Housing Provision in Stafford
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this debate. As you know, she always speaks with force and passion on behalf of her constituents, and has done so again today on this important matter.
I appreciate fully the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of residents in Eccleshall. I assure her that the Government want to see more plan-led development, and development generally, to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. Without doubt, much more remains to be done, but I trust she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local development plan or on individual planning applications within her constituency, due to the role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system. I will seek to respond to the points she has made in general terms.
Let me start by addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed about local development plans. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of areas having up-to-date local plans, and the detrimental impact on individuals and communities where that is not the case. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system, but a locally led planning system only operates effectively if coverage is extensive.
As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, we inherited a system where less than a third of local plans were up to date. We are taking decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both in providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the length of time that it takes to progress and adopt a local plan—on average, seven years. Slow progress in the preparation of local plans means that those areas are at greater risk of speculative development and that those local plans are out of date more quickly upon adoption, which creates uncertainty for communities and holds back development where it is needed. That is one of the many reasons why we intend to introduce a new, faster and clearer process for preparing plans. That new system will set a clear expectation that local plans, as well as mineral and waste plans, are routinely prepared and adopted in 30 months. Other aspects of our reforms will support that aim, such as the introduction of gateways, shorter, simpler and more standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making, and a series of digital transformation initiatives.
The new system will help us to deliver and maintain universal coverage across England, supporting the Government’s wider commitments to deliver the development the country needs. It is our intention that a package of plan-making reforms, enabled through provisions in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023, will commence later this year. I understand that Stafford borough council has chosen to introduce its next local plan under the new local plan-making system that we intend to put in place, and my Department will continue to engage with it to that end.
Where plans are not up to date and local planning authorities are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, it is right that development can come forward outside of the plan; the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold. However, we have been clear that that is not a passport to poor-quality housing. That is why we added new safeguards to the presumption in the revised national planning policy framework that we published in December last year. The absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in the development, and local planning authorities have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with any such provisions.
My hon. Friend asked me, very reasonably, what can be done about multiple applications and whether they can be considered in the round. I again stress the point that local development plans are the most appropriate way to consider applications in the round, in terms of allocating appropriate sites to come forward, and local plans do have an element of sequencing to them in what development they expect to come forward during the whole life of the plan, but for specific applications, it might be worth stressing that other proposed developments can be a material consideration in the determination of an individual planning application, although that is always decided on a case-by-case basis.
As my hon. Friend made clear, communities across the country, including in Eccleshall, want to see infrastructure provision delivered as early in the development process as possible, rather than being an afterthought that comes right at the end. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF, which was published last year, will also support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.
Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. When preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 and/or the community infrastructure levy.
The Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes such as the housing infrastructure fund. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details about our proposals in that area in due course.
It is worth mentioning the provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide for mandatory spatial development strategies in sub-regions across the country. That is a good example of how groups of local planning authorities can plan at higher than the local planning level for the effective delivery of new homes and infrastructure across a wider area, making smarter decisions in a framework that sees infrastructure and investment come forward.
Finally, my hon. Friend raised the issue of agricultural land. The Government place great importance upon our agricultural land and food production. The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should recognise the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. That said, the Government recognise that the system used to grade agricultural land is currently not fit for purpose. The maps are outdated, not at a scale suitable for the assessment of individual fields or sites, and are not suited to the changing suitability of land. The Government are exploring what improvements are needed to the ALC system to support effective land use decisions.
To conclude, I commend my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns felt by her constituents and Eccleshall and beyond. I emphasise once again my agreement with her about the importance of plan-led development to provide the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services. I am more than happy to meet with her to have a separate conversation on Eccleshall specifically, as she requested, but in general terms, I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes that the Government have already made, along with those to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents and those of other hon. Members across the country.
Dr Huq, I wish you, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members an enjoyable and productive summer recess.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Reciprocated all round, I think.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting)
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. By ensuring that tenants can feel safe in their homes and giving social landlords clarity as to their responsibilities, the draft regulations are a vital part of that effort.
I will take the draft regulations in turn, starting with the hazards in social housing regulations, or Awaab’s law. As the Committee will know, Awaab Ishak was just two years old when he died in December 2020, as a result of a severe respiratory condition that was due to prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. In the wake of his untimely death, Awaab’s parents have tenaciously and courageously fought to secure justice not only for their son, but for all those who live in social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are deeply grateful to them for their passion and persistence.
Awaab’s death was wholly avoidable. His parents raised concerns about their living conditions time and again, but their landlord failed to take any action to treat the dangerous mould present in their home. Awaab’s law is vital legislation that will empower social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law, if they fail to investigate and fix hazards in their homes within set timeframes. Tenants will also be able to secure access to the Housing Ombudsman Service if their landlord does not adhere to the strict timelines for action in the regulations.
Although progress also depends on a more fundamental change in the culture and values of social housing providers, Awaab’s law will play an integral role in ensuring that all social landlords take complaints about hazards seriously, respond to them in a timely and professional manner, and treat tenants with empathy, dignity and respect. It is also the Government’s sincere hope that over time it will build trust between tenants and landlords.
The regulations apply to the social rented sector, but we are committed to extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, and have included measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill to achieve that. We are carefully considering how best to apply Awaab’s law to the PRS in a way that is fair, proportionate and effective for both tenants and landlords. We will consult on that matter separately.
The Awaab’s law regulations will require social landlords to investigate and fix all emergency hazards, as well as damp and mould hazards that pose a significant risk to residents’ health and safety, within set timeframes. Potential significant hazards will have to be investigated by social landlords within 10 working days. Once the landlord has carried out an investigation, they will have to send written summaries to tenants within three working days and take action to ensure that the home is safe within five working days. Emergency hazards will have to be investigated and made safe within a maximum of 24 hours. If the social landlord cannot make the home safe within relevant timescales, they will be required to secure suitable alternative accommodation for the household until their home is safe to return to.
Finally, any additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, and no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and will have to be completed within a reasonable period. Social landlords will also need to investigate potential emergency hazards and take action to make all emergency hazards safe, excluding cladding remediation work, as soon as possible and within 24 hours.
Awaab’s law implies terms into social housing tenancy agreements, so that once the regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law. If they do not, tenants will be able to hold their social landlords to account by taking legal action through the courts for breach of contract. Awaab’s law will also include a provision for a defence if registered providers can prove that they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements of the regulations. That means that landlords will not be liable for a breach of the regulations if, for reasons genuinely beyond their control, they have not been able to comply with them.
We intend to act as quickly as possible to bring all relevant hazards within the scope of the new legal requirements, but, to ensure its effective implementation, we have been clear that we intend to implement Awaab’s law through a phased approach. The regulations represent the first phase, covering emergency hazards and damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants. They will provide for an initial period of testing and learning to ensure the reform is being delivered in way that benefits social tenants and secures the lasting legacy that Awaab Ishak’s family have fought so hard for.
In 2026, we will expand the requirements to apply to a wider range of hazards beyond damp and mould. The hazards we expect to extend Awaab’s law to in the second stage of implementation include excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical and explosions, and hygiene hazards. In 2027, we will expand the requirements further to apply to the remaining hazards as defined by the housing health and safety rating system, excluding overcrowding. As we progressively extend the application of Awaab’s law, we will continue to test and learn to ensure that the new requirements are operating effectively, and we will clarify and adapt our approach if it proves necessary to do so.
It is important to stress that the phased approach to introducing Awaab’s law in no way means that social landlords have any leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to address dangers to health and safety present in their homes before Awaab’s law is fully implemented. Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act, and if social landlords fail to meet those timeframes they could be challenged by tenants through complaints processes, the Housing Ombudsman Service, and ultimately the courts.
However, social landlords already have a duty to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards, as well as to remedy disrepair. The Government expect those duties to be met. Social landlords must ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standards, and it is critical that they take action as quickly as possible to resolve any issues of concern in the homes they let, and to guarantee the safety and comfort of their occupants.
I will turn now to the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025. All rented homes must be free from dangerously hazardous conditions, including dangerous electrics. In addition, private landlords are required to check the electrical installations in their properties every five years. This Government are determined to ensure that tenants in social housing have the same protections. The regulations will come into force for new tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies in May next year.
All landlords, social and private, will have to have the electrical installations in their properties inspected and tested by a person who is qualified and competent at least every five years. Landlords will need to ensure that electrical safety standards are met, and that investigations or repairs are carried out if required. The electrical safety standards, as set out in the British standard BS 7671, are the national standard developed by the Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for giving way; I know it is not the convention in a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I wanted to raise issues in my constituency for both social and private tenants. The Minister touched on the issue of ensuring that electrics are checked every five years. Does he recognise the importance of that for residents in my constituency of Harlow, who are concerned about the electrics in their rented properties? That has caused them anguish. Does the Minister see the regulations as the first part of tackling that, making residents in Harlow feel secure and safe in their homes?
Matthew Pennycook
It would not be a debate of any kind with my hon. Friend present were he not to take the opportunity to get Harlow on the record. He is a doughty champion for his constituency and I recognise the concern that he raises. The importance of these regulations is that requirements that already apply to the private rented sector will apply equally to those in the social rented sector. We want parity with how the requirements apply across tenancies, so that social housing tenants benefit from the same protections.
The regulations also introduce mandatory appliance inspections on electrical appliances that social landlords provide. All landlords will have to provide a copy of the electrical safety report to their tenants and local authority if requested. That means that tenants will be informed about what work has been carried out in their home, and will have a record of the testing. Local authorities will also have the power to require landlords to carry out vital remedial works, or to arrange the works themselves and recover the costs from the landlord if relevant action is not taken by them.
Additionally, the regulations will raise the maximum financial penalty to £40,000 for those landlords, private or social, who do not comply. Many landlords are already taking a proactive approach to keeping homes safe from electrical faults, so these regulations will not add additional burdens to them. However, we must ensure that all landlords are taking appropriate action and that all tenants can feel safe by making electrical safety checks a mandatory requirement for social landlords as well as those in the private rented sector.
To conclude, the Government are clear that homes must, above all, be safe. Establishing clear standards and requirements of social landlords, and clear timelines to meet those requirements, will eliminate uncertainty for tenants and for landlords, helping to ensure that that is the case. Since their inception in primary legislation, both sets of draft regulations have received broad support, including from across the House—I recognise that Awaab’s law has its genesis in primary legislation under the previous Government and I commend the previous Secretary of State for his work in the area.
I am confident that in bringing the draft regulations into force, we will have robust regulations and robust protections for tenants of all tenures. They have been strengthened by consultation with the sector. Subject to the approval of Parliament, Awaab’s law is due to come into force from October this year. Electrical safety requirements, as I have said, will come into force for new social tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies six months later. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his broad support for the regulations and their intention, and for his questions. Again, before I address his specific points, I express my gratitude to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point—and, it should be said, to all the organisations and campaigners that have supported them along the way.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, we have absolutely given serious consideration to the ability of registered providers of social housing to implement these requirements. One of the reasons why we are taking a phased approach, as I explained when setting out the purpose of the instrument dealing with emergencies and damp and mould hazards in the first instance, is to ensure that the sector as a whole is able and ready to implement these requirements, and that we can take a “test and learn” approach before extending the hazards in phases two and three.
We also absolutely recognise that placing additional requirements on social landlords brings challenges in terms of costs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the measures that the Government have undertaken, including recently through the spending review, to rebuild the financial capacity of social landlords, so that they can play their full part not only in maximising the delivery of new social homes, but in bringing their existing stock up to standard. He will know that we announced £39 billion at the spending review for a 10-year social and affordable homes programme, but we also took other action, including a 10-year rent settlement and holding a consultation, which is currently out, on a rent convergence mechanism, which will rebuild that capacity and allow social housing providers to make these changes, as well as others that we are bringing forward on quality and decency. He will know that, for example, a modernised decent homes standard is out for consultation, and we have consulted on minimum energy efficiency standards.
On enforcement generally, as I said, Awaab’s law implies terms in all social tenancy agreements. Social landlords will have to meet those requirements when they come into force, and if they do not, tenants can hold their landlords to account. If social landlords fail to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law, tenants will be able to challenge them through the courts for breach of contract. If the court finds that the social landlord is in breach, it will be able to order the landlord to rectify the problem and/or pay compensation. Seeking redress through the courts is not the only way that tenants can challenge their landlords for breaches of Awaab’s law. Tenants may wish to complain directly to their landlord in the first instance. That can then be escalated to the housing ombudsman, which has the power to order landlords to undertake repairs and pay compensation to the tenant—as the Committee will know, the housing ombudsman is a free service for tenants.
Lastly, to answer the shadow Minister’s question about electrical safety—essentially, it was, “Will there be enough electricians to carry out these works?”— I draw his attention to the efforts we are making in various other respects and across Departments to expand and upskill the construction workforce, and to expand the supply of all the construction workforce we need for the built environment more generally, to ensure that we can meet our ambitious targets and all the other quality and safety measures that we are introducing. In relation to these regulations, we work closely with the electrical safety industry—the very people who will be doing the inspections—and with landlords to develop the policy.
To support implementation, we are introducing the regulations through a phased approach, as I have said, with new tenancies coming into scope first and existing tenancies six months later. We will absolutely continue to engage with landlords and encourage them to carry out inspections sooner rather than later, rather than waiting until the date on which the new requirements come into force. I am more than happy to extensively describe the other measures that the Government are taking—albeit perhaps on a different occasion, Mr Vickers—such as the £625 million that the Chancellor has just allocated to bring forward construction workers, or the various industry-led initiatives out there that we are supporting.
To conclude, it is not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained—we all know that from our postbags—or that they often struggle to secure adequate redress. We are taking action today to address this indefensible situation by ensuring that damp and mould hazards and all emergency repairs, whether they relate to damp or mould or any other hazards, are addressed within fixed timescales, and requiring landlords to meet standards of electrical safety. We will drive up the safety and quality of all social homes.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious target of building 1.5 million new homes in England in this Parliament. In the 12 months we have been in office, we have taken decisive steps to boost housing supply, including overhauling the national planning policy framework and introducing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will further streamline the delivery of new homes, as well as critical infrastructure.
Danny Beales
It is welcome to once again have a Government who believe in house building. I thank the Minister for his comments. When I speak to house builders, one of the issues they raise with me is the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. Shovel-ready projects that have planning permission are delayed at gateway 2, and checks that should take a matter of weeks are taking months, if not years. What is the Department doing to manage the performance of the regulator, ensure it has the resources it needs, and hold it to account, so that we get spades in the ground as soon as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the operation of the Building Safety Regulator, which, while essential to upholding building safety standards, is causing delays in handling applications for building projects, and is having an impact on new supply in London. I hope he will take comfort not only from the £2 million the Government allocated to the BSR in February, but from the targeted package of reforms we announced last month, including the establishment of a new fast-track process to reduce delays and strengthen leadership and governance.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Government promised to increase housing delivery through grey-belt, not green-belt, development. Grey belt was described as
“poor quality land, car parks and wasteland.”
However, since the new guidance was published, Hertsmere has been inundated with applications that simply seek to rebrand green belt as grey belt. The lack of clarity and the inconsistent application of the rules mean that such applications are hard to resist. Will the Minister provide greater clarity and tighten the rules before large swathes of Radlett, Bushey, Shenley, Potters Bar and Borehamwood succumb to urban sprawl?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He cited the planning practice guidance we have issued, which has a very clear definition of the grey belt and the rules for it. When it comes to plan making, local authorities must take a sequential approach. On decision making for applications outside of local plans, he will know that we have imposed very strict laws to ensure viability assessments are not used on those sites. Where development comes forward and is judged to be appropriate by decision makers—and by the Planning Inspectorate in appeals—those golden rules will also ensure high levels of affordable housing, infrastructure and access to green space.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s bold and ambitious plan to deliver more housing, especially affordable and social homes, in Wandsworth. The council is already delivering homes, but of the 800 homes in its plan, only 50 are accessible for wheelchairs. How will the Government deliver more accessible homes, and will the Minister agree to raise the default standard to the M4(2) standard of accessibility and adaptation, so that everybody has the opportunity to live in a safe and accessible home?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have a vague memory of certain parliamentary questions asking much the same, and I refer her to those answers. We want to ensure that all people have accessible homes. We are considering the M4(2) standard, and we will make announcements in due course about the accessibility of new homes in general.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
When the Minister has met major house builders, what have they told him about the chances of hitting the Government’s target of building 1.5 million new houses in this Parliament?
Matthew Pennycook
Those house builders have expressed their confidence, and their gratitude for the reforms that the Government have carried out. It is slightly peevish of the right hon. Lady, who stood for election on a manifesto that committed her party to 1.6 million homes, to say that our 1.5 million homes target is unachievable. We quite regularly hear from Conservative Members that we are concreting over every inch of England, but at the same time that we cannot meet our targets. We will meet that target of 1.5 million homes.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Lord knows who the Housing Minister is talking to, because time and again, developers have said that he cannot achieve his target of 1.5 million homes. As he knows, I have severe doubts about his ability to meet such unrealistic housing targets, and I suspect the Opposition will be proven right. However, if he does succeed, the quality of new homes must be maintained. Will he do what the New Homes Quality Board is calling for, and ensure mandatory board membership for developers of all shapes and sizes, and an empowered ombudsman, so that home occupiers are protected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. He is absolutely right that our target of 1.5 million new homes, which is extremely stretching—we have never said anything other than that—does not entail units at any cost. The design and quality of new homes and new places are incredibly important. He rightly cites the new homes code of practice, and we are giving consideration in the round to whether that can be strengthened—for example, whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing. In general, we want to drive up the quality of new homes in the places and communities we are creating.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady draws the attention of the House to an incredibly important point. The Government are clear that the house building sector can thrive only when there is fair and open competition. Where that is found not to be the case, it is right that the CMA acts decisively, as it has done in this instance by extracting £100 million for social and affordable housing from the seven house builders investigated. We are taking action to fix our broken housing system, as I have said, by overhauling the planning system, addressing our dysfunctional land market, and ending our over-reliance on a speculative model of development that produces sub-optimal outcomes and constrains housing supply. If she has evidence of any individuals being directly affected in the purchase of their home, I would be very grateful if she could bring it to my attention.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government strongly encourage broad community engagement in the planning process, and we want to see greater public participation in the development of local plans in particular. We are currently exploring new ways to increase and enhance community engagement in the planning process, including by improving access to planning data through its digitisation.
Harriet Cross
I am sure the Minister agrees it is vital that local residents’ concerns are properly listened to, especially on major planning decisions. Having listened to many constituents in places such as New Deer, Kintore and Rothienorman who are facing huge amounts of energy infrastructure, I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have created a statutory duty of consultation for infrastructure in Scotland. In Committee, the Minister argued against it and said that the Scottish Government’s discretionary power was satisfactory. Will he please explain why the Government believe that a discretionary power, which my constituents fear will simply be ignored, provides meaningful engagement while the statutory right that I proposed would not?
Matthew Pennycook
I can do no better than to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the extensive remarks that I made in the Bill Committee.
Sarah Bool
In Towcester, when the DHL development was going through planning, more than 1,100 residents submitted objections to the council, thousands signed petitions, I spoke on their behalf as their MP against the plans and locally elected councillors voted 11 to one against it at the strategic planning committee meeting, but it was ultimately approved on appeal. Residents, naturally, are losing faith in engaging in the system. The Minister referred in a written question to there being a more democratic plan-led system taking in larger numbers of voices. In our case, how many more residents would need to be involved to have an impact?
Matthew Pennycook
I think that the hon. Lady—if I followed her argument—was speaking about objections lodged to an individual planning application. We are making no changes to that process. Residents all over the country will still be able to object to any planning application that comes forward. We are making sensible changes to improve the certainty and speed at which planning decisions will be taken, with a two-tier approach —a consultation is live at the moment to which she can offer input—but when it comes to local plans, which are a slightly separate issue, we are looking to encourage greater participation upstream. Local plans are the best means by which local communities can shape the development coming forward in their area.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In Hartlepool, the Tees Valley Mayor’s development corporation has removed planning powers for large swathes of the town from all democratic control. In turn, much of the planning function has been outsourced to a private company with no connection to Hartlepool, which is ruling out any community involvement. Will the Minister look at curbing the powers of development corporations so that planning remains in the hands of democratically elected politicians?
Matthew Pennycook
I note my hon. Friend’s concerns in relation to the Tees Valley. In general, we are looking to streamline the powers given to development corporations—we took measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to allow them, for example, to shape transport in areas—but if he wants to write to me or Ministers to raise more of the specifics of that case, we would be more than happy to take a look.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Community support is always vital for development, and with 95% of planning applications already decided by officials under delegated powers, it is clear that that democratic voice can be missing. Can the Minister tell the House why, taking that in tandem with the devolution White Paper, which envisages abolishing around 75% of councillors who represent their local residents on planning committees in England, local communities do not deserve more of a say, rather than less, in the planning process?
Matthew Pennycook
We do want local communities to have more of a say, particularly when it comes to the development of local plans, which are, as I have said, the best means for local communities to shape development in their areas. When it comes to the national scheme of delegation, which is the point the hon. Gentleman is really driving at, he knows that as things stand every local authority across the country has its own scheme of delegation. There is a huge amount of variation there. There is good practice and bad practice, and—as we debated at great length in the Bill Committee—we think there is a strong case for a national scheme of delegation to improve certainty and the speed of planning decisions. He is more than welcome to respond to the consultation that is live at present.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government do not intend to abolish the right to buy, either nationally or by giving local areas discretion to do so. We want to ensure that council tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for many years can retain the opportunity to own their home. We are, however, progressing fundamental reform of the scheme to better protect much-needed social housing stock, boost council capacity and ensure that more social homes are built than lost.
Gideon Amos
My Somerset councillor colleagues have for decades steadfastly protected and managed our stock of council houses, which has declined through right to buy from tens of thousands a number of years ago to only 6,000 now. While I welcome the recent attention to this issue by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, is it not time that communities decide for themselves whether to sell off council houses at all?
Matthew Pennycook
Although I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views, we have a principled difference of opinion on this matter. As I have made clear, the Government’s considered view is that long-standing council tenants should be able to buy the homes that they have lived in for many years. I hope, however, that the right-to-buy reforms that we have made and announced today—reduced maximum cash discounts, allowing councils to retain 100% of receipts and exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years—will create a fairer and more sustainable scheme.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government support selective licensing as a tool to tackle the impact of poor housing management on local communities. The general approval that we granted in December gives councils full powers to introduce schemes, regardless of their size. My hon. Friend’s own authority will have heard loud and clear his call for it to consider doing so.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman will know that housing is a devolved matter. When it comes to affordability, we are taking steps not only to boost housing supply significantly, as I have set out, but to ensure that more first-time buyers can get access, not least through the permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, on which the Chancellor will add more details in her Mansion House speech this week.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend will have noted the £39 billion allocated at the spending review to our new 10-year social and affordable homes programme, which, as the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, we think will deliver about 300,000 affordable homes over its lifetime, with about 180,000 for social rent. He will also know that our Renters’ Rights Bill includes provisions that will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady writes to me about the issue, I will certainly respond to her.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend raises a matter that I know is of concern to hon. Members across the House. It is precisely to protect residential freeholders in Hethersett and other freehold estates across the country from unfair charges that we will consult in the near future on how we implement the consumer protection provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to the payment of estate management charges.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman draws the House’s attention to an important point about freehold estates, and I direct his attention to the report by the Competition and Markets Authority on the matter if he wants to read further. There is a problem here: too many amenities and infrastructures are not being delivered to common adoptable standards, and therefore many local authorities rightly say that they do not expect to pick up the tab for bringing those amenities up to the relevant standard and then maintaining them. We have got to tackle both issues as we look to end the prevalence of these freehold estate arrangements going forward.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
In Suffolk Coastal, the housing crisis is no less severe than in other rural areas across the country, and my constituents are keen that future development builds in for nature. Will the Minister comment on what plans the Government have to ensure that we build in for nature, and specifically on the prospect of, and appetite for support for, swift bricks?
Matthew Pennycook
Although swift brick coverage is increasing, we want to drive up swift brick installation. As I made clear on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we are considering using a new sweep of national policies for decision making, to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or would make them ineffective.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman—who I have great affection for, as we go through our tenure—is a highly experienced former councillor, and he will know that local authorities already have article 4 powers. If he has evidence that those powers are not proving effective, I would really like to have more information.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of the Government’s determination to bring prosperity to coalfield communities like Doncaster, does the Minister share my desire for the fast delivery of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust industrial project? It is also important to transfer any potential funds directly to the CRT, so as not to delay any delivery with bureaucratic processes and bidding.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
My constituent Ryan from Carpenders Park wrote me with concerns about the lack of community spaces, especially alongside the Government’s housing targets. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will ensure there are community spaces to support any new housing developments?
Matthew Pennycook
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. He will forgive me if he knows this already, but we did strengthen the provision for infrastructure in our recent changes to the national planning policy framework. Beyond that, we want to strengthen the existing system for developer contributions—where infrastructure and affordable housing comes through planning agreements—so that local authorities can extract more public gain from that process.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Cayton, a village in my constituency, could now become home to 2,500 new homes through the Government’s new homes accelerator. To ensure the success of that project, it is essential that we deliver the appropriate infrastructure, such as GP services, proper drainage and roads, all of which have not accompanied previous developments. What steps is the Minister taking to develop a coastal strategy to ensure that new developments for coastal villages like Cayton are delivered alongside infrastructure?
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Last week, nearly 3,000 people across Stafford borough were told at short notice that Homes Plus, one of our housing associations, is effectively scrapping the current housing waiting list. It also said that nearly 2,000 people no longer had a housing need, but it has not explained how it has come to that conclusion. People are confused, angry and scared. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, and will he meet me to help me find a way forward for those who have been left in limbo?
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily meet my hon. Friend about that concerning development. If she could write to me with the details in advance, that would be extremely useful.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is my understanding that South Hams district council is in an arguably more sound fiscal position than the neighbouring Plymouth city council. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure me that local government reorganisation will not mimic either a forced marriage or a bad marriage where the fiscally prudent one bails out the other?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In reply to an earlier question, the Planning Minister said that he wanted to increase the number of people who engage in the preparation of local plans. He will know that even if that number was doubled, it would still be a small proportion of the local community. When applications are being considered, local communities want them to be decided and determined by local authorities with minimal central input. Will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will continue to have that power?
Matthew Pennycook
Under our proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill for a national scheme of delegation, it will still be local planning authorities that make recommendations and decisions. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he looks at the consultation, all we propose is a two-tier system in which a set of minor applications go to expert local planning officers. A separate tier can go to a planning committee, where the chair of planning and the chief planning officer decide that that is the case. Again, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to respond to the consultation.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
We are seeing massive investment in the regeneration of Derby city centre, including the opening of a new entertainment venue and the reopening of our market hall, which is bursting with small and independent businesses. Regeneration also means ensuring that our city feels safe, welcoming and inclusive. Will the Minister tell us how the Department is working with the Home Office to ensure that our cities and towns are thriving and safe?
Colne Valley Regional Park: Protection
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing this important debate. She and I disagree on many aspects of politics and policy, but no one can doubt the strength with which she speaks on behalf of those she represents.
The Government recognise the vital role that the Colne Valley regional park plays in providing access to countryside and green space for the millions of people who live in close proximity to it. We appreciate fully that it is highly valued by local communities. We also recognise its importance for biodiversity; as the hon. Lady knows, the park contains part of one special protection area, part of one national nature reserve, 13 sites of special scientific interest and seven local nature reserves.
I assure the hon. Lady that I share her desire to ensure that the Colne Valley regional park is protected for current and future generations to enjoy, and I hope that I can reassure her today that the Government’s commitment to delivering the housing and infrastructure growth that our country so desperately needs is not at odds with safeguarding the park for future generations.
It might be useful for me to set out the protections already afforded by existing national planning policy. As set out in paragraph 7 of the national planning policy framework, the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure, in a sustainable manner. The framework makes clear that sustainable development should be pursued through both the preparation and implementation of local development plans and the application of policies in the framework.
Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: economic, social and environmental. To support its environmental objective, the NPPF sets out that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status—as the hon. Lady has made clear, the Colne Valley regional park does not have such status at present—or their identified quality in the relevant development plan.
To support its social objective, the NPPF sets out strong safeguards to prevent the loss of open space, making clear that such space should not be built on unless there is clear evidence that it is no longer required; unless equivalent or better provision is secured in a suitable location; or unless development of the site is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
I turn now to green-belt policy, an issue on which the hon. Lady has strong views which she has expressed forcefully in the past. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Colne Valley regional park occupies the “inner” green belt on the western edge of London; I am well aware of how important the designation is to its integrity and future.
It is important to note that this Government have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the NPPF, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Nor is green-belt policy altered, in any way, by provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently in the other place. We did, however, act quickly to replace the piecemeal and haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.
I emphasise that Ministers do not determine what, if any, green-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify doing so, and we expect them first to demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; optimising the density of development; and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated elsewhere.
National planning policy and our recently published guidance on green-belt assessment are clear that release of, or development on, green-belt land should not fundamentally undermine the ability of the remaining green belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the green-belt purposes. National policy makes it clear that, where it is necessary to release green-belt land for development, local development plans must take a sequential approach, first prioritising previously developed land, and then low-quality grey-belt land that has not been previously developed, before considering other green-belt locations.
Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located. It is because we recognise the value that the public places on the green belt that we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver higher levels of affordable housing, the provision of new green spaces or improvements to existing green spaces that are accessible to the public, and the making of necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land released through plan making or subject to a planning application.
Although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield did not mention it, I want to touch briefly on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is pertinent to the environmental issues that she raised. When it comes to development and the environment, we know that we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. As she will know, part 3 of the Bill will introduce a new nature restoration fund, which will unlock and accelerate development while going beyond neutrality to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery.
Environmental delivery plans, as proposed in part 3 of the Bill, will address any potential negative effects of development on protected sites and species, whether located in national parks, national landscapes or elsewhere. EDPs can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures is likely to outweigh the negative effects of development. Where that is not the case, existing environmental obligations, including those arising under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, will remain in place.
In addition, EDPs and the conservation measures they propose must be evidence-based and properly scrutinised before being put into place. EDPs may include back-up measures that can be deployed if monitoring shows that the environmental outcomes are not being delivered. Policy safeguards relating to the protection of national parks and national landscapes, including those set out in the national planning policy framework and relevant national policy statements, remain in place.
Having listened the hon. Lady’s contribution, I think that the bulk of her concerns stem from the fact that Colne Valley regional park does not have any statutory status. That is not something on which I can give her a commitment from the Dispatch Box today. She will know that, in other cases, such as the Lee Valley park, a specific Act of Parliament brought forward statutory status. However, I am more than willing to sit down with her and other hon. Members—I take the point that there is cross-party value attributed to the park—to discuss further how we can ensure that it is protected for current and future generations to enjoy. Although I have noted the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised, will reflect on them and look forward to that meeting, I am clear that appropriate protections are in place to safeguard the country’s parks and green spaces, and that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will unlock a win-win for the economy and nature.
Leaseholder Consumer Rights: Consultation
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The cost of living remains a pressing concern for leaseholders across England and Wales. In addition to managing the costs of household bills and other essentials, many are struggling to cope with the additional financial strain placed on them by high and rising service charges that are all too often opaque in nature.
With a view to better protecting leaseholders, I am pleased to announce that the Government have launched a wide-ranging consultation on proposals to hold landlords and managing agents to account for the services they provide and the charges and fees they levy.
At the heart of the consultation are the measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to improve fairness and transparency in the calculation and presentation of service charge demands. Once enacted, these will ensure that all leaseholders are issued with standard service charge documentation in a form that provides clear, detailed information about how their service charges are calculated and spent. The result will be service charges that are more easily challengeable at the appropriate tribunal if leaseholders consider them to be unreasonable.
Through the consultation, we are also seeking views on the measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to landlords’ legal costs. By addressing the unreasonable practice where landlords are able to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders regardless of the outcome of a legal challenge, we intend to reduce existing barriers to justified challenges against poor practice.
We are also acutely aware of the ongoing impact of opaque and substantial building insurance commissions recovered from leaseholders through service charges. As part of the remediation acceleration plan announcement last December, the Government launched a public consultation on measures to prevent the imposition of such charges. It closed in February and we intend to set out next steps in due course.
Improving the fairness and transparency of service charges and rebalancing the legal costs regime will significantly strengthen leaseholder consumer rights, but we are using the consultation to seek views on proposals that extend beyond those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute as a result of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Specifically, we are inviting views on reform of the section 20 process that leaseholders must go through when a landlord wants to carry out “major works” funded by a service charge. We know that one-off, unexpected, and often very large bills for major works can place huge financial strain on leaseholders. Far too many receive little or no notice about such works and so have little time to obtain sufficient funds.
It is not in dispute that buildings must be properly maintained, but major works, such as repairing a roof or replacing a lift, should be properly planned for, with leaseholders as far as possible kept fully informed. The current system does not work for anyone, whether leaseholders, managing agents or landlords, and we are seeking views on how we can improve it to make it fit for purpose.
Through this consultation, we are also taking initial steps to strengthen the regulation of managing agents by introducing mandatory professional qualifications that will set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet.
Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as commonhold becomes the default tenure and existing leaseholders are empowered to exercise their right to manage, collectively enfranchise, or to convert to commonhold.
While we know that there is good practice in the sector, far too many leaseholders and residential freeholders suffer abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. While further reform will be necessary to drive up the standard of service provided by managing agents and ensure they are made more accountable to leaseholders, the introduction of mandatory qualifications in England is an important first step to ensuring all agents have the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs effectively.
The consultation also explores other ways in which the regulation of managing agents could be strengthened, including specific interventions recommended in the final report of the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best, such as giving leaseholders the power to switch and veto managing agents. We will continue to reflect on the various other recommendations made in the 2019 report.
Taken together, the various proposals outlined in the consultation will provide existing leaseholders with far greater rights and protections and will empower them to challenge poor practice and unreasonable charge and fees.
Given the complexity of property law and the wide variation of leases across millions of homes, it is important that we engage extensively through the consultation to ensure the smooth implementation of the proposals in question. As such, we want to hear from leaseholders themselves as well as all those involved in managing leasehold buildings.
Following the consultation, we intend to bring the various measures into force as quickly as possible. We also remain firmly committed to commencing the remaining provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and to progressing the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good, as set out in the written ministerial statement of 21 November 2024.
[HCWS780]
Social and Affordable Housing Renewal
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
At the spending review, on 11 June 2025, we set out the main elements of our social and affordable housing investment strategy in this Parliament. Today, I am providing further detail in relation to a number of the announcements made, as well as providing clarity about future regulation on quality and safety and the right to buy.
Taken together, the grant funding support and regulatory certainty and stability that this Government are providing will enable registered providers to quickly ramp up investment in existing and new stock, and to kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.
The biggest boost to grant funding in a generation
At the spending review, we announced £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years, from 2026-27 to 2035-36. Our new social and affordable homes programme will give registered providers a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have available to build new, more ambitious housing development projects. It is integral to delivering the Government’s commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.
I am today confirming the following details about the new social and affordable homes programme:
Given the priority that this Government accord to social rented housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the programme will be for social rent. The remainder will be available for other tenures, including shared ownership, affordable rent and intermediate rent.
Up to 30% of the funding over the programme will be delivered by the Greater London Authority in London, with at least 70% available for the rest of England via Homes England, depending on the level of future bids.
The programme will not have numerical targets or ringfenced budgets for particular regions or types of home beyond the GLA’s portion, but we will ensure that established mayoral strategic authorities can set strategic direction for the programme in their area, and to support planning, we will set out up-front indicative spend per EMSA, subject to suitable projects.
The programme will not set numerical targets for particular types of homes, other than social rent, but will be designed with the flexibility necessary to support a greater diversity of social and affordable supply including council, supported, community-led and rural housing.
The new programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in homes on a site and will allow a limited number of acquisitions.
The programme will allow bids for individual projects on an ongoing basis, and for strategic partnerships over the life of the programme, including bids for funds over the entire 10 years of starts, with homes completing after 2036 also eligible. A competitive bidding round for strategic partnerships will launch this winter, followed by later opportunities to bid.
Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging, but we believe that the social and affordable homes programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with around 180,000 for social rent.
We will set initial targets for Homes England and the GLA after receiving bids from registered providers, and will review these targets across the lifetime of the programme to maximise delivery. It is our intention to publish a full prospectus for the new social and affordable homes programme in autumn 2025 and open it for bids in the winter.
Rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes
To give registered providers, lenders and investors greater long-term certainty, we confirmed at the spending review that we will permit social housing rents to increase by the consumer prices index plus 1% each year from April 2026, and we doubled the length of the settlement from five to 10 years.
We also made it clear that we would give social landlords equal access to Government remediation funding schemes, providing over £1 billion of new investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30, and make available to them £2.5 billion in low-interest loans to support new development—alongside commercial lending.
To unlock the level of investment in new and existing social and affordable housing necessary to deliver on the Government’s ambitions, we committed to implement a convergence mechanism as part of the new rent settlement. The details of precisely how, and at what level, this mechanism will be implemented will be confirmed at the autumn Budget later this year, taking account of the benefits to the supply and quality of social and affordable housing, the impact on rent payers and the impact on the Government’s fiscal rules.
To inform policy development in this area, we will today publish a focused technical consultation on how convergence should be implemented, with options for this being capped at £1 or £2 per week. In combination, we expect these measures to significantly improve the capacity of registered providers, enabling them to borrow and invest in new and existing homes. We also expect that improved financial capacity will see registered providers reassess their position in respect of uncontracted and unsold section 106 units across the country. We encourage those house builders and registered providers that have not yet engaged with the Homes England section 106 affordable housing clearing service to do so.
Establishing an effective and stable regulatory regime
Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing.
Registered providers are already investing billions into repairs, maintenance and improvements. To help them plan effectively for the future, we want to provide clarity as to the updated, modern standards needed to ensure that rented homes are safe, decent and energy-efficient.
We are therefore today launching consultations on a reformed decent homes standard (DHS) for the social and private rented sectors and on a new minimum energy efficiency standard (MEES) for social and affordable housing.
To support stakeholders in responding to the DHS consultation, I am publishing an interim impact assessment and the Government response to the consultation undertaken by the previous Government on extending a standard to the private rented sector.
In addition to consultations on a reformed DHS and new MEES, I am also confirming today that we will direct the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) this autumn to set new standards for the competence and conduct of staff who work in social housing. The new requirements will improve professionalism within the sector, ensuring that tenants receive a good service and are always listened to and treated with respect and dignity.
The new competence and conduct standard will come into force in October 2026. There will be a transition period after this date, giving providers additional time to comply with qualification requirements for senior housing managers and executives. Larger registered providers that own 1,000 or more units of social housing will have three years, and smaller providers that own less than 1,000 units will have four years.
We also intend to direct the RSH to introduce new social tenant access to information requirements for registered providers of social housing, including housing associations, to enable residents to request information about their housing management. From October 2026, providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their homes. From April 2027, they will be expected to provide tenants with access to information on request.
Finally, I am today announcing that we will be launching a £1 million resident experience innovation fund to support social landlords, tenants and other relevant organisations to work together to test and scale up innovative projects that aim to deliver better outcomes for social tenants.
Reinvigorating council house building
In order to better protect much-needed social housing stock, boost councils’ capacity and enable them to once again build social homes at scale, we need to further reform the right to buy. Following the reduction in maximum right to buy cash discounts announced at the autumn Budget 2024 and our decision to allow councils to keep 100% of right to buy receipts, we consulted late last year on reforms to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme.
Having analysed feedback to that consultation over recent months, I am today announcing further reforms to the right to buy. These include:
increasing the length of time someone needs to have been a public sector tenant to qualify for the right to buy, from three to 10 years;
reforming discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value, rising by 1% for every extra year an individual is a secure tenant up to the maximum of 15% of the property value or the cash discount cap, whichever is lower; and
exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years, ensuring that councils are not losing homes before they have recovered the costs of building them.
We will legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to bring these reforms into force. More immediately, we will reform the receipts regime and extend existing flexibilities on spending right to buy receipts indefinitely. Councils will also continue to be able to retain the share of the receipts that was previously returned to HM Treasury. In addition, from 2026-27 we will permit councils to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing to accelerate council delivery of new homes.
We are also acting to restore the capacity of council workforces to deliver. Working with the Local Government Association, the Government have already established a new Association of Directors of Housing to help councils collaborate and share best practice. Today, I can confirm that we are launching the council house building skills and capacity programme, backed by £12 million of funding in 2025-26.
The programme will enable the Local Government Association to provide centralised training and guidance to councils to upskill their existing workforces and to expand its successful pathways to planning programme to help recruit graduates ready to undertake training to become qualified surveyors and project managers. The Department will also work with Homes England to support councils to boost their engagement with the new social and affordable homes programme.
A renewed partnership with the sector
Ending England’s acute and entrenched housing crisis will be a painstaking and laborious effort, requiring focus, energy and determination over many years. We know that it cannot be accomplished by central Government alone, which is why this Government have prioritised working in close partnership with the sector.
The measures announced over recent weeks demonstrate the Government’s commitment to providing registered providers with the grant funding support and regulatory stability they need to deliver. We now expect them to step up and do just that, so that together we kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.
[HCWS771]
Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate. While I may disagree with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons I will expand upon in due course, I know that he speaks with genuine conviction on behalf of those he represents, and no one can doubt his commitment to his constituency.
In the time available to me, I intend to touch on all the substantive issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, although I will not go into individual planning applications, for reasons that he will understand. I start by reminding the House about the problem that the Government are working to resolve. It is not, I believe, in doubt that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. To ensure that we have a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full, the Government introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need as part of the revised national planning policy framework we published in December, and we made that standard method mandatory.
That standard method now relies on a baseline, set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenges —south-east Essex would be one of those. We have been entirely open that that will mean that all parts of the country, including Essex, must play their part. I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members simply do not want to see housing growth in their constituencies—I do not name the right hon. Gentleman in this respect—and some may even question whether housing need exists on the scale that it does, and that the Government are clear that it does. However, the Government are clear that we must have ambitious targets to begin fixing the housing crisis afflicting our country, and that decisions made locally should be about how to meet housing needs, not whether to do so at all.
Turning briefly to local plans, the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. As I know the right hon. Gentleman understands, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of his, or any other, specific local plan. However, I want to underline that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure, so that development proceeds in a sustainable manner. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential.
Having failed to adopt a plan since 1998, Basildon now has one of oldest local plans in the country, a state of affairs that is—I put this as diplomatically as I possibly can—detrimental to the residents of Rayleigh and Wickford. So I am pleased that the new leadership at Basildon council is seeking to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan, premised on meeting housing need. I want to make it clear that I expect their neighbours at Rochford to progress their local plan, and consult later this year, in line with the updated plan timetable.
To support local planning authorities in their efforts, the Government are awarding £28 million of new funding. As part of that, Rochford and Basildon councils were each awarded approximately £228,000 for local plan delivery, and £70,000 for support with the costs of undertaking a green-belt review. It is now each authority’s responsibility to ensure that their plans unlock growth and secure the housing, jobs and infrastructure their local people deserve.
Turning next to the process of plan making, which is important in regard to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, national planning policy is clear that the standard method should be used by local authorities to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed, authorities should make an assessment of the number of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified on the basis of evidence of land availability and constraints on development—for example, in national landscapes—and any other relevant matters. Planning inspectors will consider those issues if they are raised when the plan is submitted to them.
We expect local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land. When allocating land, the first port of call must be previously developed land. I put on record again that this Government are fully committed to a brownfield-first approach to development. That is why we made changes to the revised national planning policy framework last year to place an even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield land development.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in September last year we published a working paper on a brownfield passport to explore how further to prioritise and accelerate development on brownfield land and ensure that the default answer to suitable proposals on such land is a simple and straightforward “yes”.
Just last month, we published a working paper exploring ways that we can speed up the build-out of consented sites, including brownfield sites, so they are delivered as quickly as possible. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the existing developer contribution system, we are committed to strengthening that to ensure that councils are able to negotiate properly on what public gain can come through the developer contribution system, and to hold developers to account for the commitments they make. However, we know that there is simply not enough brownfield land in the country to deliver the volume of homes that working people need, let alone enough sites that are viable and in the right location. That brings me to the green belt.
The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas, and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt that are set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms replace a haphazard approach with a strategic and targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release. As a result of our changes, the national policy now includes a clear direction that where development on the green belt is necessary, it should be directed towards the least valuable parts of the green belt: previously developed or low-quality grey-belt land.
The sustainability of sites must be prioritised, and local authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey-belt land is sustainably located. Because we recognise the value that the public place on the green belt, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new—or improvements to—existing green spaces that are accessible to the public; and the necessary improvements to local infrastructure to ensure that residents benefit. Those new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, but I should be clear that the requirement for a high level of affordable housing is for green-belt land specifically, regardless of whether it is released through plan-making or subject to a planning application.
Mr Francois
Am I right to say that the Minister described sustainability, particularly for green-belt developments, as a golden rule? I understand that the Planning Inspectorate is beginning to take that approach too. Could he quickly confirm that I heard that correctly?
Matthew Pennycook
In judging particular applications, particularly when local authorities seek to release land as grey-belt land, they do have to have sustainability as a concern. When cases go to the Planning Inspectorate—for example, on appeal—all these matters will be considered, but the right hon. Gentleman can find the definition of what needs to be considered in the NPPF. I am more than happy to point him to that.
I turn very briefly to nature, because the right hon. Gentleman did mention the environment. Our reforms will help to deliver the homes and development that our country needs, but we have been very clear that these must not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are clear that policies and decisions should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, and we are maintaining the strong protections for the best and most versatile agricultural land. We have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land, and for land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. As I have said, we are ensuring that major new developments in the green belt deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for sharing his concerns on this matter with the House. While I appreciate that there is a principled and strongly felt difference of opinion between him and me on these matters, I trust that I have clearly laid out the Government’s position. As ever, I would be more than happy to speak to him outside the Chamber, and to discuss any issues of local concern.
Question put and agreed to.
National Housing Bank and National Housing Delivery Fund
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am today updating the House on further steps the Government are taking to deliver our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
National Housing Bank
To accelerate house building across England, we intend to establish a new, permanent national housing bank to act as the Government’s investment arm.
Established as a public financial institution, and operating as a subsidiary of Homes England, the new bank will deliver a long-term financial return for the Government, drawing on the approach taken to the national wealth fund. The bank will deploy finance in line with the Treasury’s financial transaction control framework, which will ensure long-term value for money.
By giving Homes England greater autonomy and freedom to flexibly deploy loans, equity and guarantees, the new bank will support additional housing development and reinforce our ongoing efforts to reform the housing market.
Today’s announcement sets out an initial allocation of £16 billion of new financial capacity for the bank—comprising £10.5 billion of investment capital and £5.5 billion of contingent liability capacity that can be used to deploy housing guarantees. The £10.5 billion investment capital package includes £2.5 billion of low-interest loans for social and affordable housing providers to further boost their capacity to invest in new developments.
The bank will offer a broad range of products, including direct lending to SMEs to help them to grow, equity investments to support new platforms that can bring new capital into housing, and guarantees to leverage private investment into complex development projects.
The bank will build on Homes England’s impressive track record of investment. Since October 2016, the agency has deployed over £9.6 billion of capital through existing investment programmes, working alongside delivery partners to attract an estimated £48 billion of private sector investment into the vehicles it supports. This investment will deliver or unlock over 600,000 homes.
The detailed investment strategy for the bank—which will form a key part of Homes England’s overall strategy – will be developed in the coming months and agreed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury. Subject to the development of that investment strategy, our current estimates are that, over the lifetime of the initial £16 billion investment allocation, the bank will support the delivery of over 500,000 homes in all parts of the country and of all different tenures, create hundreds of thousands of job opportunities in the construction sector, and leverage in an additional £53 billion of additional private investment.
The national housing bank will work closely with mayors and local leaders to develop integrated packages of financial support to deliver on the housing and regeneration priorities of local areas, alongside wider land and grant funding. Following this announcement, MHCLG and Homes England will engage mayoral strategic authorities to agree an approach that works best for the needs of each place.
MHCLG will work with the Mayor of London to establish a City Hall developer investment fund—supporting London’s ambition to build over 80,000 homes per year, and support housing regeneration around London Euston. We will also extend the successful Greater Manchester housing investment fund, which has supported over 10,000 homes since 2015.
The creation of the national housing bank will not change the delivery of Homes England’s existing investment programmes or impact arrangements for customers with help to buy loans provided by Homes England.
I must make clear that Homes England is not currently designated as a public financial institution. However, the Government will designate a subsidiary of Homes England as a public financial institution once established in line with the Government’s financial transaction control framework. MHCLG, HM Treasury and Homes England will work together to agree the changes to Homes England that are needed prior to establishing the bank.
The name “national housing bank” is provisional and will undergo all normal regulatory approvals before the bank is established.
New capital grant funding for investment in infrastructure and land
In many cases, Government grant funding is critical to making large-scale, complex and transformational housing regeneration and infrastructure projects viable. That is why, alongside the intention to establish the national housing bank, we are announcing £5 billion of new capital grant funding for infrastructure and land.
This additional grant funding will be administered by a new, single national housing delivery fund that will complement investment from the national housing bank. This fund will be fully operational from 1 April 2026.
MHCLG and Homes England will work with mayors and local partners to understand priorities for this investment and will set out further detail on funding later this year.
[HCWS712]
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsTuesday 10th June 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.
The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.
That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.
Robbie Moore
But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.
Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.
Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.
Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.
I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?
I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.
New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.
We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.
Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.
As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.
On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.
The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.
To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high.
Chris Hinchliff
In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?
Matthew Pennycook
The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.
That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.
However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.
I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.
I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.
The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress; I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.
This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.
As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.
Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.
Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.
We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.
Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.
Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.
When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chinese Embassy Development
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. The process includes a role for planning Ministers in deciding on called-in planning applications and recovered appeals, so I hope that the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the Dispatch Box. That said, it may be helpful to Members if I set out the process that these cases follow.
The application referred to by the right hon. Member was considered to meet the published call-in policy set out in the October 2012 written ministerial statement, so it will be determined by Ministers. The application is not yet with the Department. All decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, and set out their full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to contain a wide variety of material planning considerations; in this case, those are likely to include safety and national security.
A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. Should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, they will also be taken into account. At all times, the decision will be dealt with in line with the published propriety guidance on planning casework decisions. The right hon. Member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry. That will be taken into account, alongside all other relevant matters. Once the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, the case will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The US Government, and today the Dutch Parliament, have expressed concerns about sensitive cables under Royal Mint Court. Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. Surprisingly, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said on television yesterday that this issue is “in the planning process” and could be managed. Will the Minister correct the record? The planning inquiry has concluded, and no changes at all can be made to the Chinese planning application.
I remind the Minister that the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed, the Chinese have rejected only two requests by the inquiry—requests to which he referred; they were made by the Government, in the letter from the Foreign and Home Secretaries. That is despite Ministers regularly saying that the letter should “give those concerned comfort.” Rerouting the cables would, we know, cost millions, if the Government are even thinking about that, so I ask the Minister: why did the Government strongly deny, rather than tell this House about, the presence of the cables until the White House actually confirmed it?
Chinese state media have reported that the UK has given assurances to the Chinese that the UK would allow the development, no matter what. Indeed, The Guardian newspaper reported in 2023 that the Chinese would not apply again unless they were given governmental assurances. Can the Minister confirm, or even deny, any of this? Speaking as one of those in the Chamber who have been sanctioned by China, I see this as Project Kowtow. There has been one denial after another, and one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega-embassy is becoming a walk of shame for the Government.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Member for those questions. I hope he will appreciate, not least because of the quasi-judicial nature of the role of planning Ministers in the planning process, that I cannot comment on the details of the application. As I have said, no decision on the case has been made, and the case is not yet before the Department.
The right hon. Member mentioned cables, but it would not be appropriate to comment on any specific national security issue. On whether the Chinese embassy issue was raised during UK-US trade talks, again it would not be appropriate to comment on the details of those talks. Suffice it to say that we do not recognise the characterisation set out in The Sunday Times article, in which that was referenced. It is important to emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case. As I say, I cannot comment in any detail on such a case, and this case is not yet before the Department.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on this case, or any individual case, but national security is of the utmost concern to everybody in this country and in this Chamber. When an application comes before the Secretary of State, and in granting applications from foreign Governments, will national security be a material concern for the Government?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I made clear in responding to the initial question, the inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to include consideration of a wide variety of material planning matters. In this case, that is likely to include safety and national security.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this very important urgent question. Question after question, and letter after letter, the Government have consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. They have stonewalled legitimate inquiries about national security, ministerial discussions and warnings from security bodies. I get that the Minister is compromised, in that he has a quasi-judicial responsibility here, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office do not, and they could answer these questions.
As the Government know, their own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. The Wapping telephone and internet exchange is surrounded on three sides by the new embassy, and there are fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said yesterday that these matters could be dealt with in the planning process, but the inquiry has ended, so they cannot. If the Government are considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will that cost? I recently sent yet another cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 59 parliamentarians, urging him to pause and reconsider. Since then, the US and Dutch Governments have both sounded the alarm.
Have MI5 and GCHQ been able to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, which the Chinese Government have refused to make public? Have the Government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, given its role in cyber-security regulation in the City? Why will the Government not follow the example of the US, Australian and Irish Governments, who vetoed similar embassies that threatened their national security? The Government are on the verge of making a decision that will lead to a huge risk that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks were written before he listened to my response, but I could not have been clearer about the fact that no decision has been made on this case and no application is yet before the Department—[Interruption.] It was a question. He is pre-empting a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not before the Department. I have been very clear that, should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations—they may, in this case, relate to safety and national security—before a decision is made, these will be taken into account. But again, as I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), on matters of security it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On specific issues such as cables, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and, as I have said, the case is not yet before the Department.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister can understand the sensitivity of how we all feel about this. China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage. Surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of the risk, should this go ahead as expected. Experts warn that there could be the foreign leverage of signals, interception and monitoring of sensitive Government and corporate communications. To what extent can individuals make representations, because everyone is extremely concerned that such a massive and historic building was sold some years ago? This is pre-empted. This is how China works: it plans years ahead. We cannot not say anything in this House; we must comment on what we see. Please, understand that we must.
Matthew Pennycook
I do understand the strength of feeling conveyed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when it comes to the People’s Republic of China. The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest. We will always protect our national security and keep the country safe, but those are separate issues from this specific planning application. I understand why she does so, but she tempts me to speculate—again, as I have said—on a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question.
The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?
Matthew Pennycook
On the audit, the hon. Gentleman’s final point, the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has confirmed that that will be coming before the summer. He raises two very distinct issues and I must treat them separately. On human rights, we stand firm, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Human rights issues are raised every time FCDO Ministers meet their Chinese counterparts. On the application specifically, he asks me a very direct question. Should any further representations be made, by Members or other interested parties, that raise material planning considerations that need to be taken into account in a decision, they will be taken into account and they will be considered before a decision is made.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Earlier this year I spoke at a huge demonstration outside the proposed embassy site, which was attended by thousands of British Hongkongers who fear that the hands that throttled their freedoms in Hong Kong are reaching into our society, too. I understand the Minister’s point and the limitations on what he can say on the issue at this time, but this is not just a matter of national security; does he understand that it is also a matter of personal security for many of our constituents, given the increase in transnational repression emanating from Beijing?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has been a vocal advocate for the Hong Kong community in his constituency and across the country. We will stand with and support members of that community; we have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and many people from Hong Kong have made the UK their home in recent years. Again—I must emphasise this point, and I will continue to do so as questions on this come in—that is a distinct and separate issue from the planning application that will, in due course, come before Ministers in my Department.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) today; I spoke before him at the rally to which he refers. Those of us who have been sanctioned—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are among our number—are particularly conscious of the effect that the Chinese state has on our country. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, honestly believe that the Minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? Do we in this House honestly believe that something threatening our economic security, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, should go through a bureaucratic planning process, with no ability to vary it, because, frankly, them’s the orders? I do not think that is the way China would do it, and it is certainly not the way we should do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is a very clever question, but it is the Minister who is responding.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s views on China are well known, and he knows my views on China, too—we have discussed the matter in the past. He raises two distinct issues. On sanctioned parliamentarians, let me take this opportunity to make it clear that the sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable, and this issue will remain a priority under this Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have raised their case at every meeting with their counterparts, including with President Xi at the G20 in November and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on the Chinese planning system. I am very glad that we have a different and more robust system than the People’s Republic of China.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box, but when I speak to Hongkongers in my constituency, they are seriously concerned about the risks that come with transnational repression and that might come along with the creation and construction of this embassy. When I was speaking with Hongkongers in my constituency last week, on the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre—something that can be commemorated in Leeds, but not in Hong Kong—they were seriously concerned that those with £100,000 bounties on their heads might be more at risk now because of the construction of this embassy. I appreciate that the Minister’s portfolio does not necessarily cover this, but what assurances can he give on behalf of the Government that if such an embassy is built, we will do everything in our power to protect those from Hong Kong who have made the UK their home?
Matthew Pennycook
I hope hon. Members will appreciate why I will not comment on hypotheticals, again, on a decision that has not been made on a case that is not before the Department. I have made it very clear that we stand with the Hong Kong community. The Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met members of the Hong Kong community in this country, along with my hon. Friend the Security Minister. We will stand by them.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have all had recent, high-level interactions with Ministers of the Chinese Communist party—the Chinese Government. Has the Chinese embassy been brought up in any of the meetings with those Ministers, and have those Ministers in any way corresponded with the Minister’s Department on the Chinese embassy application?
Matthew Pennycook
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of any talks—
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
From a response to a freedom of information request, which I have with me, we now know that just two protests at the Royal Mint Court site in February and March this year required the deployment of nearly 600 officers in total, including 101 in February and 485 in March. The FOI request reveals that the cost of policing these two protests alone amounted to £345,000. This is a staggering use of resources for a site that is not yet operational, and it reflects the serious concerns among the Hongkonger, Tibetan and Uyghur diasporas in the UK. These are communities that fear that the embassy will become a hub for transnational repression. What assessment have Ministers made of the cost implications of this proposed development on policing, and will they commit today to rejecting this super-embassy?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to commit to rejecting an application that has not yet come to the Department and, as I keep saying, where a decision has not been made. I have made it clear that we understand the concerns of members of the Hong Kong community and others about the potential—I make clear that it is a potential—approval of this application. When it comes to police resourcing, all I can repeat is that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining the case.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I think we can all agree that we would like a decision to be made in this case that does not encourage the Chinese Government to think that we are a soft touch. Let us try another tack. National security is going to be taken into account as part of this planning decision. I ask the Minister this hypothetical question: if there is only a 1% chance that the granting of this planning application causes some detriment to our national security, would it not be better to take a risk management approach and put the embassy somewhere else?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman invites me, again, to consider a planning decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department. I am clearly not going to set out from this Dispatch Box the decision-making process that planning Ministers in my Department might take to the application once it is submitted.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Given the serious concerns about national security, can the Minister confirm that his Department has consulted on this issue with UK and allied intelligent agencies, including those of the USA? Can he say whether a full national security review will be conducted before any planning decision is taken?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have made clear, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific national security issue. What I have been at pains to make clear is that the inspector’s report, which will come before Ministers in my Department at the point when the case comes to us, will include a wide variety of material planning matters, and in this case they are likely to include safety and national security matters.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the Home Affairs Committee has written to the Metropolitan police asking for details of any concerns it may have about the policing of this site and any particular disorder that might occur around it. I once again put it to the Minister that he must take account of these concerns. There could be very serious and significant concerns for policing in the capital.
Matthew Pennycook
All material planning considerations that have been brought to the attention of the inspector will be taken into account as part of the decision when it is made in due course.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
National security and security is a valid planning consideration, so does the Minister accept that, in the event that the Secretary of State allows this decision to go ahead, regardless of the planning inspector’s recommendation, this Government will essentially be putting our relationship with China ahead of our security relationship with the United States?
Matthew Pennycook
That is pure speculation. As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any national security matters.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that China will always try to exploit and infiltrate data communication in this country?
Matthew Pennycook
Widespread cyber-activity or interference in our democracy will not be tolerated and will be met with a strong response.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Moving on from national security, according to the documentation—I have double-checked—community safety is a significant material planning consideration. In such a multicultural area, what assessment of risk to community cohesion and the safety of local people is being made? How does taking such decisions more centrally align with the Government’s much-publicised commitment to devolution?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
China is already revelling in the Government’s spectacular own goal in handing over Chagos. China looks as if it is about to benefit again. Even if the Minister cannot say what amounts are involved, will he say what works would need to be done in advance of the embassy being set up at the Royal Mail site, and who would pay for that? Would it be the Chinese, or would it be the UK Government, and which part?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, a public inquiry was held between 11 and 28 February, and all the relevant documents submitted to that inquiry are available online. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go and look at them. Again, he invites me to speculate on matters that are part of the application that the inspector will have considered in making his report and recommendation—when that arrives—to the Department. I emphasise again that no case is yet with the Department.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If national security is a material consideration, will that be judged only by what is in the inspector’s report? If so, how could that be adequate, since the UK’s China audit will not have been published before the inspector concludes his report?
Matthew Pennycook
At the point when the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, it will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations that have been analysed.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics, but does he at least agree with the principle that if there is a risk that a nation state will act nefariously against the British state’s interests, the British Government should not reward that state?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have been at pains to make clear, the Government will always protect our national security and keep this country safe. There is a distinct issue from the planning application and the questions about process that have been put to me. On that basis, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, on a decision that has not been made, and on a case that is not with the Department.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My constituency is home to a growing number of people from Hong Kong who have been forced to flee their homeland as a result of actions by China. I appreciate what the Minister says about this being a quasi-legal matter, and the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is sat next to him speaks volumes about how this is not just a planning issue. Does he agree that this country owes a debt to Hongkongers, whom we need to protect from the Chinese interference that they consider this super-embassy would enable?
Matthew Pennycook
I do recognise that point. As I have made clear, the Government will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community. As I said—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for this—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and the Minister for Security met members of the Hong Kong community only recently. We will continue to stand with them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister has made it clear that he will not comment on the specifics of the case, and I will not ask him to, but can he offer a view in principle on why we would ever offer a foreign state with known cyber-espionage capabilities that it deploys regularly easier access to critical cyber-infrastructure?
Matthew Pennycook
Again, the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions that I do not recognise, and thereby tempting me to comment on the case. I am not going to make blanket, in-principle statements, given the quasi-judicial nature and involvement of planning Ministers in the process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Lee Anderson, are you bobbing or not bobbing?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am somewhat thrown off there.
I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware of concerns that Chinese-born residents in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have about the reach, and indeed the overreach, of the Chinese Government in the United Kingdom. I can well understand US concerns and, with all due respect—he knows I always ask my questions with respect—does the Minister truly believe that this massive embassy will alleviate the concerns of those who know best the reach of the Chinese Government’s arm? Should we not be showing that, while we will accord them courtesy, as we do with other national embassies, they are not entitled to a Chinese “Vatican City” in the midst of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Matthew Pennycook
I do recognise the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises, but—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have to repeat again that no decision has been made in this case. No case is yet with the Department. I have laid out in quite some detail the process that has been followed in how the application has been taken forward, and what needs to happen for Ministers to reach a decision at the appropriate point, when a case comes to the Department.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Things that seem politically and economically expedient at the time can become things that Governments regret very much in the long term, as I found when I was the telecoms Minister having to lead the £2 billion strip-out of Huawei from our 5G infrastructure. It took only a few minutes for the Prime Minister to change his position on the Chinese embassy after a call from President Xi Jinping. The Minister has said he cannot answer any questions on the substance of the issue, but on a planning level will he commit personally to having a secure briefing ahead of making any planning decision, and also to publishing and sharing with this House details of all the representations he has received on the planning application, including those from his own Government?
Matthew Pennycook
I will take the two aspects of the hon. Lady’s question in turn, if I may. We will be vigilant against the full range of hybrid, cyber, space and other threats from state and non-state actors, including those emanating from China. On her specific question about the planning application, all the representations made to the Planning Inspectorate as part of that public inquiry are publicly available for hon. Members to see. Ministers, when they come to make a decision on the basis of the inspector’s reports and recommendations, will do so taking into account material planning considerations.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Is the planning officer who is considering this case cleared to receive top-secret information?
Matthew Pennycook
A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
“China is likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own strategic defence review. Given the sub-threshold threat posed by China and its starring role in the SDR, where it is referred to explicitly alongside Russia and Iran, why has China not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme ahead of any potential approval of its super-embassy?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Indo-Pacific tells me that that particular report is coming forward in due course. Again, on the planning application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific national security issues but, as I have said, material planning considerations, including those relating to safety and national security, will be taken into account.