry. Phase two recommendation for mandatory certifications of fire risk assessors to meet the recommendation.
We intend to bring into law mandatory compliance requirements for fire risk assessors to perform this vital role, subject to parliamentary approval and timescale. I will give way.
And it is right that this house is united and continuing to scrutinise the pace of remediation and the support available to those affected. Many residents across the country have lived with the uncertainty about the safety of their homes, the financial security and their ability to move on with their lives. We recognise the impact that building safety issues can have, not only on people's homes, but also on their wellbeing and peace of mind.
Nine years on after Grenfell, we have to be honest to say that there can be no justification for unsafe buildings remaining unaddressed. While significant progress has been made, more than 4000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents continue to face consequences of failures they did not cause. That is why this government is committed to speeding up remediation, ensuring that those responsible bear the cost of making buildings safer and strengthening protections for leaseholders and residents.
Our objective is clear to remove barriers to remediation, speed up delivery and ensure people can feel safe and secure in their homes. Since the launch of the Remediation acceleration plan, more than 420 additional buildings over 11m have been completed. Cladding remediation through the government funded scheme and the Development developer remediation contract, meaning around 35 more 35,000 more residents are now living in safer homes. Government has approved 2.1 billion of funding for cladding remediation since the plan was launched, and has committed to more than 1 billion to accelerate remediation in the social housing sector.
But we recognise that further action is needed. We are considering how we can go further to protect residents, particularly those who fall outside existing protections, and to ensure that no responsible party can avoid its obligations. That is why we will build on the foundations established by the Building Safety Act through the forthcoming remediation Bill and our wider programme of building safety reforms. The Bill will provide greater clarity and certainty about about which buildings require remediation and the standards that must be met.
It will strengthen regulators ability to check delay and non-compliance. It will improve routes to recover remediation costs away from those responsible, and ensure that residents have a pathway to remediation, even where responsibility entails. Entities fail to act or are unable to meet their obligations. Taken together, these reforms will strengthen accountability across the system and help ensure buildings are made safer and faster. I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate.
The honourable member for Surrey Heath raised the issue of past nine, nine, eight zero and the honourable member for for Taunton and Wellington also raised this in his remarks. Members will know that past nine 980 was developed by the Building Safety Standards Institute and we sponsored the BSI to review and update this to ensure it remains fit for purpose and it captures the best practice in looking at the learning. Since it was introduced in 2022.
As the honourable member outlined, BSI published an updated and update to PA 980 yesterday, and I do not agree with the honourable member's characterization. PA 980 provides an industry wide accepted methodology to enable qualified and experienced assessors to undertake the fire risk appraisal of external walls. It provides a consistent and proportionate building specific approach to the risk of the assessments, and it helps to achieve the right solutions for each building.
Keeping residents safe while preventing unnecessary and disruptive works. The update highlighted that it has improved clarity of the structure and usability of past nine 980, with the aim of achieving greater transparency and consistency by assessors. It does not, however, materially change how risks are assessed, so fire risk appraisals of external walls are undertaken using a previous version of PA 980. They will remain valid and will continue to do so.
The government remediation programmes require fire risk appraisals of external walls to be undertaken using this methodology methodology to further safeguard the quality and ensure consistency in assessments. The remediation Bill will mandate how external wall assessments are being carried out to align with our best practice remediation programmes , and ensure that a nationally consistent approach to remediation work. It will also establish mandatory auditing of fire risk appraisals. Fire risk, external walls, appraisals in law, and this requirement will help reinforce trust in both the assessors and the outcomes.
I hope that this will help reassure members. A number of honourable members and Right Honourable members rightly mentioned the issue with the fire risk assessors. Fire risk assessors do perform a critical safety role, and it is essential that they are actually fully complied and competent. We have therefore accepted the four recommendations in the Grenfell Tower Tower inquiry. Phase two recommendation for mandatory certifications of fire risk assessors to meet the recommendation.
We intend to bring into law mandatory compliance requirements for fire risk assessors to perform this vital role, subject to parliamentary approval and timescale. I will give way.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the Right Honourable member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for that point, and I agree with her. Many people will continue to question when those fire risk assessors will be in place. So the government has recently launched a public consultation on the proposals to establish a fire risk assessor profession with consistent high levels of competency where trust is rebuilt, where a strong and diverse pipeline of that talent comes forward to ensure that the standards of fire safety are there.
We are currently analysing all the consultation response, and the government will publish a full response later this autumn, so hopefully my right hon. Friend will not have to wait much longer for that. We also recognise the additional pressures on building control and fire engineers capacity across the country, and we have established the Independent Building Control Panel and the Fire Engineering Advisory Panel to examine these issues and provide recommendations on strengthening the system.
The government is committed to working with the BSR on long term reform and exploring options for more efficient building control systems. Any future changes will also be developed in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. I will give way.
We are currently analysing all the consultation response, and the government will publish a full response later this autumn, so hopefully my right hon. Friend will not have to wait much longer for that. We also recognise the additional pressures on building control and fire engineers capacity across the country, and we have established the Independent Building Control Panel and the Fire Engineering Advisory Panel to examine these issues and provide recommendations on strengthening the system.
The government is committed to working with the BSR on long term reform and exploring options for more efficient building control systems. Any future changes will also be developed in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. I will give way.
10:46
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
We all, I think, would want to see stronger and better building control and. But local authorities have been hollowed out and we have a pipeline of lost a lot of experienced planners. And there isn't always a pipeline coming through of that experience as necessary. So I wonder if she's got anything she can add to that. If we can lobby the Treasury for support for local government in this respect.
10:46
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank my right hon. Friend, and she will know that I will definitely continue to lobby the Treasury colleagues very hard, and any help from colleagues around the House will be helpful. But in the meantime, the current system in place includes a new initiative looking at digital building control programmes, and I can confirm that over 45 million investment in growing the workforce has been put forward . To help address that key issue of capacity, streamlining the process and supporting development.
So more is coming, but a lot more needs to come through the pipeline. A number of members, including the honourable member for Surrey Heath, mentioned the key issue of building insurance and the financial strain that so many innocent leaseholders continue to pay. They see their insurance premiums hitting through the roof, in some cases paying more than their mortgages . In the Remediation Acceleration plan, the government is committed to working with the insurance industry to explore options to address the insurance challenges faced by residents living in buildings undergoing remediation .
To strengthen the evidence base, and Mhclg launched a remediation program Insurance Survey, a UK wide building survey within government remediation programmes. The findings, first published in July 2026, provide the most comprehensive data set collected to date on insurance costs, premiums and claims and remediation status across more than 2000 buildings undergoing remediation. This evidence is forming ongoing engagement with insurers and wider work to understand how insurance costs can better reflect improvements in building safety as remediation progresses.
The Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a short and focused review of the Multi-occupancy building insurance markets, and the findings will strengthen the evidence base on the next steps. The government is also undertaking action to improve transparency and fairness in residential building insurance. We are proceeding with secondary legislation to prevent insurance commissions that can be opaque and very excessive, being passed on to freeholders and managing agents as freeholders expenses, and to replace these arrangements with a fair and transparent permitted insurance payments with a fee structure.
Alongside this, and also through secondary legislation, we will introduce a new transparency requirement for building insurance, including the disclosure of the relationships and financial arrangements between landlords, managing agents, brokers and insurers. I'll give way to the right hon.
So more is coming, but a lot more needs to come through the pipeline. A number of members, including the honourable member for Surrey Heath, mentioned the key issue of building insurance and the financial strain that so many innocent leaseholders continue to pay. They see their insurance premiums hitting through the roof, in some cases paying more than their mortgages . In the Remediation Acceleration plan, the government is committed to working with the insurance industry to explore options to address the insurance challenges faced by residents living in buildings undergoing remediation .
To strengthen the evidence base, and Mhclg launched a remediation program Insurance Survey, a UK wide building survey within government remediation programmes. The findings, first published in July 2026, provide the most comprehensive data set collected to date on insurance costs, premiums and claims and remediation status across more than 2000 buildings undergoing remediation. This evidence is forming ongoing engagement with insurers and wider work to understand how insurance costs can better reflect improvements in building safety as remediation progresses.
The Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a short and focused review of the Multi-occupancy building insurance markets, and the findings will strengthen the evidence base on the next steps. The government is also undertaking action to improve transparency and fairness in residential building insurance. We are proceeding with secondary legislation to prevent insurance commissions that can be opaque and very excessive, being passed on to freeholders and managing agents as freeholders expenses, and to replace these arrangements with a fair and transparent permitted insurance payments with a fee structure.
Alongside this, and also through secondary legislation, we will introduce a new transparency requirement for building insurance, including the disclosure of the relationships and financial arrangements between landlords, managing agents, brokers and insurers. I'll give way to the right hon.
10:49
10:49
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
And I'm pleased to hear what you just said about looking at the whole market on insurance and the fairness of it, but there is an immediate issue that many of our constituents have now, for several years paid exorbitant and very, very excessive insurance costs, not of their responsibility, not of their fault. They didn't put the dangerous cladding in. They didn't fail to inspect properly. I think they deserve compensation from the insurance industry for what they've been through.
And if that is not forthcoming, then I think the government should have a default position of backing it up. They have suffered grievously through this problem.
And if that is not forthcoming, then I think the government should have a default position of backing it up. They have suffered grievously through this problem.
10:50
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the Right Honourable member for raising that, and the examples he highlighted of various developments in his constituency, including Drayton Court and Highbury Gardens, outlines the fact that for many years, innocent leaseholders continued to play exorbitant fees. And it's really important that we do get to grips with this, especially for new buildings coming forward. This is an issue that I know that my colleague, the housing Minister, in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and some of the other areas, will be discussing, and I'll continue to discuss this as well.
On the specific issue around any backdating, I think it's important for us to look at clear insurance procurement, the pricing and the cover and the prescribed timeframes for providing information and mechanism in terms of challenging any future delays. And I hope that together, these measures being outlined by the government are intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help ensure that residents have a clearer understanding of the insurance costs. A lot of jargon, a lot of hidden figures.
They need to make sure that they are clear and when they are challenging them, they get the right information back so that they can assess what they are being asked to pay for. I'll give way to the.
On the specific issue around any backdating, I think it's important for us to look at clear insurance procurement, the pricing and the cover and the prescribed timeframes for providing information and mechanism in terms of challenging any future delays. And I hope that together, these measures being outlined by the government are intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help ensure that residents have a clearer understanding of the insurance costs. A lot of jargon, a lot of hidden figures.
They need to make sure that they are clear and when they are challenging them, they get the right information back so that they can assess what they are being asked to pay for. I'll give way to the.
10:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Her answers, and none of us are getting the right comprehensive and detailed response to the honourable lady. Would I'd ask a specific question. Minister, ever mindful that the Minister is only in place for a short period of time in relation to discussing what's happening here with back home, because we have an outstanding problem with many properties in Belfast. I think it's helpful that we maybe hear through the minister, are able to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Minister in particular, to ensure that what's learned here can be passed on to those of us back home at the Assembly.
Thanks so much.
Thanks so much.
10:51
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the honourable member for Strangford for his point, and I think he raises a very valid point in that whatever happens in the UK and what lessons we can learn, because, as he outlined, buildings right across the UK need to be safe. Every home needs to be safe. It doesn't matter where you live. So I'm very open to looking at what areas of best practice. And as we develop legislation, we can share. Another issue honourable members, including the member for Surrey Heath outlined, is the issue with the AWS one forms.
This is a big issue that has caused many homeowners a great deal of stress. The government recognises the difficulties in selling and remortgaging homes, and the concerns for residents living in buildings impacted by building safety issues. We've continued to work with major mortgage lenders to improve access to lending of affected buildings and supporting the functioning of the housing market while remediation progresses. The honourable gentleman referred to the concerns of the validity of certain AWS forms.
I can confirm that my department is aware of these concerns, which relate to fire engineer who was removed from his professional accreditation body, and I understand that he's no longer operating in this field. While I can no longer comment on individual cases, it's important to reiterate that the AWS one form is not an official government form. It is an industry tool used by lenders and valuers to help them understand the remediation status of participating building.
My officials continue to engage with mortgage lending industry to encourage them to take a proportionate approach when using AWS one forms, and the government considers that lenders should be moving away. There's an overreliance still on the AWS one forms. We heard the example of a of the 405,000 additional bill because of the delay coming back from the AWS one form that the honourable gentleman highlights. However, we are very clear that AWS one forms continue to be used by individual lenders, and I think the government will continue to stress very loudly that lenders should be moving away from that requirement.
A number of honourable members highlighted the issue around the cost and who's to pay for the historic remediation. The Building Safety Act puts responsibility for undertaking, and in most cases, paying for remediation on the building's landlords, while making very clear that developers must pay to fix buildings and develop where they've developed or refurbished, even if they no longer own them. Courts now have new powers to extend liability to associated companies, stopping complex corporate structures from being used to dodge responsibility.
That is not fair. The mental toll being taken on by many homeowners, where a developer cannot be identified or has not yet agreed to pay public funding is available to address the life threatening cladding risk on residential buildings over 11m, so that no leaseholder in these buildings face cladding remediation costs. Many holders of qualifying leases are protected in full from non cladding and interim measures, for example, where the landlord or its group meets a contribution condition where the property value is below the set threshold.
Other qualifying leaseholders have their costs firmly capped and spread over ten years, with the amounts already paid since June the 20th 8th of June 2017 counting towards the cap. For obvious reasons, in Greater London, the cap is 15,000 and across the country it's 10,000, rising to 50,000 for properties valued between 1 to 2 million and 100,000 for properties over 2 million. The honourable member for Thornton Thornton mentioned the building safety levy.
The building safety levy, which will come into force on the 1st of October, will raise funds to pay for remediation of cladding on residential buildings where the developer cannot be held responsible or identified as a key element, ensuring trust stays in. Finally, I just wanted to turn to the issue of developer led remediation contracts under the work started by the previous government, 53 developers signed developer remediation contracts with the government. The contract covers over 2000 buildings over 11m in England that have life critical fire safety defects.
Developers have contributed and committed to pay or fix them at a cost for themselves of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that fails to comply with the remediation obligations faces significant commercial consequences, including imposition of statutory prohibitions, effectively preventing developer from building new homes in England. We expect all developers to accelerate their remediation work without compromising safety.
This is a big issue that has caused many homeowners a great deal of stress. The government recognises the difficulties in selling and remortgaging homes, and the concerns for residents living in buildings impacted by building safety issues. We've continued to work with major mortgage lenders to improve access to lending of affected buildings and supporting the functioning of the housing market while remediation progresses. The honourable gentleman referred to the concerns of the validity of certain AWS forms.
I can confirm that my department is aware of these concerns, which relate to fire engineer who was removed from his professional accreditation body, and I understand that he's no longer operating in this field. While I can no longer comment on individual cases, it's important to reiterate that the AWS one form is not an official government form. It is an industry tool used by lenders and valuers to help them understand the remediation status of participating building.
My officials continue to engage with mortgage lending industry to encourage them to take a proportionate approach when using AWS one forms, and the government considers that lenders should be moving away. There's an overreliance still on the AWS one forms. We heard the example of a of the 405,000 additional bill because of the delay coming back from the AWS one form that the honourable gentleman highlights. However, we are very clear that AWS one forms continue to be used by individual lenders, and I think the government will continue to stress very loudly that lenders should be moving away from that requirement.
A number of honourable members highlighted the issue around the cost and who's to pay for the historic remediation. The Building Safety Act puts responsibility for undertaking, and in most cases, paying for remediation on the building's landlords, while making very clear that developers must pay to fix buildings and develop where they've developed or refurbished, even if they no longer own them. Courts now have new powers to extend liability to associated companies, stopping complex corporate structures from being used to dodge responsibility.
That is not fair. The mental toll being taken on by many homeowners, where a developer cannot be identified or has not yet agreed to pay public funding is available to address the life threatening cladding risk on residential buildings over 11m, so that no leaseholder in these buildings face cladding remediation costs. Many holders of qualifying leases are protected in full from non cladding and interim measures, for example, where the landlord or its group meets a contribution condition where the property value is below the set threshold.
Other qualifying leaseholders have their costs firmly capped and spread over ten years, with the amounts already paid since June the 20th 8th of June 2017 counting towards the cap. For obvious reasons, in Greater London, the cap is 15,000 and across the country it's 10,000, rising to 50,000 for properties valued between 1 to 2 million and 100,000 for properties over 2 million. The honourable member for Thornton Thornton mentioned the building safety levy.
The building safety levy, which will come into force on the 1st of October, will raise funds to pay for remediation of cladding on residential buildings where the developer cannot be held responsible or identified as a key element, ensuring trust stays in. Finally, I just wanted to turn to the issue of developer led remediation contracts under the work started by the previous government, 53 developers signed developer remediation contracts with the government. The contract covers over 2000 buildings over 11m in England that have life critical fire safety defects.
Developers have contributed and committed to pay or fix them at a cost for themselves of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that fails to comply with the remediation obligations faces significant commercial consequences, including imposition of statutory prohibitions, effectively preventing developer from building new homes in England. We expect all developers to accelerate their remediation work without compromising safety.
10:57
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
In the remaining minutes. This is very positive, but of course those are the developers that are willing to engage. Many of them are not. And I spoke recently to Carl Harris from Teesside, who suffered life changing injuries when a wall collapsed on him. He's been trying to engage the rest of the sector with an innovation he's developed to prevent unfinished walls from collapsing. What more can the government do to encourage developers who are not already involved, to innovate, to protect workers and residents to.
10:57
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
As of April 2026, developers had assessed whether remediation work was required in 94% of their buildings. So it's important that despite this progress, there's still a lot more to do, and some developers are behind that stretch target and will continue to engage and discuss with those developers in winding up. Doctor Myerson, the government firmly remains committed to building safety regime that's robust, proportionate and one that protects residents while enabling the delivery of much needed homes.
We have listened to the concerns, and we've already taken some decisive steps to strengthen the regulator's capacity and improve on its processes and ensuring that it's fit for purpose. We will continue to work with industry, residents and Parliament to ensure that the regulation delivers effectively. I'm grateful for all the points that honourable members have raised. For points I haven't highlighted. I will come back to members, especially when they've raised individual points from their constituents, from their constituency, and I look forward to this ongoing dialogue as we continue addressing this really important issue.
We have listened to the concerns, and we've already taken some decisive steps to strengthen the regulator's capacity and improve on its processes and ensuring that it's fit for purpose. We will continue to work with industry, residents and Parliament to ensure that the regulation delivers effectively. I'm grateful for all the points that honourable members have raised. For points I haven't highlighted. I will come back to members, especially when they've raised individual points from their constituents, from their constituency, and I look forward to this ongoing dialogue as we continue addressing this really important issue.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
And I recognise that time is short. So please, just every honourable and right Honourable member who has participated today, please accept my thanks for the excellent contributions that you've made. And indeed, to the front bench spokesperson and indeed to the minister who I know is new to her place. If I may just pick up one thing that the minister said, and forgive me for slightly paraphrasing, because I was writing it down as she spoke, but she said that no responsible party in this whole scenario should be able to derogate or words to those effect from their obligations.
I would just leave the minister with with this one thought, and that is that the risk of PA's nine 980 is that it allows those responsible to do exactly that to be absolved of their responsibility, because the defects that were built at the point of construction will be allowed to be retained because of this new risk based approach. And that responsibility then falls on the purses of our residents because they will pay in perpetuity higher insurance costs. So I know that the ministers need to replace, but I would ask her to look at this issue.
Thank you.
I would just leave the minister with with this one thought, and that is that the risk of PA's nine 980 is that it allows those responsible to do exactly that to be absolved of their responsibility, because the defects that were built at the point of construction will be allowed to be retained because of this new risk based approach. And that responsibility then falls on the purses of our residents because they will pay in perpetuity higher insurance costs. So I know that the ministers need to replace, but I would ask her to look at this issue.
Thank you.
11:00
11:00
11:00
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Morrison. We spend a lot of time in this place talking about the land, about housing, about farms and what grows and what gets built. We do, however, spend rather less time talking about the three quarters of 1,000,000mi² of ocean that fall under UK jurisdiction. That is a mistake, because our seas are the foundation of a great deal of our national life.
They regulate our climate, they feed our coastal towns, they carry our trade, and increasingly, they hold the key to how resilient this country will be in the decades ahead. As vice chair of the oceans Appg, I watched alongside many colleagues in this House with the former prime minister David Attenborough's documentary on the oceans. I would like to echo his words that we are living in the greatest age of ocean discovery, yet we are also witnessing its greatest peril.
As the Member of Parliament for Chatham and Aylesford, my constituency has a long standing maritime history . Through its association with the dockyard and global trade through centuries, highlighted by the outstanding work, incidentally, at the Chatham Dockyard Historic Trust and its recent exhibition from Steve Backshall of the Awesome Oceans, which seeks to educate our younger generations. Our heritage as a nation runs through our seas and oceans. I want to use my time today to cover four key elements the state of our marine protected areas and bottom trawling within them.
Fisheries and sustainability the case for parity in marine pollution fines and the UK's wider leadership role in the ocean, including in the recently signed Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreements and the plastics treaty negotiations, you're happy to give way.
They regulate our climate, they feed our coastal towns, they carry our trade, and increasingly, they hold the key to how resilient this country will be in the decades ahead. As vice chair of the oceans Appg, I watched alongside many colleagues in this House with the former prime minister David Attenborough's documentary on the oceans. I would like to echo his words that we are living in the greatest age of ocean discovery, yet we are also witnessing its greatest peril.
As the Member of Parliament for Chatham and Aylesford, my constituency has a long standing maritime history . Through its association with the dockyard and global trade through centuries, highlighted by the outstanding work, incidentally, at the Chatham Dockyard Historic Trust and its recent exhibition from Steve Backshall of the Awesome Oceans, which seeks to educate our younger generations. Our heritage as a nation runs through our seas and oceans. I want to use my time today to cover four key elements the state of our marine protected areas and bottom trawling within them.
Fisheries and sustainability the case for parity in marine pollution fines and the UK's wider leadership role in the ocean, including in the recently signed Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreements and the plastics treaty negotiations, you're happy to give way.
11:02
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
For Chatham and Aylesford for bringing this forward. As the MP for Strangford, a constituency based in the scenic Northern Ireland coastline, I am particularly interested in what more can be done to protect the sea that surround us, because the sea does. Around my constituency, raw sewage contains the bacteria, harmful chemicals and microplastics as referred to, all of which have serious consequences for both marine and human health. These microplastics are essentially impossible to remove once they enter the environment.
Does the member agree that more must be done to address the issue of microplastics?
Does the member agree that more must be done to address the issue of microplastics?
11:03
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Can I thank the honourable member for that contribution and absolutely for the engagement of the UK government on the Global Plastics Treaty. In alignment with the European Union and other nations is looking to resolve that exact issue. Microplastics. Of course, getting into our into the human biology can cause significant heightened risk of cancer and other problems. And it is a persistent pollution issue which needs to be resolved. I agree with him, but I also want to.
Let me start with a number that should give every member in this room pause as well. A third of UK waters now sit within a marine protected area. On paper, that sounds like a country taking marine conservation seriously. In practice, however, the government's own assessment finds we are failing on 13 of the 15 indicators of good environmental status for our seas. Not one of our offshore habitats is currently assessed as being in good condition.
How can that be when so much of our sea is supposedly protected? The honest answer is that designation is not always the same thing as protection across large parts of the MPA network. Bottom trawling and dredging remain entirely lawful. Oceana estimates that in 2024 alone, there were over 3100 zero hours of suspected bottom trawling inside UK offshore marine protected areas. More than 7 in 10 of those hours were concentrated in just 41 English sites.
The same 41 sites covered by the government's stage three consultation. That consultation ended some time ago. Fishermen, conservation groups and coastal communities responded to it in good faith. I'm asking the minister today if he can provide a clearer timetable on when that stage three outcome will be published. Bottom trawling deserves a moment of its own because it is not a marginal or peripheral issue. Heavy gear dragged across the seabed, flattens reefs, uproots seagrass and disturbs carbon that is locked in the sediment for centuries.
It is, by some distance, one of the most destructive ways things that we allow in our oceans. Polling suggests I'm happy to give way.
Let me start with a number that should give every member in this room pause as well. A third of UK waters now sit within a marine protected area. On paper, that sounds like a country taking marine conservation seriously. In practice, however, the government's own assessment finds we are failing on 13 of the 15 indicators of good environmental status for our seas. Not one of our offshore habitats is currently assessed as being in good condition.
How can that be when so much of our sea is supposedly protected? The honest answer is that designation is not always the same thing as protection across large parts of the MPA network. Bottom trawling and dredging remain entirely lawful. Oceana estimates that in 2024 alone, there were over 3100 zero hours of suspected bottom trawling inside UK offshore marine protected areas. More than 7 in 10 of those hours were concentrated in just 41 English sites.
The same 41 sites covered by the government's stage three consultation. That consultation ended some time ago. Fishermen, conservation groups and coastal communities responded to it in good faith. I'm asking the minister today if he can provide a clearer timetable on when that stage three outcome will be published. Bottom trawling deserves a moment of its own because it is not a marginal or peripheral issue. Heavy gear dragged across the seabed, flattens reefs, uproots seagrass and disturbs carbon that is locked in the sediment for centuries.
It is, by some distance, one of the most destructive ways things that we allow in our oceans. Polling suggests I'm happy to give way.
11:05
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The honourable member for giving way, and I had the pleasure of going out with some NGOs and marine conservation groups into the Lyme Bay Marine Conservation Area, which has been protected from bottom trawling for over a decade now. And we had an opportunity to take drone down to the seabed and see exactly how quickly nature can recover. When we remove the artificial barriers, such as bottom trawling, there are now reefs, there are now fishes.
But more than anything, it also now provides a sustainable business for local fishermen because the population has improved, do you think? Would the honourable member agree with me that we need more of these conservation areas in order to allow British fisheries to recover?
But more than anything, it also now provides a sustainable business for local fishermen because the population has improved, do you think? Would the honourable member agree with me that we need more of these conservation areas in order to allow British fisheries to recover?
11:05
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Can I thank the honourable member and I absolutely agree with him. Marine protection and viable and viable fishing industry are not competing interests. They depend on each other. You cannot fish from a stock that has collapsed and you cannot sustain coastal communities on paper promises about future abundance. So I completely agree with him that this needs to be looked at, because we can do both and both are mutually beneficial. That is why the fisheries data from this year alone should worry us.
Cefas assessed 79 baseline catch limits negotiated for 2026 and found that 46 of them. That is, 58%, were set above scientific advice. The consequence of repeatedly setting limits above what the science recommends is not abstract and shows up in the value of the fishery itself. The Blue Marine Foundation reports that UK fishing opportunities for 2026 fell in value by around £136 million compared with the year before, alongside real declines in commercially important stocks.
There are also more troubling findings on illegal discarding, with reports of trawlers discarding six times more fish than they land. More than a decade after that, practice was banned under EU law, and I would welcome the Minister's assessment of how discard rules are currently being policed. I want to be clear that the transition to sustainable fishing must work for the people who fish for a living. In addition to the ecosystem, vessels under ten metres make up more than 80% of the British fleet.
These are small operations, often family businesses, often the economic backbone of the harbour towns they sail from, including in my home county of Kent. If we ask the industry to change how it fishes, we owe it investment in skills, in lower impact gear and in a genuine transition plan, as opposed to simply set a new set of rules handed down with no support attached. I want to turn now to an anomaly in our law that I do not think gets enough attention.
If a company pollutes land in this country under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the finer courts can impose unlimited sentencing guidelines, allow courts to fine large numbers of organisations amounts running into many millions of pounds, scaled to the seriousness of the harm and the means of the offender. Pollute the sea, however, and the picture looks very different. Fines for illegal discharge of oil under the Merchant Shipping Act have historically been capped, and even where caps have been raised over the years, marine pollution offences have often been brought brought into full alignment with the uncapped regime that applies on land.
The practical result is what campaigners have documented over the last five years. There have been only two recorded convictions or fines for oil pollution breaches around our coasts. One of them for as little as £7,000. Inspection rates of offshore oil and gas infrastructure have fallen from a quarter of sites to under 1 in 6. I struggle to see the logic in treating a spill into the Irish Sea or ocean, more leniently than the same spill into a field on a terrestrial habitat.
Marine ecosystems are, if anything, harder to clean up and slower to recover than land a tanker or a platform operator who calculates the maximum possible fine is a rounding error against their annual turnover has very little reason to invest properly in prevention. I would ask the minister to set out whether the government intends to bring a marine pollution penalties into line with the uncapped regime that already exists for pollution on land. Stopping damage is necessary , but is not sufficient on its own passive recovery.
Simply removing the pressure of trawling and dredging can allow habitats to bounce back where the damage is not too severe. But we have lost more than 90% of our seagrass meadows since the 1930s, and salt marsh in the south east of England continues to erode at around 40 hectares a year. Habitat loss on that scale will not reverse itself. It needs active restoration of seagrass, salt marsh and native oyster reefs, delivered in partnership with coastal communities, so that it creates jobs and skills locally, rather than being something done to a place rather than with it.
These blue carbon habitats matter for climate as well, as well for nature, and restoring a meaningful share of them by the end of the decade should be treated as seriously as any land based nature target we set ourselves. I do, however, want to end on a hopeful note, because on the international stage, this country has genuinely led the UK's ratification of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement or the UN Global Seas Treaty was a significant moment.
For the first time, there is a legal framework for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. The two thirds of the ocean that sits outside any nation's territorial waters until now existed outside the law. The UK was among the states that pushed hardest to get that agreement over the line, and I want to pay tribute to the department and all the ministers for their diligence on that work. The same is true as the global plastics treaty.
Negotiations, I understand, have not been easy, and the talks in Geneva last year did not deliver the agreement many of us had hoped for. But the UK has led, as part of the coalition of more than 100 nations, pushing for legally binding limits on plastic pollution. That is the right side of the argument to be on, and I hope the minister can update the House on where negotiations are expected to resume and what the UK's position will be when they do.
And then there is the science. I would ask colleagues, if they have not already, to look at the work of our outstanding universities, including the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, which I have had the pleasure of visiting alongside many members in this House. We lead on oceanographic science, and I've met a number of researchers who are mapping deep sea ecosystems most of us will never see. Tracking how the ocean absorbs and moves heat and carbon, and building the evidence base that underpins almost everything that we are discussing in this debate today, from stock assessments to blue carbon to the physical behaviour of the deep sea floor.
That expertise is a genuine national asset and it deserves long term, stable funding. We have real strengths in this country to build on a strong domestic marine science base, genuine international credibility on ocean treaties and a public that, by a wide margin, wants to see our seas better protected. What is missing is the follow through. In some cases, the stage three decision, the trawling that continues inside sites we call protected, and fines for marine pollution that remain a fraction of what the same offence would attract on land.
None of these are difficult things to understand, and none of them, I would suggest, require significant new pieces of legislation to begin fixing. They require political will and a timetable. In the words of David Attenborough, the choice is ours. We can now destroy or we can cherish. Thank you.
Cefas assessed 79 baseline catch limits negotiated for 2026 and found that 46 of them. That is, 58%, were set above scientific advice. The consequence of repeatedly setting limits above what the science recommends is not abstract and shows up in the value of the fishery itself. The Blue Marine Foundation reports that UK fishing opportunities for 2026 fell in value by around £136 million compared with the year before, alongside real declines in commercially important stocks.
There are also more troubling findings on illegal discarding, with reports of trawlers discarding six times more fish than they land. More than a decade after that, practice was banned under EU law, and I would welcome the Minister's assessment of how discard rules are currently being policed. I want to be clear that the transition to sustainable fishing must work for the people who fish for a living. In addition to the ecosystem, vessels under ten metres make up more than 80% of the British fleet.
These are small operations, often family businesses, often the economic backbone of the harbour towns they sail from, including in my home county of Kent. If we ask the industry to change how it fishes, we owe it investment in skills, in lower impact gear and in a genuine transition plan, as opposed to simply set a new set of rules handed down with no support attached. I want to turn now to an anomaly in our law that I do not think gets enough attention.
If a company pollutes land in this country under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the finer courts can impose unlimited sentencing guidelines, allow courts to fine large numbers of organisations amounts running into many millions of pounds, scaled to the seriousness of the harm and the means of the offender. Pollute the sea, however, and the picture looks very different. Fines for illegal discharge of oil under the Merchant Shipping Act have historically been capped, and even where caps have been raised over the years, marine pollution offences have often been brought brought into full alignment with the uncapped regime that applies on land.
The practical result is what campaigners have documented over the last five years. There have been only two recorded convictions or fines for oil pollution breaches around our coasts. One of them for as little as £7,000. Inspection rates of offshore oil and gas infrastructure have fallen from a quarter of sites to under 1 in 6. I struggle to see the logic in treating a spill into the Irish Sea or ocean, more leniently than the same spill into a field on a terrestrial habitat.
Marine ecosystems are, if anything, harder to clean up and slower to recover than land a tanker or a platform operator who calculates the maximum possible fine is a rounding error against their annual turnover has very little reason to invest properly in prevention. I would ask the minister to set out whether the government intends to bring a marine pollution penalties into line with the uncapped regime that already exists for pollution on land. Stopping damage is necessary , but is not sufficient on its own passive recovery.
Simply removing the pressure of trawling and dredging can allow habitats to bounce back where the damage is not too severe. But we have lost more than 90% of our seagrass meadows since the 1930s, and salt marsh in the south east of England continues to erode at around 40 hectares a year. Habitat loss on that scale will not reverse itself. It needs active restoration of seagrass, salt marsh and native oyster reefs, delivered in partnership with coastal communities, so that it creates jobs and skills locally, rather than being something done to a place rather than with it.
These blue carbon habitats matter for climate as well, as well for nature, and restoring a meaningful share of them by the end of the decade should be treated as seriously as any land based nature target we set ourselves. I do, however, want to end on a hopeful note, because on the international stage, this country has genuinely led the UK's ratification of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement or the UN Global Seas Treaty was a significant moment.
For the first time, there is a legal framework for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. The two thirds of the ocean that sits outside any nation's territorial waters until now existed outside the law. The UK was among the states that pushed hardest to get that agreement over the line, and I want to pay tribute to the department and all the ministers for their diligence on that work. The same is true as the global plastics treaty.
Negotiations, I understand, have not been easy, and the talks in Geneva last year did not deliver the agreement many of us had hoped for. But the UK has led, as part of the coalition of more than 100 nations, pushing for legally binding limits on plastic pollution. That is the right side of the argument to be on, and I hope the minister can update the House on where negotiations are expected to resume and what the UK's position will be when they do.
And then there is the science. I would ask colleagues, if they have not already, to look at the work of our outstanding universities, including the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, which I have had the pleasure of visiting alongside many members in this House. We lead on oceanographic science, and I've met a number of researchers who are mapping deep sea ecosystems most of us will never see. Tracking how the ocean absorbs and moves heat and carbon, and building the evidence base that underpins almost everything that we are discussing in this debate today, from stock assessments to blue carbon to the physical behaviour of the deep sea floor.
That expertise is a genuine national asset and it deserves long term, stable funding. We have real strengths in this country to build on a strong domestic marine science base, genuine international credibility on ocean treaties and a public that, by a wide margin, wants to see our seas better protected. What is missing is the follow through. In some cases, the stage three decision, the trawling that continues inside sites we call protected, and fines for marine pollution that remain a fraction of what the same offence would attract on land.
None of these are difficult things to understand, and none of them, I would suggest, require significant new pieces of legislation to begin fixing. They require political will and a timetable. In the words of David Attenborough, the choice is ours. We can now destroy or we can cherish. Thank you.
11:12
11:12
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you doctor. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this morning. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, a fellow coastal MP on the South East, for securing this debate and to all those that have contributed with interventions. I also congratulate my hon. Friend for his leadership in the Appg. Having only recently assumed marine issues into my ministerial portfolio alongside that of sustainable fisheries, this is a very timely debate and I'm pleased to have the chance to set out my stall this morning.
Chair, our stewardship of the ocean matters. Our seas are central to so much of what we care about nature recovery, food security, clean energy, coastal livelihoods and communities, climate resilience, and our identity as an island nation. People care deeply about the marine environment, and rightly so. But they also care about livelihoods, food production, energy security, and the future of communities that depend on the sea. I want to pay tribute to campaigners and all those who work in the sector on these important matters.
Now, having responsibilities across those will enable me to take a more strategic view, consider the whole picture and look for a balanced decision making process that support both our prosperous fishing industry and healthier, more resilient seas. And I want my department to make decisions that recognise the connections and to ensure that these decisions are rooted in evidence, engagement and long term stewardship. Now, the government is committed to protecting and improving the marine environment, including playing our part in delivering the global biodiversity framework target to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.
Domestically, our Marine Strategy and Environmental Improvement Plan provides an important framework for action, including our statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features to be in favorable condition by 2042. And we are committed to the effective protection of our comprehensive network of MPAs around the UK in English waters. We are continuing to implement fisheries management bylaws, including introducing further protections in due course. And this includes proposals to restrict bottom trawling.
Following the Marine Management Organisations consultation last year, the MMO is carefully considering the significant number of responses received and will announce its response in due course. Such decisions are not always easy and must be taken carefully, transparently and with a clear understanding of both environmental and social economic impacts. We are also reviewing the English Marine Protected Area Network to consider whether sites are in the right places and have the right levels of protection, and that matters because the network is only effective if it is ecologically coherent, well managed and able to respond to the pressures of our seas that they face now and in the future.
Those pressures are increasing. Climate change is already altering the marine environment, affecting habitats, species distribution and the communities and industries that depend on them. And at the same time, we must manage the impacts of growing demands on our marine environment and space, including resulting from the expansion of offshore wind. This expansion is essential to our clean power and energy security ambitions, but it must be delivered in a way that also supports supports marine recovery.
Defra led reforms such as the Marine Recovery Fund, launched in December last year, will help unlock clean power whilst delivering effective compensation to protect nature. The Marine Recovery Fund is one element of our Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package, which aims to ensure continued protection of the marine environment while speeding up consent for offshore wind, marine spatial prioritisation and co-location work will also help us manage competing demands between offshore wind, fishing, conservation and other key uses.
And this exactly is the kind of area where we need to look across government goals and avoid treating each decision in isolation. We are also committed to supporting the fishing sector to adapt growing pressures on marine space, and work with industry to safeguard its long term viability. And I know the European Commission is developing its Ocean Act, and I look forward to learning more about the important work the EU is doing to cover both conservation and stewardship.
Chair Marine Protection also relies on enforcing the rules. Responsibility for delivering on this and tackling marine pollution incidents depends on the nature of the incident and source of the pollution. A number of bodies have statutory roles in responding to marine pollution, where any investigation and enforcement action are matters for the relevant independent regulators and enforcement authorities. In the case of pollution originating from territorial sources, the Environment Agency has a key role to play.
Whilst the Marine and Coast Guard Agency has an important role if the pollution comes from a marine source. Fines and sentences are imposed independently by the courts, which determine the appropriate penalty based on the circumstances of each case and applicable sentencing guidelines. I can confirm to members present today that Defra and the Environment Agency are engaging with the Ministry of Justice to strengthen overall enforcement regime so that environmental offences carry meaningful consequences and provide a stronger deterrent against pollution.
Links between marine protection and fisheries are particularly important. Food security is national security, and seafood has an important role to play, and a sustainable fishing industry depends on healthy fish stocks and healthy seas. Fisheries management plans are helping us to make a more evidenced view of how we support fisheries sustainably. They demonstrate why fishery management and protection of the marine environment must be addressed together, and set out a range of short, medium and long term actions to maintain or restore stocks to sustainable levels and to improve the marine ecosystem.
And we cannot deliver ocean conservation alone. As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks to the debate today, internationally, the UK continues to play a leading role in ocean protection and remains committed to delivering our shared global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We are proud to be a founder and chair of the Global Ocean Alliance, as well as Ocean Champion of the High Ambition Coalition for nature and People committed to protecting and restoring the health of our ocean.
We are continuing to work with partners to protect vulnerable ecosystems and coastal communities, and the UK has bolstered these efforts by leveraging finance for the ocean through the Blue Palette Fund, the UK's largest marine Oda programme. And I'm delighted the UK ratified the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement in July. It will enable greater conservation of the two thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction, and support the delivery of global biodiversity framework, including the target to protect at least 30% of our ocean by 2030.
Later this month, the International Whaling Commission marks 80 years, and whilst it will also be the 40th anniversary of the global moratorium on commercial whaling, there is more work to do. The UK will be at the forefront of global efforts to protect and promote their welfare. As the chair of the IWC Conservation Committee and we look forward to being a leading voice on ocean issues. At the UN Biodiversity Conference in October, the climate Cop in November, and engaging proactively in the work of the first meeting, the BB ng conference at the party's next year.
We are also working with international partners to secure a new international agreement to end plastic pollution that addresses the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a global circular economy. We are committed to reach an agreement at the first round of negotiations in March 2027. Finally, this government recognises the continuing need for high quality science to support our domestic and international work and ensure government decisions are based on the best available evidence. The UK has a leading role to play in ocean science, and we regularly call on the help of others to support emerging ocean threats and inform the implementation of our international commitments and management measures.
So in conclusion, chair, as this debate has shown, effective ocean stewardship means taking a long term, joined up approach both domestically and internationally. As I have said, bringing together marine and sustainable fisheries will help to balance environmental, social and economic considerations by protecting and restoring the marine environment, supporting sustainable fisheries and coastal communities, and grounding decisions in the best available evidence so we can help healthier seas for future generations. And I thank my hon.
Friend again for securing today's debate and for the important issues that he has raised.
Chair, our stewardship of the ocean matters. Our seas are central to so much of what we care about nature recovery, food security, clean energy, coastal livelihoods and communities, climate resilience, and our identity as an island nation. People care deeply about the marine environment, and rightly so. But they also care about livelihoods, food production, energy security, and the future of communities that depend on the sea. I want to pay tribute to campaigners and all those who work in the sector on these important matters.
Now, having responsibilities across those will enable me to take a more strategic view, consider the whole picture and look for a balanced decision making process that support both our prosperous fishing industry and healthier, more resilient seas. And I want my department to make decisions that recognise the connections and to ensure that these decisions are rooted in evidence, engagement and long term stewardship. Now, the government is committed to protecting and improving the marine environment, including playing our part in delivering the global biodiversity framework target to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.
Domestically, our Marine Strategy and Environmental Improvement Plan provides an important framework for action, including our statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features to be in favorable condition by 2042. And we are committed to the effective protection of our comprehensive network of MPAs around the UK in English waters. We are continuing to implement fisheries management bylaws, including introducing further protections in due course. And this includes proposals to restrict bottom trawling.
Following the Marine Management Organisations consultation last year, the MMO is carefully considering the significant number of responses received and will announce its response in due course. Such decisions are not always easy and must be taken carefully, transparently and with a clear understanding of both environmental and social economic impacts. We are also reviewing the English Marine Protected Area Network to consider whether sites are in the right places and have the right levels of protection, and that matters because the network is only effective if it is ecologically coherent, well managed and able to respond to the pressures of our seas that they face now and in the future.
Those pressures are increasing. Climate change is already altering the marine environment, affecting habitats, species distribution and the communities and industries that depend on them. And at the same time, we must manage the impacts of growing demands on our marine environment and space, including resulting from the expansion of offshore wind. This expansion is essential to our clean power and energy security ambitions, but it must be delivered in a way that also supports supports marine recovery.
Defra led reforms such as the Marine Recovery Fund, launched in December last year, will help unlock clean power whilst delivering effective compensation to protect nature. The Marine Recovery Fund is one element of our Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package, which aims to ensure continued protection of the marine environment while speeding up consent for offshore wind, marine spatial prioritisation and co-location work will also help us manage competing demands between offshore wind, fishing, conservation and other key uses.
And this exactly is the kind of area where we need to look across government goals and avoid treating each decision in isolation. We are also committed to supporting the fishing sector to adapt growing pressures on marine space, and work with industry to safeguard its long term viability. And I know the European Commission is developing its Ocean Act, and I look forward to learning more about the important work the EU is doing to cover both conservation and stewardship.
Chair Marine Protection also relies on enforcing the rules. Responsibility for delivering on this and tackling marine pollution incidents depends on the nature of the incident and source of the pollution. A number of bodies have statutory roles in responding to marine pollution, where any investigation and enforcement action are matters for the relevant independent regulators and enforcement authorities. In the case of pollution originating from territorial sources, the Environment Agency has a key role to play.
Whilst the Marine and Coast Guard Agency has an important role if the pollution comes from a marine source. Fines and sentences are imposed independently by the courts, which determine the appropriate penalty based on the circumstances of each case and applicable sentencing guidelines. I can confirm to members present today that Defra and the Environment Agency are engaging with the Ministry of Justice to strengthen overall enforcement regime so that environmental offences carry meaningful consequences and provide a stronger deterrent against pollution.
Links between marine protection and fisheries are particularly important. Food security is national security, and seafood has an important role to play, and a sustainable fishing industry depends on healthy fish stocks and healthy seas. Fisheries management plans are helping us to make a more evidenced view of how we support fisheries sustainably. They demonstrate why fishery management and protection of the marine environment must be addressed together, and set out a range of short, medium and long term actions to maintain or restore stocks to sustainable levels and to improve the marine ecosystem.
And we cannot deliver ocean conservation alone. As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks to the debate today, internationally, the UK continues to play a leading role in ocean protection and remains committed to delivering our shared global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. We are proud to be a founder and chair of the Global Ocean Alliance, as well as Ocean Champion of the High Ambition Coalition for nature and People committed to protecting and restoring the health of our ocean.
We are continuing to work with partners to protect vulnerable ecosystems and coastal communities, and the UK has bolstered these efforts by leveraging finance for the ocean through the Blue Palette Fund, the UK's largest marine Oda programme. And I'm delighted the UK ratified the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement in July. It will enable greater conservation of the two thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction, and support the delivery of global biodiversity framework, including the target to protect at least 30% of our ocean by 2030.
Later this month, the International Whaling Commission marks 80 years, and whilst it will also be the 40th anniversary of the global moratorium on commercial whaling, there is more work to do. The UK will be at the forefront of global efforts to protect and promote their welfare. As the chair of the IWC Conservation Committee and we look forward to being a leading voice on ocean issues. At the UN Biodiversity Conference in October, the climate Cop in November, and engaging proactively in the work of the first meeting, the BB ng conference at the party's next year.
We are also working with international partners to secure a new international agreement to end plastic pollution that addresses the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a global circular economy. We are committed to reach an agreement at the first round of negotiations in March 2027. Finally, this government recognises the continuing need for high quality science to support our domestic and international work and ensure government decisions are based on the best available evidence. The UK has a leading role to play in ocean science, and we regularly call on the help of others to support emerging ocean threats and inform the implementation of our international commitments and management measures.
So in conclusion, chair, as this debate has shown, effective ocean stewardship means taking a long term, joined up approach both domestically and internationally. As I have said, bringing together marine and sustainable fisheries will help to balance environmental, social and economic considerations by protecting and restoring the marine environment, supporting sustainable fisheries and coastal communities, and grounding decisions in the best available evidence so we can help healthier seas for future generations. And I thank my hon.
Friend again for securing today's debate and for the important issues that he has raised.
11:22
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much indeed. Dame Siobhan, it's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to have the opportunity to introduce this debate about the definition of gray belt. Dame Siobhan, as you will know, shortly after its election, this government introduced a new concept into planning and development, that of gray belt land. And this would be a subset of land designated as Green Belt currently, which the government considered less worthy of protection than the rest of the Green Belt and on which it wanted to make development easier.
And I have asked for this debate because I think it's important that we understand the significance of this new concept, and specifically what I'm interested in understanding, and I know the minister will do his best to help with all of these items is, first of all, how different Green Belt designation seems to be to what the government originally said that gray belt would be. Secondly, it's likely impact on our countryside . And thirdly, how it combines with other changes changes the government is making to the balance of development in rural and urban areas.
So, Dame Siobhan, let's start with the difference between what the government originally suggested greenbelt would be and what their definition published in the National Planning Policy Framework document actually says it is. In July of 2024, the right hon. Lady for Ashton under Lyne, in her first incarnation as Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the government's intention was that, and I quote, we will release lower quality grey belt sites, disused car parks and garages and ugly wasteland.
End quote. She also said that, and I quote again, the land we are talking about grey belt, which we will define in the NPF consultation is not agricultural land. It is disused garages and things of that nature, end quote. However, when the actual definition of grey belt land appeared in the NPF of December 2024, the concept was considerably wider than that. Grey belt is now defined as land in the green belt that does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of the green belt, which were included in the previous definition of green belt land.
And those three purposes are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large, built up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and character of historic towns. In other words, to remain as green belt and not to be reclassified as grey belt land must need protecting in order to prevent urban sprawl, or to stop urban areas merging, or to be near enough to a historic town to affect its setting or character.
Of course, even a moderate contribution to those objectives will not be enough to save the land from grey belt status. It must contribute strongly. The remaining two purposes of green Belt designation are no longer considered important enough to preserve greenbelt from becoming grey belt, namely assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment or assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. So what Dame Siobhan, can we conclude from all this about what is actually greenbelt and what is actually grey belt now? Well, I think we can draw two conclusions.
First, I think we can conclude that quite a lot of what is now greenbelt will probably end up redesignated as grey belt, because the government has set the bar quite high to retain greenbelt status. Only a strong contribution to the three remaining effective greenbelt purposes will do. And I'm not the only one who thinks that much of the green belt could end up as grey belt. Recent analysis from channel four news suggested that 96% of the green belt around Guildford could be grey belt, along with 92% of the greenbelt around Stoke on Trent and 80% around Solihull.
My second conclusion is that land, which does continue to qualify as greenbelt as opposed to greenbelt, will largely be on the edge of urban settlements. And that is because greenbelt is in effect, all green belt land that does not contribute strongly to the three greenbelt purposes that only apply very near to urban settlements. It follows that land in open countryside, currently in the greenbelt, will be less able to meet one of those three purposes, and is therefore more likely to be redesignated as greenbelt land.
And much of this is, of course, agricultural land which the Secretary of State you will remember. Dame Siobhan said Greenbelt would not be. She also said to the House in a written statement on 30th of July, 2024, that much of the greenbelt and again, I quote again is better described as greenbelt land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, and with little aesthetic or environmental value. End quote. But given the actual definition of greenbelt, the government has decided upon, the opposite is surely true.
The land on the edge of existing settlements or roads is in fact more likely to be greenbelt, by their definition, and land further from existing settlements is more likely to be greenbelt. So why does any of this matter? Well, it matters because greenbelt designation is intended to facilitate more development. That's the point. The government is trying to release more land currently called greenbelt for housing and other things. So it matters which land.
The government is actually making it easier to develop with greenbelt designation. And the reality is that the land the government is making it easier to develop is not disused car parks and garages. It's not ugly wasteland. It's agricultural land and open countryside. And Dame Siobhan, we can see an indication of that in the decisions of planning inspectors. In cases where developers have argued for greenbelt status, the CPR has examined cases in the year following the first definition of green belt land in the NPF of December 2024, and in that period, planning inspectors approved 13 developments of ten or more houses on green belt land, which they believed should be reclassified as greenbelt in accordance with the government's definition of the 1250 homes these schemes deliver, nearly 90% are in previously undeveloped countryside, not on wasteland or former car parks.
Now, I appreciate that the Minister may say that greenbelt designation is not enough on its own to allow development. Other criteria must also be met, and that is so. But it's worth, I think, examining those other criteria. A development in greenbelt land must also meet unmet need. But with many councils unable to demonstrate a five year land supply, often it has to be said, due to recent increases in government housing targets to which I may return, that unmet need will, I suspect, routinely be easy to demonstrate.
Secondly, the development must be in a sustainable location. But sustainability here is perhaps an elusive concept. If I'm right that most green belt land will be in countryside away from urban settlements, then transport, infrastructure, health and education provision. Even mains, gas and sewerage may well be less plentiful. And so we have to ask are many of these grey belt locations therefore really going to be sustainable? Presumably the government must believe so, or greenbelt designation is not going to move the needle on housing provision.
Now, perhaps the minister expects to see considerable infrastructure upgrades to rural greenbelt locations, but if so, that will be expensive and will affect the viability and deliverability of the housing developments the government may be relying on, then, housing developments in greenbelt locations must provide more social housing than elsewhere, perhaps 50% of the total. Well, whatever the merits of that or its viability, social housing will have the same impact on the openness of the greenbelt and our countryside as any other kind.
And finally, the Minister may remind us that, according to the Nppf, a development on green belt land may only take place if. And again, I quote if it would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together of the remaining greenbelt across the area of the plan, and I accept that theoretically, at least, that brings back into consideration both the encroachment of the countryside and of urban regeneration. Again, though, it's worth exploring how valuable and how usable that safeguard is really likely to be.
And it seems to me that it will be challenging to argue. The plan area for most of my constituency is South Warwickshire. It would be difficult, I think, to claim that building on a single grey belt site would fundamentally undermine the green belt in half the county. Unless, of course, the cumulative effect of many grey belt developments could be considered in measuring that fundamental undermining of the greenbelt. And it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the cumulative impact of other sites , in conjunction with the site, subject to individual consideration, will be relevant in that exercise, and if not, then why not? I want then to turn to the broader impact of grey belt on the countryside.
And as I said earlier, it appears to me that greenbelt land, as the government has defined it, will increasingly be agricultural land and other land in the countryside, which will be easier as a result to turn into housing estates, warehouses or solar farms, for example. The protection for our countryside that greenbelt status has thus far offered will be substantially eroded, and for constituencies with large amounts of greenbelt, that could be very significant. My constituency is roughly 30% greenbelt and others are, of course, substantially more.
The residual greenbelt will be areas on the fringes of towns and cities, but not, of course, to be clear, around our villages, which are specifically excluded from the definition of urban areas in the nppf. Now, that might seem uncontroversial, logical even, but it has a practical effect in the context of this debate. And that's because the difference between small towns and large villages is becoming increasingly academic. In my constituency again, for example, the town of Southam had a population in 2024 of around 9200, and the village of Wellesbourne, a population of around 7600.
Under the government's definition, small towns in the greenbelt can defend themselves from greenbelt designation, but large villages in the greenbelt cannot. So grey belt designation means more pressure on villages and rural areas from development, more pressure on rural roads and schools, more of our countryside lost to bricks and concrete. On top of huge housing developments already in and around villages in constituencies like mine. And it is hard. Dame Siobhan, to believe that this impact is accidental, because it has to be seen in the context of other changes the government has made, making it easier to build houses in the countryside goes hand in hand with revised housing targets from this government, which are higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas.
My constituency, again, is a good example. Most of it falls within Warwick district and Stratford district, and just across the border is the city of Coventry. Coventry's housing target has been reduced by this government by 50%. The target for Warwick district, which is mostly greenbelt, has gone up by 65%. Stratford District's new target is 99% higher. This isn't accidental. It's a deliberately plan to transfer housing pressure from urban to rural areas.
It's no surprise, then, that this government does not want the greenbelt purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration to stand in the way of greenbelt designation and easier development. But my constituents and I know the constituents of others represented here this afternoon have seen very considerable housing development around them already, and now they face even more, while predominantly Labour councils, it has to be said, in urban areas, are not asked to find housing land within their own borders, land that would largely be brownfield sites and that isn't.
Dame Siobhan just bad news for our countryside. It's bad news for our cities too, as they will not get the new housing, particularly for first time buyers and young families, which would help to revitalise the economy of places like Coventry. So it seems to me that the government has described greenbelt as one thing and then defined it as something else. It seems to me that there is going to be much more grey belt and much less greenbelt, as local authorities are asked to review their greenbelt by the government and as they or the Planning Inspectorate accede to developers, arguments that the greenbelt they want to build on is actually grey, all of which will have a significant and irreversible impact on our greenbelt countryside.
The minister is, of course, entitled to disagree with my analysis or to tell me that I don't need to worry, but I would like him to address in particular these points when he responds to the debate first, does he accept that greenbelt is likely to be predominantly open countryside and greenfield sites? Contrary to what the government originally suggested it would be? Second, if so, does he accept that the impact on our countryside in greenbelt areas will be significant and destructive? And finally, is that likely impact deliberate or accidental? And if accidental, will he look again at what greenbelt designation will likely deliver in practice? Will he be prepared to continue the conversation that I hope we will have this afternoon and seek to minimise the impact of this change on our rural communities, about which many of us are extremely concerned.
Thank you.
And I have asked for this debate because I think it's important that we understand the significance of this new concept, and specifically what I'm interested in understanding, and I know the minister will do his best to help with all of these items is, first of all, how different Green Belt designation seems to be to what the government originally said that gray belt would be. Secondly, it's likely impact on our countryside . And thirdly, how it combines with other changes changes the government is making to the balance of development in rural and urban areas.
So, Dame Siobhan, let's start with the difference between what the government originally suggested greenbelt would be and what their definition published in the National Planning Policy Framework document actually says it is. In July of 2024, the right hon. Lady for Ashton under Lyne, in her first incarnation as Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government, told the House that the government's intention was that, and I quote, we will release lower quality grey belt sites, disused car parks and garages and ugly wasteland.
End quote. She also said that, and I quote again, the land we are talking about grey belt, which we will define in the NPF consultation is not agricultural land. It is disused garages and things of that nature, end quote. However, when the actual definition of grey belt land appeared in the NPF of December 2024, the concept was considerably wider than that. Grey belt is now defined as land in the green belt that does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of the green belt, which were included in the previous definition of green belt land.
And those three purposes are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large, built up areas to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and character of historic towns. In other words, to remain as green belt and not to be reclassified as grey belt land must need protecting in order to prevent urban sprawl, or to stop urban areas merging, or to be near enough to a historic town to affect its setting or character.
Of course, even a moderate contribution to those objectives will not be enough to save the land from grey belt status. It must contribute strongly. The remaining two purposes of green Belt designation are no longer considered important enough to preserve greenbelt from becoming grey belt, namely assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment or assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. So what Dame Siobhan, can we conclude from all this about what is actually greenbelt and what is actually grey belt now? Well, I think we can draw two conclusions.
First, I think we can conclude that quite a lot of what is now greenbelt will probably end up redesignated as grey belt, because the government has set the bar quite high to retain greenbelt status. Only a strong contribution to the three remaining effective greenbelt purposes will do. And I'm not the only one who thinks that much of the green belt could end up as grey belt. Recent analysis from channel four news suggested that 96% of the green belt around Guildford could be grey belt, along with 92% of the greenbelt around Stoke on Trent and 80% around Solihull.
My second conclusion is that land, which does continue to qualify as greenbelt as opposed to greenbelt, will largely be on the edge of urban settlements. And that is because greenbelt is in effect, all green belt land that does not contribute strongly to the three greenbelt purposes that only apply very near to urban settlements. It follows that land in open countryside, currently in the greenbelt, will be less able to meet one of those three purposes, and is therefore more likely to be redesignated as greenbelt land.
And much of this is, of course, agricultural land which the Secretary of State you will remember. Dame Siobhan said Greenbelt would not be. She also said to the House in a written statement on 30th of July, 2024, that much of the greenbelt and again, I quote again is better described as greenbelt land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, and with little aesthetic or environmental value. End quote. But given the actual definition of greenbelt, the government has decided upon, the opposite is surely true.
The land on the edge of existing settlements or roads is in fact more likely to be greenbelt, by their definition, and land further from existing settlements is more likely to be greenbelt. So why does any of this matter? Well, it matters because greenbelt designation is intended to facilitate more development. That's the point. The government is trying to release more land currently called greenbelt for housing and other things. So it matters which land.
The government is actually making it easier to develop with greenbelt designation. And the reality is that the land the government is making it easier to develop is not disused car parks and garages. It's not ugly wasteland. It's agricultural land and open countryside. And Dame Siobhan, we can see an indication of that in the decisions of planning inspectors. In cases where developers have argued for greenbelt status, the CPR has examined cases in the year following the first definition of green belt land in the NPF of December 2024, and in that period, planning inspectors approved 13 developments of ten or more houses on green belt land, which they believed should be reclassified as greenbelt in accordance with the government's definition of the 1250 homes these schemes deliver, nearly 90% are in previously undeveloped countryside, not on wasteland or former car parks.
Now, I appreciate that the Minister may say that greenbelt designation is not enough on its own to allow development. Other criteria must also be met, and that is so. But it's worth, I think, examining those other criteria. A development in greenbelt land must also meet unmet need. But with many councils unable to demonstrate a five year land supply, often it has to be said, due to recent increases in government housing targets to which I may return, that unmet need will, I suspect, routinely be easy to demonstrate.
Secondly, the development must be in a sustainable location. But sustainability here is perhaps an elusive concept. If I'm right that most green belt land will be in countryside away from urban settlements, then transport, infrastructure, health and education provision. Even mains, gas and sewerage may well be less plentiful. And so we have to ask are many of these grey belt locations therefore really going to be sustainable? Presumably the government must believe so, or greenbelt designation is not going to move the needle on housing provision.
Now, perhaps the minister expects to see considerable infrastructure upgrades to rural greenbelt locations, but if so, that will be expensive and will affect the viability and deliverability of the housing developments the government may be relying on, then, housing developments in greenbelt locations must provide more social housing than elsewhere, perhaps 50% of the total. Well, whatever the merits of that or its viability, social housing will have the same impact on the openness of the greenbelt and our countryside as any other kind.
And finally, the Minister may remind us that, according to the Nppf, a development on green belt land may only take place if. And again, I quote if it would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together of the remaining greenbelt across the area of the plan, and I accept that theoretically, at least, that brings back into consideration both the encroachment of the countryside and of urban regeneration. Again, though, it's worth exploring how valuable and how usable that safeguard is really likely to be.
And it seems to me that it will be challenging to argue. The plan area for most of my constituency is South Warwickshire. It would be difficult, I think, to claim that building on a single grey belt site would fundamentally undermine the green belt in half the county. Unless, of course, the cumulative effect of many grey belt developments could be considered in measuring that fundamental undermining of the greenbelt. And it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the cumulative impact of other sites , in conjunction with the site, subject to individual consideration, will be relevant in that exercise, and if not, then why not? I want then to turn to the broader impact of grey belt on the countryside.
And as I said earlier, it appears to me that greenbelt land, as the government has defined it, will increasingly be agricultural land and other land in the countryside, which will be easier as a result to turn into housing estates, warehouses or solar farms, for example. The protection for our countryside that greenbelt status has thus far offered will be substantially eroded, and for constituencies with large amounts of greenbelt, that could be very significant. My constituency is roughly 30% greenbelt and others are, of course, substantially more.
The residual greenbelt will be areas on the fringes of towns and cities, but not, of course, to be clear, around our villages, which are specifically excluded from the definition of urban areas in the nppf. Now, that might seem uncontroversial, logical even, but it has a practical effect in the context of this debate. And that's because the difference between small towns and large villages is becoming increasingly academic. In my constituency again, for example, the town of Southam had a population in 2024 of around 9200, and the village of Wellesbourne, a population of around 7600.
Under the government's definition, small towns in the greenbelt can defend themselves from greenbelt designation, but large villages in the greenbelt cannot. So grey belt designation means more pressure on villages and rural areas from development, more pressure on rural roads and schools, more of our countryside lost to bricks and concrete. On top of huge housing developments already in and around villages in constituencies like mine. And it is hard. Dame Siobhan, to believe that this impact is accidental, because it has to be seen in the context of other changes the government has made, making it easier to build houses in the countryside goes hand in hand with revised housing targets from this government, which are higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas.
My constituency, again, is a good example. Most of it falls within Warwick district and Stratford district, and just across the border is the city of Coventry. Coventry's housing target has been reduced by this government by 50%. The target for Warwick district, which is mostly greenbelt, has gone up by 65%. Stratford District's new target is 99% higher. This isn't accidental. It's a deliberately plan to transfer housing pressure from urban to rural areas.
It's no surprise, then, that this government does not want the greenbelt purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and assisting urban regeneration to stand in the way of greenbelt designation and easier development. But my constituents and I know the constituents of others represented here this afternoon have seen very considerable housing development around them already, and now they face even more, while predominantly Labour councils, it has to be said, in urban areas, are not asked to find housing land within their own borders, land that would largely be brownfield sites and that isn't.
Dame Siobhan just bad news for our countryside. It's bad news for our cities too, as they will not get the new housing, particularly for first time buyers and young families, which would help to revitalise the economy of places like Coventry. So it seems to me that the government has described greenbelt as one thing and then defined it as something else. It seems to me that there is going to be much more grey belt and much less greenbelt, as local authorities are asked to review their greenbelt by the government and as they or the Planning Inspectorate accede to developers, arguments that the greenbelt they want to build on is actually grey, all of which will have a significant and irreversible impact on our greenbelt countryside.
The minister is, of course, entitled to disagree with my analysis or to tell me that I don't need to worry, but I would like him to address in particular these points when he responds to the debate first, does he accept that greenbelt is likely to be predominantly open countryside and greenfield sites? Contrary to what the government originally suggested it would be? Second, if so, does he accept that the impact on our countryside in greenbelt areas will be significant and destructive? And finally, is that likely impact deliberate or accidental? And if accidental, will he look again at what greenbelt designation will likely deliver in practice? Will he be prepared to continue the conversation that I hope we will have this afternoon and seek to minimise the impact of this change on our rural communities, about which many of us are extremely concerned.
Thank you.
14:45
14:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you James. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I thank the Right Honourable member for introducing this debate. As the Member of Parliament for Woking, housing is the top issue in my inbox, whether that be overcrowding, evictions, issues with bed bugs or mold or problems with leasehold. We need more and better quality homes in Woking and across the country. There is planning permission for over 2000 homes in Woking town centre and the surrounding area, whether that be a thousand in the Ecoworld site in Goldsworth Road or the hundred in the former Greenfield school site in Brooklyn Road.
All of them got planning permission before the pandemic. All of those 2000 homes. None are under construction. Absolutely none. None of them are financially viable for the developers, so they are sitting on this land. Recently, the Secretary of State stated that there is a slim chance that the government will hit its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, something that the housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee have raised our concerns with the government before.
Instead of tackling the high construction costs that are leaving sites for new homes abandoned in Woking and across the country, the government has instead adopted and created this concept of grey belt to encourage development to meet its housing targets in one Surrey borough, it's believed that 80% of their green belt would be reclassified as grey belt. Woking Borough Council are doing the same assessment now to find out how it will impact my constituency. I do agree with the honourable gentleman that the definition of grey belt is too broad.
It's been described in a very specific way that even the average Nimby would have no problem with, but it's been defined in a very broad manner that I worry would fundamentally damage our local environments. Last year, I held a public meeting in Mayfair to hear from residents about how a large. A large proposed development would impact them. They do not want to see the. The fields north of Saunders Lane, which are used for recreation and agriculture, turned into a housing estate.
People in Leybourne Rise in Mayford don't want to lose their fields either. Residents in Sutton Green are concerned about the greenbelt being lost there, rather than unlock sustainable development in Woking and other brownfield locations. The government have chosen to encourage development in less sustainable locations where there is no or limited infrastructure which will damage the local environment. And that is what Grey Belt does. Rather than build in places that we should be.
We're targeting places for housing growth that should be protected for future generations. I ask the minister, will they are they seeking action in the budget to unlock these brownfield development sites that are stalled, to relieve pressure on nature and our grey and green belt, and build the homes we need? Is the minister and his colleagues urging the Chancellor in the forthcoming budget to go big, to ensure that this budget unlocks those development sites? Are they looking at reducing the tax on development in brownfield sites? Have they ruled out changing the community infrastructure or development contributions? Is everything on the table to try to unlock development, or have they not got this far and are happy to sit on empty construction sites whilst people in housing waiting lists wait for evermore? If they have not thought Dame Siobhan about financial measures, will the Minister and the government consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce, use it or lose it powers for long term empty sites? My constituents do not want a town full of empty sites and people sitting on a housing waiting list, whilst the government introduces Grey Belt and damages our environment.
And I'm afraid without a change of action, which this government is happy to do U-turns on, I fear that is what's going to happen.
All of them got planning permission before the pandemic. All of those 2000 homes. None are under construction. Absolutely none. None of them are financially viable for the developers, so they are sitting on this land. Recently, the Secretary of State stated that there is a slim chance that the government will hit its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, something that the housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee have raised our concerns with the government before.
Instead of tackling the high construction costs that are leaving sites for new homes abandoned in Woking and across the country, the government has instead adopted and created this concept of grey belt to encourage development to meet its housing targets in one Surrey borough, it's believed that 80% of their green belt would be reclassified as grey belt. Woking Borough Council are doing the same assessment now to find out how it will impact my constituency. I do agree with the honourable gentleman that the definition of grey belt is too broad.
It's been described in a very specific way that even the average Nimby would have no problem with, but it's been defined in a very broad manner that I worry would fundamentally damage our local environments. Last year, I held a public meeting in Mayfair to hear from residents about how a large. A large proposed development would impact them. They do not want to see the. The fields north of Saunders Lane, which are used for recreation and agriculture, turned into a housing estate.
People in Leybourne Rise in Mayford don't want to lose their fields either. Residents in Sutton Green are concerned about the greenbelt being lost there, rather than unlock sustainable development in Woking and other brownfield locations. The government have chosen to encourage development in less sustainable locations where there is no or limited infrastructure which will damage the local environment. And that is what Grey Belt does. Rather than build in places that we should be.
We're targeting places for housing growth that should be protected for future generations. I ask the minister, will they are they seeking action in the budget to unlock these brownfield development sites that are stalled, to relieve pressure on nature and our grey and green belt, and build the homes we need? Is the minister and his colleagues urging the Chancellor in the forthcoming budget to go big, to ensure that this budget unlocks those development sites? Are they looking at reducing the tax on development in brownfield sites? Have they ruled out changing the community infrastructure or development contributions? Is everything on the table to try to unlock development, or have they not got this far and are happy to sit on empty construction sites whilst people in housing waiting lists wait for evermore? If they have not thought Dame Siobhan about financial measures, will the Minister and the government consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce, use it or lose it powers for long term empty sites? My constituents do not want a town full of empty sites and people sitting on a housing waiting list, whilst the government introduces Grey Belt and damages our environment.
And I'm afraid without a change of action, which this government is happy to do U-turns on, I fear that is what's going to happen.
14:50
14:50
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. It's a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and thank you very much for calling me. A big thank you to the honourable gentleman for Kenilworth for raising this matter. The minister will know when he will know that housing is not the responsibility of the minister here for Northern Ireland. But I always to give a perspective, but also as an MP for Strangford and, and contributing to to debates in this House in Westminster Hall today.
I want to give some thoughts that we have done perhaps, maybe back home. Whilst I understand the need for increased housing development , as the MP for Strangford constituency covered by vast stretches of countryside, I am most concerned for the protection of our rural communities. I do support the. And I do support government's aims of 1.5 million houses. Now that figure will not be achieved. According to the minister in the paper. I think it might have been yesterday or the day before that.
That figure will will not not be reached. But whatever the figure may be also indicated, I understand that there might be a. I think that the the the stats that we got was they said the shortfall is some 4.3 million homes for the United Kingdom. So that's everywhere in its totality. And I want to tell some of the things that we've done in Northern Ireland and my constituency as well. Just to give a flavour, I believe that that there is a need to to build adequate homes, affordable homes, to give people a chance to get onto the housing ladder.
I always remember one of Margaret Thatcher's former prime minister. She always said she wanted to make sure that people had the chance to buy their home. And I thought that was something. As a young person and much younger than I am now, but looking back to that time, that was a policy that I think was admirable and I certainly supported. It was what we all want to do. We want to own our home.
It reminds me of the story Dame Siobhan. I was only 16 at the time. I just I think I'd left school and there's a man come to buy my dad's coal business. Just to give you an idea of prices, way back in the in 1971, when he came down, Mr. Dowds. It was being the young 16 year old I was. It was always a. Mr.. Would never be his first name, and he told me he'd bought a house up the up the road in Ballywalter, and I said, Mr.
Dowds, how much will that be? What's it going to cost you? He says £3,750. My words to him as a 16 year old was Mr. Dowds, how will you ever pay it back? My goodness! How will you ever pay it back? £3,750. If he had had the intellect, or the ability or the money he had bought for them and sold them later and made their fortune.
But the fact of the matter is, housing is not the price of £3,750 any more. It's much more. But we have to. I believe in government's policy as one that I support. I support the policy of giving people access to homes, to affordable homes, to ensuring that they. They have an opportunity to to have their retirement policy in their home and have that for the future. UK, as I said earlier, is a shortfall of some 4.3 million homes compared to other Western European countries.
Again, I think in the United Kingdom, we're falling far behind when it comes to, to, to having homes provided or built across the United Kingdom. The housing shortage shortage has worsened housing affordability. It's worsened the growth and the living standards as a result and recognition of these issues, the government introduced the green Belt land, which would permit certain areas of green Belt land to be considered for property development if they were deemed to make a limited contribution to green belt purposes.
Now the Chancellor, Kenilworth, set the scene incredibly well and he's expressed his concerns and my nose is consistently much better than I do. And he expressed a concern on behalf of his constituents. So when the minister responds, hopefully the minister can give the the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has been seeking. I have always been supportive of using brownfield sites for development and business land that is now derelict, and where businesses or factories have closed, and over the years, in my constituency of Strangford as a councillor from 1985, for 26 years and as a member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years before I came here, I recognize very clearly that there were opportunities, rather than let derelict in the centre of town.
Why not use that for the purposes of housing development? So the brownfield sites and the honourable gentleman. Right, hon. Gentleman will no doubt know of cases where brownfield land could be used for that purpose. And I suppose one of the questions to the Minister would be to ensure that all opportunities for brownfield sites are used and utilised, and I should have welcomed the Minister to this place, and apologies for not doing so.
It's always nice to see him and he always endeavours to answer the questions that we posed to him, and I believe he does that incredibly well. So we look forward to the answers later on. The the the brownfield sites are an opportunity to deliver most of the opportunities needed for housing development. So but we now see the great grey belt land is at good agricultural land, land production. Productive lands should be retained for for production.
So my concern on the Right Honourable member is illustrated very, very well in his introduction. And as my colleague and friend who spoke just before me, and there are opportunities, I believe, where these things need to be considered food production. We're not sustainable anymore. We can't look after, we can't feed all our nation. But but I believe there's a necessity for us to do that. Some of the negatives, of course, for Grey Belt and the Right Honourable gentleman referred to them and he did it incredibly well.
Green belt on green belt land or grey land is generally protected from development, and the development of these grey belt areas raises, I believe, serious concerns regarding the potential loss of farmland. For example, of one woodland animal habitats, public access to nature. These proposed developments of grey belt land has also been assessed to pose a greater flood risk and also increase car dependency on poorly, often poorly connected areas. So there are other issues when it comes to the grey belt areas which have to be considered, and I believe with respect that this is not sustainable development and proposes proposals for significant public opposition with thousands and maybe tens of thousands taking part in protests in April alone.
Now, I live in a in a farm in the Ards Peninsula of Strangford. The rules are very strict and allowed. If. If a farm business number. Of course that's. That's a. Don't be a person who doesn't work around. You have to have a farm business number and. That gives you the possibility of one site on your land every ten years, whether it be for farm labor, for your family, or indeed at retirement home.
The conditions are strict, but they're strict for a purpose. And so I don't think we're going to have unfortunately, unfortunately, I'm glad to say, the issues that the honourable member has referred to the greenbelt, we will not find ourselves in that position, but we have other opportunities through the years where we've developed land. An old greenbelt land is not applicable to Northern Ireland. There are still protections in place for development of the countryside. A key issue in Northern Ireland is our infrastructure capacity for housing development.
This always has and must be addressed before consideration is given to larger developments in countryside areas. My time as a councillor and as an Assembly member, and now as the MP for Strangford, we. There's been a number of developments which I. On land that . Some of them have been very good agricultural land, but it was on the edge of the town , and it lent itself to, to, to developing. And there's a proposal which has been passed and will take place for the east of Newtownards for some 700 new houses.
And the important thing for that is to say that the developer has committed himself and is committed by the very conditions that are there for the planning application to ensure that the infrastructure, the roads process, sewerage and water, playgrounds, green areas, access to infrastructure will not be. Today the health clinics or indeed even access to schools. There's a lot of things that the developer has to do, and I think that's right, that the developers should do that and ensure that that there's a responsibility not to throw everything onto the present infrastructure, but to ensure that it's sustainable.
I think if Riverwood, Newtownards four phases a lovely development in orange, they're on the finishing the third and we're going on to the fourth, and that is connected. As an example, the Donaghadee Road and the Bangor Road in Newtownards, a road and to the Donaghadee Road and ultimately over to the Bangor Road. They develop . They they they the road structure. And again, that was a way to do it.
Cumber and and the village has been another development. Again, the opportunity was there in the edge of the town and land that wasn't productive. But. So that's an example of where it was acceptable and, and, and, and wouldn't cause any problems. But I like to ask and answer this question, please, if I can. Does the minister therefore agree that green Belt land should not be viewed as a whole solution to the housing crisis? It's a simple question.
I'm sure the Minister will give me some response in relation to it, and that greater consideration should be given to building up the infrastructure we already have. So what do we do or what do we need to do to improve on? And I just want to finish with this. We must find the right balance. And I believe there's a balance to be found. It's making sure that people have the access to homes, affordable homes.
It's making sure that they that sustainable development can happen while protecting the environmental value of our countryside. And I love where I am and where I live, and I'm fortunate. I've always been fortunate that I've lived in the countryside. I'm fortunate to live in a farm and go out my back door, and I'm in the fields, and I love the countryside. I always have, and I and my sons have opportunities to do that as well.
But grey belt land may remain a grey area, but I do believe that the development and environmental protection are not irreconcilable aims. So the question to the minister is, have we got the balance? Have we got the balance between retaining the environment? Have we got the balance between providing the houses? Two things we're all committed to, to ensure that people have opportunity, every one of us in this chamber today, but we have to be committed as well to ensure that our environment is protected.
I always think of a do some company sports games on, and one of the things that we have a responsibility to ensure that what we have is there for those who come after us. And I believe that's our responsibility today. And probably the M7 as one who is 71 years of age, I'm very conscious, even more so now than ever, that what I leave for my sons and for for my grandchildren is something I want to see them having the same opportunities at the same time, a chance to have a house, but at the same time to enjoy what we enjoy.
Thanks so much.
I want to give some thoughts that we have done perhaps, maybe back home. Whilst I understand the need for increased housing development , as the MP for Strangford constituency covered by vast stretches of countryside, I am most concerned for the protection of our rural communities. I do support the. And I do support government's aims of 1.5 million houses. Now that figure will not be achieved. According to the minister in the paper. I think it might have been yesterday or the day before that.
That figure will will not not be reached. But whatever the figure may be also indicated, I understand that there might be a. I think that the the the stats that we got was they said the shortfall is some 4.3 million homes for the United Kingdom. So that's everywhere in its totality. And I want to tell some of the things that we've done in Northern Ireland and my constituency as well. Just to give a flavour, I believe that that there is a need to to build adequate homes, affordable homes, to give people a chance to get onto the housing ladder.
I always remember one of Margaret Thatcher's former prime minister. She always said she wanted to make sure that people had the chance to buy their home. And I thought that was something. As a young person and much younger than I am now, but looking back to that time, that was a policy that I think was admirable and I certainly supported. It was what we all want to do. We want to own our home.
It reminds me of the story Dame Siobhan. I was only 16 at the time. I just I think I'd left school and there's a man come to buy my dad's coal business. Just to give you an idea of prices, way back in the in 1971, when he came down, Mr. Dowds. It was being the young 16 year old I was. It was always a. Mr.. Would never be his first name, and he told me he'd bought a house up the up the road in Ballywalter, and I said, Mr.
Dowds, how much will that be? What's it going to cost you? He says £3,750. My words to him as a 16 year old was Mr. Dowds, how will you ever pay it back? My goodness! How will you ever pay it back? £3,750. If he had had the intellect, or the ability or the money he had bought for them and sold them later and made their fortune.
But the fact of the matter is, housing is not the price of £3,750 any more. It's much more. But we have to. I believe in government's policy as one that I support. I support the policy of giving people access to homes, to affordable homes, to ensuring that they. They have an opportunity to to have their retirement policy in their home and have that for the future. UK, as I said earlier, is a shortfall of some 4.3 million homes compared to other Western European countries.
Again, I think in the United Kingdom, we're falling far behind when it comes to, to, to having homes provided or built across the United Kingdom. The housing shortage shortage has worsened housing affordability. It's worsened the growth and the living standards as a result and recognition of these issues, the government introduced the green Belt land, which would permit certain areas of green Belt land to be considered for property development if they were deemed to make a limited contribution to green belt purposes.
Now the Chancellor, Kenilworth, set the scene incredibly well and he's expressed his concerns and my nose is consistently much better than I do. And he expressed a concern on behalf of his constituents. So when the minister responds, hopefully the minister can give the the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has been seeking. I have always been supportive of using brownfield sites for development and business land that is now derelict, and where businesses or factories have closed, and over the years, in my constituency of Strangford as a councillor from 1985, for 26 years and as a member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years before I came here, I recognize very clearly that there were opportunities, rather than let derelict in the centre of town.
Why not use that for the purposes of housing development? So the brownfield sites and the honourable gentleman. Right, hon. Gentleman will no doubt know of cases where brownfield land could be used for that purpose. And I suppose one of the questions to the Minister would be to ensure that all opportunities for brownfield sites are used and utilised, and I should have welcomed the Minister to this place, and apologies for not doing so.
It's always nice to see him and he always endeavours to answer the questions that we posed to him, and I believe he does that incredibly well. So we look forward to the answers later on. The the the brownfield sites are an opportunity to deliver most of the opportunities needed for housing development. So but we now see the great grey belt land is at good agricultural land, land production. Productive lands should be retained for for production.
So my concern on the Right Honourable member is illustrated very, very well in his introduction. And as my colleague and friend who spoke just before me, and there are opportunities, I believe, where these things need to be considered food production. We're not sustainable anymore. We can't look after, we can't feed all our nation. But but I believe there's a necessity for us to do that. Some of the negatives, of course, for Grey Belt and the Right Honourable gentleman referred to them and he did it incredibly well.
Green belt on green belt land or grey land is generally protected from development, and the development of these grey belt areas raises, I believe, serious concerns regarding the potential loss of farmland. For example, of one woodland animal habitats, public access to nature. These proposed developments of grey belt land has also been assessed to pose a greater flood risk and also increase car dependency on poorly, often poorly connected areas. So there are other issues when it comes to the grey belt areas which have to be considered, and I believe with respect that this is not sustainable development and proposes proposals for significant public opposition with thousands and maybe tens of thousands taking part in protests in April alone.
Now, I live in a in a farm in the Ards Peninsula of Strangford. The rules are very strict and allowed. If. If a farm business number. Of course that's. That's a. Don't be a person who doesn't work around. You have to have a farm business number and. That gives you the possibility of one site on your land every ten years, whether it be for farm labor, for your family, or indeed at retirement home.
The conditions are strict, but they're strict for a purpose. And so I don't think we're going to have unfortunately, unfortunately, I'm glad to say, the issues that the honourable member has referred to the greenbelt, we will not find ourselves in that position, but we have other opportunities through the years where we've developed land. An old greenbelt land is not applicable to Northern Ireland. There are still protections in place for development of the countryside. A key issue in Northern Ireland is our infrastructure capacity for housing development.
This always has and must be addressed before consideration is given to larger developments in countryside areas. My time as a councillor and as an Assembly member, and now as the MP for Strangford, we. There's been a number of developments which I. On land that . Some of them have been very good agricultural land, but it was on the edge of the town , and it lent itself to, to, to developing. And there's a proposal which has been passed and will take place for the east of Newtownards for some 700 new houses.
And the important thing for that is to say that the developer has committed himself and is committed by the very conditions that are there for the planning application to ensure that the infrastructure, the roads process, sewerage and water, playgrounds, green areas, access to infrastructure will not be. Today the health clinics or indeed even access to schools. There's a lot of things that the developer has to do, and I think that's right, that the developers should do that and ensure that that there's a responsibility not to throw everything onto the present infrastructure, but to ensure that it's sustainable.
I think if Riverwood, Newtownards four phases a lovely development in orange, they're on the finishing the third and we're going on to the fourth, and that is connected. As an example, the Donaghadee Road and the Bangor Road in Newtownards, a road and to the Donaghadee Road and ultimately over to the Bangor Road. They develop . They they they the road structure. And again, that was a way to do it.
Cumber and and the village has been another development. Again, the opportunity was there in the edge of the town and land that wasn't productive. But. So that's an example of where it was acceptable and, and, and, and wouldn't cause any problems. But I like to ask and answer this question, please, if I can. Does the minister therefore agree that green Belt land should not be viewed as a whole solution to the housing crisis? It's a simple question.
I'm sure the Minister will give me some response in relation to it, and that greater consideration should be given to building up the infrastructure we already have. So what do we do or what do we need to do to improve on? And I just want to finish with this. We must find the right balance. And I believe there's a balance to be found. It's making sure that people have the access to homes, affordable homes.
It's making sure that they that sustainable development can happen while protecting the environmental value of our countryside. And I love where I am and where I live, and I'm fortunate. I've always been fortunate that I've lived in the countryside. I'm fortunate to live in a farm and go out my back door, and I'm in the fields, and I love the countryside. I always have, and I and my sons have opportunities to do that as well.
But grey belt land may remain a grey area, but I do believe that the development and environmental protection are not irreconcilable aims. So the question to the minister is, have we got the balance? Have we got the balance between retaining the environment? Have we got the balance between providing the houses? Two things we're all committed to, to ensure that people have opportunity, every one of us in this chamber today, but we have to be committed as well to ensure that our environment is protected.
I always think of a do some company sports games on, and one of the things that we have a responsibility to ensure that what we have is there for those who come after us. And I believe that's our responsibility today. And probably the M7 as one who is 71 years of age, I'm very conscious, even more so now than ever, that what I leave for my sons and for for my grandchildren is something I want to see them having the same opportunities at the same time, a chance to have a house, but at the same time to enjoy what we enjoy.
Thanks so much.
15:01
15:02
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Dame Siobhan. It's a pleasure to serve the committee with you and the chair, and I thank the right hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam for bringing an important debate that affects a lot of our constituencies and all the members who contributed today, including my honourable friend for Woking. Indeed, thanking him for contributing in this chamber for the second time today, the Liberal Democrats want to see more homes built, particularly principally the 150 000 council and social rent homes that the country needs.
But the right way to deliver those homes is by working with communities and trusting them, and prioritising brownfield and the 700,000 empty homes in the country, and the 500,000 homes that could be provided in empty commercial buildings, according to the LSE. When it comes to greenbelt, few of us, certainly not the Liberal Democrats. Dame Siobhan would object to a community deciding, through its Democratic Local Plan to release formerly Green Belt land for its own reasons, for particularly for social homes.
But the government's gray belt policy isn't that it's being abused, giving carte blanche to development pretty much anywhere. And as it is currently set out in the National Planning Policy framework, I'm afraid, has to go. We were told that greenbelt meant disused car parks and old petrol stations. CPR, however, has found that in the last year, in the first year, 88% of the homes approved on greenbelt at appeal were on land that had never been built on.
As the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out in this chamber in July, the Minister told us the definition of gray belt is set out in the glossary of the NPF. Well, there is a definition there, Dame Siobhan, but for me it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It omits to protect two of the greenbelt five purposes safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and recycling derelict land. And because the purposes that are left don't apply to villages, it is removed villages from greenbelt protections they have had for over a century.
So a field on the edge of a greenbelt village is very likely to be grey. Belt and developers know it, and they're trying their luck. On the 7th of September, the Secretary of State told the House she is strengthening and clarifying the rules around the release of greenbelt. So if there is no confusion, what is being clarified? The answer so far has been to take the test for protected landscapes out of the definition altogether. That widens greenbelt rather than tightening it.
The same day, the minister confirmed the government don't collect data on how much land councils have identified as grey belt. Will the minister commit to collecting it? My hon. Friend the member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked for exactly that. Last October. The new National Planning Policy Framework requires every Greenbelt Council to plan for green grey belt releases allocating its Local Plan. But since the government's gray belt rules allow any developer to apply for grey belt development on any site, whether or not it's been allocated as grey belt in the Local Plan, there can be little point pretending the Local Plan approach is the only one, or that grey belt is in any sense being plan led, and you don't need greenbelt policy to redevelop an old petrol station.
In any event, redeveloping previously developed land in the greenbelt has been allowed since 2012, if not for longer, as long as it doesn't harm openness more than development that was previously there. What Greenbelt adds is the field next to it decides its appeal rather than through the Local plan, that is, rather than by the local community. It's another instance of where community powers have been stripped away, and what the Town and Country Planning Association has called this new, unprecedentedly permissive planning regime.
And it comes into play where there is unmet need in practice, where a council can't show a five year land supply well, in Somerset, the government is mandating a 41% increase to another 75,000 homes to be found in the next Local Plan. I've not met anyone who believes that is either realistic or achievable. These targets are derived from the government's new standard method, which have, in one fell swoop, thrown much of England under the threat of development, as a majority of councils cannot meet the new impossible targets under the standard method, and it would take them a two year Local Plan process in order to escape that threat and billions of pounds to boot.
You could call it a developer's charter, but unfortunately many of these sites are not being developed, so it's more like a land speculators charter, in my opinion. Dame Sherbourne. So it ends up being developers, not the community which selects which part of the greenbelt is up for grabs. And this is villages that are hit hardest, not just because they have lost their green protection, but because in many, if not all the new targets have undermined the one thing that has reliably delivered affordable homes for local people in rural areas, rural exception sites are brought to the house.
An example from an inspector decision in Gweek in Cornwall last week. The Minister and further to that, the Minister told us in July that the framework makes exception sites easier, but in reality, exception sites work where agricultural land that's worth, say, 12,000 an acre can't be sold for a higher price for commercial housing because of strict planning rules, and might as well therefore be allowed to be sold for agricultural value, perhaps a little bit more than the agricultural value for social housing that helps the village.
But the government has now told every landowner around villages and elsewhere that their acre could be worth not just 12,000, but anything from 150,000 to 3 million being the price of land with residential permission. Because those strict planning policy prevention is no longer apply, and because anyone can apply for Grey Belt anywhere in Greenbelt, tell a landowner their field might be grey belt. And why would they sell it for £12,000 for social housing, when they could get £150,000 for it? Or more? Definitely more in the Home Counties than near London? Hope value has always been the enemy of exception sites, and the way grey belt has been implemented has created hope value around every village in every greenbelt.
Goodbye social housing. On such exception sites, building the kinds of homes in villages in particular that they lack just got harder. Golden rules we do agree upon. They rightly require more affordable and social housing where greenbelt is released. And they're absolutely right. But that does not mean valuable green spaces should be up for grabs. Ironically, an area with no greenbelt can be better protected from some of these policies. That doesn't mean our green spaces in Taunton and Wellington are safe, however.
Dame Sherbourne In Taunton we have green wedges, countryside running right into the town doing the job that greenbelt does elsewhere. All those spaces have is a local policy protection. Earlier this year, consultants recommended releasing Troll Green Wedge from its green wedge status. Ironically, because it was the last bit of green remaining in a built up area, something which in my opinion, made it more valuable, not less. An application for 125 homes quickly followed because the council, like most England, cannot meet its new five year land supply.
Our councillors rightly refused it. Fortunately, it was under 150 homes limit, above which councillors now must ask Whitehall's permission to refuse a development. But the appeal public inquiry has just begun showing how thin green wedge protection is, and greenbelt green wedges and local green spaces can all be weakened by the next rewrite of any framework. Without this House having a vote. All communities, therefore, in Liberal Democrats view not just those of Greenbelt, should have a stronger and longer lasting way to protect their most precious green spaces.
So what should we do instead? First, scrap greenbelt and instead release greenbelt through community led local plans, with the golden rules applying in full and with social homes at their heart. Secondly, keep the long standing exception for previously developed land and make brownfield first a legal requirement. And third, give communities who review their greenbelt 20 years statutory protection for the green wedges and green belts they prioritise for that protection so people can again have confidence that instead of the free for all, the most precious green spaces can be protected in law and for the long term, if people are to accept the homes we need and we do need them, they must be offered more protection and confidence over the bits of green space that are most precious to them, and most dear to those communities, not less.
As our amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill set out, we were promised greenbelt would turn old petrol stations into homes. What is actually delivering is loss of greenfield. After Greenfield decided by the government's policy issued in Whitehall. It's time to scrap it, put communities back in charge of their greenbelt and their green spaces. Hey.
But the right way to deliver those homes is by working with communities and trusting them, and prioritising brownfield and the 700,000 empty homes in the country, and the 500,000 homes that could be provided in empty commercial buildings, according to the LSE. When it comes to greenbelt, few of us, certainly not the Liberal Democrats. Dame Siobhan would object to a community deciding, through its Democratic Local Plan to release formerly Green Belt land for its own reasons, for particularly for social homes.
But the government's gray belt policy isn't that it's being abused, giving carte blanche to development pretty much anywhere. And as it is currently set out in the National Planning Policy framework, I'm afraid, has to go. We were told that greenbelt meant disused car parks and old petrol stations. CPR, however, has found that in the last year, in the first year, 88% of the homes approved on greenbelt at appeal were on land that had never been built on.
As the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out in this chamber in July, the Minister told us the definition of gray belt is set out in the glossary of the NPF. Well, there is a definition there, Dame Siobhan, but for me it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It omits to protect two of the greenbelt five purposes safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and recycling derelict land. And because the purposes that are left don't apply to villages, it is removed villages from greenbelt protections they have had for over a century.
So a field on the edge of a greenbelt village is very likely to be grey. Belt and developers know it, and they're trying their luck. On the 7th of September, the Secretary of State told the House she is strengthening and clarifying the rules around the release of greenbelt. So if there is no confusion, what is being clarified? The answer so far has been to take the test for protected landscapes out of the definition altogether. That widens greenbelt rather than tightening it.
The same day, the minister confirmed the government don't collect data on how much land councils have identified as grey belt. Will the minister commit to collecting it? My hon. Friend the member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked for exactly that. Last October. The new National Planning Policy Framework requires every Greenbelt Council to plan for green grey belt releases allocating its Local Plan. But since the government's gray belt rules allow any developer to apply for grey belt development on any site, whether or not it's been allocated as grey belt in the Local Plan, there can be little point pretending the Local Plan approach is the only one, or that grey belt is in any sense being plan led, and you don't need greenbelt policy to redevelop an old petrol station.
In any event, redeveloping previously developed land in the greenbelt has been allowed since 2012, if not for longer, as long as it doesn't harm openness more than development that was previously there. What Greenbelt adds is the field next to it decides its appeal rather than through the Local plan, that is, rather than by the local community. It's another instance of where community powers have been stripped away, and what the Town and Country Planning Association has called this new, unprecedentedly permissive planning regime.
And it comes into play where there is unmet need in practice, where a council can't show a five year land supply well, in Somerset, the government is mandating a 41% increase to another 75,000 homes to be found in the next Local Plan. I've not met anyone who believes that is either realistic or achievable. These targets are derived from the government's new standard method, which have, in one fell swoop, thrown much of England under the threat of development, as a majority of councils cannot meet the new impossible targets under the standard method, and it would take them a two year Local Plan process in order to escape that threat and billions of pounds to boot.
You could call it a developer's charter, but unfortunately many of these sites are not being developed, so it's more like a land speculators charter, in my opinion. Dame Sherbourne. So it ends up being developers, not the community which selects which part of the greenbelt is up for grabs. And this is villages that are hit hardest, not just because they have lost their green protection, but because in many, if not all the new targets have undermined the one thing that has reliably delivered affordable homes for local people in rural areas, rural exception sites are brought to the house.
An example from an inspector decision in Gweek in Cornwall last week. The Minister and further to that, the Minister told us in July that the framework makes exception sites easier, but in reality, exception sites work where agricultural land that's worth, say, 12,000 an acre can't be sold for a higher price for commercial housing because of strict planning rules, and might as well therefore be allowed to be sold for agricultural value, perhaps a little bit more than the agricultural value for social housing that helps the village.
But the government has now told every landowner around villages and elsewhere that their acre could be worth not just 12,000, but anything from 150,000 to 3 million being the price of land with residential permission. Because those strict planning policy prevention is no longer apply, and because anyone can apply for Grey Belt anywhere in Greenbelt, tell a landowner their field might be grey belt. And why would they sell it for £12,000 for social housing, when they could get £150,000 for it? Or more? Definitely more in the Home Counties than near London? Hope value has always been the enemy of exception sites, and the way grey belt has been implemented has created hope value around every village in every greenbelt.
Goodbye social housing. On such exception sites, building the kinds of homes in villages in particular that they lack just got harder. Golden rules we do agree upon. They rightly require more affordable and social housing where greenbelt is released. And they're absolutely right. But that does not mean valuable green spaces should be up for grabs. Ironically, an area with no greenbelt can be better protected from some of these policies. That doesn't mean our green spaces in Taunton and Wellington are safe, however.
Dame Sherbourne In Taunton we have green wedges, countryside running right into the town doing the job that greenbelt does elsewhere. All those spaces have is a local policy protection. Earlier this year, consultants recommended releasing Troll Green Wedge from its green wedge status. Ironically, because it was the last bit of green remaining in a built up area, something which in my opinion, made it more valuable, not less. An application for 125 homes quickly followed because the council, like most England, cannot meet its new five year land supply.
Our councillors rightly refused it. Fortunately, it was under 150 homes limit, above which councillors now must ask Whitehall's permission to refuse a development. But the appeal public inquiry has just begun showing how thin green wedge protection is, and greenbelt green wedges and local green spaces can all be weakened by the next rewrite of any framework. Without this House having a vote. All communities, therefore, in Liberal Democrats view not just those of Greenbelt, should have a stronger and longer lasting way to protect their most precious green spaces.
So what should we do instead? First, scrap greenbelt and instead release greenbelt through community led local plans, with the golden rules applying in full and with social homes at their heart. Secondly, keep the long standing exception for previously developed land and make brownfield first a legal requirement. And third, give communities who review their greenbelt 20 years statutory protection for the green wedges and green belts they prioritise for that protection so people can again have confidence that instead of the free for all, the most precious green spaces can be protected in law and for the long term, if people are to accept the homes we need and we do need them, they must be offered more protection and confidence over the bits of green space that are most precious to them, and most dear to those communities, not less.
As our amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill set out, we were promised greenbelt would turn old petrol stations into homes. What is actually delivering is loss of greenfield. After Greenfield decided by the government's policy issued in Whitehall. It's time to scrap it, put communities back in charge of their greenbelt and their green spaces. Hey.
15:10
15:10
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, Dame Siobhan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take part in this debate about the definition and application of so-called green belt land. I'd like to start by thanking my right hon. Friend the member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing this important debate and for his excellent opening speech, Dame Siobhan. The first mention of the government's novel Green Belt term came in their 2024 election manifesto, in which Labour MPs campaigned on a promise to release lower quality grey belt land, which they described as scrubland, disused car parks and old petrol stations.
This came alongside a commitment to preserving the green belt. These policies were part of an overarching pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. However, just over two years later on, almost halfway through this parliament, we are left wondering where it all went so wrong. And that is because the government are not releasing low quality land. It is not preserving the greenbelt and it is nowhere near its stated target of 1.5 million homes. How could this be the case, especially with such a mammoth majority with which to make it happen? Well, the answer is that the concept of green belt was a fiction from the start.
It is, and it always has been, a thinly veiled conceit, as both my right hon. Friend and the honourable gentleman the member for Taunton and Wellington highlighted in their speeches. Greenbelt has been talked up as low quality land made up of disused car parks, but behind the facade it is usually found to be prime greenbelt land. This isn't just a political point, it is a factual one. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, research from the campaign for the Protection of Rural England has shown that by December 2025, of the 13 developments of ten or more homes that had been approved by government planning inspectors on so-called grey belt land, 88% were earmarked for building on previously undeveloped countryside.
To be clear, this is not disused petrol stations or low quality land, but our local and valued countryside. And what's worse is that these developments made up more than 90% of the homes granted planning permission on allegedly grey belt sites. With so much grey belt looking far more like greenbelt, at least according to the government's own nppf definitions. What is the true definition of grey belt? Or for the sake of our concerned constituents, perhaps the Minister could explain what definition inspectors are working to, as it is clearly not the same as that has been that that has been codified and publicised.
But even if the government did stick to its stated definition of greenbelt and refused to waver from it, we would still be left without a clear route to their 1.5 million homes target. As the honourable gentleman, the member for Woking pointed out in his speech, that is because the government has done nothing to make development on previously developed land any more viable than before. Indeed, they've made it worse. What effort the government has made has been to increase and soften planning permissions, but there has been no corresponding effort to make the proposed sites more viable.
For example, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 did much to silence the voices of democratically elected local councillors in order to push planning permissions thicker and faster through the system. But it did nothing to make building new homes more affordable. There has been no recognition at all of the barriers that have been thrown in the way of developers, barriers that have largely been created by the state. The top down housing targets that our rural councils were saddled with, targets that represent an increase of up to 487% in some cases, again, make sites no more viable.
They just put more pressure on local planning authorities to grant more permissions. Superficially. Supposedly, greenbelt sites may be an attractive prospect for development because there are likely to be fewer complications than might be anticipated for brownfield development. However, when supposedly greenbelt sites are released in and of itself, they may not deliver substantially more housing because the government will still have done next to nothing to improve the site's viability, the government has imposed the golden rule of at least 15% affordable housing above local policy requirements, up to a 50% cap.
Sites still come with a biodiversity net gain requirement. They still require landfill tax payments, they still have to meet building regulations, and soon they will be subjected to the building safety levy. After its release, it is likely that some building will take place, but given the government's unwillingness to help make brownfield sites more viable, we will be left with the lamentable scenario of losing chunks of green belt land without getting anywhere near the housing numbers that are required.
Thus, as the government hides behind its own nebulous grey belt definition, it chips away at our local greenbelt without making a dent in its 1.5 million homes target. Dame Sharon That is not progress. That is failure. The statistics show it to the Energy Performance Certificate. Lodgements data estimates that between the 9th of July 2024 and the 14th of June 2026, the government oversaw the net addition of just 392,400 homes, a paltry 26% of their manifesto target.
Far from using the greenbelt to meet their targets, they are ditching its protections and removing its special place in our communities, but all for the sake of plodding progress towards an increasingly distant target. But I'm pleased to say there is a way out of this malaise that duly serves to protect the greenbelt and builds more houses . Instead of the sham terms and shady insincerities. The opposition stands for a genuine brownfield first approach to building.
We on this side of the House will not just pay lip service to brownfield development, but prioritise it and make it easier. It both can and will be done. We all want to see more homes built, but they must be built in the right places with local understanding and brownfield sites first. That is the common sense answer and that is the opposition's answer and it is an achievable outcome. Further research from the CPR shows that a large proportion of the government's lofty housing target could be swiftly met, using brownfield land that already has planning permission.
The CBRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, and that's based on data from local planning authorities. Brownfield land registers up to 2024. The same data shows that as of September 2025, more than half of those sites had planning permission. Already. The 1.41 million amounts to 93% of the government's manifesto pledge. Perhaps when considering this, the Secretary of State may change her mind again and once more view 1.5 million homes as a viable goal rather than a stretch target, which she described it as at the weekend.
Dame Siobhan, the government must change course. The returning Secretary of State has already U-turned on her disastrous and costly programme of local government reform, so perhaps the minister today could use his platform to join conservative colleagues in the House and stand against concreting over our greenbelt. I hope the Minister will use his time to do exactly that. I hope he will also take the chance, not just to acknowledge, but to remember and utilise the concerns shared by honourable members today to take a better and fairer approach to our greenbelt.
This came alongside a commitment to preserving the green belt. These policies were part of an overarching pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. However, just over two years later on, almost halfway through this parliament, we are left wondering where it all went so wrong. And that is because the government are not releasing low quality land. It is not preserving the greenbelt and it is nowhere near its stated target of 1.5 million homes. How could this be the case, especially with such a mammoth majority with which to make it happen? Well, the answer is that the concept of green belt was a fiction from the start.
It is, and it always has been, a thinly veiled conceit, as both my right hon. Friend and the honourable gentleman the member for Taunton and Wellington highlighted in their speeches. Greenbelt has been talked up as low quality land made up of disused car parks, but behind the facade it is usually found to be prime greenbelt land. This isn't just a political point, it is a factual one. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, research from the campaign for the Protection of Rural England has shown that by December 2025, of the 13 developments of ten or more homes that had been approved by government planning inspectors on so-called grey belt land, 88% were earmarked for building on previously undeveloped countryside.
To be clear, this is not disused petrol stations or low quality land, but our local and valued countryside. And what's worse is that these developments made up more than 90% of the homes granted planning permission on allegedly grey belt sites. With so much grey belt looking far more like greenbelt, at least according to the government's own nppf definitions. What is the true definition of grey belt? Or for the sake of our concerned constituents, perhaps the Minister could explain what definition inspectors are working to, as it is clearly not the same as that has been that that has been codified and publicised.
But even if the government did stick to its stated definition of greenbelt and refused to waver from it, we would still be left without a clear route to their 1.5 million homes target. As the honourable gentleman, the member for Woking pointed out in his speech, that is because the government has done nothing to make development on previously developed land any more viable than before. Indeed, they've made it worse. What effort the government has made has been to increase and soften planning permissions, but there has been no corresponding effort to make the proposed sites more viable.
For example, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 did much to silence the voices of democratically elected local councillors in order to push planning permissions thicker and faster through the system. But it did nothing to make building new homes more affordable. There has been no recognition at all of the barriers that have been thrown in the way of developers, barriers that have largely been created by the state. The top down housing targets that our rural councils were saddled with, targets that represent an increase of up to 487% in some cases, again, make sites no more viable.
They just put more pressure on local planning authorities to grant more permissions. Superficially. Supposedly, greenbelt sites may be an attractive prospect for development because there are likely to be fewer complications than might be anticipated for brownfield development. However, when supposedly greenbelt sites are released in and of itself, they may not deliver substantially more housing because the government will still have done next to nothing to improve the site's viability, the government has imposed the golden rule of at least 15% affordable housing above local policy requirements, up to a 50% cap.
Sites still come with a biodiversity net gain requirement. They still require landfill tax payments, they still have to meet building regulations, and soon they will be subjected to the building safety levy. After its release, it is likely that some building will take place, but given the government's unwillingness to help make brownfield sites more viable, we will be left with the lamentable scenario of losing chunks of green belt land without getting anywhere near the housing numbers that are required.
Thus, as the government hides behind its own nebulous grey belt definition, it chips away at our local greenbelt without making a dent in its 1.5 million homes target. Dame Sharon That is not progress. That is failure. The statistics show it to the Energy Performance Certificate. Lodgements data estimates that between the 9th of July 2024 and the 14th of June 2026, the government oversaw the net addition of just 392,400 homes, a paltry 26% of their manifesto target.
Far from using the greenbelt to meet their targets, they are ditching its protections and removing its special place in our communities, but all for the sake of plodding progress towards an increasingly distant target. But I'm pleased to say there is a way out of this malaise that duly serves to protect the greenbelt and builds more houses . Instead of the sham terms and shady insincerities. The opposition stands for a genuine brownfield first approach to building.
We on this side of the House will not just pay lip service to brownfield development, but prioritise it and make it easier. It both can and will be done. We all want to see more homes built, but they must be built in the right places with local understanding and brownfield sites first. That is the common sense answer and that is the opposition's answer and it is an achievable outcome. Further research from the CPR shows that a large proportion of the government's lofty housing target could be swiftly met, using brownfield land that already has planning permission.
The CBRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, and that's based on data from local planning authorities. Brownfield land registers up to 2024. The same data shows that as of September 2025, more than half of those sites had planning permission. Already. The 1.41 million amounts to 93% of the government's manifesto pledge. Perhaps when considering this, the Secretary of State may change her mind again and once more view 1.5 million homes as a viable goal rather than a stretch target, which she described it as at the weekend.
Dame Siobhan, the government must change course. The returning Secretary of State has already U-turned on her disastrous and costly programme of local government reform, so perhaps the minister today could use his platform to join conservative colleagues in the House and stand against concreting over our greenbelt. I hope the Minister will use his time to do exactly that. I hope he will also take the chance, not just to acknowledge, but to remember and utilise the concerns shared by honourable members today to take a better and fairer approach to our greenbelt.
15:17
15:17
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Dame Siobhan. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. Can I begin by congratulating the honourable gentleman, the member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing this debate. Dame Siobhan, he is an assiduous and highly effective parliamentarian who I have the utmost respect for, and he opened the debate with a characteristically incisive and challenging contribution. I thank him for the opportunity he has given the House to debate this issue, and I will seek, in the course of my remarks, to respond to each of the specific points he made.
I also thank those other honourable members who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. I appreciate fully that this is a topic that provokes strong views, to put it mildly, but I hope in the time I have available to me that I can provide some further clarity about the government's green Belt policy and specifically the nuances of national policy relating to greenbelt. In doing so, I know that honourable and right honourable members will appreciate that due to the quasi judicial nature of the planning process, I will be unable to comment in detail on individual local plans, planning applications or indeed how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.
Dame Siobhan is the member for Kenilworth and Southam made clear in his opening remarks the definition of greenbelt is indeed set out in the glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is defined, as he made clear, for the purposes of both plan making and decision making, as land in the greenbelt comprising previously developed land and or any other land that in either case does not contribute to greenbelt purposes. A, B and D as set out in Nppf policy G, B two.
And I think as I make that point, it's also worth making clear. Dame Siobhan, that we have not altered the five purposes of the greenbelt that we inherited. They remain as they were, and we do not propose to alter the general extent of the greenbelt either. I'll come on to expand on on the role of local planning authorities in the process. It is for individual local planning authorities to undertake the necessary assessments to identify if land is greenbelt, either through plan making or through considering specific applications that come forward.
So let me take each of those in turn, starting with plan making. And in doing so, gently push back on the Liberal Democrat spokesman. This is intended to be and is a plan led approach. The NPF allows for local planning authorities to alter greenbelt boundaries using the Local Development plan process in, and I quote, exceptional circumstances. This includes situations where a local authority is unable to meet its identified need for development. Having examined all other reasonable options for doing so, including making as much use as possible of suitable previously developed land, optimising the density of development and assessing whether sufficient sites can be identified outside the greenbelt as set out in NPF policy Gb2.
Any decision to alter greenbelt boundaries should be informed by a greenbelt assessment which identifies greenbelt land within the greenbelt. Following the publication of the revised NPF in December 2024, the government awarded over £9.3 million to 133 local planning authorities to support them with the costs of undertaking such greenbelt reviews. An assessment of the strategic role. I will give way. I will make this point very briefly. An assessment of the strategic role of the greenbelt should also inform the preparation of spatial development strategies, as legislated through through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, where these will be set in the strategic context for land release.
I am happy to give way.
I also thank those other honourable members who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. I appreciate fully that this is a topic that provokes strong views, to put it mildly, but I hope in the time I have available to me that I can provide some further clarity about the government's green Belt policy and specifically the nuances of national policy relating to greenbelt. In doing so, I know that honourable and right honourable members will appreciate that due to the quasi judicial nature of the planning process, I will be unable to comment in detail on individual local plans, planning applications or indeed how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.
Dame Siobhan is the member for Kenilworth and Southam made clear in his opening remarks the definition of greenbelt is indeed set out in the glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is defined, as he made clear, for the purposes of both plan making and decision making, as land in the greenbelt comprising previously developed land and or any other land that in either case does not contribute to greenbelt purposes. A, B and D as set out in Nppf policy G, B two.
And I think as I make that point, it's also worth making clear. Dame Siobhan, that we have not altered the five purposes of the greenbelt that we inherited. They remain as they were, and we do not propose to alter the general extent of the greenbelt either. I'll come on to expand on on the role of local planning authorities in the process. It is for individual local planning authorities to undertake the necessary assessments to identify if land is greenbelt, either through plan making or through considering specific applications that come forward.
So let me take each of those in turn, starting with plan making. And in doing so, gently push back on the Liberal Democrat spokesman. This is intended to be and is a plan led approach. The NPF allows for local planning authorities to alter greenbelt boundaries using the Local Development plan process in, and I quote, exceptional circumstances. This includes situations where a local authority is unable to meet its identified need for development. Having examined all other reasonable options for doing so, including making as much use as possible of suitable previously developed land, optimising the density of development and assessing whether sufficient sites can be identified outside the greenbelt as set out in NPF policy Gb2.
Any decision to alter greenbelt boundaries should be informed by a greenbelt assessment which identifies greenbelt land within the greenbelt. Following the publication of the revised NPF in December 2024, the government awarded over £9.3 million to 133 local planning authorities to support them with the costs of undertaking such greenbelt reviews. An assessment of the strategic role. I will give way. I will make this point very briefly. An assessment of the strategic role of the greenbelt should also inform the preparation of spatial development strategies, as legislated through through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, where these will be set in the strategic context for land release.
I am happy to give way.
15:21
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I'm very. He's always generous with his time and responding to interventions, which is appreciated by all of us. Genuinely question the minister. Then if if the intention is that this should be a plan led approach, will he remove the provisions in the NPF that allow developers to claim that their land is green grey belt through an application, and as by reference to the policies that have been put in the NPF for such grey belt decisions to be made outside of the Local Plan process through individual planning applications.
15:21
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. I say two things in respect to that. I'll come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly and in general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country. It's for the local authority to assess whether, in their view, that site constitutes greenbelt. If that is part of the application that's submitted and where there is disagreement and it goes to appeal, I'll set out exactly how planning inspectors need to determine such applications.
But it's crucial to note, Dame Siobhan, that where greenbelt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development released from the greenbelt or for development proposals to be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant as I'll expand upon shortly. I want to also stress that any alterations to greenbelt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations do not fundamentally undermine the five greenbelt purposes taken together of the remaining greenbelt when considered across the plan area and by giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the greenbelt, then considering low quality grey belt land, which will include disused petrol stations, it will include other previously developed land of that kind, although not be limited necessarily to it, and only then exploring other greenbelt locations to the right hon.
Gentleman's question as to whether allocating grey belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the greenbelt over time. I'd point out two things. First, as I've already mentioned, development proposals on green belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need. I'll come to take on his points about the standard method shortly. But second, it is precisely to avoid the situation we inherited, which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release that this government has implemented.
The approach we have, and it's effective working is predicated on ensuring designation release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a ten year horizon, and in due course, because they are just as important through spatial development strategies. With a 20 year horizon, we want the approach to be plan led. But I turn next to decision making. I will go away.
But it's crucial to note, Dame Siobhan, that where greenbelt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development released from the greenbelt or for development proposals to be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant as I'll expand upon shortly. I want to also stress that any alterations to greenbelt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations do not fundamentally undermine the five greenbelt purposes taken together of the remaining greenbelt when considered across the plan area and by giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the greenbelt, then considering low quality grey belt land, which will include disused petrol stations, it will include other previously developed land of that kind, although not be limited necessarily to it, and only then exploring other greenbelt locations to the right hon.
Gentleman's question as to whether allocating grey belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the greenbelt over time. I'd point out two things. First, as I've already mentioned, development proposals on green belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need. I'll come to take on his points about the standard method shortly. But second, it is precisely to avoid the situation we inherited, which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release that this government has implemented.
The approach we have, and it's effective working is predicated on ensuring designation release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a ten year horizon, and in due course, because they are just as important through spatial development strategies. With a 20 year horizon, we want the approach to be plan led. But I turn next to decision making. I will go away.
15:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Extremely grateful to him and he recognises. I know that the. The point that the honourable gentleman for Taunton and Wellington was making to him is that although we all want this to be a plan led process, the NPF still allows for greenbelt designation to be achieved through an individual application. And that's what we are also concerned about. But I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact, because, again, he may be coming to this later, in which case I apologize.
But the point I put to him in my speech was that if you look at an individual application or an individual site, it may be very difficult to make a credible argument that building on that site would undermine the purposes of the greenbelt across the plan area. If, on the other hand, you look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the greenbelt across the plan area, that may be easier to demonstrate.
Can he clarify which of the two the government believes it should be?
But the point I put to him in my speech was that if you look at an individual application or an individual site, it may be very difficult to make a credible argument that building on that site would undermine the purposes of the greenbelt across the plan area. If, on the other hand, you look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the greenbelt across the plan area, that may be easier to demonstrate.
Can he clarify which of the two the government believes it should be?
15:25
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I'm more than happy to do so. It's a very fair question, I'd say, in response to it that what we are talking about here, in terms of the sequential approach that local authorities need to take when approaching greenbelt assessment, Greenbelt released through local plans, is at that test of fundamentally undermining. Is that a plan level when a local authority is looking at all the sites that it has assessed through a review that constitute greenbelt and selecting those that it feels that it might need to bring forward to to meet assessed housing need.
I can't go into detail on it, but his his South Warwickshire Joint Local Plan is instructive in in this regard. It's gone through its Reg 19 consultation. The authority is looking towards submission of that emerging local plan that releases land, equating to 1.54% of Stratford upon Avon and 6.99% of Warwick. That's that's a plan led approach to greenbelt release to meet need in that area. I will come on to speak about decision making, but that is the test in terms of fundamentally undermining the the five purposes in the remaining greenbelt.
And I've come to speak very briefly about what guidance says in that respect as well. But I do want to turn to decision making. Several questions have come on that point where development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, and it goes without saying we want local planning authorities to get up to date plans in place. I repeat that ad nauseam. We inherited a dreadful situation of less than a third up to date plan coverage.
We cannot have a plan led system that has such low levels of coverage. We're doing lots as a government, including intervening where necessary to ensure we are driving towards universal coverage. But when development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, the NPF also provides a limited route for development proposals of green belt land in the greenbelt. In certain circumstances, when considering development proposals, decisions should be informed by greenbelt assessments. As I've previously referenced, where greenbelt sites are not identified in existing plans or greenbelt assessment, authorities should consider evidence informed by our guidance on whether the site strongly contributes to the relevant greenbelt purposes, and it's important to note that where a site is judged to be greenbelt development, proposals on greenbelt land must also respond to demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.
If that doesn't exist, that is grounds for the local authority to refuse, be sustainably located and meet our golden rules, which is honourable members are aware require additional benefits to be provided to local communities, including higher levels of affordable housing, new or improved green spaces and improved local infrastructure where greenbelt is developed in recognition and rightly so, of the value placed on this type of land. As previously mentioned, Dame Siobhan, the contribution specific plots of greenbelt land make to the relevant greenbelt purposes is only one consideration involved in decisions on whether to develop on green belt land.
Decisions should also be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPF, and that includes policies in the Natural Environment chapter, which safeguard areas of importance for their landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value, including protected landscapes and designated sites for nature. I want to say a little bit about planning practice guidance to assist local planning authorities and other decision makers in both plan making and decision making, and to support a consistent approach to determining whether land is greenbelt.
My department published updated PPG on the 27th of February last year. This PPG sets out a range of considerations Sets out a range of considerations to help determine whether land is greenbelt and how to consider proposals on potential greenbelt land. When considering how any given land performs against the relevant greenbelt purposes, the guidance also sets out illustrative features to help inform judgements what it does not do. And we have been challenged on this point and I want to address it head on.
What it does not do is to provide an exhaustive or overly prescriptive list that accounts for all possible scenarios. It is ultimately for the decision maker to consider these factors in in accordance with national policy and guidance, and it is right that they exercise their judgement in doing so. Given that local context and development specific considerations will vary markedly across the country, we want that degree of flexibility to allow expert local judgement to be applied.
The more prescriptive we get in national policy, the more edge cases we create and the more difficulty. So our system is discretionary in nature. It is for local authorities, for decision makers to make that judgement in the round. In instances where a given application goes to appeal to the honourable member for Woking's point and the relevant inspector is asked to determine whether a site is classified as greenbelt, they will consider relevant legislation national planning policy, including the NPF, PPG and any relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.
I just wanted to briefly address the standard method and the urban rural balance. It's put to me frequently in these debates. I attempt to set the record straight. It appears in the next debate. Nonetheless, the targets we've introduced AIM seven . There. They are ambitious. They do entail uplifts in many areas. We expect rural areas to play their part in providing the homes the country needs, but the formula does not direct housing growth to.
But the formula does direct housing growth to our larger urban areas. What it does not do, and this is the significant change we made, is direct it by applying an arbitrary 35% urban uplift to the largest 20 urban centres, sorry, cities and urban centres. That's what the previous government's approach was. We think that was an arbitrary approach. Instead, across city regions, the standard method that we have introduced increases targets by 20%, and it better directs housing growth to a range of urban areas, smaller cities and other areas of growth, as well as those larger cities.
So we think that's a fairer approach. But it is not the case to say that we have dropped uniformly housing targets across metro areas. I just wanted to, before I conclude, Dame Siobhan, touch briefly on villages, which is an issue that's been raised by I will.
I can't go into detail on it, but his his South Warwickshire Joint Local Plan is instructive in in this regard. It's gone through its Reg 19 consultation. The authority is looking towards submission of that emerging local plan that releases land, equating to 1.54% of Stratford upon Avon and 6.99% of Warwick. That's that's a plan led approach to greenbelt release to meet need in that area. I will come on to speak about decision making, but that is the test in terms of fundamentally undermining the the five purposes in the remaining greenbelt.
And I've come to speak very briefly about what guidance says in that respect as well. But I do want to turn to decision making. Several questions have come on that point where development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, and it goes without saying we want local planning authorities to get up to date plans in place. I repeat that ad nauseam. We inherited a dreadful situation of less than a third up to date plan coverage.
We cannot have a plan led system that has such low levels of coverage. We're doing lots as a government, including intervening where necessary to ensure we are driving towards universal coverage. But when development proposals come forward outside of a local plan, the NPF also provides a limited route for development proposals of green belt land in the greenbelt. In certain circumstances, when considering development proposals, decisions should be informed by greenbelt assessments. As I've previously referenced, where greenbelt sites are not identified in existing plans or greenbelt assessment, authorities should consider evidence informed by our guidance on whether the site strongly contributes to the relevant greenbelt purposes, and it's important to note that where a site is judged to be greenbelt development, proposals on greenbelt land must also respond to demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.
If that doesn't exist, that is grounds for the local authority to refuse, be sustainably located and meet our golden rules, which is honourable members are aware require additional benefits to be provided to local communities, including higher levels of affordable housing, new or improved green spaces and improved local infrastructure where greenbelt is developed in recognition and rightly so, of the value placed on this type of land. As previously mentioned, Dame Siobhan, the contribution specific plots of greenbelt land make to the relevant greenbelt purposes is only one consideration involved in decisions on whether to develop on green belt land.
Decisions should also be informed by an overall application of the relevant policies in the NPF, and that includes policies in the Natural Environment chapter, which safeguard areas of importance for their landscape, geodiversity or biodiversity value, including protected landscapes and designated sites for nature. I want to say a little bit about planning practice guidance to assist local planning authorities and other decision makers in both plan making and decision making, and to support a consistent approach to determining whether land is greenbelt.
My department published updated PPG on the 27th of February last year. This PPG sets out a range of considerations Sets out a range of considerations to help determine whether land is greenbelt and how to consider proposals on potential greenbelt land. When considering how any given land performs against the relevant greenbelt purposes, the guidance also sets out illustrative features to help inform judgements what it does not do. And we have been challenged on this point and I want to address it head on.
What it does not do is to provide an exhaustive or overly prescriptive list that accounts for all possible scenarios. It is ultimately for the decision maker to consider these factors in in accordance with national policy and guidance, and it is right that they exercise their judgement in doing so. Given that local context and development specific considerations will vary markedly across the country, we want that degree of flexibility to allow expert local judgement to be applied.
The more prescriptive we get in national policy, the more edge cases we create and the more difficulty. So our system is discretionary in nature. It is for local authorities, for decision makers to make that judgement in the round. In instances where a given application goes to appeal to the honourable member for Woking's point and the relevant inspector is asked to determine whether a site is classified as greenbelt, they will consider relevant legislation national planning policy, including the NPF, PPG and any relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.
I just wanted to briefly address the standard method and the urban rural balance. It's put to me frequently in these debates. I attempt to set the record straight. It appears in the next debate. Nonetheless, the targets we've introduced AIM seven . There. They are ambitious. They do entail uplifts in many areas. We expect rural areas to play their part in providing the homes the country needs, but the formula does not direct housing growth to.
But the formula does direct housing growth to our larger urban areas. What it does not do, and this is the significant change we made, is direct it by applying an arbitrary 35% urban uplift to the largest 20 urban centres, sorry, cities and urban centres. That's what the previous government's approach was. We think that was an arbitrary approach. Instead, across city regions, the standard method that we have introduced increases targets by 20%, and it better directs housing growth to a range of urban areas, smaller cities and other areas of growth, as well as those larger cities.
So we think that's a fairer approach. But it is not the case to say that we have dropped uniformly housing targets across metro areas. I just wanted to, before I conclude, Dame Siobhan, touch briefly on villages, which is an issue that's been raised by I will.
15:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I understand the point you made earlier about guidance, and I'm certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point I made to him earlier was to say , or to suggest that the reality of greenbelt designation is that greenbelt sites are likely to be those further away from urban settlements, rather than closer to, because the ones closer to are more likely to remain as greenbelt. As he says, there are three purposes A, B and D that would enable a site to remain as greenbelt rather than greenbelt.
Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those theory requirements and remain as greenbelt, rather than be redesignated as greenbelt?
Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those theory requirements and remain as greenbelt, rather than be redesignated as greenbelt?
15:32
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Let me come on and addresses specific question in due course. I just want to, before I do so, just put on record the policy in relation to villages, because I think it was. But. But he can rest assured that I'll address the point. If he's unsatisfied, he's more than welcome to come back in on me. I do want to touch briefly on villages. It was an issue that was raised by a number of honourable members.
The PPG that I've referenced throughout my remarks makes clear that when assessing contribution to the relevant purposes, large built up areas and towns do not include villages. But. However, neither the MP nor PPG includes a definition of a large built up area, town, historic town or village. Considering whether any particular settlement constitutes a village is again a matter for the given local planning authority to judge, and it may be informed by the adopted local settlement hierarchy in that area, where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons.
There are a range of tools available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies. To the right. Hon. Gentleman specific point, and I say to him very directly, I do not recognise his assertion that greenbelt land in every part of the country is likely to be predominantly in open countryside. The guidance I have referenced is clear that land that is likely to be assessed as gray belt is more likely to include existing development or other urbanizing influences, with land that is free from development, more likely to make a strong contribution to one to those three relevant greenbelt purposes that are listed in GB two.
But, and I think this is a point that needs to be generally made. This is incredibly place specific across the country. It will vary widely given the significant variation in how greenbelt is constituted in different geographies across the country. So it is very hard to apply a kind of blanket approach, a generalised approach, as he had to say that in all circumstances such will apply. It does vary across the country, and our policy, as I said as a whole, ensures development is directed towards sustainable locations which will act to prevent development coming forward in isolated or unstable, unsustainable locations.
To his point, that was one of three that hopefully clears up the point on open countryside. I'm more than happy to. I'll give way to him one last time. I'm more than happy to set out in writing the.
The PPG that I've referenced throughout my remarks makes clear that when assessing contribution to the relevant purposes, large built up areas and towns do not include villages. But. However, neither the MP nor PPG includes a definition of a large built up area, town, historic town or village. Considering whether any particular settlement constitutes a village is again a matter for the given local planning authority to judge, and it may be informed by the adopted local settlement hierarchy in that area, where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons.
There are a range of tools available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies. To the right. Hon. Gentleman specific point, and I say to him very directly, I do not recognise his assertion that greenbelt land in every part of the country is likely to be predominantly in open countryside. The guidance I have referenced is clear that land that is likely to be assessed as gray belt is more likely to include existing development or other urbanizing influences, with land that is free from development, more likely to make a strong contribution to one to those three relevant greenbelt purposes that are listed in GB two.
But, and I think this is a point that needs to be generally made. This is incredibly place specific across the country. It will vary widely given the significant variation in how greenbelt is constituted in different geographies across the country. So it is very hard to apply a kind of blanket approach, a generalised approach, as he had to say that in all circumstances such will apply. It does vary across the country, and our policy, as I said as a whole, ensures development is directed towards sustainable locations which will act to prevent development coming forward in isolated or unstable, unsustainable locations.
To his point, that was one of three that hopefully clears up the point on open countryside. I'm more than happy to. I'll give way to him one last time. I'm more than happy to set out in writing the.
15:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Policy, and that may be very helpful. And I'm genuinely grateful to the minister because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity on these things. But. But I know he would accept that the starting point for all of these decisions is going to be the nppf definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria, but we have spoken a little about the limitations that may be on those qualifying criteria. But the substantial point remains, doesn't it, that the definition of the.
In the NPF of grey belt land overwhelmingly, perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly will be met by those fields, farms, greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements A, B and D in the list. Clearly, each of them relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and he knows that the greenbelt encompasses more than just such sites. So it is inevitable, isn't it, that the starting point will be grey belt land will be those sites which are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is, of course, the direct antithesis of how the government originally described the concept.
In the NPF of grey belt land overwhelmingly, perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly will be met by those fields, farms, greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements A, B and D in the list. Clearly, each of them relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and he knows that the greenbelt encompasses more than just such sites. So it is inevitable, isn't it, that the starting point will be grey belt land will be those sites which are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is, of course, the direct antithesis of how the government originally described the concept.
15:35
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I do understand the point the Right Honourable gentleman is making. I am afraid I don't agree with his characterization of the policy. Again, in essence, that grey belt land in every part of the country is likely to be, or more likely to be found, predominantly found in open countryside. I think all I can do is repeat again our approach land that is likely to not make a strong contribution to the relevant greenbelt purposes is likely to contain existing development or other urbanizing influences.
But it is. And I come back to again for individual local planning authorities to make those greenbelt assessments, to make that judgement about sites that might constitute greenbelt and if they are required, some of those sites, in most cases, not all of them, but some of those sites to meet demonstrable unmet need to select the most appropriate and sustainable sites from that list, again, I refer him back to his local plan that is hopefully on the verge of submission.
A small percentage of greenbelt released over the planned period to meet that demonstrable unmet unmet need. I'm going to I'm testing the patience of the chair. I think I'll give away one more time.
But it is. And I come back to again for individual local planning authorities to make those greenbelt assessments, to make that judgement about sites that might constitute greenbelt and if they are required, some of those sites, in most cases, not all of them, but some of those sites to meet demonstrable unmet need to select the most appropriate and sustainable sites from that list, again, I refer him back to his local plan that is hopefully on the verge of submission.
A small percentage of greenbelt released over the planned period to meet that demonstrable unmet unmet need. I'm going to I'm testing the patience of the chair. I think I'll give away one more time.
15:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Sure. The chair will remind the minister we've got plenty of time left in this debate. But but just on the specifics of the local planning. And he's right, of course, to point me to the specific statistics in relation to my local plan area. But he will recognise, and this is a point that was made earlier. There is a difference, isn't there, between decisions that a local authority makes about what to seek to extract from the greenbelt, and decisions subsequently about whether part of the greenbelt is in fact grey belt? What is referred me to are statistics relating to the former, not to the latter.
15:37
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
What I'd say in response to that point, and this is where I come back to the importance of up to date local plans. If a local planning authority has an up to date local plan in place, it may or may not include greenbelt sites as. As this policy feeds through the system at the point it has a plan in place that meets that demonstrable unmet need. It has robust safeguards against greenbelt applications that come through the decision making route, and that is why we are encouraging local areas to get local plans in place.
We have inherited a situation where we have extremely low, up to date local plan coverage that has exposed communities to speculative development, and it's happening all over the country, and we've got to put in place policies that, through the decision making route, allow homes to still come forward in that interregnum, but then push very heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. And at that point, you do have the protections in place and you are over that ten year plan period.
And as we roll out spatial development strategies on a subregional level over a 20 year horizon, ensuring you are planning a strategic way for green belt land designation release. And, and I come back to the point that I made earlier, it wasn't as if Dame Siobhan, before 2024, we had no greenbelt release. I know the party opposite likes to give the impression that they. They oversaw plenty of greenbelt release in a completely haphazard and unplanned way.
We are taking a strategic approach. We think it's right. I've addressed the honourable right, hon. Gentleman's point about what greenbelt land is likely to constitute to his other two specific points. Let me take them very directly. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely. And it's been judged as much by the OBR and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want to, as he rightly asserted, release more land into the system.
And this is where I take a principally principled, different view from the CPR and other commentators that say we can simply meet housing needs through existing. There is not enough land on existing brownfield land registers to meet the volume of homes our country needs, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location where it is necessary. We do want to see Green belt land release to meet that demonstrable unmet need. It's right that when we look to release greenbelt, we do focus absolutely on the lower quality greenbelt grey belt land that doesn't make a strong contribution to those purposes.
To conclude, Dame Sharon, I want to once again thank the Right Honourable gentleman, the member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing this debate, other honourable members for contributing to it. I hope, in responding, while I've not been able necessarily, I can see, to convince honourable members, but but at least to provide some valuable clarity on the nuances of national policy in respect of greenbelt, in particular, the different approaches to plan making and decision making as set out in the government response to the consultation on the new Nppf that was published last month, we've already recognised that further guidance may be helpful to support spatial development strategy led strategic reviews of the greenbelt, and we will consider producing guidance on the considerations that should inform that process as we update PPG to fully reflect the changes made in the new Nppf, and we absolutely must do that.
We will, of course, consider whether any further clarity might be helpful to inform decision makers. And to that end, I will certainly reflect on a number of the points that have been made today in the debate. Thank you.
We have inherited a situation where we have extremely low, up to date local plan coverage that has exposed communities to speculative development, and it's happening all over the country, and we've got to put in place policies that, through the decision making route, allow homes to still come forward in that interregnum, but then push very heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. And at that point, you do have the protections in place and you are over that ten year plan period.
And as we roll out spatial development strategies on a subregional level over a 20 year horizon, ensuring you are planning a strategic way for green belt land designation release. And, and I come back to the point that I made earlier, it wasn't as if Dame Siobhan, before 2024, we had no greenbelt release. I know the party opposite likes to give the impression that they. They oversaw plenty of greenbelt release in a completely haphazard and unplanned way.
We are taking a strategic approach. We think it's right. I've addressed the honourable right, hon. Gentleman's point about what greenbelt land is likely to constitute to his other two specific points. Let me take them very directly. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely. And it's been judged as much by the OBR and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want to, as he rightly asserted, release more land into the system.
And this is where I take a principally principled, different view from the CPR and other commentators that say we can simply meet housing needs through existing. There is not enough land on existing brownfield land registers to meet the volume of homes our country needs, let alone enough that are viable and in the right location where it is necessary. We do want to see Green belt land release to meet that demonstrable unmet need. It's right that when we look to release greenbelt, we do focus absolutely on the lower quality greenbelt grey belt land that doesn't make a strong contribution to those purposes.
To conclude, Dame Sharon, I want to once again thank the Right Honourable gentleman, the member for Kenilworth and Southam for securing this debate, other honourable members for contributing to it. I hope, in responding, while I've not been able necessarily, I can see, to convince honourable members, but but at least to provide some valuable clarity on the nuances of national policy in respect of greenbelt, in particular, the different approaches to plan making and decision making as set out in the government response to the consultation on the new Nppf that was published last month, we've already recognised that further guidance may be helpful to support spatial development strategy led strategic reviews of the greenbelt, and we will consider producing guidance on the considerations that should inform that process as we update PPG to fully reflect the changes made in the new Nppf, and we absolutely must do that.
We will, of course, consider whether any further clarity might be helpful to inform decision makers. And to that end, I will certainly reflect on a number of the points that have been made today in the debate. Thank you.
15:40
15:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And and may I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, from back benches and front benches, and particularly thank the minister, who I know there will be general agreement, is an excellent minister, and he has tried in this in this debate to engage properly with the issues and to give us the clarity we've asked for. He's a perceptive man, and he knows that he's right when he says that he hasn't quite persuaded all of us of everything.
But I am also grateful to him for what he said last, which is that he will reflect on what's been said here and consider whether there is further clarity that needs to be provided. And ultimately, of course, the evidence as to whether or not I'm right or he's right about what Greenbelt turns out to be, will become apparent to us over the years during which this policy is used. And so if I can ask him to reflect on one other thing, it would be that the government keeps under review, as I'm sure it will.
What the impact of this policy change in fact, ends up being. And if what happens is that we see a great deal of new development in open countryside within greenbelt areas, rather than in the type of land that he and his Secretary of State have previously described. They want great grey belt to be. I hope the government will reconsider this policy and look again at whether, in fact it is doing damage to the countryside that many of us fear it will in fact, do.
Thank you. Michelle.
But I am also grateful to him for what he said last, which is that he will reflect on what's been said here and consider whether there is further clarity that needs to be provided. And ultimately, of course, the evidence as to whether or not I'm right or he's right about what Greenbelt turns out to be, will become apparent to us over the years during which this policy is used. And so if I can ask him to reflect on one other thing, it would be that the government keeps under review, as I'm sure it will.
What the impact of this policy change in fact, ends up being. And if what happens is that we see a great deal of new development in open countryside within greenbelt areas, rather than in the type of land that he and his Secretary of State have previously described. They want great grey belt to be. I hope the government will reconsider this policy and look again at whether, in fact it is doing damage to the countryside that many of us fear it will in fact, do.
Thank you. Michelle.
15:42
15:42
15:42
16:00
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I beg to move that this House is considered good trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's a pleasure to Ian MacDonald to serve under your chairmanship. When we come to the discussion of trade within any nation, it really should be so simple and uncomplicated that it ought not to be a focus of much debate. And so it was within this United Kingdom until some time ago, because one of the founding founding principles of this United Kingdom, as set forth in the Acts of Union, was that all parts of this United Kingdom, when it came to trade, should be on an equal footing.
And that, of course, would manifest itself in utterly unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. But then, sadly, along came the Windsor framework, previously called the protocol, and upended all that equilibrium. And of course, that happened because under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland alone within the United Kingdom, is treated as subject to the EU's customs union. As a consequence of that, the EU's customs union requires Great Britain, the other part of this United Kingdom, to be treated under.
Regarded in trade terms as a third or foreign country, and from that, of course, those. The iniquitous Irish Sea border a full international customs and border truncating . Partitioning this United Kingdom with an international trade border in consequence of that Irish Sea border. We have checks, we have customs declarations on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and that in respect of a part of this United Kingdom, which historically had a very integrated economy with Great Britain, that's where our raw materials came from.
That's to where we sold most of our goods. So it was a wholly integrated economy to then impose upon such an integrated economy, an international customs border was inevitably going to grocery and disadvantage may affect trade. And so it did. Yes, I'll certainly give way.
And that, of course, would manifest itself in utterly unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. But then, sadly, along came the Windsor framework, previously called the protocol, and upended all that equilibrium. And of course, that happened because under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland alone within the United Kingdom, is treated as subject to the EU's customs union. As a consequence of that, the EU's customs union requires Great Britain, the other part of this United Kingdom, to be treated under.
Regarded in trade terms as a third or foreign country, and from that, of course, those. The iniquitous Irish Sea border a full international customs and border truncating . Partitioning this United Kingdom with an international trade border in consequence of that Irish Sea border. We have checks, we have customs declarations on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and that in respect of a part of this United Kingdom, which historically had a very integrated economy with Great Britain, that's where our raw materials came from.
That's to where we sold most of our goods. So it was a wholly integrated economy to then impose upon such an integrated economy, an international customs border was inevitably going to grocery and disadvantage may affect trade. And so it did. Yes, I'll certainly give way.
16:03
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
It may seem of little consequence to say there's a customs border. But in practical terms, does he accept that this means that when goods are being brought from GB, they are subject to full customs checks, customs codes have to be filled in, etc. and Lord, grass machinery in my own constituency to bring a tractor in. There are about 15 different items in that tractor. Have to have a separate customs code put on it and sometimes to bring one piece of machinery in can take an hour's paper at a time.
Paperwork.
Paperwork.
16:03
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Yes, absolutely. Right. And I think all of our constituents in Northern Ireland who are in the business of trading goods have many very daunting experiences in that regard. Now, of course, we will probably be told by the minister, oh, but the Windsor framework established the UK internal market system. What a fraudulent name. An internal market is something which is customs free within itself.
And yet under the UK internal market , previously called the Green Lane, you still have to make a customs declaration. And where do you make a customs declaration? You make it when you're travelling from one single market to another. Do you have to make a customs declaration? You have to be in a trusted trader scheme to which you have to pay to belong. You have checks on it to 5% of all goods passing through, and in circumstances you have to pay duties truncating and utterly upending the idea of free trade, which should operate within any national internal market.
Yes.
And yet under the UK internal market , previously called the Green Lane, you still have to make a customs declaration. And where do you make a customs declaration? You make it when you're travelling from one single market to another. Do you have to make a customs declaration? You have to be in a trusted trader scheme to which you have to pay to belong. You have checks on it to 5% of all goods passing through, and in circumstances you have to pay duties truncating and utterly upending the idea of free trade, which should operate within any national internal market.
Yes.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
One of the greatest issues we all have is the veterinary medicine supply crisis following Brexit. They continue to face additional EU regulatory requirements. Farmers continue to have potential serious consequences for animal welfare, welfare and indeed responsible management of anti by microbial resistance. Does the honourable member therefore agree that Northern Ireland cannot continue to be economically cut off under the regulatory burdens placed on farmers and vets? Just has to be reduced.
16:05
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I think all of that is self-evident, but sadly we have a government that's deaf to these issues. And sadly, the honourable member's party is a party that seems to have come to terms with it because now in Stormont is prepared to implement the Irish Sea border and the Windsor framework. But let me be very clear. The integrity of our single market has been utterly destroyed. Now, what are the practical consequences of that? The practical consequences of that are unimaginable levels of trade diversion.
The point I made, we were once a wholly integrated part of the United Kingdom. Once you put those barriers there, you discourage that trade. And what has happened? Well, we know from various surveys, we know from the FSB survey that 34% of GB companies that used to trade with Northern Ireland have ceased trading. Why? Because this paperwork, this checking all of this business is such a disincentive.
It's not worth the bother. But this week, I received figures from the Department of Transport, which I find quite astounding, and which I think make the point with great clarity as to what it means to have had trade diversion. In 2022, according to the government's Department of Transport, 8.6 million tonnes of goods were distributed in Northern Ireland by GB registered vehicles. In other words, GB haulage companies bringing their goods into Northern Ireland 8.6 million .
Last year that had fallen to a staggering 2.2 million tonnes. In other words, in just four years, a fall of 75% in the quantum of goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland by GB registered vehicles. Yes.
The point I made, we were once a wholly integrated part of the United Kingdom. Once you put those barriers there, you discourage that trade. And what has happened? Well, we know from various surveys, we know from the FSB survey that 34% of GB companies that used to trade with Northern Ireland have ceased trading. Why? Because this paperwork, this checking all of this business is such a disincentive.
It's not worth the bother. But this week, I received figures from the Department of Transport, which I find quite astounding, and which I think make the point with great clarity as to what it means to have had trade diversion. In 2022, according to the government's Department of Transport, 8.6 million tonnes of goods were distributed in Northern Ireland by GB registered vehicles. In other words, GB haulage companies bringing their goods into Northern Ireland 8.6 million .
Last year that had fallen to a staggering 2.2 million tonnes. In other words, in just four years, a fall of 75% in the quantum of goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland by GB registered vehicles. Yes.
16:08
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank the honourable member for giving way and for securing this debate. Would he agree that the very fact businesses face custom processes, extra paperwork and EU derived rules when moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland proves that the Irish Sea border is still very much in place, and Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Goods moving from one part of our country to another should not be treated as though they are crossing an international frontier.
And is it not time that the government restored Northern Ireland fully to the United Kingdom's internal market? Instead of pushing us towards an economic united Ireland?
And is it not time that the government restored Northern Ireland fully to the United Kingdom's internal market? Instead of pushing us towards an economic united Ireland?
16:08
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I absolutely agree, and the honourable member makes a valid point. Some might say, well, what does trade diversion matter? Does it matter as long as you get the goods? Does it matter where you get them from? Of course, the corollary of trade diversion is what that is doing to our economic links. And what that is doing is building consciously, deliberately and all Ireland economy. So in place of Northern Ireland being a fully integrated part of the UK economy, the whole idea of trade diversion, indeed the whole idea of the protocol and Windsor framework was to build the stepping stone of an All Ireland economy to step us out of the United Kingdom, and that is what is happening.
But when the Windsor framework was introduced, it contained clause article 16. It promised promised that if there was any trade diversion, the government would step in and the EU and it would sort it out. There is lamentable and demonstrable trade diversion, but the government is blind and deaf to this issue, refuses to act. The challenge to the minister today is why, in the face of demonstrable trade diversion, is that other part of the Windsor framework, article 16 not being implemented? Yes.
But when the Windsor framework was introduced, it contained clause article 16. It promised promised that if there was any trade diversion, the government would step in and the EU and it would sort it out. There is lamentable and demonstrable trade diversion, but the government is blind and deaf to this issue, refuses to act. The challenge to the minister today is why, in the face of demonstrable trade diversion, is that other part of the Windsor framework, article 16 not being implemented? Yes.
16:10
16:10
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Even more staggering that that trade diversion, although there are not many MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom here today, that trade diversion actually has impacts on the constituencies of MPs across GB, because if the goods are being bought from the Irish Republic or from other parts of Europe, those are jobs being lost in GB from suppliers who normally would have been selling goods in Northern Ireland.
16:10
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Of course. And the very fact that 34% of businesses, many of them small businesses which previously serviced Northern Ireland, supplied to Northern Ireland, have ceased serving, is obviously having a detrimental employment consequence for those firms in GB. But it is not just big firms. It's not just small firms that are suffering. It's ordinary consumers. And one of the most striking illustration of that, particularly pertinent to this House is the fact that if you go online to purchase anything from our own House of Commons shop and ask for it to be delivered to Northern Ireland, you will see on their website it cannot be done.
They cannot supply to Northern Ireland because of the EU's General Product safety regulations. So you cannot from this House order packet of House of Commons fudge. You can't order a leather folder. You can't order a candle. You can't order a keyring. You can't order a Christmas bubble. You can't even order this a bookmark. Now, who would have thought that the EU single market was so delicate that it couldn't withstand the importing into Northern Ireland of a bookmark? How preposterous! And how ridiculous is it that we've got to that point? Now, I suspect that the Minister, in trying to excuse and wave away all of this, will tell us, oh, but you have the wonderful advantage of dual market access.
What a fraud, what a con. Dual market access has amounted to nothing for Northern Ireland. We were told because of dual market access, Northern Ireland would become the Singapore of the West. Strange then, that in all the years of the Windsor framework, there hasn't been a single, not a single incident of foreign direct investment because of the single of the dual market access. And that's where one very good reason, if you're a manufacturer coming into Northern Ireland and you're told, oh, but you can sell to GB and you can sell to the EU, isn't that wonderful? You're going to ask the question, but where am I getting my raw materials? And when you're told, oh, to get your raw materials from Great Britain, they will have to pass through an international customs border.
You may have to pay duties. You will have to have all the paperwork. Suddenly, the attraction of setting up in Northern Ireland as foreign direct investment disappears very fast, because any perceived advantage of dual market access is cancelled out by the Irish Sea border itself. Maybe the Minister will tell us, as others have. Oh, but we're going to do an SPS deal which will solve many of your problems, will it? The SPS deal is not a United Kingdom EU deal.
The SPS deal is a GB EU deal, leaving Northern Ireland utterly, totally, irreversibly as far as its concerned, under EU rules pertaining to everything of the nature of SPS and what the SPS GB deal means is that in addition to Northern Ireland being disenfranchised by being allowed to make the laws that flow under SPS, the whole United Kingdom is to be disenfranchised and Great Britain is to join us, unable to make laws about our own SPS arrangement.
So it is no silver bullet whatsoever. And then we might be told, as we're often foolishly told, oh, but it's about protecting the Belfast Agreement. It is absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast Agreement. Indeed, if it had anything to do with it. It's in this context. The Belfast Agreement created a scenario where consent cross-community consent was supposed to be the barometer for everything.
Yet when it came to the imposing and the extending of the Windsor framework to Northern Ireland, the one thing that was liquidated within the Belfast Agreement was the cross-community consent that was taken out so that the protocol could be extended, knowing it didn't have and wouldn't have cross-community consent. So the very Windsor framework itself makes a nonsense of the Belfast Agreement argument by trashing the very core of it, namely cross-community consent, by removing it.
So I come back to where I started. If we are a United Kingdom, then why, oh why are we denying to my part of the United Kingdom and that of my colleagues, the most fundamental tenet of being a United Kingdom, namely, unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. It doesn't have to be like this. We could deal with the border issues with the EU through mutual enforcement. In other words, something relatively simple, which is a hallmark of international trade, that if you're making goods for a foreign country, you make them to their standards and vice versa.
That's the essence of mutual enforcement. And you enforce it with criminal sanction that there's liability if you don't do that. That is what protects each other's market. We do not need all this paraphernalia of this single of the Windsor framework. And indeed, if it had anything but the political purpose that lies behind it, then we wouldn't have all this paraphernalia. And we're in the appalling situation. We're now local businesses, and particularly businesses which depend on GB Northern Ireland trade with no help from the government, are now having to set up their own a intertrade UK Business Association, to try and help to highlight these issues, and I'm grateful to them for the work they've done in the statistics they've provided because thankfully, at least, they are trying to look after our interests in sharp contrast to this government.
Thank you. Thank you.
They cannot supply to Northern Ireland because of the EU's General Product safety regulations. So you cannot from this House order packet of House of Commons fudge. You can't order a leather folder. You can't order a candle. You can't order a keyring. You can't order a Christmas bubble. You can't even order this a bookmark. Now, who would have thought that the EU single market was so delicate that it couldn't withstand the importing into Northern Ireland of a bookmark? How preposterous! And how ridiculous is it that we've got to that point? Now, I suspect that the Minister, in trying to excuse and wave away all of this, will tell us, oh, but you have the wonderful advantage of dual market access.
What a fraud, what a con. Dual market access has amounted to nothing for Northern Ireland. We were told because of dual market access, Northern Ireland would become the Singapore of the West. Strange then, that in all the years of the Windsor framework, there hasn't been a single, not a single incident of foreign direct investment because of the single of the dual market access. And that's where one very good reason, if you're a manufacturer coming into Northern Ireland and you're told, oh, but you can sell to GB and you can sell to the EU, isn't that wonderful? You're going to ask the question, but where am I getting my raw materials? And when you're told, oh, to get your raw materials from Great Britain, they will have to pass through an international customs border.
You may have to pay duties. You will have to have all the paperwork. Suddenly, the attraction of setting up in Northern Ireland as foreign direct investment disappears very fast, because any perceived advantage of dual market access is cancelled out by the Irish Sea border itself. Maybe the Minister will tell us, as others have. Oh, but we're going to do an SPS deal which will solve many of your problems, will it? The SPS deal is not a United Kingdom EU deal.
The SPS deal is a GB EU deal, leaving Northern Ireland utterly, totally, irreversibly as far as its concerned, under EU rules pertaining to everything of the nature of SPS and what the SPS GB deal means is that in addition to Northern Ireland being disenfranchised by being allowed to make the laws that flow under SPS, the whole United Kingdom is to be disenfranchised and Great Britain is to join us, unable to make laws about our own SPS arrangement.
So it is no silver bullet whatsoever. And then we might be told, as we're often foolishly told, oh, but it's about protecting the Belfast Agreement. It is absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast Agreement. Indeed, if it had anything to do with it. It's in this context. The Belfast Agreement created a scenario where consent cross-community consent was supposed to be the barometer for everything.
Yet when it came to the imposing and the extending of the Windsor framework to Northern Ireland, the one thing that was liquidated within the Belfast Agreement was the cross-community consent that was taken out so that the protocol could be extended, knowing it didn't have and wouldn't have cross-community consent. So the very Windsor framework itself makes a nonsense of the Belfast Agreement argument by trashing the very core of it, namely cross-community consent, by removing it.
So I come back to where I started. If we are a United Kingdom, then why, oh why are we denying to my part of the United Kingdom and that of my colleagues, the most fundamental tenet of being a United Kingdom, namely, unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. It doesn't have to be like this. We could deal with the border issues with the EU through mutual enforcement. In other words, something relatively simple, which is a hallmark of international trade, that if you're making goods for a foreign country, you make them to their standards and vice versa.
That's the essence of mutual enforcement. And you enforce it with criminal sanction that there's liability if you don't do that. That is what protects each other's market. We do not need all this paraphernalia of this single of the Windsor framework. And indeed, if it had anything but the political purpose that lies behind it, then we wouldn't have all this paraphernalia. And we're in the appalling situation. We're now local businesses, and particularly businesses which depend on GB Northern Ireland trade with no help from the government, are now having to set up their own a intertrade UK Business Association, to try and help to highlight these issues, and I'm grateful to them for the work they've done in the statistics they've provided because thankfully, at least, they are trying to look after our interests in sharp contrast to this government.
Thank you. Thank you.
16:18
16:18
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you Tim. Siobhan, and it's a pleasure to see you in the chair. I'd also like to thank and congratulate the member for North Antrim for securing this important debate. And it is an important debate. As I think was reflected by the the urgency and tone of his remarks as well. So I would like to thank him for his comments, particularly those on the importance of the Union. Comments that I share. And it's also why I'd like to start by very much refuting his assertion that it is the policy of this government to enable Northern Ireland to step out of the United Kingdom.
I'm sure he doesn't fully mean that. Though he is very concerned about these issues of trade. I do want to acknowledge those concerns, but also to say that the situation is more complex than perhaps his remarks have allowed for. Clearly, if there was a simple solution to this, a simple solution that would deliver all of the benefits that he's described for Northern Ireland, then it's a solution that the government would want to move to.
But it is more complex than that, and that's why, hopefully, through the course of my remarks, I'll try and address the many points that he and other colleagues have raised, but also perhaps be able to elaborate more on some of the some of that complexity. But but maybe first I could just address the point that he made about unfettered access. And the government remains committed to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
We remain fully committed to that. And also, I want to be clear about the importance of the UK internal market as well and Northern Ireland's place in that market. The office for the Internal Market highlights the importance of the internal market and of the sales to the rest of the United Kingdom, equivalent to around a quarter of Northern Ireland's economic output in 2021. In 2024, which is the last year for which we have published data, Great Britain accounted for 52% of Northern Ireland's trade in goods, and that figure is broadly the same as it was in 2018, indicating the robustness of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom internal market.
Yes, certainly. I'll give .
I'm sure he doesn't fully mean that. Though he is very concerned about these issues of trade. I do want to acknowledge those concerns, but also to say that the situation is more complex than perhaps his remarks have allowed for. Clearly, if there was a simple solution to this, a simple solution that would deliver all of the benefits that he's described for Northern Ireland, then it's a solution that the government would want to move to.
But it is more complex than that, and that's why, hopefully, through the course of my remarks, I'll try and address the many points that he and other colleagues have raised, but also perhaps be able to elaborate more on some of the some of that complexity. But but maybe first I could just address the point that he made about unfettered access. And the government remains committed to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
We remain fully committed to that. And also, I want to be clear about the importance of the UK internal market as well and Northern Ireland's place in that market. The office for the Internal Market highlights the importance of the internal market and of the sales to the rest of the United Kingdom, equivalent to around a quarter of Northern Ireland's economic output in 2021. In 2024, which is the last year for which we have published data, Great Britain accounted for 52% of Northern Ireland's trade in goods, and that figure is broadly the same as it was in 2018, indicating the robustness of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom internal market.
Yes, certainly. I'll give .
16:20
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
A shops in Newtownards who always bought their goods from a certain company across the water have been unable to do so because of the bureaucracy. But it's also reduced by by not able to trade with them directly, it means that they're not able to offer the prices that they once did. Those nurseries and those who buy the plants and the seeds have also been restricted from what they will do. And the other one has been the the DIY stores who have also been restricted by bureaucracy, but also just their ability to be competitive.
Has the minister given any thought to that? I know I write to the Director of State for Northern Ireland regularly about these matters, but the Minister, not in particular. But does the Minister had a chance to to understand the issues and the problems that my business in Strangford are feeling.
Has the minister given any thought to that? I know I write to the Director of State for Northern Ireland regularly about these matters, but the Minister, not in particular. But does the Minister had a chance to to understand the issues and the problems that my business in Strangford are feeling.
16:21
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you. I thank you very much for raising that and the concerns that he raises around bureaucracy paperwork, especially for small businesses. And I think the member for North Antrim mentioned our own House of Commons gift shop, of course, as well for low value items. This is a point that I very much wanted to come on to in my speech, and so I'm very grateful for him for raising that. But I also wanted to, to start by, by talking about the general performance of Northern Ireland trade with the rest of the United Kingdom and in fact, Northern Ireland's goods exports, both within the UK and with the European Union, have been strong.
In fact, Northern Ireland's exports to the European Union have outperformed the rest of the United Kingdom, increasing in 2019, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom they decreased in this period. And so, first of all, it's important to note that Northern Ireland does benefit from being both a fundamental part of the UK internal market and having unique access to the EU single market. But of course, I do recognise and it was it was made by the member that this experience does vary across sectors, companies and individual constituents, which is why this debate is so valuable.
And I'll go on to talk more about that. Now, I understand the challenges and that around this, but public authorities have a statutory requirement to have special regard for Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom internal market under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. And this guidance gives real statutory power to ensure that the policy makers within the United Kingdom actively consider Northern Ireland's place in the internal market when they are implementing the Windsor framework or making policy involving the movement of goods in the United Kingdom.
Where these are the case, the statutory guidance ensures that those policy makers must have special regard for Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market. And most importantly, one part of having special regard means the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of streamlining trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. The guidance ensures that policy makers must give that special regard considerable importance and weight above other factors in policy making, and that represents how this government has implemented a key commitment made in the Safeguarding the Union Command paper, published under the previous government, to ensure that proper process is in place to always consider both Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market and the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Now, members have spoken, of course, in detail about the Windsor framework and the challenges that it brings, and I would like to stress that the government is wholly committed to the Windsor framework. It supports the peace and prosperity brought by the Good Friday Agreement, one of the proudest achievements of our last Labour government. And it plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But of course, I do recognise the concerns raised by honourable members, and it is clear that the Windsor framework is delivering benefits and smoothing the flow of goods between Great
In fact, Northern Ireland's exports to the European Union have outperformed the rest of the United Kingdom, increasing in 2019, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom they decreased in this period. And so, first of all, it's important to note that Northern Ireland does benefit from being both a fundamental part of the UK internal market and having unique access to the EU single market. But of course, I do recognise and it was it was made by the member that this experience does vary across sectors, companies and individual constituents, which is why this debate is so valuable.
And I'll go on to talk more about that. Now, I understand the challenges and that around this, but public authorities have a statutory requirement to have special regard for Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom internal market under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. And this guidance gives real statutory power to ensure that the policy makers within the United Kingdom actively consider Northern Ireland's place in the internal market when they are implementing the Windsor framework or making policy involving the movement of goods in the United Kingdom.
Where these are the case, the statutory guidance ensures that those policy makers must have special regard for Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market. And most importantly, one part of having special regard means the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of streamlining trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. The guidance ensures that policy makers must give that special regard considerable importance and weight above other factors in policy making, and that represents how this government has implemented a key commitment made in the Safeguarding the Union Command paper, published under the previous government, to ensure that proper process is in place to always consider both Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market and the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Now, members have spoken, of course, in detail about the Windsor framework and the challenges that it brings, and I would like to stress that the government is wholly committed to the Windsor framework. It supports the peace and prosperity brought by the Good Friday Agreement, one of the proudest achievements of our last Labour government. And it plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But of course, I do recognise the concerns raised by honourable members, and it is clear that the Windsor framework is delivering benefits and smoothing the flow of goods between Great
16:24
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Using the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have already noted how Northern Ireland and Great Britain supply of goods has been maintained through the implementation of the framework. Over 15,000 traders are now signed up to the UK Internal Market Scheme, and more than 1100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme and the Northern Plant Health Label. Northern Ireland traders are benefiting from these facilitations and businesses choosing to invest in the dual market access that Northern Ireland uniquely offers.
The member for North Antrim is concerned about the level of investment, and he believes that businesses would not wish to invest in Northern Ireland for this reason. But on my recent visit to Northern Ireland, I saw significant investment from Boeing, from Airbus, from Navantia, from many other businesses as well. And so it is clear that this isn't a uniform experience across all businesses, but it has been possible for Northern Ireland to attract significant inward investment.
Yes, I will give way.
The member for North Antrim is concerned about the level of investment, and he believes that businesses would not wish to invest in Northern Ireland for this reason. But on my recent visit to Northern Ireland, I saw significant investment from Boeing, from Airbus, from Navantia, from many other businesses as well. And so it is clear that this isn't a uniform experience across all businesses, but it has been possible for Northern Ireland to attract significant inward investment.
Yes, I will give way.
16:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the member for giving way. And although he paints the picture of firms signing up, supply still coming through, what do you accept that in retail, in plant and nurseries, firms that use steel. The FSB have indicated that 32% of small businesses in the. In GB are no longer supplying to Northern Ireland. He can't ignore the problem of suppliers stopping supplying from GB and businesses in Northern Ireland, not being able to get the supplies that they normally were able to get.
16:25
16:25
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Far from trying to ignore issues, I'm trying to explain that it is quite a complex situation and I have already acknowledged that there are concerns in particular sectors and with particular companies. But as I said, I think it's important to take a more balanced approach. And overall, the benefits, in my view, and the government's view and the view of the economic numbers as presented and as I have described, are that the Windsor framework is in fact, having a net positive effect on the economy in Northern Ireland.
So take, for example, the company, every which is invested in Northern Ireland, being home to the new EU gateway or in Lisburn. PRM Group, a major chilled and frozen food distributor, has said that this influenced their investment decision and also the growth of their businesses as well. And businesses in other sectors, from medical devices to advance manufacturing and consumer goods, have made a similar call. But I recognise that in order for businesses and consumers to benefit from the Windsor framework, they must have advice, they must have access to clear advice and guidance and government committed in its response to the Lord Murphy review to strengthen our offer, and we are taking action on that.
We're building on the comprehensive support available through the Free Trader Support Service beyond 2026, and work is underway to progress the £16.6 million regulatory support service. This will provide clear, targeted support to help businesses trade across the UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland's unique dual market access. And I am personally grateful to businesses and civic stakeholders for their engagement on this project as we design and build the new service. Yes I will.
So take, for example, the company, every which is invested in Northern Ireland, being home to the new EU gateway or in Lisburn. PRM Group, a major chilled and frozen food distributor, has said that this influenced their investment decision and also the growth of their businesses as well. And businesses in other sectors, from medical devices to advance manufacturing and consumer goods, have made a similar call. But I recognise that in order for businesses and consumers to benefit from the Windsor framework, they must have advice, they must have access to clear advice and guidance and government committed in its response to the Lord Murphy review to strengthen our offer, and we are taking action on that.
We're building on the comprehensive support available through the Free Trader Support Service beyond 2026, and work is underway to progress the £16.6 million regulatory support service. This will provide clear, targeted support to help businesses trade across the UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland's unique dual market access. And I am personally grateful to businesses and civic stakeholders for their engagement on this project as we design and build the new service. Yes I will.
16:27
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
The Minister will no doubt at some length with the issue of diversion of trade, illustrated by the fact that there's been a 75% fall in the tonnage of goods supplied by GB registered vehicles into Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept this diversion of trade? And if he does, when is this government going to activate article 16 of the Windsor framework, which is supposed to be a protection against it?
16:27
16:27
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The member did indeed raise the point on diversion of trade. I was just coming on to that point directly. And they are not the figures that he raised again. There is a more complex picture, and perhaps I could just illustrate some of that. So Great Britain and Northern Ireland trade remains robust, with over £17 billion in goods moving into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 2024. The independent monitoring panel confirmed that the internal market guarantee that 80% of Great Britain, Northern Ireland freight moves as not risk goods was met in 2025, and the latest figures confirm that 96% of goods moved under freight did so within the internal market system, and we expect the next panel as the next report shortly.
Did you want to come in?
Did you want to come in?
16:28
16:28
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. Dame Siobhan. Well, hopefully he heard some of the measures that the British government is taking to enable businesses in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to trade freely with one another, as we're sort of in the dying seconds, if he doesn't mind. I probably won't take any more interventions, because I just want to confirm some of these final statistics that I think are important in terms of this point. Sales from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK reached £10.9 billion in 2024, up 0.8% on 2023.
So actually the UK internal market is expanding. It's not shrinking. And as I've set out in detail, the importance of the union and the many ways in which this government is committed to maintaining and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland runs through all of the points that we're making in terms of how we interact with the Windsor framework. So to conclude, Dame Siobhan, I'd like to thank the honourable member for raising these points, but hopefully he has heard from me that the government is committed to the internal market.
We're committed to the union and the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland.
So actually the UK internal market is expanding. It's not shrinking. And as I've set out in detail, the importance of the union and the many ways in which this government is committed to maintaining and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland runs through all of the points that we're making in terms of how we interact with the Windsor framework. So to conclude, Dame Siobhan, I'd like to thank the honourable member for raising these points, but hopefully he has heard from me that the government is committed to the internal market.
We're committed to the union and the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland.
16:29
16:29
16:30
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I beg to move that this House is considered the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank all honourable members from all sides of the House for attending on a one line whip, which those who stand to feel their presence proves that the unsolved unresolved problems that have emerged for many in Liverpool, West Derby, present a national scandal requiring a national response. In my constituency alone, 35 people have contacted me with serious concerns about the administration of their civil service pension.
I speak for them and for civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families across the country being badly let down. They have served the public, paid into their pensions and planned their retirements in good faith.
I speak for them and for civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families across the country being badly let down. They have served the public, paid into their pensions and planned their retirements in good faith.
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
These people, these civil servants, are entitled to expect accuracy, information, pensions paid when they are due and accountability when things go wrong. I want to place on record three West Derby cases with the permission of my constituents. Dave Barlow has spent around 18 months trying to obtain up to date, up to date pension information. He tells me that he has not received an annual benefit statement for several years. Dave is due to begin part retirement on the 6th of October, reducing his working week partly to care for his elderly parents.
Yet he still does not have the information needed to plan his finances. He was given no guarantee that his pension would be ready, no timescale for his statement and, incredibly, was told by capita to approach his employer for hardship support if necessary. Think about that. A civil servant may have to seek hardship support, because the private company paid to administer his pension have totally failed to do its job. Then there.
Yet he still does not have the information needed to plan his finances. He was given no guarantee that his pension would be ready, no timescale for his statement and, incredibly, was told by capita to approach his employer for hardship support if necessary. Think about that. A civil servant may have to seek hardship support, because the private company paid to administer his pension have totally failed to do its job. Then there.
16:32
16:32
16:32
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I'm grateful for my honourable friend for giving way. Does he see that the failure of the private sector in this instance, which affects pensioners in Pembrokeshire, my constituency. Does he. Does he agree with me that it shows the benefits of the government taking control of this and insourcing this pension scheme once and for all to to deal with these with this issue?
16:32
16:32
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Given way. And and thank him for that. The Civil Service Pension Scheme is not delivering not delivering for the people who put that, he said faith, trust in their hard earned income. When capita took on the scheme, it's already facing a backlog of cases and was likely ill equipped for the task. Serious questions must be asked about whether a sufficiently thorough assessment of Capita's capability to take on such an important responsibility was undertaken before this transfer occurred.
Is that not what should be done as such in the exactly their capability of doing the job they were tasked with?
Is that not what should be done as such in the exactly their capability of doing the job they were tasked with?
16:32
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thanks to my friend, the point well made apologies to chair. He jumped in before I could speak. James Burke works for the Department for Work and Pensions in the Child Maintenance Service. James entered retirement, reducing his working week salary by about 20%, and with his pension intended to replace the lost income and provide a lump sum, now arrived with his mortgage payments on the 30th of July. Is borrowing increased? And provider told him it could not offer a new product.
James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.
James made nine calls to the helpline, sometimes waiting around two hours. He was promised resolution, then told payment was imminent before being informed that no timescale could be provided.
16:33
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. In my own constituency of Wolverhampton West, I have heard constituents complaining of delays of over nine months to receive their pension and one terminally ill constituent whose case should have been fast tracked. But it wasn't. And as my hon. Friend says, I've had complaints of people waiting over two hours to get through the helpline and then receiving conflicting, conflicting information and documents sent by constituents also being lost.
So does my hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on capita, perhaps having stronger oversight by the Cabinet Office to get better accountability and more investment in technology and data quality?
So does my hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on capita, perhaps having stronger oversight by the Cabinet Office to get better accountability and more investment in technology and data quality?
16:34
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Yeah, I agree completely with my hon. Friend and just say I won't be taking no more interventions because people have put in to speak to another of my constituents. Karen Morrow took early retirement at the end of June. She will not receive a state pension for another two years. So the civil service pension she earned was supposed to supplement her income. After two years of delay and inaction, she was told. The documents have been uploaded by the 4th of August and that she might receive her pension by the end of that month.
August came and went. Karen received nothing. She had chased every single week on her latest call. She waited three hours to be told only that her case would be escalated. No payment, no explanation, no reliable timescale. And Karen has been left without an income since the end of June. The circumstances of the constituents I cases I raise may differ in nature, but the pattern is the same. The pension that carry the debt, uncertainty and stress created by a failing system.
These are not minor administrative errors. They are major failures with serious human consequences. But it's not just my constituents and many others around the country waiting for their own pensions were being failed by capita. It's the staff as well. Capita's own staff workers employed by capita, including many in my own city, have reported to the Public and Commercial Services Union that they are suffering due to the company's failure to deliver on the contract.
The struggling physically and mentally as a result of inadequate staffing levels, insufficient training, poor processes, inappropriate IT systems and constantly changing demands. More than half of Capita's workers who took part in the PCs survey said they experienced stress every day on most or most days, with a quarter responding that they frequently are extremely stressed. As one PCs member described their day to day experience, saying every day is draining and it's always a massive relief.
My working day is over. Many of resigning because the working conditions have become intolerable. More than 75% of PCs are considering leaving their roles. Is it any wonder we're in this mess? We know capita has failed in its duty to run the civil service pension scheme, but clearly it's also failing its own staff as well. The government's own actions confirmed the scale of the crisis. In February, ministers said they were working to bring most aspects of the service back to expected levels by June.
Deadline was missed in July, having sent two separate letters to the Cabinet Office in December and March, the government confirmed in response to a parliamentary question mark that capita had failed to restore standard contractual service. Ministers rightly withheld 9.9 million, deployed independent auditors, appointed a remedial advisory capital expense and recovered the cost of government surge teams. Last Friday. Karl Flinders from Computer Weekly, having covered the scandal over the last year, reported that the Cabinet Office is establishing a team with direct access to capital systems to independently validate its data.
That is welcome. But isn't it extraordinary that the government have relied on capitals own management's information in the first place? The contractor under scrutiny has been supplying the figures by which its performance is judged. How can Capita possibly be held to account in the way it clearly needs to be? Despite these repeated interventions by the government on the 7th of September, over a thousand bereavement cases were still more than 100 days old, alongside 308 death in service cases and 288 payment cases and over 900 retirement quotations also remained from the backlog.
Capita are committed to clear. But even death and service retirements. These aren't cases on the spreadsheet. These are human stories, people facing some of the most difficult moments in their lives. The sequence is clear a deadline was set, missed and followed by emergency measures. Yet hundreds remain trapped in the backlog. Progress is welcome, but progress is not resolution. The question is no longer whether there's been a serious failure that is absolutely beyond dispute.
The question is when will civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families finally see the end of it? I raised this repeatedly with ministers, sought Cabinet Office engagements with the PCs, general Secretary for support of parliamentary motions and table questions on the backlog, compensation, sanctions and bringing the service back in-house. I secured this debate because constituents are still coming to me in absolute distress. This brings us to the fundamental question of outsourcing. We are told outsourcing delivers efficiency and transfers risk.
But when capita fails, civil servants claims the backlog employers provided hardship fund governments appointed auditors and MPs become an escalation route. So where exactly was the risk transferred? Administration was outsourced. Responsibility was not. A private company holds the contract while the public sector picks up the pieces. All the while our constituents carry the consequences. This is the failed ideology of outsourcing Labour born under Thatcher, followed by successive governments of all colours in the name of efficiency, while delivering absolutely the opposite and putting the burden on ordinary people.
Whether it's Fujitsu, in the case of the Post Office advising scandal or leaving a failing water industry. How many more examples must we bring before this House, before the political establishment finally accepts that this experiment is completely failed? Today, I ask the Minister for three clear commitments recovery, compensation and accountability. First, recovery. Will the minister set out a firm dated timetable for returning the scheme to normal service? This must include clearing overdue cases, urgently, prioritising those without income and those with serious welfare, bereavements and ill health cases.
As part of this, the government must also commit to publishing the number and age of outstanding cases. Until this has been achieved and should and should also the parliamentary caseload MPs have received on this issue, that should also be highlighted. Secondly, compensation when failure creates debt, higher borrowing costs, mortgage problems or reliance on hardship support, people should not face another battle to regain the position they should have been had the service worked as it should have been.
Will the Minister provide a clear, simple and accessible route to compensation for financial loss? Thirdly, accountability. The government has announced a public interest test under its contracts with more than £1 million will be assessed for in-house viability before renewal, if ever a service justified considering whether public provision would be more resilient, reliable and accountable. Surely this is it. This is it. After the months of failing under the administration of capita and every indication that problems will persist, surely, Minister, we have our answer.
So will the Minister commit today to bring back the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme back in-house, to put it back in the service of the people it exists to support? This is not an attack on staff working hard to clear the backlog. It's about the system and the political choices that have put us in this position. David should be able to reduce his hours to care for his elderly parents. James should not fear losing his home.
Karen should be not left without an income, spending hours chasing a pension, and my other 32 constituents who contacted me should not need their Member of Parliament simply to access the pension savings they were promised. In the event, civil servants have saved our country and our communities. They have paid into their pensions and plan their futures in good faith. They have kept their side of the bargain. Minister, it is time for the government and the system for which is responsible to keep theirs.
So we ask the Minister for two things recovery, compensation, accountability. The administration may have been outsourced, but responsibility cannot be outsourced with it. It's time for the system to do its part for our civil servants.
August came and went. Karen received nothing. She had chased every single week on her latest call. She waited three hours to be told only that her case would be escalated. No payment, no explanation, no reliable timescale. And Karen has been left without an income since the end of June. The circumstances of the constituents I cases I raise may differ in nature, but the pattern is the same. The pension that carry the debt, uncertainty and stress created by a failing system.
These are not minor administrative errors. They are major failures with serious human consequences. But it's not just my constituents and many others around the country waiting for their own pensions were being failed by capita. It's the staff as well. Capita's own staff workers employed by capita, including many in my own city, have reported to the Public and Commercial Services Union that they are suffering due to the company's failure to deliver on the contract.
The struggling physically and mentally as a result of inadequate staffing levels, insufficient training, poor processes, inappropriate IT systems and constantly changing demands. More than half of Capita's workers who took part in the PCs survey said they experienced stress every day on most or most days, with a quarter responding that they frequently are extremely stressed. As one PCs member described their day to day experience, saying every day is draining and it's always a massive relief.
My working day is over. Many of resigning because the working conditions have become intolerable. More than 75% of PCs are considering leaving their roles. Is it any wonder we're in this mess? We know capita has failed in its duty to run the civil service pension scheme, but clearly it's also failing its own staff as well. The government's own actions confirmed the scale of the crisis. In February, ministers said they were working to bring most aspects of the service back to expected levels by June.
Deadline was missed in July, having sent two separate letters to the Cabinet Office in December and March, the government confirmed in response to a parliamentary question mark that capita had failed to restore standard contractual service. Ministers rightly withheld 9.9 million, deployed independent auditors, appointed a remedial advisory capital expense and recovered the cost of government surge teams. Last Friday. Karl Flinders from Computer Weekly, having covered the scandal over the last year, reported that the Cabinet Office is establishing a team with direct access to capital systems to independently validate its data.
That is welcome. But isn't it extraordinary that the government have relied on capitals own management's information in the first place? The contractor under scrutiny has been supplying the figures by which its performance is judged. How can Capita possibly be held to account in the way it clearly needs to be? Despite these repeated interventions by the government on the 7th of September, over a thousand bereavement cases were still more than 100 days old, alongside 308 death in service cases and 288 payment cases and over 900 retirement quotations also remained from the backlog.
Capita are committed to clear. But even death and service retirements. These aren't cases on the spreadsheet. These are human stories, people facing some of the most difficult moments in their lives. The sequence is clear a deadline was set, missed and followed by emergency measures. Yet hundreds remain trapped in the backlog. Progress is welcome, but progress is not resolution. The question is no longer whether there's been a serious failure that is absolutely beyond dispute.
The question is when will civil servants, pensioners and bereaved families finally see the end of it? I raised this repeatedly with ministers, sought Cabinet Office engagements with the PCs, general Secretary for support of parliamentary motions and table questions on the backlog, compensation, sanctions and bringing the service back in-house. I secured this debate because constituents are still coming to me in absolute distress. This brings us to the fundamental question of outsourcing. We are told outsourcing delivers efficiency and transfers risk.
But when capita fails, civil servants claims the backlog employers provided hardship fund governments appointed auditors and MPs become an escalation route. So where exactly was the risk transferred? Administration was outsourced. Responsibility was not. A private company holds the contract while the public sector picks up the pieces. All the while our constituents carry the consequences. This is the failed ideology of outsourcing Labour born under Thatcher, followed by successive governments of all colours in the name of efficiency, while delivering absolutely the opposite and putting the burden on ordinary people.
Whether it's Fujitsu, in the case of the Post Office advising scandal or leaving a failing water industry. How many more examples must we bring before this House, before the political establishment finally accepts that this experiment is completely failed? Today, I ask the Minister for three clear commitments recovery, compensation and accountability. First, recovery. Will the minister set out a firm dated timetable for returning the scheme to normal service? This must include clearing overdue cases, urgently, prioritising those without income and those with serious welfare, bereavements and ill health cases.
As part of this, the government must also commit to publishing the number and age of outstanding cases. Until this has been achieved and should and should also the parliamentary caseload MPs have received on this issue, that should also be highlighted. Secondly, compensation when failure creates debt, higher borrowing costs, mortgage problems or reliance on hardship support, people should not face another battle to regain the position they should have been had the service worked as it should have been.
Will the Minister provide a clear, simple and accessible route to compensation for financial loss? Thirdly, accountability. The government has announced a public interest test under its contracts with more than £1 million will be assessed for in-house viability before renewal, if ever a service justified considering whether public provision would be more resilient, reliable and accountable. Surely this is it. This is it. After the months of failing under the administration of capita and every indication that problems will persist, surely, Minister, we have our answer.
So will the Minister commit today to bring back the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme back in-house, to put it back in the service of the people it exists to support? This is not an attack on staff working hard to clear the backlog. It's about the system and the political choices that have put us in this position. David should be able to reduce his hours to care for his elderly parents. James should not fear losing his home.
Karen should be not left without an income, spending hours chasing a pension, and my other 32 constituents who contacted me should not need their Member of Parliament simply to access the pension savings they were promised. In the event, civil servants have saved our country and our communities. They have paid into their pensions and plan their futures in good faith. They have kept their side of the bargain. Minister, it is time for the government and the system for which is responsible to keep theirs.
So we ask the Minister for two things recovery, compensation, accountability. The administration may have been outsourced, but responsibility cannot be outsourced with it. It's time for the system to do its part for our civil servants.
16:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Everyone can see the nature of my dilemma. I lost the wager with the previous clerk. I suggested you wouldn't all be here because it was a one line whip at 430 and at 430. But you all are. Can I just say for clarification to Mr. Stewart and other members, that the doorkeepers have informed me that the Minister was here in plenty of time, but caught in the melee as people left.
I regret to inform all of you that with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit of one minute on backbench speeches, and even at that point, I cannot guarantee that everybody will get called. So please don't take interventions. Dame Caroline Dinenage.
I regret to inform all of you that with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit of one minute on backbench speeches, and even at that point, I cannot guarantee that everybody will get called. So please don't take interventions. Dame Caroline Dinenage.
16:42
16:42
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
To the Cabinet Office in January in response to constituents concerns about late payments, dreadful customer service , in some cases desperate pleas for pensions to be released and shortly after met with capita. They made assurances to me that pension areas would be cleared by the end of April and overall service levels restored by June. But they were hollow words. Both targets were missed. In fact, everything got worse. One constituent told me he'd given 43 years to service to the Royal Navy, retired in October last year and is still waiting for his pension forecast to arrive.
That's nearly a whole year . My caseworkers have been exhaustively responding to constituents who are attempting to access statements and payments. In January, I wrote to the Cabinet Office, but we're still waiting for movement on this. I suspect my caseworkers are doing a better job than the caseworkers hired by the government, who somehow seen an increase in the number of complaints. I don't think that bringing this contract in-house will make a difference.
That's nearly a whole year . My caseworkers have been exhaustively responding to constituents who are attempting to access statements and payments. In January, I wrote to the Cabinet Office, but we're still waiting for movement on this. I suspect my caseworkers are doing a better job than the caseworkers hired by the government, who somehow seen an increase in the number of complaints. I don't think that bringing this contract in-house will make a difference.
16:44
16:44
16:44
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Gloucester who have devoted their lives to public service, only to be unable to access their pension in retirement, in particular, in the short time I have, I wanted to highlight a specific example of one constituent who sadly lost her husband and was trying to get access to his pension. She had to battle capita relentlessly during one of the most difficult times in her life. In her first email to me, she said that she felt that capita were waiting for her to die.
Her husband served our country first in the Navy and then for 12 years at Gchq. For cases like these, widows are being failed by capita, and while suffering with immense grief, they face the administrative burden of trying to secure what is rightfully theirs. I am pleased that after support from my office, my constituent has secured a lump sum and is due her husband's pension this month. But still, even after my involvement, the communication from capita has been limited and poor.
I know the government is working around the clock to improve the situation with the task force, civil servants being deployed, progress is being made and I know the minister is determined to build on this. I'd be grateful if she could outline in her final speech the steps that they're taking to improve.
Her husband served our country first in the Navy and then for 12 years at Gchq. For cases like these, widows are being failed by capita, and while suffering with immense grief, they face the administrative burden of trying to secure what is rightfully theirs. I am pleased that after support from my office, my constituent has secured a lump sum and is due her husband's pension this month. But still, even after my involvement, the communication from capita has been limited and poor.
I know the government is working around the clock to improve the situation with the task force, civil servants being deployed, progress is being made and I know the minister is determined to build on this. I'd be grateful if she could outline in her final speech the steps that they're taking to improve.
16:45
16:45
16:45
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Since capita took over the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, around 8500 retired civil servants have experienced delays or failures in their pension payments. Many in my constituency of West Dorset, many widows, many ex-service people, many of them having to take out hardship loans. We've seen delays in accurate calculations, enormous backlogs and more recently, a data breach affecting 138 members , where some received other members annual benefit statements. The Public Accounts Committee warned in 2025 that capita was not ready to take on this contract.
I recognise that the government has introduced a recovery plan, including interest free hardship loans and additional surge teams, but a hardship loan is not a pension, it is not compensation and is not a substitute for receiving the money that you are owed. After decades of public service, I hope the Minister will tell us today what the government intends to do to rectify this.
I recognise that the government has introduced a recovery plan, including interest free hardship loans and additional surge teams, but a hardship loan is not a pension, it is not compensation and is not a substitute for receiving the money that you are owed. After decades of public service, I hope the Minister will tell us today what the government intends to do to rectify this.
16:46
16:46
16:46
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
on a manifesto that promised the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. This case is only one of the many since 1980s, where the responsibility of the state has been outsourced to private companies who have consistently failed to deliver for working people. I will not stop fighting until this scheme is brought back where it belongs. So I ask the minister, will the minister commit to drawing up plans to bring the scheme in-house? Will she also apply pressure on capita to issue comprehensive finalisation statements for each case? How will the government hold capita to account in the meantime? And will she clarify who made the terrible decision to award the synergy contract? And finally, will she put for compensation for a compensation scheme for all affected by capita failures? And consider both the stress and financial loss caused to our much loved civil servants.
16:47
16:47
16:47
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
My residents were given incorrect quotes months before I intervened and despite my office regularly pressing for updates, some are still waiting for their initial quote again. Despite my office repeatedly following up, others were told that they were not, that they could not find their pensions, despite furnishing them with details several times. Only three of our 17 cases in Spelthorne have been resolved. Spelthorne residents are not statistics. They are people who paid into their pensions throughout their working lives.
They are the newly retired, the medically retired, the widows, the widowers experiencing serious financial hardship and who are experiencing difficulties in securing loans. The loans promised by government. It is futile for the government to continue to go over old ground and play the blame game. What residents need, and indeed what they deserve, is to receive the pensions they paid into over a long time without any further delay.
They are the newly retired, the medically retired, the widows, the widowers experiencing serious financial hardship and who are experiencing difficulties in securing loans. The loans promised by government. It is futile for the government to continue to go over old ground and play the blame game. What residents need, and indeed what they deserve, is to receive the pensions they paid into over a long time without any further delay.
16:48
16:48
16:48
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
constituents are now paying the price. Workers like my constituent Simon, who lives in Stanwick, he put in 37 years of public service into courts and tribunals. He gave six months notice that he wanted to retire, and capita have simply never processed his application, and his retirement date has now passed. Simon plans to retire in March 2027, but has no confidence at all that it will be met 37 years of service and unable to receive the money that is earned.
For me, this just shows the absolute madness of insource of outsourcing. This government promised to deliver the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I agree with the 2000 PCs members who signed a petition urging the government to demonstrate it here. Members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme deserve a clear backlog with every case resolved. Deserve the money they're owed without delay, deserve those responsible for failures to be held to account and deserve a pension scheme back in house under government accountability.
For me, this just shows the absolute madness of insource of outsourcing. This government promised to deliver the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I agree with the 2000 PCs members who signed a petition urging the government to demonstrate it here. Members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme deserve a clear backlog with every case resolved. Deserve the money they're owed without delay, deserve those responsible for failures to be held to account and deserve a pension scheme back in house under government accountability.
16:49
16:49
16:49
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
And congratulations to honourable member for Liverpool West as well. Like everyone here, I have constituents who, after years of dedicated public service in our armed forces, prisons and vital public services, are now struggling to make ends meet because of failures by capita. I raised those issues back in April when the then minister made a statement on this matter, and sadly, it's now like a conveyor belt. Just as we get one case resolved, another one appears from a constituent who cannot access the pension they have worked and earned for.
The most important point I want to make today is that behind every delayed pension is a person whose life has been put on hold. One of my constituents is currently grieving the loss of her husband, who passed away in July. Were that not already enough, she cannot access the civil service pension. She spoke with them last week and was told that her case was progressing exactly the same update as she had a month earlier. Now, I attended Cabinet Office questions last week where the minister outlined the insourcing plans that the government has and the current penalties that capita is experiencing, but I do want her to address what are the timescales for the insourcing plans, because plans do not help our constituents right now.
And second of all, what are the criteria that are being applied in relation to penalties of capita? Constituents here need answers and reassurance.
The most important point I want to make today is that behind every delayed pension is a person whose life has been put on hold. One of my constituents is currently grieving the loss of her husband, who passed away in July. Were that not already enough, she cannot access the civil service pension. She spoke with them last week and was told that her case was progressing exactly the same update as she had a month earlier. Now, I attended Cabinet Office questions last week where the minister outlined the insourcing plans that the government has and the current penalties that capita is experiencing, but I do want her to address what are the timescales for the insourcing plans, because plans do not help our constituents right now.
And second of all, what are the criteria that are being applied in relation to penalties of capita? Constituents here need answers and reassurance.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
chairship. And I thank my honourable friend, the member for Liverpool West, for bringing this debate today and focusing so well on the human costs. I have had many constituents at Liverpool, West Derby. I beg your pardon? I have many constituents who have come to me about this issue. They are living in poverty and misery. Having given decades of service to the British people. This is an absolute scandal.
The backlog quite simply flows from the repeated serious failures of Capita and capita have very, very serious questions to answer. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that this should be brought in-house for the staff working at capita, which the honourable member explained so well, are suffering from immense stress, but also so that constituents across Britain who have given decades of public service can have a confidence that they will be treated properly and be able to access their pensions on time.
The backlog quite simply flows from the repeated serious failures of Capita and capita have very, very serious questions to answer. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that this should be brought in-house for the staff working at capita, which the honourable member explained so well, are suffering from immense stress, but also so that constituents across Britain who have given decades of public service can have a confidence that they will be treated properly and be able to access their pensions on time.
16:51
16:51
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you, Dame Siobhan and I share with the House one particular case that is representative of many, my constituent, Mrs. Gillian Pothecary, lost her husband almost a year ago. She wrote to me in July about her valiant but so far unavailing quest to obtain a civil servant widow's pension, she wrote. Throughout this process, I've been given differing information about the status of my claim. More recently, I was told I was at the top of the list for assessment, only then to be informed that some of my paperwork had become out of date and needed to be submitted resubmitted, causing further delay.
I was very impressed to get a reply when I forwarded this on from someone holding the exalted position of Deputy Director of Civil Service and Royal Mail Pensions in the Cabinet Office, and she said Mrs. Pothecarys case falls under the commitment to be fully resolved by early September. At the absolute latest. Capita has assured me that her case is on their escalation log and has been flagged for priority handling. So I rang up Jill just before coming in to this debate, and you've guessed it, she hasn't yet received her pension.
She's now dipping into her savings and working longer hours at the supermarket.
I was very impressed to get a reply when I forwarded this on from someone holding the exalted position of Deputy Director of Civil Service and Royal Mail Pensions in the Cabinet Office, and she said Mrs. Pothecarys case falls under the commitment to be fully resolved by early September. At the absolute latest. Capita has assured me that her case is on their escalation log and has been flagged for priority handling. So I rang up Jill just before coming in to this debate, and you've guessed it, she hasn't yet received her pension.
She's now dipping into her savings and working longer hours at the supermarket.
16:53
16:53
16:53
16:53
16:53
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Done the right thing and put money aside for the future and of course in the consequences when the consequences when things go wrong are dreadful. One of my constituents has had a catalogue of errors which lasted for over six months from a mistake, a £27,000 mistake about a lump sum to a tax code error which has still not been resolved. And this is just one case of many people are spending hours on the phone to be fobbed off.
Paperwork is going missing, money is taking months to arrive and lives are being ruined. And Capita's response is arbitrary targets which come to little or nothing. Can I ask the minister what happens if capita continues to set itself targets and then miss them? The government's action so far is welcome, and it is entirely right that capita should be audited. Can we have progress, please, on this? And can she also tell me who will pay the interest rate on any delayed payments? A pension, of course, is about money, but more than that, when they try to sort out this mess with capita, my constituents have been left feeling that they don't matter, but they matter very much.
This is not Capita's money, it is their money and every single penny must go where it belongs.
Paperwork is going missing, money is taking months to arrive and lives are being ruined. And Capita's response is arbitrary targets which come to little or nothing. Can I ask the minister what happens if capita continues to set itself targets and then miss them? The government's action so far is welcome, and it is entirely right that capita should be audited. Can we have progress, please, on this? And can she also tell me who will pay the interest rate on any delayed payments? A pension, of course, is about money, but more than that, when they try to sort out this mess with capita, my constituents have been left feeling that they don't matter, but they matter very much.
This is not Capita's money, it is their money and every single penny must go where it belongs.
16:54
16:54
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Dame Siobhan, and my apologies to the minister who was indeed here on time. And I've written her a note to apologise for that in Beverley and Holderness. Dame Siobhan, I'm aware of at least ten people who are still waiting to receive what's rightfully theirs. As colleagues have so powerfully expressed across the chamber. Angela, from Burstwick, gave 37 years service to the civil service, most recently at the Land Registry. She retired in May and, four months on has received neither a quotation nor a payment.
She is now living off her savings and struggling to meet her mortgage. Sally, from Beverley, has spent nearly a year trying to retire after almost 40 years of service capital. Capita wrongly disclosed her case as a duplicate, lost the documents sent by the company's HR team and gave her conflicting retirement dates, then in August admitted their own notes on her case simply didn't add up, and this will resonate powerfully with the minister. John, from Withernsea, retired in April 2026 after 30 years.
Like the minister previously as a prison officer in his case at HMP Hull and HMP Full Sutton. Yet five months on, he has received neither a pension nor a penny of income, despite his former employer sending capita the same information three times. Three lives, more than 100 years of service and none of them can get what they are owed. So ministers knew the it wasn't ready went live anyway. Can the minister please explain why that decision was made?
She is now living off her savings and struggling to meet her mortgage. Sally, from Beverley, has spent nearly a year trying to retire after almost 40 years of service capital. Capita wrongly disclosed her case as a duplicate, lost the documents sent by the company's HR team and gave her conflicting retirement dates, then in August admitted their own notes on her case simply didn't add up, and this will resonate powerfully with the minister. John, from Withernsea, retired in April 2026 after 30 years.
Like the minister previously as a prison officer in his case at HMP Hull and HMP Full Sutton. Yet five months on, he has received neither a pension nor a penny of income, despite his former employer sending capita the same information three times. Three lives, more than 100 years of service and none of them can get what they are owed. So ministers knew the it wasn't ready went live anyway. Can the minister please explain why that decision was made?
16:56
16:56
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
This issue has been raised in the House and business. Questions in questions to ministers, and we're assured that the situation can and will get better. We're given deadlines, we're given meetings. And even in the case of Mark, one of my constituents, the case was taken off the tracker. We were told, as an MP and MPs office that this was solved. And then last week we found out that his case had still not been resolved, despite capita assuring us it had been.
He still hadn't had his pension. He was due. Barbara had to fight six months for her late pension, her late husband's pension, not only dealing with the grief of losing a husband, but then not being able to get the pension that you are owed and he would have been owed. It is frankly disgraceful that we're treating public servants where anyone like this, but particularly public servants who served a public service for so many years and deserve a peaceful retirement.
And instead they're having to battle the system to get what they are owed. Well, like other members here, I'd like to ask the minister what out of pocket expenses are going to be covered. People are are having to pay extra legal support, get extra documents reprinted and sourced, as well as getting by day to day. And at what point do we draw a line, Minister? And do we say enough is enough, and this contract will be ended and will bring it back in house or to another supplier who can actually provide the contract they're paid for?
He still hadn't had his pension. He was due. Barbara had to fight six months for her late pension, her late husband's pension, not only dealing with the grief of losing a husband, but then not being able to get the pension that you are owed and he would have been owed. It is frankly disgraceful that we're treating public servants where anyone like this, but particularly public servants who served a public service for so many years and deserve a peaceful retirement.
And instead they're having to battle the system to get what they are owed. Well, like other members here, I'd like to ask the minister what out of pocket expenses are going to be covered. People are are having to pay extra legal support, get extra documents reprinted and sourced, as well as getting by day to day. And at what point do we draw a line, Minister? And do we say enough is enough, and this contract will be ended and will bring it back in house or to another supplier who can actually provide the contract they're paid for?
16:57
16:57
16:57
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
It's a pleasure to serve. And under your chairmanship, I first raised the case of my constituents, Sara Rees in January, a year after retiring, Sara hadn't received her pension, a civil servant pension. And it took my raising it in the chamber, actually, to get any sort of action. Well, Sarah's husband is now in the same situation and has had to endure delays and incompetence. And since firstly asking for his quote in January and chased it 20 times, he still hasn't had a quote.
So I'm just asking for three things, really. Can the minister give further details on the long term strategy being developed to do that, to bring it in-house? And I welcome that that that move. But we need more detail. Can I also ask, on behalf of my constituents, can I seek assurance on exactly how the UK government intends to hold capita to account, as we know that they're not even hitting basic benchmarks? And my last call is for compensation to reflect on the financial costs of these failings for people and their families, people who have been without income for nearly a year and more.
Can I ask the minister to fully consider these these calls?
So I'm just asking for three things, really. Can the minister give further details on the long term strategy being developed to do that, to bring it in-house? And I welcome that that that move. But we need more detail. Can I also ask, on behalf of my constituents, can I seek assurance on exactly how the UK government intends to hold capita to account, as we know that they're not even hitting basic benchmarks? And my last call is for compensation to reflect on the financial costs of these failings for people and their families, people who have been without income for nearly a year and more.
Can I ask the minister to fully consider these these calls?
16:58
16:59
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you, Dame Siobhan, a pleasure to share. Under your serve, under your chairmanship. Let me tell you about two men. Adolfo Hernandez, I believe the chief executive of capita has an annual remuneration of £1.6 million. My constituent is a man who gave 33 years of service to the Metropolitan Police and, despite giving masses of notice of his retirement, never received his pension for at least six months. He wanted to send his fund, his daughter, for university.
He was unable to do so. He took out loans from the police. He then developed cancer and is under treatment at my local hospital. He has finally received a quotation for his pension. This is a utter disgrace. It's a complete disgrace. We in this place must surely be able to do something about this. We all came to this place in order to change things. Surely this is something that we can change.
And I look forward to hearing the minister's view.
He was unable to do so. He took out loans from the police. He then developed cancer and is under treatment at my local hospital. He has finally received a quotation for his pension. This is a utter disgrace. It's a complete disgrace. We in this place must surely be able to do something about this. We all came to this place in order to change things. Surely this is something that we can change.
And I look forward to hearing the minister's view.
17:00
17:00
17:00
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
very much to the member for Liverpool West Derby. I was contacted in February by a constituent who sadly lost her partner. In November 2025. She was left caring for two children on one income and when she reached out trying to access a hardship loan, she was denied the government had shut bereaved families out. At the moment, they needed help most. When I asked the minister how much it would have cost to include them, I didn't get an answer and that has been the theme throughout all of this for both myself and constituents, my constituents.
I have asked what penalties have been applied to capita? No answer. Given that much of capita appears to be nothing more than a rebranding of my CSP with the same workforce doing the same job, can the minister tell me what assurances she can provide that we will not see a repeat of the capita fiasco? The Cabinet Office is responsible for civil service pensions. Unlike other pension providers who are monitored by the FCA, this issue is not subject to FCA scrutiny.
I have asked what penalties have been applied to capita? No answer. Given that much of capita appears to be nothing more than a rebranding of my CSP with the same workforce doing the same job, can the minister tell me what assurances she can provide that we will not see a repeat of the capita fiasco? The Cabinet Office is responsible for civil service pensions. Unlike other pension providers who are monitored by the FCA, this issue is not subject to FCA scrutiny.
17:01
17:01
17:01
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
It is an understatement to say that Capita Service and administering civil service pensions is unacceptable. One resident has faced real financial hardship because it took five months and considerable pestering from my office just for them to receive a quote from capita. Their pension still hasn't been paid and it doesn't end there. I have a bereaved. I've heard from a bereaved and grieving widow, Caroline. On top of the pain of losing her other half, they've had to fight through a mountain of administration just to receive their widow's pension.
And my personal experience, I'm incredibly proud. My father worked in the civil service and shared a pension with my mother, who passed away in November. My CSP didn't even have my mother's name correctly on the account, and all progress I made was lost when capita took over and from that I. I personally experienced the difficult situation that residents in North Somerset are going through having to deal with them. Surely it is time that we must act decisively and consider ending Capita's involvement in the administration.
And my personal experience, I'm incredibly proud. My father worked in the civil service and shared a pension with my mother, who passed away in November. My CSP didn't even have my mother's name correctly on the account, and all progress I made was lost when capita took over and from that I. I personally experienced the difficult situation that residents in North Somerset are going through having to deal with them. Surely it is time that we must act decisively and consider ending Capita's involvement in the administration.
17:02
17:02
17:02
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Is a baseline expectation for the people that I represent in the south side of Glasgow. But for some members of the Civil Service Pension scheme, that expectation has been replaced by unanswered emails, long phone calls and an indefinite wait. This frustration is compounded by the fact that they are not waiting for a favour. They are waiting for their own money. I will never forget one woman who came to one of my summer coffee mornings. She had worked all her life and to mark her retirement, had booked a holiday of a lifetime with her husband.
Instead of being able to enjoy that holiday, it was punctured by the anxiety caused by Capitas incompetence. There is a power imbalance here. Retirees know that they are owed. Capita knows there is a problem, but capita are the only ones who are able to fix it. People are left screaming into a faceless bureaucracy, somewhere inside of which their pension is trapped. I know the minister cares about this issue deeply, as I do, and I look forward to hearing about what work she is doing to make sure we fix this urgently for my constituents.
Instead of being able to enjoy that holiday, it was punctured by the anxiety caused by Capitas incompetence. There is a power imbalance here. Retirees know that they are owed. Capita knows there is a problem, but capita are the only ones who are able to fix it. People are left screaming into a faceless bureaucracy, somewhere inside of which their pension is trapped. I know the minister cares about this issue deeply, as I do, and I look forward to hearing about what work she is doing to make sure we fix this urgently for my constituents.
17:03
17:03
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
On Capita is causing real financial and emotional impact on decent and hard working people across our country and in my constituency. There are just a couple of examples. People like Anne-Marie from Broughton, who served in the DWP for 40 years and is still waiting for her pension after nine months, or Ivan from Nunthorpe, who retired in 2023 and is still waiting to make his McCloud remedy choice three years later. Or Samantha from Martin, who is trying to secure a death payment following the death of her mother Angela, but has been left chasing the bereavement team since February.
I met the minister about these problems recently, but the reality is that capita is just not delivering for long, serving decent people who spent their lives in public service. So I urge the government to act more quickly to sort it out.
I met the minister about these problems recently, but the reality is that capita is just not delivering for long, serving decent people who spent their lives in public service. So I urge the government to act more quickly to sort it out.
17:04
17:04
17:04
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
In south west Norfolk, I have a constituent with terminal cancer still waiting after months for their pension. Another constituent who has been trying to finalize his deceased mother's pension for two years, other constituents who have had hardship loans that have now run out. In the words of my caseworker, it's just dreadful. Constituents have told me that when their payments have been delayed, they often have to borrow money simply to make ends meet. Why should somebody whose pension has been unlawfully or negligently delayed have to borrow money to replace income which is already theirs? I hope capita will be properly held to account, and I do look forward to hearing from the minister about how the government intends to compensate people who have suffered financial loss, distress or serious inconvenience as a result of these failures.
17:04
17:04
Speaker 34
-
Speaker 34
Failed public servants and ground to a halt. Derek tragically lost his wife, Julie, last year. We found that vital information relating to Julie's pension would be lost by capita, and despite raising this in the previous debate, this case is still not resolved. Despite a supposed priority to death in severe cases, it is Derek sincere, despairing belief that he will never get what he is entitled to. Tim retired in May. He sent everything he needed to immediately to cap out, who then quickly confirmed they had received everything they needed, only to come back to Tim two months later requesting documents they did not initially send him.
I could go on and on. Terminally ill people waiting for hours on the phone. Prison officers mentally battered, left for months without any updates from capita, a single. The fact that a single penny has been earned by capita shareholders since they took on the contract is shameful. The fact that this contract was transferred in 2023 to capita on the cheap is shameful. Minister. Enough is enough in Socialist contract.
I could go on and on. Terminally ill people waiting for hours on the phone. Prison officers mentally battered, left for months without any updates from capita, a single. The fact that a single penny has been earned by capita shareholders since they took on the contract is shameful. The fact that this contract was transferred in 2023 to capita on the cheap is shameful. Minister. Enough is enough in Socialist contract.
17:05
17:05
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Is sworn. I completely agree with the concerns my hon. Friend has raised about the unacceptable performance levels by capita. Sadly, despite repeated promises from capita that they would prioritise, escalate and expedite such cases, too many of my constituents continue to live with the consequences. One constituent has been waiting nearly 11 months for their bereavement case to be resolved. And yet, despite Capita's assurances that they would clear stock cases involving bereavement by the 1st of September, this one remains pending.
I am also concerned that capita appear to be providing constituents and their MPs with incorrect and often conflicting information about cases. In one particular case, my constituents and I both contacted capita separately, and I also raised the matter with ministers in the Cabinet Office. Shockingly, my office received a different answer from the one that capita provided directly to constituent. And we both received different a different answer from the one capita gave to the Cabinet Office.
That's three different answers. On one case. The ineptitude is simply staggering, and no one will be surprised to hear that that case is still outstanding. In the meantime.
I am also concerned that capita appear to be providing constituents and their MPs with incorrect and often conflicting information about cases. In one particular case, my constituents and I both contacted capita separately, and I also raised the matter with ministers in the Cabinet Office. Shockingly, my office received a different answer from the one that capita provided directly to constituent. And we both received different a different answer from the one capita gave to the Cabinet Office.
That's three different answers. On one case. The ineptitude is simply staggering, and no one will be surprised to hear that that case is still outstanding. In the meantime.
17:06
17:06
17:06
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
capita situation is not acceptable. I have constituents who have served for decades who are now living off their savings because they cannot get a response from capita, never mind the pension payments they are owed, they are owed. Others have had to borrow money from friends and family just to make ends meet, with no idea when this will be resolved. Another example is a person who worked for 30 years in the prison service. In September, he received a letter promising that he would receive his pension, quote, by the end of August.
These are not isolated examples. I have received hundreds of emails, about 400 in total. Whatever uniform they wore, whatever office they worked in, they worked hard. They paid in and planned for their retirement. On the understanding that the pension they had earned would be there when they needed it the most, they have kept their side of the bargain. It's time that the system kept his side, too. So I asked the minister if she could lay out the plans today and the timescales for getting this resolved for my constituents.
These are not isolated examples. I have received hundreds of emails, about 400 in total. Whatever uniform they wore, whatever office they worked in, they worked hard. They paid in and planned for their retirement. On the understanding that the pension they had earned would be there when they needed it the most, they have kept their side of the bargain. It's time that the system kept his side, too. So I asked the minister if she could lay out the plans today and the timescales for getting this resolved for my constituents.
17:07
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
Thank you. My constituent, Sarabjit, retired partially last year, and capita wrongly worked out her pension, and now, over a year later, she's still not got the money that she's owed. My other constituent, Inderjit, retired after 39 years in the Met Police to spend more time with her parents, who live abroad. But five months later, she still hasn't had a penny and sadly, her mum has died since then. So this is affecting real people's lives.
I know the minister is new to the job, but can I congratulate her on how she has already grasped the nettle on this issue? We have had two virtual surgeries offered to us next week for both of these cases, but could she confirm to me what the new deadline is that we should be working to in order to ensure that both Sarabjit and Inderjit get the money that they're due?
I know the minister is new to the job, but can I congratulate her on how she has already grasped the nettle on this issue? We have had two virtual surgeries offered to us next week for both of these cases, but could she confirm to me what the new deadline is that we should be working to in order to ensure that both Sarabjit and Inderjit get the money that they're due?
17:08
Speaker 37
-
Speaker 37
My Bournemouth West residents have been waiting months on end for their pensions, but I just wanted to raise one case. Constituent Kayleigh came to see me in February of this year. Her mother, Sarah Mitchell, died in August 2025. Now, despite repeated efforts from my team, capita can still not locate their details. So Sarah died before getting her pension and Carly is still waiting for her survivor benefits. So I hope the minister agrees with me.
And it sounds like everybody else in the House here that these shameful cases that have been raised today show that capita is not fit to deal with this contract.
And it sounds like everybody else in the House here that these shameful cases that have been raised today show that capita is not fit to deal with this contract.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 38
-
Speaker 38
I'm not sure if that's beneficial to the debate, but can I declare an interest? I'd share the PCs trade union, parliamentary group. I'd like to just say thanks to first of all, to I see the clock has got me down for 30s. There's something wrong on the clock. Anyway, the. I want to say thanks to, first of all, to the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance who worked with the trade union to expose what's going on.
Thank the Minister for an open door policy on the 9th of September capita supplied with information which was, let's see, has a passing relationship with the truth. So for the October. The statement, could we ensure we have the full publication of the Grant Thornton audit report so that we can see the hard information. Finally, can I say the PCs is willing to work with the administration on the insourcing strategy? And also, can I ask, now that we have a full inquiry into how this contract was awarded in the first place, and also how capita has been awarded further contracts despite their success and failures?
Thank the Minister for an open door policy on the 9th of September capita supplied with information which was, let's see, has a passing relationship with the truth. So for the October. The statement, could we ensure we have the full publication of the Grant Thornton audit report so that we can see the hard information. Finally, can I say the PCs is willing to work with the administration on the insourcing strategy? And also, can I ask, now that we have a full inquiry into how this contract was awarded in the first place, and also how capita has been awarded further contracts despite their success and failures?
17:10
17:10
Speaker 39
-
Speaker 39
Thank you, Dame Siobhan. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon, and I'd like to commend the honourable member for Liverpool West Derby for bringing what is clearly a very important debate. We always say that in this chamber, but we can see from the number of people who've come today and represented their constituents that this really need needed to be debated. In August, I was hosting a surgery in the rather bucolic surroundings of the Rush Fields nursery at the foot of the South Downs, near the village of pointing, and a gentleman called Greg Mountain came to see me.
Now I know Greg because before I stood for election in Mid Sussex, he was the Labour candidate in Mid Sussex, I believe in 2015 and 2017, and I wasn't too sure what he was going to raise with me. But Greg was coming in his capacity as a member of the executive committee of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, and he advises former civil servants living in my constituency of Mid Sussex. Greg described the situation we've heard about this afternoon as a national scandal and he is right.
Some statistics, as recorded by the Cabinet Office on the 20th of August this year, annual benefit statements for existing members were still not available. There were 68 retirement cases, more than 100 days old, with a further 267 requiring additional information before payment could be made. There were six ill health retirement cases over 100 days old, with another 12 waiting information. There were 45 death in service cases, over 100 days old, and a further 242 requiring more information.
And perhaps most troubling of all, there were 1082 bereavement cases, more than 100 days old, with another 779 awaiting third party information. These are people who have given decades of their lives to public service. Newly retired civil servants say they are struggling to pay bills and buy food, because delays at their pension scheme have left them without an income for months. These repeated failures in pension administration are causing real distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better.
This outrage and anger is particularly understandable given the fact that the Public Accounts Committee warned of a clear risk that capita would not be ready to take over full administration in December 2025. It is now. I will not because I'm on a time limit, but thank you. It called on the Cabinet Office to explain how it would ensure sufficient staffing and resources, and raise serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight. It is now clear that those concerns have come to fruition.
I therefore have five fundamental questions for the minister. First, how did this happen and when will this end? When capita bid for this contract, did it properly understand the scale and complexity of the work it was taking on? And did the Cabinet Office undertake sufficient due diligence to satisfy itself that the company had the capability to deliver this vital public service? And has the cabinet put a date in place for getting this right? Second, are we seeing teachers go through the same ordeal? I have received very concerning casework from teachers in my constituency who seem to be having similar or or the same troubles with their pensions.
The idea that the immense stress and potential financial hardship we've heard inflicted on civil servants has been mirrored with teachers as appalling. Can the minister tell us what guardrails the government has put in place to ensure that when the Teachers Pension Scheme transfers to Tata from capita, it does not result in similar issues? Third, the government must tell us how it intends to put this right. How will it restore the confidence of 1.7 million current and former civil servants, who simply want reassurance that their pensions earned through years of public service will be administered competently, fairly and with dignity.
The government must outline exactly how it is, ensuring that the most vulnerable of those affected are being prioritised. Fourth, will the government commit to inflation linking payments to all outstanding cases to make sure that those affected by Capita's mistakes do not suffer even more for these delays? And fifth, what assessment has the government made of the systemic failures in civil service pension administration, and what lessons has it learnt to ensure that this cannot happen again when similar contracts are awarded in future? These people served this country.
They earned their pensions. They should not now have to fight to receive them.
Now I know Greg because before I stood for election in Mid Sussex, he was the Labour candidate in Mid Sussex, I believe in 2015 and 2017, and I wasn't too sure what he was going to raise with me. But Greg was coming in his capacity as a member of the executive committee of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, and he advises former civil servants living in my constituency of Mid Sussex. Greg described the situation we've heard about this afternoon as a national scandal and he is right.
Some statistics, as recorded by the Cabinet Office on the 20th of August this year, annual benefit statements for existing members were still not available. There were 68 retirement cases, more than 100 days old, with a further 267 requiring additional information before payment could be made. There were six ill health retirement cases over 100 days old, with another 12 waiting information. There were 45 death in service cases, over 100 days old, and a further 242 requiring more information.
And perhaps most troubling of all, there were 1082 bereavement cases, more than 100 days old, with another 779 awaiting third party information. These are people who have given decades of their lives to public service. Newly retired civil servants say they are struggling to pay bills and buy food, because delays at their pension scheme have left them without an income for months. These repeated failures in pension administration are causing real distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better.
This outrage and anger is particularly understandable given the fact that the Public Accounts Committee warned of a clear risk that capita would not be ready to take over full administration in December 2025. It is now. I will not because I'm on a time limit, but thank you. It called on the Cabinet Office to explain how it would ensure sufficient staffing and resources, and raise serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight. It is now clear that those concerns have come to fruition.
I therefore have five fundamental questions for the minister. First, how did this happen and when will this end? When capita bid for this contract, did it properly understand the scale and complexity of the work it was taking on? And did the Cabinet Office undertake sufficient due diligence to satisfy itself that the company had the capability to deliver this vital public service? And has the cabinet put a date in place for getting this right? Second, are we seeing teachers go through the same ordeal? I have received very concerning casework from teachers in my constituency who seem to be having similar or or the same troubles with their pensions.
The idea that the immense stress and potential financial hardship we've heard inflicted on civil servants has been mirrored with teachers as appalling. Can the minister tell us what guardrails the government has put in place to ensure that when the Teachers Pension Scheme transfers to Tata from capita, it does not result in similar issues? Third, the government must tell us how it intends to put this right. How will it restore the confidence of 1.7 million current and former civil servants, who simply want reassurance that their pensions earned through years of public service will be administered competently, fairly and with dignity.
The government must outline exactly how it is, ensuring that the most vulnerable of those affected are being prioritised. Fourth, will the government commit to inflation linking payments to all outstanding cases to make sure that those affected by Capita's mistakes do not suffer even more for these delays? And fifth, what assessment has the government made of the systemic failures in civil service pension administration, and what lessons has it learnt to ensure that this cannot happen again when similar contracts are awarded in future? These people served this country.
They earned their pensions. They should not now have to fight to receive them.
17:15
17:15
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
you very much. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Siobhan, and to take part in this debate on the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. And may I take this opportunity to formally welcome the Minister to her role. The turnout this afternoon shows the strength of feeling of members of all sides of the House, and I join honourable members in expressing my deepest sympathies to the civil servants and families of civil servants who dedicated their lives to public service and have now been left without the pensions they earned throughout their service.
Recent updates from the Civil Service Pension Scheme Recovery Plan show that while progress has been made, there are still thousands of families waiting for retirement and pension payments. Of particular concerns are the number of older cases involving bereavement, death in service and ill health highlighted in the most recent updates that have yet to be resolved. And I trust the minister will use this opportunity to highlight what further steps the government is taking to ensure that these cases are dealt with.
What is entirely absent from ministers, however, has been an adequate explanation as to why they allowed Capita's contract to administer the Civil Service pension scheme to go ahead in the first place. Now, I know that the Minister will no doubt point out that this contract was signed in November 2023. Under the last government. It was the last government that agreed to a two year transition period with clear milestones. Capita was required to meet to take over the administration of the scheme without causing disruption to service.
It was. I will briefly. To my
Recent updates from the Civil Service Pension Scheme Recovery Plan show that while progress has been made, there are still thousands of families waiting for retirement and pension payments. Of particular concerns are the number of older cases involving bereavement, death in service and ill health highlighted in the most recent updates that have yet to be resolved. And I trust the minister will use this opportunity to highlight what further steps the government is taking to ensure that these cases are dealt with.
What is entirely absent from ministers, however, has been an adequate explanation as to why they allowed Capita's contract to administer the Civil Service pension scheme to go ahead in the first place. Now, I know that the Minister will no doubt point out that this contract was signed in November 2023. Under the last government. It was the last government that agreed to a two year transition period with clear milestones. Capita was required to meet to take over the administration of the scheme without causing disruption to service.
It was. I will briefly. To my
17:16
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
honourable friend, the mistake the government made was trying to transfer a complex system in disarray and is the danger not that the government now is going to take a system which is still in disarray and seek to transfer it again. It must be put right under capita, and then any consideration of being brought back in House, consider at that point, not before.
17:16
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I couldn't agree more. It was under this government's watch that it became clear that many of these milestones were not being met, and that ministers failed to take the necessary action to ensure a smooth transition and prevent such disruption. This was certainly not for a lack of warning, Madam chair, given both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee published reports in the weeks and months before capita was due to take over the administration of the scheme, highlighting a clear risk that it was not ready to do so.
Ministers said they received personal assurances from capita as to its readiness to take over the scheme, and they have not said why they chose to believe these claims. Despite the findings of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. So can the Minister clarify who in their department authorised the go no go decision in November 2025? What criteria was used to make that decision and commit to publishing all documents relating to this decision with the with only necessary commercial redactions.
Ministers have now spoken at great length about the potential insourcing the Civil Service pension scheme in future, but they feel they appear far less willing to consider using powers that they already have at their disposal under the Procurement Act to address issues with suppliers. Very briefly, I will absolutely.
Ministers said they received personal assurances from capita as to its readiness to take over the scheme, and they have not said why they chose to believe these claims. Despite the findings of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. So can the Minister clarify who in their department authorised the go no go decision in November 2025? What criteria was used to make that decision and commit to publishing all documents relating to this decision with the with only necessary commercial redactions.
Ministers have now spoken at great length about the potential insourcing the Civil Service pension scheme in future, but they feel they appear far less willing to consider using powers that they already have at their disposal under the Procurement Act to address issues with suppliers. Very briefly, I will absolutely.
17:18
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
That I thank my right. I absolutely couldn't agree more. It's the point I'm about to come to because as we've all seen, our inboxes are full of horror stories of individuals who've been caught up in this. And I was going to ask the minister specifically, therefore, to confirm whether the government will refer capita to the Department Debarment Review Scheme, review Service, or does she intend to just allow them to continue freely bidding for public contracts? While it takes months to complete its own review of In-sourcing, now it's clear the mishandling of the Civil Service Pension scheme is a result not only of corporate failures, but on the part of capita, but also of the government's failure to manage this contract effectively.
And ministers should reflect on the government's shortcomings in regard to this before outsourcing blame elsewhere. But I am also aware that the Minister took a keen interest in this subject from the back benches, and I will work constructively with her as we try to find a resolution to an issue facing many, many thousands of people up and down the country. I think it is absolutely right that whilst we try to understand how we got to this point going forward, we must work more closely together to try and resolve it.
It is an interest of the civil servants and the families of civil servants who have been so deeply impacted by this travesty, and I therefore look forward to hearing what plans she has to take this forward and to resolve this as quickly as possible. I look forward to her response.
And ministers should reflect on the government's shortcomings in regard to this before outsourcing blame elsewhere. But I am also aware that the Minister took a keen interest in this subject from the back benches, and I will work constructively with her as we try to find a resolution to an issue facing many, many thousands of people up and down the country. I think it is absolutely right that whilst we try to understand how we got to this point going forward, we must work more closely together to try and resolve it.
It is an interest of the civil servants and the families of civil servants who have been so deeply impacted by this travesty, and I therefore look forward to hearing what plans she has to take this forward and to resolve this as quickly as possible. I look forward to her response.
17:19
17:19
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
Thank you, Dame Siobhan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I want to declare before I start that I do have a capita Prison service pension for six years. I'm 34 years away from my retirement age, so I don't have a current financial interest. And I'm also a member of the POA. I also want to apologise. I was not in my seat for the start of the speeches and endeavour.
When I have a future Westminster Hall debate to be more bullish in fighting the crowds, to make sure I'm here on time, I'd like to thank the honourable member for Liverpool West Derby for securing this debate and actively campaigning on this issue for his constituents, along with all the members in here today. I have on occasion also raised this issue in this very hall and in in the chamber as well. Before I knew I would become the minister in this area.
Life does come at you fast, but I have I'm absolutely committed and determined to make sure that this issue is dealt with and to the constituents who've been affected by this, I want to thank them as public servants who have given so much to our country and our communities. With a special shout out to my former colleagues in the Prison Service and HMP moorland, because public servants like that have dedicated their working lives to this country and deserve the financial security and unwavering dignity in retirement.
Not corporate failure, not empty promises and not severe administrative failure. I'm going to do my best to get through as much as I can in this, in this time, but I'm happy to speak with any members after after this debate to deal with individual case issues. And I also hope a subject to the speaker's permission to come to the House in October and give a full update as well. The continued experience by many public servants and their families from capita, who has been the Minister of the Civil Service Pension Scheme since the 1st of December 2025, is totally abysmal.
I've read accounts from scheme members, many of whom have written to their local MPs and ministers who have faced endless delays, and I have heard of concerns raised by honourable members today, and I've heard from my own constituents in Doncaster Central as well, and I am truly sorry to hear the worry and distress that it has been caused, particularly those who are dealing with bereavement and death in service. Resolving this matter is something of the utmost urgency for this government, and we are taking direct action to intervene to answer some of the questions from the from the member.
Firstly, on recovery, capita has set a commitment to achieving full SLA. From the end of this month. I am meeting with capita senior staff later this month to challenge them again and get their assurance on this. On commitment to redress and compensation. We are committed to ensuring no member is left financially worse off and all complaints will be handled in line with the Pensions Ombudsman standards. I do think there's some further work to do on this, which I intend to bring my focus to, but in the immediate future, I want to make sure as many members as possible are getting their pension and the money they're owed, but then there's further work to
When I have a future Westminster Hall debate to be more bullish in fighting the crowds, to make sure I'm here on time, I'd like to thank the honourable member for Liverpool West Derby for securing this debate and actively campaigning on this issue for his constituents, along with all the members in here today. I have on occasion also raised this issue in this very hall and in in the chamber as well. Before I knew I would become the minister in this area.
Life does come at you fast, but I have I'm absolutely committed and determined to make sure that this issue is dealt with and to the constituents who've been affected by this, I want to thank them as public servants who have given so much to our country and our communities. With a special shout out to my former colleagues in the Prison Service and HMP moorland, because public servants like that have dedicated their working lives to this country and deserve the financial security and unwavering dignity in retirement.
Not corporate failure, not empty promises and not severe administrative failure. I'm going to do my best to get through as much as I can in this, in this time, but I'm happy to speak with any members after after this debate to deal with individual case issues. And I also hope a subject to the speaker's permission to come to the House in October and give a full update as well. The continued experience by many public servants and their families from capita, who has been the Minister of the Civil Service Pension Scheme since the 1st of December 2025, is totally abysmal.
I've read accounts from scheme members, many of whom have written to their local MPs and ministers who have faced endless delays, and I have heard of concerns raised by honourable members today, and I've heard from my own constituents in Doncaster Central as well, and I am truly sorry to hear the worry and distress that it has been caused, particularly those who are dealing with bereavement and death in service. Resolving this matter is something of the utmost urgency for this government, and we are taking direct action to intervene to answer some of the questions from the from the member.
Firstly, on recovery, capita has set a commitment to achieving full SLA. From the end of this month. I am meeting with capita senior staff later this month to challenge them again and get their assurance on this. On commitment to redress and compensation. We are committed to ensuring no member is left financially worse off and all complaints will be handled in line with the Pensions Ombudsman standards. I do think there's some further work to do on this, which I intend to bring my focus to, but in the immediate future, I want to make sure as many members as possible are getting their pension and the money they're owed, but then there's further work to
17:22
17:22
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
sourcing later in my speech for context and to understand how we got here. The contract was signed in 2023 under the previous government. On the 1st of December, the administration of the transferred to from my CSP to capita. While the core payroll for over 730 000 existing pensioners continue to be paid correctly on time following the change of administrator, the process for retiring since December has been fraught with delays, with a large number of public servants and their families significantly impacted.
Following that, capita defaulted on its major recovery commitments, missing its end of April target to clear payment arrears and its end of June milestone to clear the backlog of inherited cases. Following Capita's failure at the end of June, we mandated the production of a formal contract rectification plan, which was submitted by capita. In July, a remedial adviser from Grant Thornton was appointed at Capita's expense. To test the validity of that plan, they will test whether capita can realistically, realistically deliver what they need to with the systems they have in place and with the time frame they have set out.
Once they report next month, we will hold capita to account for the quality of their planning and their execution. In addition to this, the government has appointed a government internal audit agency to undertake a deep review of the effectiveness of Capita's operational arrangements between December and July and following getting all this information back and being able to break it down, I will then report again in October. This will allow us to understand how capita got it so wrong.
Despite ministers receiving explicit personal assurances from the CEO, and we will hold them accountable for the quality of their delivery. In evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and Public Administration on Constitutional Affairs on the 8th of July, capita committed to two further operational milestones the 1st of December to clear all remaining backlog and retirement arrears, and on the 30th of September, to restore normal operations and standard contractual levels, excluding 600 complex cases.
As stated in my ministerial statement, the 9th of September, capita have reported that they have met that in five priority areas. I want to be clear that that is Capita's reporting. It is not my reporting. It is not the government's reporting, and I am personally testing that based on cases that MPs have sent me and has come through my ministerial correspondence, and I will be holding capita account on individual cases in relation to that next week when I meet with them.
I am also working towards setting our own measures of capital success because at the minute they are setting their milestones, they're saying what their measurements are. That's not good enough. We're in charge. We need to be setting them what our terms are, what our measurements are, and they need to be working towards that. So I'm doing a separate piece of work on that as well on transition and go live. Obviously, this predates my own elevation to be the minister for this area, but this decision was based on evidence requested from capita regarding capability and readiness in critical delivery areas.
By November 2025, assessments indicated capita had made significant progress since the pack hearing in July. They gave assurance via external audit by the National Audit Office Technical Security Assurance Gateway reviews on the go no go discussions in October and November, and weekly assessments of critical cases against specific acceptance criteria to to support those impacted and to provide financial security. The government has approved over £100 million to provide interest free transitional support, loans to public services and public servants.
Let me be clear the government should not be having to financially plug any gaps in Capita's failure. However, to date it has been necessary to supply over 4100 loans. Turning to capita engagement with members in this House, the volume of outstanding MPs correspondence has grown significantly. At its peak at 2200, this has decreased slightly. However, it's still not good enough at over 700 open cases. Recognising the need to do better, my predecessor set up the virtual surgeries system.
To date, that's had over 870 sessions with 260 parliamentary officers, which I think underlines the scale of the catastrophe that we are facing. We will maintain these surgeries until the pension scheme is is running smoothly, which feels like it could be a while, but we will not withdraw from them. I'm also personally committed to continue to working with the unions, both PCs who have already met with who represent both capita employees and the scheme members, but also the other unions, the POA, the FDA, and I've also met with the CcpA as well this week to make sure that they're involved and that their views are being heard throughout this process.
In terms of actions being taken, I am using all commercial levers to hold capita to account. We've held, as has already been mentioned, nearly £10 million in contractual payments for undelivered milestones. We will only pay for what has been successfully delivered and nothing more. Where capita. We have a capital funded remedial adviser that I mentioned earlier on in the speech. We'll be hearing from them very soon.
We've also deployed auditors to capita to get a full understanding of their failure, and we will be recovering all costs from capita, including paying for the 140 surge staff that the civil service has provided. On core operations. They're currently being propped up by the 140 surge staff. We will look to put more in if required. The surge team will remain in full service until restoration is completed. We will not permit capita to reduce their own headcount until performance has improved.
In relation to the contract awarded by DWP that followed a separate, rigorous process. It wasn't done via the Cabinet Office. I've got my own views on that which I've expressed in this House before when I'm on record as doing, and that's how that is. But I think there needs to be further work done in looking at how we can hold capita and similar companies like capita to account when they fail in these areas. It's nine months since capita took over the new contract.
The government is very clear that members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme and their families deserve better. If any members who've raised personal cases here today haven't already doing it, I do ask that they get in touch with me and I will personally escalate them. I will, as I say, hopefully be coming back to the House in October with a better update and with more information. What I would say is we stood on a manifesto as a Labour government to have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation.
I am personally committed to that. I've said in this House before that I think that's a priority for this scheme, but we can only do it when we make sure that it's in the interests of the members. We've got to make sure that there is no disruption. We've got to do it in the yes, the smoothest and quickest way. But I want capita to pay for their mistakes, not the taxpayer to pay for their mistakes. They don't get to just walk away and do nothing about it.
They need to pay for this. They need to get everyone their pensions. And then we'll look at what needs to be done in terms of the viability of the scheme long term. But I am committed to doing that. I want to ensure all members in this House that this is absolutely a government priority. It is a personal priority to me, and I feel I've demonstrated that in recent months when I have raised it myself, and we will not rest until it is sorted.
Conscious of time because I've got about 15 seconds. But the government will not accept a further shifting of caveats or moving targets, and we will not accept continued poor delivery for current and former formal civil servants who deserve better in their retirement. I want to thank everyone for coming today. Showing the strength of feeling and more will come in October.
Following that, capita defaulted on its major recovery commitments, missing its end of April target to clear payment arrears and its end of June milestone to clear the backlog of inherited cases. Following Capita's failure at the end of June, we mandated the production of a formal contract rectification plan, which was submitted by capita. In July, a remedial adviser from Grant Thornton was appointed at Capita's expense. To test the validity of that plan, they will test whether capita can realistically, realistically deliver what they need to with the systems they have in place and with the time frame they have set out.
Once they report next month, we will hold capita to account for the quality of their planning and their execution. In addition to this, the government has appointed a government internal audit agency to undertake a deep review of the effectiveness of Capita's operational arrangements between December and July and following getting all this information back and being able to break it down, I will then report again in October. This will allow us to understand how capita got it so wrong.
Despite ministers receiving explicit personal assurances from the CEO, and we will hold them accountable for the quality of their delivery. In evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and Public Administration on Constitutional Affairs on the 8th of July, capita committed to two further operational milestones the 1st of December to clear all remaining backlog and retirement arrears, and on the 30th of September, to restore normal operations and standard contractual levels, excluding 600 complex cases.
As stated in my ministerial statement, the 9th of September, capita have reported that they have met that in five priority areas. I want to be clear that that is Capita's reporting. It is not my reporting. It is not the government's reporting, and I am personally testing that based on cases that MPs have sent me and has come through my ministerial correspondence, and I will be holding capita account on individual cases in relation to that next week when I meet with them.
I am also working towards setting our own measures of capital success because at the minute they are setting their milestones, they're saying what their measurements are. That's not good enough. We're in charge. We need to be setting them what our terms are, what our measurements are, and they need to be working towards that. So I'm doing a separate piece of work on that as well on transition and go live. Obviously, this predates my own elevation to be the minister for this area, but this decision was based on evidence requested from capita regarding capability and readiness in critical delivery areas.
By November 2025, assessments indicated capita had made significant progress since the pack hearing in July. They gave assurance via external audit by the National Audit Office Technical Security Assurance Gateway reviews on the go no go discussions in October and November, and weekly assessments of critical cases against specific acceptance criteria to to support those impacted and to provide financial security. The government has approved over £100 million to provide interest free transitional support, loans to public services and public servants.
Let me be clear the government should not be having to financially plug any gaps in Capita's failure. However, to date it has been necessary to supply over 4100 loans. Turning to capita engagement with members in this House, the volume of outstanding MPs correspondence has grown significantly. At its peak at 2200, this has decreased slightly. However, it's still not good enough at over 700 open cases. Recognising the need to do better, my predecessor set up the virtual surgeries system.
To date, that's had over 870 sessions with 260 parliamentary officers, which I think underlines the scale of the catastrophe that we are facing. We will maintain these surgeries until the pension scheme is is running smoothly, which feels like it could be a while, but we will not withdraw from them. I'm also personally committed to continue to working with the unions, both PCs who have already met with who represent both capita employees and the scheme members, but also the other unions, the POA, the FDA, and I've also met with the CcpA as well this week to make sure that they're involved and that their views are being heard throughout this process.
In terms of actions being taken, I am using all commercial levers to hold capita to account. We've held, as has already been mentioned, nearly £10 million in contractual payments for undelivered milestones. We will only pay for what has been successfully delivered and nothing more. Where capita. We have a capital funded remedial adviser that I mentioned earlier on in the speech. We'll be hearing from them very soon.
We've also deployed auditors to capita to get a full understanding of their failure, and we will be recovering all costs from capita, including paying for the 140 surge staff that the civil service has provided. On core operations. They're currently being propped up by the 140 surge staff. We will look to put more in if required. The surge team will remain in full service until restoration is completed. We will not permit capita to reduce their own headcount until performance has improved.
In relation to the contract awarded by DWP that followed a separate, rigorous process. It wasn't done via the Cabinet Office. I've got my own views on that which I've expressed in this House before when I'm on record as doing, and that's how that is. But I think there needs to be further work done in looking at how we can hold capita and similar companies like capita to account when they fail in these areas. It's nine months since capita took over the new contract.
The government is very clear that members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme and their families deserve better. If any members who've raised personal cases here today haven't already doing it, I do ask that they get in touch with me and I will personally escalate them. I will, as I say, hopefully be coming back to the House in October with a better update and with more information. What I would say is we stood on a manifesto as a Labour government to have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation.
I am personally committed to that. I've said in this House before that I think that's a priority for this scheme, but we can only do it when we make sure that it's in the interests of the members. We've got to make sure that there is no disruption. We've got to do it in the yes, the smoothest and quickest way. But I want capita to pay for their mistakes, not the taxpayer to pay for their mistakes. They don't get to just walk away and do nothing about it.
They need to pay for this. They need to get everyone their pensions. And then we'll look at what needs to be done in terms of the viability of the scheme long term. But I am committed to doing that. I want to ensure all members in this House that this is absolutely a government priority. It is a personal priority to me, and I feel I've demonstrated that in recent months when I have raised it myself, and we will not rest until it is sorted.
Conscious of time because I've got about 15 seconds. But the government will not accept a further shifting of caveats or moving targets, and we will not accept continued poor delivery for current and former formal civil servants who deserve better in their retirement. I want to thank everyone for coming today. Showing the strength of feeling and more will come in October.
17:30