Building Safety Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today marks the next significant step on our path to a robust but proportionate building safety regime that delivers high standards of safety for people’s homes, particularly those that are high rise, while providing reassurance to leaseholders, residents and the market that the vast majority of homes in this country are safe. In February, I announced our five-point plan to support leaseholders and address building safety issues: a plan to remove unsafe cladding where it is necessary and proportionate to do so; to provide certainty to leaseholders in the significant minority of buildings that require works; to make industry pay its fair share for its failures and poor practices and ensure a change in the broader culture and attitude of the industry to quality and safety; to create a world-class building safety regime; and to inject confidence and certainty into this part of the housing market, which has been suffering from market failure, with significant detrimental effects for many homeowners across the land.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will do so in a moment, and I will also give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).

The Bill delivers on our promise to create that world-class building safety regime, but one that is sensible and proportionate, reflecting the true level of risk that living in these buildings poses and thereby safeguarding the broader interests of homeowners and residents.

Today I will set out the key measures in the Bill and update the House on the progress of our plan, including providing further detail on a written ministerial statement that I have just published, representing a significant intervention by the Government and lenders in response to expert advice on building safety in medium and low-rise blocks of flats and the use of EWS1 forms that I commissioned earlier in the year.

[Dr Fox]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have to get away from the term “cladding” as a generic issue and start to focus on genuine fire risk? There is a real danger of us creating unnecessary anxiety and cost where there is little or no increase in fire risk and, what is worse, using taxpayers’ money to remedy non-fire risks that should be the responsibility of the building industry.

[Robert Jenrick]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That is exactly the approach that we now need to follow as a country. I hope that the written ministerial statement, which I will come on to explain in a moment, will provide further reassurance to him.

[Stephen Doughty]

I note the provisions in the Bill for working with the Welsh Government on the levy, the charges and so on, but it is my understanding—I have checked with them today—that the Secretary of State and the Treasury have yet to confirm to the Welsh Government, despite repeated requests, what the consequential will be of the funding announcement that he made many months ago? My residents are deeply concerned, and until the Welsh Government have clarity on the money they are going to get from the UK Government, they cannot proceed with their own building safety fund to deal with these many issues.

[Robert Jenrick]

I understand the important point that the hon. Gentleman raises. That is really a matter to be directed to my right hon Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which is responsible for the management of the Barnett consequentials. I would just point out—this is not a criticism of the hon. Gentleman, who is understandably standing up for his constituents—that the Welsh Government have yet to bring forward a scheme that would use the funding they have already been given by the United Kingdom Government. I appreciate that they would always like to have further funding, but they have not yet spent the money that the Government have already given them.

After the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, the Government appointed Dame Judith Hackitt to review the current building safety regime and to recommend reform. Her findings were clear. Too often, regulations and guidance were misunderstood or misinterpreted. There was ambiguity around who is actually responsible for the safety of buildings, with insufficient oversight and enforcement. She called for an overhaul of the system, and her recommendations underpin the Bill before this House. We have tested these measures through consultation with industry, with regulators, with local government and with the public, and we have also taken on board many of the recommendations made following scrutiny of the Bill by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I am grateful to the Select Committee for the work that—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Would the Secretary of State care to clarify the matter?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be delighted to, Madam Deputy Speaker. A written ministerial statement will be laid shortly, which is market-sensitive. It is difficult to suggest that there is no scrutiny, because I am here before the House to explain that statement in the context of the wider debate. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) will give me a few moments, I will be very happy to set out, in the remarks I am about to make, exactly what we have agreed with lenders and the position we have come to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State has explained that the reason for the specific timing of the laying of the statement is that it is market-sensitive. If the Secretary of State says it is market-sensitive then I accept that it is market-sensitive. I trust that it will be available very shortly?

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Very shortly. I am quite sure that we will be able to facilitate Members holding the Secretary of State to account for the contents of that written statement when it becomes available, because he is here in the Chamber. I trust that it will become available before the Secretary of State concludes his opening remarks.

[Robert Jenrick]

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I chose to make the statement directly to the House of Commons and I will come on in a moment to set out the contents of it. The written ministerial statement merely summarises that.

In the actions we have taken and those we take today, we have always prioritised public safety. As I said earlier, the Bill before us will create a strong regulatory regime for all new high-rise buildings. However, it is also important that we put the risk of a fire, and in particular the risk of a fatal fire, into context. It is very low for all buildings of all heights. Dwelling fires have reduced by more than a quarter over the last decade and are now at an all-time low. It is right that we address safety issues where they exist and are a threat to life, but we must do so in a proportionate way guided by expert advice. That is why, through the Bill, we are drawing a very clear line at 18 metres for the enhanced regulatory regime. That is on the advice of building and fire experts that those are the buildings that pose the greatest safety risks in the event of fire spread or structural failure, albeit even there the risk should not be overstated given the low occurrence of fires and the even lower occurrence of fatalities. We are also including hospitals and care homes that meet the height threshold during their design and construction.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State mentioned discussions with the industry. What can he say to companies in the Glasgow South West constituency, such as Bell Building Projects Ltd, that cannot get the appropriate indemnity insurance because insurance companies will not provide it? That company specialises in cladding. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with insurance companies to enable that company to do cladding across the UK?

[Robert Jenrick]

I have been working intensively with those in the insurance sector and it is incumbent on them to bring forward products. We do not believe that it is the role of the state to step in and correct the market failure in its totality, but we are bringing forward a product—I will say something more about this later in my remarks—with particular reference to professional indemnity insurance for those assessors who are conducting EWS1 forms or equivalent. That is designed to give them the confidence to take the most proportionate risk-based approach to those assessments, which some are not able to do today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the Secretary of State beforehand. The charity Electrical Safety First, which promotes sustainable electrical safety, was brought to my attention, and probably to that of a few others in this House. It states that 54% of electrical fires are caused by an electrical source of ignition. Has the Secretary of State had the chance to speak to the Electrical Safety First charity to ensure safety is paramount in the Bill? If not, could he come back to me on that, please?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to speak to the organisation the hon. Member refers to or ensure that my officials do so if they have not done so already. Of course, we take the risk of electrical fires very seriously, and the Government have taken a number of steps, particularly in the private rental sector, to ensure higher standards than there are today.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and then I must make some progress.

[Hilary Benn]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He made the point a moment ago that the risk of a fatal fire is very low. Can he therefore explain why thousands and thousands of leaseholders are paying for expensive waking watches, having been told by their local fire services that, unless there is a waking watch, the building will be closed down and all of them will have to leave? There is a clear contradiction between those two positions.

[Robert Jenrick]

I think the right hon Gentleman makes an important point, and that is one element of the market failure we are seeing today. Waking watches are being used excessively. They can be rip-offs and, in many cases, they can be replaced by modern fire alarms. That is why I created the waking watch relief fund last year, which is assisting with the issue, but has not closed it down entirely. The National Fire Chiefs Council has now produced further guidance, which essentially says that waking watches should be used only in the most exceptional of circumstances, and where they are used, they should be used only for short periods. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking forward that work with fire and rescue services, and I would like to see most waking watches, barring the most exceptional of circumstances, brought to a close as quickly as possible.

The Bill will deliver improvements across the entire built environment. It will strengthen oversight and protections for residents in high-rise buildings. It will give those residents a greater say and will toughen sanctions against those who threaten safety. Its focus on risk will help owners to manage their buildings better, while giving the home building industry the clear, proportionate framework it needs to deliver more high-quality homes.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make some progress, if I may, but I will return to the hon. Lady.

While strengthening fire safety requirements in all premises regulated by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and improving competence and oversight generally, the Bill rightly focuses the new more stringent requirements on those buildings and those issues that pose the greatest risk. It provides a framework to ensure that, during design and construction, defined duty holders have clear responsibilities and that compliance with building regulations occurs. They will have to clear a series of hard stops through the new gateway system for in-scope buildings. In occupation, every building in scope will have an identified accountable person with clear responsibility for safety matters. Importantly, it will be a criminal offence not to carry out these duties effectively, punishable by an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.

If we are truly to build a world-class regime, then residents must be at its heart. That is why, as well as championing social housing residents through the social housing charter that I created last year, we are giving residents a stronger voice in the system through the Bill, making it easier for them to seek redress and to have their voices heard. The Bill will require an accountable person for a high-rise residential building to engage with their residents and establish a formal complaints process for residents to raise concerns.

These measures are strong, but fair, and they will be overseen by the new building safety regulator within the Health and Safety Executive. The regulator will be equipped with robust powers to crack down on substandard practices, and as I said earlier, it will ensure that proportionality is embedded within its operations.

Dame Judith’s review pointed to an industry that needed significant culture and regulatory change to be fit for purpose, and I am sure I am not the only Member who has been shocked by the recent testimony at the Grenfell inquiry. This has exposed a corrosive culture of corner cutting and at times a cavalier attitude to building safety. We await the findings of the inquiry, and indeed whether criminal proceedings will follow.

The Bill creates powers to strengthen regulatory oversight for firms that manufacture and sell construction products, overseen by the new national regulator for construction products. Crucially, the Bill will have powers to remove unsafe construction products from the market swiftly and to take action against those who break the rules.

Our new regime will help those living in high-rise residential buildings to raise these issues, but we need to expand legal safeguards for everybody, regardless of the type of property they live in. We are strengthening redress for people buying a new build home, through provisions for the new homes ombudsman, which will provide dispute resolution and resolve complaints involving buyers and developers. As Members of Parliament, we all know of examples of shoddy workmanship by developers and of cases where complaints about things ranging from snagging to much more serious issues have not been properly addressed. There will now be a forum where these issues can be settled and consumers provided with the outcome they deserve when making the biggest investment in their lives.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the kind words he said about the Select Committee’s scrutiny of the legislation. On the new homes ombudsman, many of us have been shocked by what we have seen from developers of new housing and the cavalier attitude they have towards their developments. Will he confirm that the new homes ombudsman will have the powers to deal with the appalling practice of non-disclosure agreements which some people have been asked to sign in order to get builders who have not built their homes properly to put that right? Will he consider going a step further and requiring the builders of new homes which have faults to put right all similar faults in other homes, just as a car manufacturer would have to do?

[Robert Jenrick]

Those are two important points. I would like to see the new homes ombudsman be able to take the kind of action that the hon. Gentleman describes. I will have to revert to him on whether the powers exactly allow that. If they do not, that is the kind of issue we should progress during the passage of the Bill. I give way to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and apologise for keeping her waiting.

[Ms Buck]

Returning to the issue of waking watch and risk, London now has 900 waking watches, with the number having risen significantly. The London Fire Brigade says that there remain a number of buildings under 18 metres, or seven storeys, that in its view present equal or greater risks than those currently in scope. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he believes that the LFB is wrong?

[Robert Jenrick]

As I understand it—I stand to be corrected if I have the wrong information—the 900 figure that the hon. Lady cites was a misinterpretation of the figures that were released earlier. None the less, the actual number is significant, albeit fewer than 900. We want to see waking watches used only in cases where they are absolutely necessary. The recent statement from the National Fire Chiefs Council has suggested that they are being used too often and that they can be reduced significantly. If she has constituents in that situation, as I am sure she does, in the first instance I would recommend that they make use of the waking watch relief fund to install a fire alarm, which can cut the costs very considerably.

This Bill takes an unusual step of retrospectively extending the period during which compensation for defective premises can be claimed—it more than doubles the current period, from six to 15 years. This significant step forward was requested and campaigned for by groups impacted by the cladding issue. We are going further, expanding the scope of the work for which compensation can be claimed also to include future major renovation work to buildings. These measures will not help everyone, but they do provide a step change in redress for raising issues. I hope that, in time, builders will extend their warranties to cover this period and provide the maximum amount of confidence to house purchasers.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

While my right hon. Friend is considering this point about the extension, will he please consider the point made by Robert Ayling, at Grosvenor Waterside, that the Building Act 1984 provision should be extended to six years after the plaintiff is aware of the defect? I am not asking for an instant answer, but such a measure would help to deal with the current situation very well.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give that further thought and revert to my hon. Friend on it.

It was clear after the fire at Grenfell Tower that action was required to address safety concerns with respect to existing buildings, and my predecessors rightly took a safety-first approach, as I have also tried to do. We have provided expert advice and accelerated inspections of all high-rise buildings, and that work continues, with substantial progress having been made by the National Fire Chiefs Council on the building risk review, which is likely to be concluded by the end of the year. We have provided £5 billion in grant funding to carry out vital remediation work targeted at the buildings we know to be at the greatest risk from fire spread—those over 18 metres—and we have banned the use of combustible materials on the external walls of high-rise residential buildings, providing industry with a clear standard for the construction of new builds.

Some 474 buildings have been identified as having Grenfell-type ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding. We are now well on the way to remediating all of those buildings. Over 95% of the buildings identified at the beginning of last year have either completed or started remediation work; 70% of those have now been fully remediated, and that is rising every week. That means that around 16,000 homes have been fully remediated of unsafe ACM cladding, an increase of around 4,000 since the end of last year. Despite many building owners failing to provide adequate basic information, almost 700 buildings with other types of unsafe cladding are proceeding with a full application to the building safety fund. We have already allocated £540 million, which means that owners of 60,000 homes within high-rise blocks can be reassured that their remediation will be fully funded.

We currently forecast that over 1,000 buildings with non-ACM unsafe cladding will receive support of the same form through the building safety fund, providing a guide to the cohort of high-rise buildings where remediation is actually required. That is being progressed by a dedicated team in my Department and our two delivery partners, Homes England and the Greater London Authority. The Government have played their part: the unprecedented £5.1 billion we are providing gives assurance to leaseholders in eligible buildings that unsafe cladding on their blocks will be replaced at no cost to them.

I know that there will be strong feelings across the House about industry needing to fix and pay its fair share for problems that is has helped to cause. I recognise that some house builders have stepped up, too, thus far committing over £500 million for remediation since my statement in February. But some have not stepped up, or at least not in the way I expect them to. Ballymore, for example, has yet to commit to fully funding the remediation of its buildings.

The industry needs to go further. That is why we are introducing a new levy on high-rise residential buildings. We have published today a consultation document on the levy and I welcome views from all interested parties on its design. The levy will sit alongside a tax being developed by the Chancellor to raise at least £2 billion to contribute to the costs of historical remediation. This Bill also introduces the building safety charge to provide residents with clarity and certainty on the costs of building works, and we have listened and ensured that that charge only includes the cost of management of building safety in their building.

As I said at the outset, in bringing forward this new building safety regime we need to take a sensible, proportionate approach driven by expert advice. The Bill ensures that the building safety regulator will regulate in line with best practice principles, be proportionate and transparent, and ensure that the interests of leaseholders are protected. In 2020, only 9% of fires were in flats of four storeys or more. In 2019-20, only 7% of fires spread beyond the room of origin in such buildings. And, while every death is of course tragic, thankfully only 10 people died in 2020 as a result of a dwelling fire in flats of four storeys or more. We strongly believe that our proportionate approach is in line with these facts, ensuring that remediation works are undertaken only where absolutely required, and leaseholders should not be landed with bills for unnecessary work.

Unfortunately, that is not the position today and we need a significant reset. Too many people living in lower and medium-rise buildings have told us of feeling trapped in their properties, held back from selling their homes because of excessive caution in the lending, surveying, insurance and fire risk assessment markets. Understandably, this has caused residents to worry over safety and has led to unnecessary costs. I want to be clear that the vast majority of residents in all homes in this country, including blocks of flats, should not feel unsafe. Driven by these concerns, earlier this year I asked a small group of experts on fire safety to consider the evidence and advise me on the steps that should be taken to ensure a proportionate, risk-based approach to fire safety in blocks of flats. I thank them for their time and their expert advice, which I will publish later today.

The key finding of the experts’ advice is clear: we cannot and should not presume systemic risk of fire in blocks of flats. I quoted some of the statistics earlier, but let me repeat them. Dwelling fires are at the lowest point that they have been since we started to collect comparable statistics in 1981, despite the fact that in 2020 people spent significantly greater amounts of time in their homes as a result of covid restrictions. On that basis, the expert advice includes five significant recommendations to correct the disproportionate reaction that we have seen in some parts of the market. First, EWS1 forms should not be a requirement on buildings of less than 18 metres.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

If I may, I will finish this point. I am also conscious of time, as many Members want to contribute to the debate.

Secondly, in the small number of cases where there are known to be concerns, these should be addressed primarily through risk management and mitigation.

Thirdly, there should be a clear route for residents and leaseholders to challenge costly remediation work, and to seek assurance that proposals are indeed proportionate and cost-effective.

Fourthly, the Government should work with the shadow building safety regulator to consider how to implement an audit process to check that fire risk assessments are following guidelines and not perpetuating the risk aversion that we are witnessing and which in some instances are taking unnecessary costs to leaseholders.

Finally, fire risk assessors and lenders should not presume that there is significant risk to life unless there is credible evidence to support that. This will ensure that they only respond to the evidence and adopt a far more proportionate and balanced approach.

This advice is supported by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Institution of Fire Engineers. The Government support and will act on the recommendations. Delivering real change for leaseholders requires a concerted effort from all those actively involved in the market. The Government have in recent weeks been working intensively with lenders, valuers and fire experts in this regard. We welcome the expert advice and support the position that EWS1s should not be needed for buildings of less than 18 metres.

I am pleased that all major lenders have today welcomed this advice, with Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and others agreeing that the expert advice and Government statement should pave the way for EWS1 forms no longer to be required for buildings below 18 metres, which will further unlock the housing market.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not.

I am extremely grateful to those in industry who have already engaged and shown the necessary leadership. This is a highly complex issue, but the Prime Minister and I expect that the appropriate next steps will be taken expediently. The market is shaped not only by the Government but by lenders, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the fire and rescue service, and fire experts. All of us need to act to achieve a market correction and relieve the pressure on homeowners. There can be no bystanders in this action. I am hopeful that other lenders will follow soon, and that RICS will rapidly reflect on the expert advice and update its guidance accordingly. This concerted cross-market approach will open up the housing market for the remaining affected leaseholders.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not because I need to conclude my remarks now.

With the Health and Safety Executive, we will explore ways to deliver a fire risk assessment—

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret to have to raise this matter as a point of order, but the written statement that the Secretary of State has laid makes no clarification about whether this approach applies to England only, to England and Wales, or indeed to the whole UK. Given that it is UK-wide and market-sensitive—there are many leaseholders who will be concerned in all parts of the UK—and given that it applies to UK-wide lenders, with significant financial implications, how can I get an answer from the Secretary of State for the leaseholders who will be watching this debate in other parts of the United Kingdom? It would be very helpful if the Secretary of State could just confirm that point or if he would take a simple intervention to clarify it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order and I reiterate it. I wonder whether the House authorities have done that—I do not know but I ask them to do so immediately.

[Robert Jenrick]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I shall come to the hon. Gentleman, but in answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), my domain as Secretary of State on these matters is within England, but of course the lenders will apply practices at their discretion throughout the whole United Kingdom, so I think his question is probably better directed to the lenders who, following this announcement, will no doubt set out in the coming days how they intend to amend their lending practices in different parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think it is for me to explain the lending practices that they choose to adopt, other than in respect of the quotations that the lenders have given, which I believe will be published later today.

I shall take an intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and then, if I may, I will conclude my remarks.

[Mr Betts]

This is a very significant statement, and it is difficult to read it quickly and grasp it, but it says that EWS1 forms

“should not be needed for buildings less than 18m. This position is a significant step and one supported by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Institute of Fire Engineers.”

That is a significant step, so will the Secretary of State explain, if the form is not necessary for those buildings, whether he is saying that, in effect, apart from cladding removal, significant remediation works are not necessary on buildings below 18 metres? Is that what the Government are saying? Because that is a major step in this debate and the House needs a lot more explanation.

[Robert Jenrick]

The expert advice that I commissioned has concluded that there is no systemic risk to life from purpose-built flats in this country and in particular—this was the question that I asked of the experts—from those flats that are low and medium-rise, meaning those of 11 to 18 metres. The experts’ advice, following on from that, is that they do not see a need for lenders to ask for EWS1 forms in the ordinary course of business. They also recommend that fire risk assessments are conducted in the usual compliance cycle, rather than on demand, in order to satisfy a market transaction such as purchasing or remortgaging a property. They do not conclude—as one would not expect them to do—that all buildings below 18 metres are safe. One can never say that, and there will be buildings that need remediation below that level, but because there is no systemic risk and the number of buildings is likely to be very small, it is not appropriate, in their opinion, which the Government have accepted, that lenders and other parties in the market should act as if there was a widespread and systemic issue. That is a subtle but important change of tone and one that I hope will lead—the initial support of the lenders suggests that this will happen—to a significantly different housing market.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will, and then I would like to conclude my remarks.

[Meg Hillier]

On first reading, there are bits of this written ministerial statement that are very welcome, but it raises many questions. I put on record my regret that we have only had this chance to digest it. The Public Accounts Committee and our sister Committee, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, have been looking at this issue, along with hon. Members in this House for several years. We have been making recommendations along these lines. Our constituents have been paying for safety works and dealing with the fear and anguish created by the very issues that our Committees have raised as problems. What the Secretary of State has come to the House with is a start, but why so late, when this issue has been raised by Members of this House and the Select Committee corridor for some time? I am just puzzled by the late timing.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady in this regard. In the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, advice was published by Government that sought to provide information to the market where there was a significant absence of expert opinion. The market in the years since then has reacted and taken what I have described as a safety-first approach.

In more recent times we have seen—Dame Judith Hackitt, our expert adviser, has used these words herself recently—extreme risk aversion, and that is leading to fear and anxiety above all for members of the public who have a sense of risk with respect to their homes that is not borne out by the evidence in terms of the number of fires or the likelihood of dying in a fire in a high-rise or a purpose-built flat. Secondly, that risk aversion is leading to other market participants, whether lenders, insurers, surveyors or assessors, seeking remediation of those buildings over and above what might seem to be absolutely necessary to achieve an acceptable level of life safety.

Earlier this year, as I have set out in my remarks today—Members will see this in the written ministerial statement, which merely summarises what I have already said to the House directly in somewhat more detail, which is why I chose to say it to the House directly, rather than simply via written ministerial statement—I asked a series of experts to conduct a serious review and analysis of this issue and to present their findings to me. That is what they have done today, and we are publishing them later. We have chosen to accept those and have worked very closely with as many market participants as we could, bearing in mind the market sensitivity of the issue.

I am pleased that a large number of those organisations have welcomed this step and have chosen in one form or another to support it. I do not want to overstate that, because this is a highly complex market and the Government are merely one player within it. It will now require all market participants to think carefully about what the consequences are for their own practices and organisations. I hope that in time they will strongly support the Government’s position, and that this will lead to a significant market correction to the benefit of all our constituents and the whole country.

I will conclude my remarks simply by noting a few other points within the written ministerial statement. With the Health and Safety Executive, we will explore ways to deliver a fire risk assessment audit process that ensures assessments are carried out in a risk-proportionate way, avoiding unnecessary and costly remediation works where they are absolutely not needed. We will explore options to provide a clear route for residents and leaseholders to challenge costly remediation work. That will be progressed alongside the steps we are taking to ensure a proportionate response to risk is embedded in the market, including: developing guidelines for fire risk assessors, such as, and principally, PAS 9980 and the withdrawal of the consolidated advice note; and launching a Government-backed professional indemnity insurance scheme for qualified professionals conducting external wall system fire risk assessments to help ensure there is sufficient capacity in the market to allow EWS1 forms to be completed in a timely manner, where they are necessary, and that those conducting them feel the confidence and security to be able to do so in the most sensible and proportionate manner.

Taken together, all these measures should provide a measure of reassurance to the market and to those living in blocks of flats of any height. I am hopeful that they will have a significant impact, but of course much depends on the willingness of the other market participants to show leadership and commitment and to work together through these complex challenges.

The fire at Grenfell tower was a terrible tragedy, and those who lost loved ones remain in our thoughts. The issues that became clear following the tragedy are multifaceted, and so our response must be as well. It is clear that the actions we have taken and will continue to take, and the world-class building safety regime delivered by this Bill, should deliver a robust but proportionate regime, meaning that people in this country should never feel unsafe in their home.

I commend this Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

Well, it is not actually legislation. The hon. Lady is wrong about that. Yes, of course, we would welcome that. The crucial words that she said there were “should not”, not would not, and that is a different thing entirely. We still need to know on what terms that will be enforced, what recourse would a leaseholder have, and to whom, and what teeth will they have in order to put that into effect. Is it legislation? [Interruption.] I think the Secretary of State is trying to tell me that it is going to be legislation. [Interruption.] Oh, it is just down to the lenders. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to explain.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady seems to misunderstand what an EWS1 form is. An EWS1 form is a product of the lenders and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. It is not the law and neither is it a product created by the Government.

[Lucy Powell]

I am fully aware what an EWS1 form is, thank you. Its scope and its effect came about from the advice note that the Government issued in January 2020. If it is a matter for the lenders, what recourse do leaseholders have? There is nothing in the Secretary of State’s statement about recourse and accountability and where the buck stops. That is my central argument here. In the vacuum of leadership, everybody from insurers to mortgage lenders, risk assessors and others are too concerned about their liability, leaving thousands of buildings with endless fire safety requirements, some of which are potentially life threatening, but others are an unnecessary symptom of this crisis in confidence. Who is it that says which is which? Where does that sit? With whom does that lie? The Government cannot leave this to industry and the private sector to sort out. The market cannot sort this, because it is completely broken—the Secretary of State said today that the market was completely broken as if this was news to him. Yet he says that he will not intervene in that broken market. The power is with him to intervene if he wanted to. That is why we have been calling for a building works agency. I am talking about a crack team of engineers and experts appointed by the Government, going block by block, assessing the real fire risk and what remediation works are absolutely necessary; commissioning and funding those works from the building safety fund; and then, crucially, certifying the building as safe and sellable. This rigorous approach would also keep costs down, and the agency can then go after those responsible for costs. It has been done before in Australia and it can be done again here—if the Secretary of State was prepared to step up, lead and intervene rather than leave it to the broken market he describes.

Local Government

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

On 12 October 2020 [HCWS502] I told the House that I had issued invitations under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) to principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, including associated existing unitary councils, to submit proposals for moving to unitary local government in those areas. Councils in these areas had requested such invitations and had been developing ideas about restructuring local government in their areas for some time.

The consultation

On 22 February 2021 I told the House [HCWS785] that I was launching a statutory consultation on all of the eight locally-led proposals for reorganising local government that I had received on 9 December in response to the invitation. These proposals were, four from councils in Cumbria, two from councils in North Yorkshire and two from councils in Somerset. In the case of each area there is a proposal made by the county council for a unitary authority covering the whole area. In the case of North Yorkshire and Somerset there is a proposal from district councils for two unitary authorities in each area. In Cumbria district councils have made three proposals, each of which involve establishing two unitary authorities.

When launching the consultation I made it clear that I welcomed views from any interested persons, including residents, in addition to the named consultees. The named consultees were the councils which made the proposals, other councils affected by the proposals, councils in neighbouring areas, public service providers, including health providers and the police, local enterprise partnerships, and certain other business, voluntary sector and educational bodies. The consultation closed on 19 April and I have received a total of 13,020 responses. I will be depositing a summary of the consultation responses in the libraries of Parliament.

The decisions on unitary proposals

I am now able to inform the House of my decisions as to which of the eight proposals, subject to parliamentary approval, are to be implemented. The 2007 Act provides that I may implement a proposal with or without modifications. I have decided that in each of the areas to make no such modifications.

In reaching my decision, I carefully considered each of the proposals. I assessed each proposal against the three criteria set out in the invitation sent to all the principal councils on 9 October. These criteria provide that for a proposal to be implemented, that proposal is likely to improve local government and service delivery across its area; commands a good deal of local support as assessed in the round overall across the whole area of the proposal; and any unitary councils to be established have a credible geography.

I have also had regard to all the representations I received, including those received through the consultation, and to all the relevant information available to me, including the results of the local poll that the Somerset district councils held during the period from 18 May to 4 June and the representations received about the poll and its conduct.

For Cumbria I have decided to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the proposal for two unitary councils, an east unitary council covering the existing areas of Barrow, Eden and South Lakeland and a west unitary council covering the existing areas of Allerdale, Carlisle and Copeland. I considered that this proposal met all three of the criteria.

I also considered that the proposal for a single unitary council for the whole of Cumbria also met all three of the criteria. However, having regard to the size and geography of Cumbria, including the geographic barriers of lakes and mountains, and the rurality of its population, I have decided that it would be more appropriate to implement the east west unitary proposal, allowing for more localised decision making, which could be important given the geography of Cumbria.

I have decided not to implement the proposal for two unitary councils, one council comprising the existing areas of Barrow, South Lakeland and Lancaster City and the other council comprising the existing areas of Allerdale, Carlisle, Copeland and Eden. I considered that this proposal did not meet the improving local government and service delivery and credible geography criteria. I have also decided not to implement the proposal for two unitary councils, one council comprising the existing areas of Allerdale, Carlisle and Eden and the other council comprising the existing areas of Barrow, Copeland and South Lakeland. I considered that this proposal did not meet the credible geography criterion.

For North Yorkshire I have decided to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the proposal for a single unitary council for the whole of the existing administrative county of North Yorkshire. I considered that this proposal strongly met all three of the criteria. I have also decided not to implement the proposal for two unitary councils, one council comprising the existing areas of Ryedale, Scarborough, Selby and the current unitary of York, and the other council comprising the existing areas of Craven, Hambleton, Harrogate and Richmondshire. I considered that this proposal did not meet the improving local government and service delivery and credible geography criteria.

For Somerset I have decided to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the proposal for a single unitary council for the whole of the existing administrative county of Somerset. I considered that this proposal met all three of the criteria, strongly meeting the improving local government and service delivery criterion. I have also decided not to implement the proposal for two unitary councils, one council comprising the existing areas of Mendip District and South Somerset and the other council comprising the existing areas of Sedgemoor and Somerset West & Taunton. I considered that this proposal did not meet the improving local government and service delivery and credible geography criteria.

Future steps

I now intend to seek parliamentary approval for the necessary secondary legislation to implement my decisions. I intend to lay the draft structural changes order before Parliament around the turn of the year and they will include provisions for appropriate transitional arrangements, including for elections in May 2022 for the future unitary councils; for cancelling elections currently scheduled for May 2022 for existing councils, including those rescheduled from May 2021 as a result of the orders made earlier this year; and for the unitary councils to assume the full range of local authority responsibilities on 1 April 2023, when predecessor councils would be abolished.

Establishing these new unitary councils will be a significant step towards ensuring the people and businesses across Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset can in future have the sustainable high-quality local services they deserve. I expect all the existing councils and their partners to work collaboratively and constructively together to drive forward the process of establishing unitary councils and transforming local service delivery for the residents, businesses and local communities of these three areas.

I would like to reiterate that Government will not impose top-down Government solutions. We will continue, as I am now currently doing, to follow a locally-led approach where councils can develop proposals which have strong local support. However, restructuring is only one of the different ways that councils can streamline and make savings, and deliver strong leadership. This has been the Government’s consistent approach since 2010, when top-down restructuring was stopped through the Local Government Act 2010.

When considering reform, those in an area will know what is best, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his speech on 15 July we remain committed to devolving power to people and places across the UK. We are open to devolution where there is strong local leadership, whether supported by two tier local government, unitary structures or various joint arrangements. Our plans for doing this and strengthening local accountable leadership will be set out in the forthcoming Levelling Up White Paper.

[HCWS234]

Building Beautiful Places

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

The Government have set out to put beauty and design, for the first time, at the heart of the local planning system. To that end, we are changing the system so that local people are empowered to set standards for beauty and design in their area through local design codes. These codes will reflect their area’s unique aesthetics, culture and heritage, with tree-lined streets accompanying new developments.

The Government are publishing today the revised national planning policy framework (the framework), the new national model design code, and the Government’s response to the consultation on both. The consultation on the draft framework and national model design code ran from 30 January to 27 March and the Government are grateful to all who responded. In light of comments received, the Government have made important changes to this framework and national model design code.

The new framework is fundamental to ensuring local authorities and communities can shape and deliver beautiful places to live and work, with a greater emphasis on quality, design and the environment than ever before.

The changes we have made take forward the recommendations of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission that national policy should place a stronger focus on the creation of beautiful buildings and beautiful places. The framework will ensure that communities are more meaningfully engaged in how new development happens, that local authorities are given greater confidence in turning down schemes which do not meet locally set standards, and greater certainty to those schemes that do. This is part of the Government’s programme of improving the planning system to put high-quality, environmentally friendly design front and centre of new development.

Our policy changes will ensure the system helps to create buildings that fit in with places, while maintaining the framework’s existing strong focus on delivering the homes and other development which communities need. The changes:

Make beauty and place-making a strategic theme in the framework

Set out the expectation that local authorities produce their own design codes and guides setting out design principles which new development in their areas should reflect

Ask for new streets to be tree-lined

Improve biodiversity and access to nature through design

Put an emphasis on approving good design as well as refusing poor quality schemes

We have also made a number of environment-related changes, including on flood risk and climate change. These changes are an initial response to the emergent findings of our joint review with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of policy for building in areas of flood risk. For instance, highlighting the opportunities from improvements in green infrastructure and natural flood management techniques. We are also amending guidance on flood risk to emphasise that checks done by local authorities should steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source.

Our changes also include:

emphasis of the importance of retaining and explaining the historic and social context of historic statues, plaques, memorials or monuments rather than removing them

an update on the use of Article 4 Directions

an expectation that local planning authorities take a proactive approach to engaging with key delivery bodies and other stakeholders at the pre-application stage of local plan making

Alongside the national planning policy framework, the Government are also publishing the national model design code. This provides detailed guidance on the production of local design codes, guides and policies to promote successful design. It expands on the 10 characteristics of good design set out in the national design guide, which reflects Government priorities and provides a common overarching framework for design. The national model design code forms part of the Government’s planning practice guidance. Creating more beautiful places requires a greener approach that supports progress towards our 25-year environment plan goals. The national model design code sets a baseline standard of quality and practice which local planning authorities are expected to take into account, including the approach to landscape, green infrastructure, biodiversity and tree-lined streets.

The national model design code should be used as a toolkit to guide local planning authorities on the design parameters and issues that need to be considered when producing design codes and guides. It also sets out methods to capture and reflect the views of the local community from the outset, and at each stage in the process. Design codes are important because they provide a framework for creating healthy, environmentally responsive and sustainable places, with a consistent and high-quality standard of design. This will provide greater certainty for communities about the design of development and bring conversations about design to the start of the planning process, rather than the end.

Our changes will ensure that new homes in England are built to a dramatically higher standard, embedding the work Sir Roger Scruton, Nicholas Boys Smith and everyone involved in the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission began. And we are now establishing the Office for Place within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), advised by a board led by Nicholas Boys Smith, who will look to help local authorities across England create user-friendly but effective design codes for their communities. Fourteen councils across England are now testing this new approach and we will undertake further pilots over the course of the year.

[HCWS216]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to modernise the planning system in England.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

We will modernise the planning system, ensuring a simpler, faster and more predictable system that delivers more homes, more infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, and honours our commitment to net zero and the environment. Our reforms will also make the planning system more accessible through digital plan making, ensuring more local people—more than the 1% who currently engage with the planning system—can get involved. We are taking power out of the hands of the big developers and giving it back to local communities and small builders so that, together, we can build back better.

[Dean Russell]

I thank my right hon. Friend and Ministers for their engagement and correspondence over the last year. As he will know, I have asked what mechanisms exist to challenge the housing targets for my constituency. As such, will he confirm my new understanding that the local authority housing needs target is not set in stone and is a starting point for negotiation, and that it is the local authority’s responsibility to challenge the housing target as part of its local plan?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend and I have spoken about that on a number of occasions—as have I with you, Mr Speaker. He will appreciate that I am unable to comment on the specific local plans because of my quasi-judicial role. However, he is right to say that housing targets are only a starting point. All local plans are subject to an independent examination. Following consultation with the local community, anyone who wants to make representations to change a plan must be heard by the inspector. That process will take into account local land constraints such as the green belt, sites of special scientific interest, national parks and so on in coming to a sensible and credible way forward.

[Rob Butler]

My right hon. Friend is right that planning reform is overdue, but in Buckinghamshire there are serious concerns that the voices of local people will not be heard. For example, we know that in Aylesbury many thousands more houses will be built in the coming years, but the town is already merging into nearby villages and infrastructure is at breaking point. What reassurance can he provide that when residents raise legitimate concerns, they will be listened to?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is right to say that significant housing delivery is occurring at the moment in Aylesbury. There are two principal things that the Government seek to do to support his constituents. The first is to ensure that more infrastructure accompanies that housing; we will do that principally through our infrastructure levy, which will capture more of the land value uplift and put more money at the service of his excellent local council in Buckinghamshire. Secondly, we will ensure that more local people can be involved in the planning system by digitising it so that, at the touch of a smartphone, people can access and understand a plan and comment on or even object to a planning application. By doing so, we expect that we can boost the number of people who engage in our system and drive a truly localist approach.

[Chris Clarkson]

There is a great deal of concern in my Heywood and Middleton constituency and across Greater Manchester about the amount of green belt approved for release by the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, as part of his Greater Manchester spatial framework. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me about protection of the green belt as part of his Department’s new planning reforms?

[Robert Jenrick]

This Government made a manifesto commitment not just to protect the green belt, but to enhance it. At the moment, planning policy is clear that building on the green belt should be contemplated only in the most exceptional circumstances, and we intend to continue that through our modernised planning system. I appreciate the pressure that my hon. Friend and his constituents are under as a result of the proposed Greater Manchester spatial framework, which does not seem to accord with the wishes of local residents. I hope that as we come out of the pandemic, Manchester City Council and others with a good record of house building and regeneration will find opportunities for imaginative building on brownfield sites and around the city centre.

[Laura Trott]

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s earlier answer, but does he agree that in any future planning reforms we must increase protection for our green belt? In Sevenoaks and Swanley, we are 93% green belt, yet we are constantly inundated by speculative planning applications such as that at Broke Hill, which worry the local community. The message should be clear: if it is green belt, it is protected, and if a planning application is put in for the green belt, the answer will be no.

[Robert Jenrick]

The point that my hon. Friend touches on is that the current planning system is not well regarded and is not producing the kinds of outcomes that we want; that is precisely why we want to reform and modernise it. We want to ensure that protections such as the green belt have the weight that they deserve in the planning system and that we can cut out speculative development unless it is approved by democratically elected local councillors at their sole discretion. The system that we are bringing forward does exactly that. Local authorities will need to have a plan; if they have a plan that is allocated land, there will be no need for issues such as speculative development and the five-year land supply.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The anti-corruption campaign Transparency International says that the Conservative party has become overly dependent on donations from developers. It is particularly concerned that Ministers failed to report the details of what they talked about to developers in over 300 meetings about which they simply disclosed generalisations such as “housing” or “planning”; it fears that that could amount to what it calls aggregate corruption. Will the Secretary of State now publish the full minutes of all those meetings so that the public can see exactly what Ministers agreed to do for their developer paymasters?

[Robert Jenrick]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, all meetings that Ministers have are correctly identified on the register of interests, but I have to say that he has been on quite a journey. One adviser who worked with him as leader of Lambeth Council has been left bemused: is this the same Champagne Steve he remembers meeting with developers? It is not just him who has invited charges of shameless hypocrisy; the Leader of the Opposition has received thousands of pounds of donations from developers, and the deputy leader of the Labour party caused a splash in the papers the other day for accepting £10,000 from developers for her leadership campaign.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Could the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the word “hypocrisy”? Hon. Members would never be hypocritical.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will certainly withdraw that, at your request, Mr Speaker. We can only imagine how much the deputy leader of the Labour party will be asking for when it comes to her impending leadership campaign.

[Steve Reed]

It is not surprising that the Secretary of State is refusing to be transparent, because we all know who benefits the most from their developers’ charter. Just weeks ago, this House passed Labour’s motion to guarantee residents’ right to a say over local planning applications in their own neighbourhoods. This week, councillors of all parties—including the right hon. Gentleman’s—in Medway and Richmond passed similar motions. How many more councils will need to do the same before he ditches the developers’ charter and his plan to pay back developers by selling out communities?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am sure that Conservative councillors the length and breadth of the country were over the moon to receive the hon. Gentleman’s letter. I can see the scene now over the summer recess, when the gate rattles or there is a knock at the door and he rushes to check what the post has brought in, but like a jilted lover or a pen pal who assumes his letters got lost in the mail, he finds nothing there except just another letter from Croydon Council telling him that the bills are going up as a result of the terrible mistakes and mismanagement that his friends and cronies are making over at Croydon. He has taken an avowedly anti-house building approach. This is a far cry from the Labour party of Attlee and Bevan, who said that this was a social service and a moral mission. This Government are going to keep on building houses, but we will build them sensitively. We will build beautiful homes, we will protect the environment and we will help young people and those on lower incomes to enjoy all the security and prosperity that comes with owning a home of their own.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]]

I hope that the Secretary of State has seen the Select Committee’s report into the planning reforms. We were supportive of a number of aspects, including the need to strengthen local plans and how they are drawn up. Could I ask him two things in relation to our recommendations? We need to recognise the serious change in moving to a zonal system and the importance of getting the details right, and I wonder if he might consider the recommendation to move, at the next stage, to a draft Bill, so that we could give it serious pre-legislative scrutiny as to what it would mean in practice. Secondly, will he have another look at the distribution of housing under his latest proposals? Under the proposals, large areas of the north outside the major cities will see their housing numbers fall, which seems to be in contradiction to the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the members of the Select Committee for their interesting report, which we have considered carefully as part of the broader work that we have done to listen to the views of colleagues here in Parliament on both sides of the House and in the country before preparing our response to the White Paper in the autumn. I will of course bear in mind his suggestion about pre-legislative scrutiny, which may be a good way forward. On his second point, I must respectfully disagree, because I think levelling up involves ensuring that our big cities of the midlands and the north build more homes. That is the way we will ensure a brownfield-first approach. That is also the way we will ensure inspired regeneration and get aspirational middle-class families back into some of those great cities, and ensure that councils have the revenues they need to invest and to prosper; and of course it is the way to protect the countryside from unnecessary development.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

What progress he has made on the Government’s new deal for social housing since the publication of the social housing Green Paper in 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to regenerate towns and high streets.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

As we build back better from the pandemic, we are transforming our high streets into the kind of places that people want to call home for generations to come. Last week, the Prime Minister announced the last 15 of our 101 town deals worth £2.4 billion, alongside launching our £150 million community ownership fund and our high streets strategy. That set out a vision for cleaner and more vibrant high streets where entrepreneurs can thrive and local businesses are supported, with permanent al fresco dining and where derelict eyesores are transformed into quality homes.

[Lee Anderson]

Now then, Ashfield has benefited from more than £70 million from the towns fund and the future high streets fund, which is welcome news to our struggling high streets, but the independent traders in Kirby-in-Ashfield are up in arms at Ashfield District Council’s decision to double car parking charges on a four-hour stay. This is after it has increased its own allowances by £55,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend please remind the politicians at Ashfield District Council that, while they are taking Government cash to help regenerate our high streets, they, too, could help by not doubling car parking charges, which hurt our shoppers, our shopworkers and our high streets?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency has received that £70 million to deliver exciting regeneration projects across his local area. He is right to say that it would be perverse if the Government are doing so much, with his help, to support the people of Ashfield for his council not to play its part as well. We want high streets to be as accessible as possible, whether that is by car, walking or cycling, and to be attractive places for local people to visit, to live in and to shop.

[Aaron Bell]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to visit me in Newcastle-under-Lyme earlier this month. Newcastle-under-Lyme is benefiting from more than £34 million of investment through the towns deal and the future high streets fund. He knows the town very well and will know that the Ryecroft site, in particular, has been an eyesore for a long time, along with the derelict former Sainsburys site and the former civic offices. Does he therefore welcome, as I do, the fact that we now have a Conservative council under the leadership of Simon Tagg that has a proposal for the site, with the demolition of the old offices, and that with our future high streets funding we will see that developed in the next couple of years?

[Robert Jenrick]

It was a pleasure to visit Newcastle-under-Lyme once again with my hon. Friend—a town that I have known for more than a decade. It was heartening to see that a good Conservative council very ably led by Simon Tagg has a real 10 or 20-year plan for the town centre backed by tens of millions of pounds of Government investment. That is exactly what we want to see replicated on high streets across the country.

[Simon Jupp]

I am backing an exciting multi-million-pound bid put forward by Devon County Council and East Devon District Council to help regenerate east Devon’s largest town, Exmouth. If the bid is successful, the planned Dinan Way extension will improve journeys into Exmouth and cut congestion, and will also see the town centre spruced up around the train station. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to make sure that every corner of the country, including the south-west, sees the full benefits of levelling up?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have already committed over £430 million of investment in the south-west alone through the getting building fund, the future high streets fund and the towns fund. My hon. Friend and I have spoken many times about Exmouth and I visited the town with him a year or so ago. It is exactly the kind of place that these funds were designed to support. I very much look forward to reviewing the advice from my officials with regard to the bid for the levelling up fund, and, if it is a successful bid, to seeing positive change for his constituents in the months and years ahead.

[Alexander Stafford [V]]

It is great to be able to announce that after a long campaign through my parliamentary petition and an Adjournment debate in this House, a bid for the levelling-up fund has been submitted by Rotherham Council to improve Dinnington high street. However, I am greatly disappointed that Rotherham Council has not submitted a bid for other high streets across Rother Valley such as Maltby, Thurcroft and Swallownest. What can this Government do to ensure that Rotherham Council has plans for and improves all our high streets across Rother Valley?

[Robert Jenrick]

I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday. I am delighted that the council put in a bid for Dinnington high street, where he and I met for the first time in 2019. He asks a very important question about what the Government will do for smaller towns across the country, particularly those in ex-mining and ex-steel communities—places that I know well in north Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire. That is one reason that we brought forward the levelling-up fund, which I hope his constituency will benefit from. It does require councils such as Rotherham to step up and develop with their local Member of Parliament high-quality bids, so I hope it will do so in the years ahead for the other towns in his constituency.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with devolved Administrations on delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

As the Prime Minister said last Thursday in his speech on levelling up, the Government’s vital mission is about raising living standards, spreading opportunity, improving our public services and restoring people’s sense of pride in their community. That is why I was delighted to launch last week the Government’s new high streets strategy. It is why I was pleased to launch our £150 million community ownership fund and the final details of our multibillion-pound towns fund. Last year, my Department introduced changes to make it quicker, easier and cheaper for restaurants, pubs and cafés to set up outdoor sitting and street stalls to serve food and drink, sparking, for the first time in my lifetime, a real pavement café culture. I am delighted that the Government have announced that we are making these changes permanent—something I think we can all drink to as we enjoy a truly great British summer.

[Chris Loder [V]]

Good afternoon from West Dorset, Mr Speaker. Dorset Council has done a huge amount of effective work to protect vulnerable people by tackling domestic violence, and there is no doubt in my mind that the extra funding given by my right hon. Friend’s Department will help substantially. However, this funding is ring-fenced for reactive responses to domestic violence. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to look at providing non-ringfenced funding for new burdens under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, so that Dorset Council can continue its vital work in preventing domestic abuse, not just reacting to it when it happens?

[Robert Jenrick]

Domestic abuse is a terrible crime, and I, like Members on both sides of the House, was pleased that we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act earlier this year, and that the Government are fully funding the duties on local authorities with £125 million. I have written to all local authorities in England, asking them to use that money for its intended purpose, and to ensure that money goes to refuges, which are not the only thing we should be supporting but are a very important part of the answer in protecting victims of domestic abuse. I will take his comments with respect to Dorset Council seriously. I have heard that it is taking a number of important steps, including, for example, spending £650,000 to tackle this issue.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State lobby the Chancellor to ensure that any legislation introduced after the current consultation on access to cash will include a statutory obligation on banks to provide adequate access to cash withdrawals free at the point of use and that meet the needs of our high streets and our communities?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, particularly for rural communities and those that are harder to serve. The pandemic has had a profound impact on access to cash, with many stores—perhaps the vast majority—moving to a cashless society, but we must not forget those people who are left behind by that, so I will take her comments back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as he prepares to respond.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) [V]]

My constituency has seen massive housing development over the past couple of decades, and that growth has put enormous pressure on our local infrastructure and resulted in a shortage of school places, increased traffic congestion and one of the highest patient-to-doctor ratios in the country. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is put in place to solve those problems, and what will he do to ensure that no further housing developments take place in my constituency unless and until the correct infrastructure is put in place first?

[Robert Jenrick]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is vitally important that new housing development is supported by commensurate infrastructure —both physical and social infrastructure—and affordable housing. Of course, it is also true that the majority of that infrastructure today is funded by developer contributions from new housing, but we need to ensure that developers pay their fair share. That is the idea behind the infrastructure levy, whereby local areas can themselves set the rate of taxation they require to capture more land value to put at the service of local communities. I think that if we can secure that passage—I hope we will get cross-party support for this—it will make a big difference, particularly in those parts of the country where planning is particularly challenging at the moment.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see the Secretary of State here, having survived yet another thankless broadcast stint on behalf of those in No. 10—sent out to defend the indefensible, only for them to U-turn as soon as he finished on air.

The Big Issue warned this week:

“More people are at risk of homelessness now than at any time in living memory.”

So can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of the number of evictions that will happen as a result of covid, and how much will the resultant homelessness cost local councils in temporary accommodation? In March 2020 he said that

“nobody should lose their home”

as a result of the pandemic. Can he confirm that this promise has now been abandoned, and if not, how is he fulfilling it?

[Robert Jenrick]

This Government took exceptional steps early in the pandemic, with cross-party support, and they were the right things to do. We legislated and, for example, we increased the notice periods for people with tenancies under section 21. That protected many thousands of people in a very difficult period for this country. They were also a product of a time when the housing market was closed as a matter of law, so it was impossible to move house. The position today is different— people are able to move house and the housing market is very open and active—but we still want to protect the most vulnerable people in society. We are doing that with longer notice periods and further support through the benefits system and local housing need, and of course we will keep this under review. However, I pay tribute to councils across the country for the phenomenal achievement of our Everyone In programme, which has seen rates of people sleeping rough on our streets reduced by almost 40%, and we must keep that going.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]]

In Wolverhampton, green space has been put forward for housing development by the city council. I am sure that the council would welcome reassurance from the Secretary of State that there can be discussions with his Department about the accuracy and reasonableness of those numbers going forward. Does he agree that city centre living is key, and that councils must be imaginative when incorporating housing into retail and leisure developments? I am thinking specifically of the Westside development in Wolverhampton, which could be reviewed. That is key to supporting a city centre economy—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Robert Jenrick]

As a son of Wolverhampton, I know the city well and I wish it well. It is absolutely right that we need to build more homes in our town and city centres, and that is what the Government are doing. That is why we brought forward changes to permitted development, why we created the right to demolish and rebuild a building, and why we are bringing forward reforms to modernise the planning system. That is the way we protect the green belt for future generations. From Wolverhampton and the Black Country, one has to drive only a few miles into the most beautiful countryside of Shropshire and south Staffordshire. I want to preserve that, which is exactly what our planning reforms will do.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

I was enthused to hear recently that a positive discussion is ongoing with the Welsh Government about a freeport in Wales. Does the Secretary of State agree that a freeport would be massively beneficial, particularly if it spreads the entire length of north Wales, taking into account its borders at the port of Holyhead, as well as manufacturing centres in Wrexham, Deeside and Delyn, to drive forward economic benefits for our entire region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

Many of the buildings in my constituency that have been found to have cladding defects, including Norfolk House, St Peters Gardens and Leeward Court, are under 18 metres and therefore ineligible for the building safety fund. The only offer made to impacted leaseholders is a loan scheme, with no clarity about how it will work and when it will be made available. When will the Secretary of State’s Department finally step up and extend funding to those blocks under 18 metres that are in need of remediation?

[Robert Jenrick]

In terms of buildings with the most dangerous form of cladding, there are five that I am aware of in Lewisham. One has completed work and is awaiting building control sign-off, three have had their unsafe aluminium composite material cladding removed altogether, and the other one has works under way, so we are making good progress there, as we are elsewhere in the country. On buildings below 18 metres, we need to take a more proportionate approach. There are leaseholders who are being asked to pay bills for those buildings that are unconscionable and likely to be unnecessary. I am working intensively with lenders, insurers and building safety experts to change that, because we have to adopt a more proportionate and sensible regime than the one we are experiencing right now.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]]

Darlington Borough Council has provided 169 authorised pitches for members of the Gypsy, Romany, Traveller community, and planning for a further 25 is currently being assessed. That is a leading example of how local authorities should be providing for their Gypsy, Romany, Traveller communities. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps his Department is taking to encourage other local authorities to provide sufficient and adequate legal sites?

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]]

The last year saw a record rise in council tax arrears of £1.5 billion, as families struggled under the weight of the pandemic. With tens of thousands more people likely to receive a call or a knock on the door from a bailiff in the months and years ahead, will the Secretary of State look at proposals from the Centre for Social Justice for an enforcement conduct authority, developed through a historic coming-together of bailiffs and the debt advice sector?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to look at those proposals. I have already seen them, but perhaps the hon. Lady and I can meet to discuss them in further detail.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, there are building safety issues other than cladding, including missing firebreaks. Will he therefore tell me what advice I can give to my constituents who are currently unable to sell or let properties that they bought in good faith a matter of only a few years ago?

[Robert Jenrick]

Shoddy workmanship of that kind is disgraceful, and developers should step up and pay for any works that are required. We are changing the law through the Building Safety Bill to give homeowners a longer period of redress to take action against developers and builders who build poorly. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is also important that our response is proportionate, because some of the works relating to that kind of non-cladding issue—not all, but some—that leaseholders are being asked to pay for are unnecessary. We will be saying more about that soon.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

  During the recent by-election campaign in my home constituency of Batley and Spen, fellow residents raised with me their concerns regarding proposals to build a large Amazon warehouse in Scholes. The Government are proposing to shift power away from residents and towards developers, so will the Secretary of State assure me that the rights of local people to be fully informed and have their objections taken seriously will always be respected?

[Robert Jenrick]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in this House. As a former by-election winner, I know what it is like to enter in a class of one. I am sure she will thrive, as others have done, including several members of the Opposition Front Bench.

We are seeing an increase in the number of applications across the country for logistics sites, born of the pandemic experience of increased online shopping. It is an issue that other local authorities are experiencing and we are alive to it. Of course, any reforms we make to the planning system will continue to have the hon. Lady’s constituents at their heart. They will continue to be able to allocate sites in the plan making process, including commercial sites, and to object to planning applications if they wish.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Although I would have loved Hyndburn and Haslingden to be a beneficiary of the towns deal, my understanding is that those decisions were made in October 2019, before I was elected, and I wish that those in charge in Hyndburn and Haslingden had done more to secure one. However, we are now in a position to bid for the levelling-up fund, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that an announcement will be made soon on the second round so that we can put forward our case for the well-deserved investment?

[Robert Jenrick]

It is disappointing that proposals have not been brought forward so far, but we want to work with my hon. Friend and her local council. I saw from Accrington when she and I visited just how much potential it has. It is a very beautiful town centre, but in need of investment. We will bring forward proposals shortly for the second round and I or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set that out later in the year.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

  Rather than create a developer’s opportunity to provide slum living accommodation through the relaxation of permitted development rights, why does the Secretary of State not force developers who have planning permission for 1.1 million homes, according to the Local Government Association, to bring forward those plans and also the planning applications for the 1 million homes that can be built on the sites that have been designated for housing?

[Robert Jenrick]

The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that that is exactly what we are going to do, so I hope he will be an enthusiastic champion of the planning Bill when it reaches the House. He is right to say that there is an issue with developers not building the homes they have got permission for. Successive studies suggest that it is overstated, but none the less, it is an important issue, its time has come and we as a Parliament should tackle it. The planning Bill will include such proposals and I hope that we can work on a cross-party basis to achieve them.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I listened to the Secretary of State’s earlier answers and it seems to me that the dream of home ownership is something that this party still supports and has always supported. The fact that young people have not been able to buy houses at the same rate as in the past is a matter of intergenerational unfairness. May I therefore welcome the Government’s proposals, the consultation they will conduct and the fact that we are doing something about it while the Opposition do not appear to have any policies on the matter?

[Robert Jenrick]

The Conservative party has always been the party of home ownership, which is a fundamental tenet of what we seek to achieve. We want to extend opportunity to all. We are bringing forward the Bill to help the next generation of young people on to the ladder. Of course, we are also doing brilliant things such as First Homes, whereby we offer discounts of up to 30% to 50% to local first-time buyers throughout the country. I was pleased to unveil the next site for those near my hon. Friend’s constituency in Cannock the other day.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Delivery of Food and Essential Goods

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

I wish to update the House on the measures the Government are taking to ensure the availability of food, sanitary and other essential goods.

The food sector is facing a new, exceptional challenge resulting from the acute shortage of HGV drivers across the distribution network. This is resulting in missed deliveries of food and other essential goods and has the potential to lead to significant shortages. The Government want to respond to this proactively by ensuring the industry has the tools available to effectively respond to these pressures to minimise any disruption to the public.

My colleague the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), introduced measures on 12 July 2021 aimed at proactively addressing this issue, through the temporary relaxation of HGV driving time regulations. I wish to complement these measures by making this written ministerial statement about the enforcement of planning conditions relating to delivery hours to retailers of food, sanitary and other essential goods. This will allow for both measures to work in tandem, providing the industry with much-needed logistical flexibility. We believe these measures will provide supermarkets, other retailers of food and essential goods and their suppliers with increased flexibility over deliveries to ensure a consistent supply of essential goods.



Many supermarkets, food retailers and distribution centres in England are subject to controls which restrict the time and number of deliveries from lorries and other delivery vehicles, particularly at night. These include planning conditions, which are necessary to make the development acceptable to local residents who might otherwise suffer from traffic, noise and other local amenity issues as a result of these deliveries.

The national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

The purpose of this written ministerial statement, which comes into effect immediately, is to make clear that local planning authorities should take a positive approach to their engagement with food retailers and distributors, as well as the freight industry, to ensure planning controls are not a barrier to deliveries of food, sanitary and other essential goods.

Local planning authorities should not seek to undertake planning enforcement action which would result in unnecessarily restricting deliveries of food, sanitary and other essential goods during this period, having regard to their legal obligations. The Government recognise that it may be necessary for action to be taken in relation to the impacts on neighbours of sustained disturbance due to deliveries outside of conditioned hours, particularly where this affects sleep. In this case a local planning authority should consider any efforts made by retailers to manage and mitigate such disturbance, taking into account the degree and longevity of amenity impacts.

On 13 March 2020, I made a similar statement to the house in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We kept this under review and extended the provisions with additional statements as necessary. This statement will replace all my previous statements on the matter.

This written ministerial statement only covers England and will expire on 31 January 2022, giving direction to the industry and local planning authorities over the next six months. We will keep the need for this statement under review.

[HCWS187]

Revitalising High Streets and Town Centres

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

As part of our ongoing measures to improve the planning system, increase housing supply on brownfield land, stimulate investment in urban areas and sustain jobs, we have in recent years introduced new permitted development rights which allow the change of use to residential without the need for a full planning application. I am pleased that, through these measures, we have made a significant additional contribution to our housing supply by utilising already developed brownfield land. We have also legislated to ensure new homes delivered via permitted development rights provide adequate daylight and meet national space standards. Our most recent reforms introduced a new right to allow change of use from commercial, business and service use to residential. This will breathe new life into commercial areas and high streets by bringing vacant buildings back into use as new high street homes, all the more important as a result of the economic disruption caused by the covid-19 pandemic.

In very specific circumstances, local authorities can make article 4 directions to suspend individual permitted development rights, when justified by robust evidence.

This written ministerial statement sets out measures I am taking to ensure that our policy on article 4 directions is used in a highly targeted way to protect the thriving core of historic high street areas, but does not unnecessarily restrict the ability to deliver much needed housing through national permitted development rights. Our new policy will apply to all article 4 directions.

We recently consulted on revised policy on article 4 directions in our consultation on the “National Planning Policy Framework and National Model Design Code: consultation proposals”, which ran from 30 January to 27 March 2021. I have reviewed our national policy in the light of the helpful responses to that consultation.

As a result, I intend to make changes to the national planning policy framework later this year, but ahead of that I wanted to announce our new policy, so that local authorities and communities can take it into account from today when they consider bringing in any new article 4 directions.

The new paragraph 53 of the national planning policy framework will read:

“The use of article 4 directions to remove national permitted development rights should:

where they relate to change from non-residential use to residential use, be limited to situations where an article 4 direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts (this could include the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area which would seriously undermine its vitality and viability, but would be very unlikely to extend to the whole of a town centre);

in other cases, be limited to situations where an article 4 direction is necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area (this could include the use of article 4 directions to require planning permission for the demolition of local facilities);

in all cases, be based on robust evidence, and apply to the smallest geographical area possible.”

Our aim is to support high streets and by ensuring a higher threshold for making article 4 directions relating to change of use to residential we will maximise the potential for underused buildings to be converted to an alternative use. Councils should recognise the value to housing supply and increasing resident town centre footfall from supporting “flats above shops”; for example, councils can consider applying different policies to residential conversions above ground floor level. This is important to support mixed and flexible high streets, to deliver additional homes more easily, and to support jobs in the construction industry, while increasing demand for local high street services through new high street homes. This change only applies to changes from non-residential to residential use. This change does not apply to changes between different residential uses, which will enable local authorities to continue to restrict change of use from a family home to a house of multiple occupancy where that is necessary to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area.

Article 4 directions should be very carefully targeted, applying only to those locations where they are necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts. For that reason, I want to make clear that the geographical coverage of all article 4 directions should be the smallest area possible to achieve the aim of the article 4 direction. In respect of historic high streets and town centres, this is likely to be the irreducible core of a primary shopping area. It is very unlikely to be applicable to a broad area, and is not expected to be applied to an entire local authority area. Local authorities will need to have robust evidence to justify the article 4 direction and the area it covers.

In advance of the publication of the revised national planning policy framework, I want local authorities to follow this new policy when they consider making new article 4 directions so that they can assure themselves and their communities that the article 4 direction is necessary and meets the higher threshold. Local authorities are required to notify me about new article 4 directions. I will instruct my officials to look closely at all new article 4 directions to check that they comply with the new policy, and I will consider exercising my power to intervene if they do not.

[HCWS145]

Tourism in England: Temporary Campsite Capacity

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

As England opens up and more Britons seek to go on holiday there over the summer, the Government want to support domestic tourism. To do this, we will encourage greater temporary campsite capacity over the summer through updated guidance.

Last year the Government introduced a temporary permitted development right which allows for the temporary use of land as a commercial campsite for up to 56 days, without the need to apply for planning permission. This allows businesses across the tourism and hospitality sectors to establish temporary “pop-up” campsites on their land to meet additional demand. We would like to see more of these businesses taking advantage of this opportunity over the summer, so we will encourage local planning authorities to take a flexible and proportionate approach to the enforcement of planning controls, including restrictions through planning conditions on existing campsites, which may limit the temporary extension of commercial campsites for leisure use over this holiday season. This builds on my previous statement made to the House on 14 July 2020.

Paragraph 58 of the national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

The purpose of this written ministerial statement, which comes into effect immediately, is therefore to make clear that, in considering the exercise of their discretion over enforcement, local planning authorities should take a positive approach to their engagement with commercial campsites for leisure use to ensure planning controls are not a barrier to local tourism and hospitality’s economic recovery.

In particular, unless legal obligations dictate otherwise, local authorities should not seek to undertake enforcement action against potential breaches of planning control in relation to temporary commercial campsites for leisure use which do not have an adverse impact on amenity, public health and safety or the environment.

This statement does not apply to other forms of campsites, including those for domestic use, and this statement does not stop local authorities taking appropriate action where there are significant adverse impacts on amenity, public health and safety or the environment. This position should not stop enforcement action against unauthorised encampments (such as tents or caravans) on land which the occupiers do not have permission of the landowner to camp upon, nor for non-commercial activity such as a personal dwelling.

Furthermore, this statement does not remove the legal requirement for campsite licenses under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936. The Government will work with local authorities to facilitate a quick licensing process this summer, and authorities are encouraged to expedite new applications for licences to provide certainty for applicants.

This written ministerial statement only covers England and expires on 31 October 2021.

[HCWS128]

Planning Decisions: Local Involvement

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

The Opposition called this debate today to divide us, but I do not think they have succeeded. What we have heard, time and again, across the House is a very high degree of consensus. Member after Member, from either side of the House, queued up to say that this country needs to build more houses. Some said we have a housing crisis. Some said we have a generational duty to help young people and those on low incomes to enjoy the dream of home ownership, which so many of us—the vast majority of people in this House—have already achieved and are enjoying. Member after Member, including almost every contribution from the Labour party, queued up to say that the current planning system does not work. Some made extremely good and important points. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said that the single biggest issue she hears from her constituents on is the planning system and how it is failing to address the needs of her constituents. Yet we also heard from the Labour Front-Bench team an argument that we should do absolutely nothing—that we should not take forward any ambitious plans to reform the planning system at all.

The shadow Secretary of State spoke for nine minutes but said absolutely nothing. All he has managed to achieve with this debate has been to shine a light on the Labour party’s own derisory record on housing. Let us not forget that this Government, back in 2010, inherited levels of house building at the lowest they had been since the 1920s. Those of us who are just about old enough to remember that time recall when John Prescott was Secretary of State in my Department and they recall his flagrant disregard for the green belt, the needs of local communities and local democracy, with his failed approach to regional planning, which we scrapped when we came to power.

Those of us who see what Labour is doing today see how damaging and feeble their policies are. If we look at Wales, we see that, despite the rhetoric we heard today, the Labour party is developing 12 council houses—for the whole of Wales. In Croydon, the Labour borough represented by the shadow Housing Secretary and run by his closest friends and cronies, the local council has gone bankrupt and its housing company, Brick by Brick, has taken tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and has failed to deliver a single home. Its social housing stock is so disgracefully Dickensian that the housing regulator has in recent weeks condemned it. What has the hon. Gentleman said? He has said nothing at all. His Twitter account, which he loves to use to criticise the Conservative party, has fallen as silent as that of Donald Trump—he has said absolutely nothing. So we will take no lectures from the Labour party.

We also heard from the Lib Dems, who have mysteriously gone AWOL now, at the end of the debate. Days after winning a by-election, saying that they would campaign to ditch the planning Bill, they could not even be bothered to turn up to the end of the debate. We have heard the appalling, rank hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats throughout this debate. Their leader went on TV at the weekend to declare himself a “yimby”, but that is very different from what he was saying to people on the doorsteps of Buckinghamshire in recent weeks. It is better to describe him and his party, in the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), as a “banana”—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

Except in practice that is not what some Liberal Democrat councils do. The two Lib Dem Members who did turn up to speak in this debate, the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), both represent areas with Liberal Democrat councils that are building twice the number of homes that the Government are asking them to build. I do not criticise those Liberal Democrat councils for trying to build homes, but if anyone is objectively concreting over the green belt or greenfield land, it is those councils that are choosing to build twice the number of homes that the Conservative Government are asking them to build.

Of course, it was the Liberal Democrat leader who voted consistently for HS2 and, when we were in coalition, voted for every one of this Conservative Government’s planning Bills from 2010 until he lost his seat in 2015, so the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats were, I am afraid, just embarrassing. Nothing was more emblematic of that than the graphic put out by the Labour party this afternoon, which showed some properties in the Cotswolds that Labour had taken from an article in a newspaper with the headline “Why £10 million country estates are the new £5 million estates”. How out of touch is that? We on this side of the House do want to build homes. We do want to help young people on to the housing ladder, and we do care about homelessness and rough sleeping, and tackling intergenerational unfairness.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, a great deal united the House in this debate, and six themes emerged, all of which are fortunately the chapters—the pillars—of the planning reform Bill. First is our united desire to see greater environmental protection—our categoric insistence that the green belt must be protected, in a way that the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is doing more than any other person in this country to build upon the green belt, does not seem to understand. We will enshrine those principles in the Bill.

Secondly, we will ensure that the Bill means a massive improvement in the quality and design of properties. We will bring forward the ideas of Sir Roger Scruton’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, so that new homes in this country are built to a dramatically higher standard.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I cannot, as I have only a few minutes left, but I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is at the vanguard of this issue.

Thirdly, everyone in this country wants to see more infrastructure built alongside the homes—the GP surgeries, the hospitals, the roads, the parks, the playgrounds. We will bring forward an infrastructure levy that gets more of the land value out of the landowners and the big developers and puts it at the service of local people. That will mean more affordable homes being built in this country than ever before.

We will also ensure that we tip the balance away from the big-volume house builders and towards the small builders, so that local entrepreneurs—the brickies, the plumbers and the builders in our constituencies—get a fair shot at the system.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not, because I have only a few moments left.

If the Bill were to fail, it is the big-volume house builders who would be celebrating. They would be opening the champagne bottles, and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) knows that perfectly well. The current system is stacked in favour of the big boys and we are going to change that.

We also want to see more brownfield land built upon, more regeneration, more levelling up and more support for our high streets, which has never been needed more than it is today, and the Bill will deliver that. It will give local authorities more power for compulsory purchase to assemble land and regenerate those important and much-loved spaces in our communities, and at the heart of it is a brownfield-first policy for the whole country.

Lastly, we are going to ensure that there is more engagement and more local democracy, not less. We are going to ensure that the plan-making process is faster and better. We are going to ensure that plans are produced in 13 months, not seven years, and that millions more of our fellow citizens are involved in the plan-making process than they are today. As we have heard already, only 1% of the public even engage in the current system. We are going to ensure that many, many more people do so. We are going to ensure that neighbourhood plans have more teeth and that more of them happen across the country, not just in the most engaged and well-heeled places. We will ensure that they become ubiquitous and a key part of the planning system. And we are going to end speculative development, which does more than anything to lead to the corrosion of public trust in the planning system.

The benefits of our proposals are clear, and we are going to ensure that people across the House and across the country see and appreciate them in the months to come. Of course we are going to listen, because planning is inherently contentious. It has always been that way, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) said in his important speech, we are not sent here to tackle the easy questions. We are sent here to tackle the hard ones, and some of us—those of us on the Government side of the House, and potentially some in the Labour party—want to work together in the weeks and months to come to ensure that we build the homes this country needs, that we tackle the housing crisis and that we build those homes in a way that we can all be proud of for generations to come.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to protect green spaces.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

The pandemic has shown how vital our green spaces are for the wellbeing of the nation, from sharing our national parks together to inviting loved ones over to our gardens. That is why it was a priority for me and my Department to reopen our parks at the start of the pandemic—something that has offered a lifeline to many people and families over the past year. As we build back better and greener in our recovery, we will enhance our environment and provide more green spaces through our forthcoming planning reforms. They will build on and embed our already extensive protections for the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and our ancient woodlands.

[Claire Coutinho]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to protecting our green spaces and the broader Government investment in our nature recovery programme. Will he consider looking at a new “wild belt” designation as part of the planning proposals to ensure that we protect those hard-won gains for generations to come?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would like our planning reforms to create a legacy of enhancing our environment and leaving the natural world in a better state for future generations. We are continuing to consider how best to achieve that through the ongoing detailed design of these reforms, but I am interested in wild belts, as I know my hon. Friend is. We are already bringing forward a raft of changes to support nature’s recovery, including introducing mandatory net gain for biodiversity through the Environment Bill and requiring tree-lined streets in all new developments—something that we are increasingly seeing in new housing across the country.

[Nicola Richards]

In Greets Green and Lyng, communities have long been promised a facelift, with quality new housing developments by Sandwell Council, but very little has yet been delivered. Residents in Newhall Street are regularly blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour and have been calling out for help and investment for years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while these areas go undeveloped, it makes no sense for green spaces in other parts of West Bromwich East, such as Peak House farm, to be at risk of development?

[Robert Jenrick]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need local areas to make the most of existing developable land—repurpose it, revitalise unused sites and build the most beautiful homes our communities need. The west midlands, which she represents a part of, is one of the best examples of a place in the country that is meeting housing need and building homes, but is doing so with a very strong emphasis on brownfield sites. The Government are backing that with, for example, a £100 million land fund and £108 million that we provided through our brownfield fund.

[Karl MᶜCartney [V]]

There is clearly demand for more housing in the central Lincolnshire local plan area and across communities in my constituency of Lincoln, the east midlands and the country at large, but we are continually seeing local green belt being built on by large developers, and land banking is still rife on the edge of urban areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must balance housing developments by big developers with the need to ensure that communities of all shapes and sizes still have the opportunity for smaller and individual housing within the curtilage of those settlements of the type and style that buyers wish to purchase and, crucially, live in?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. First, we have been clear that the manifesto commitment that the Government were elected upon was to protect and enhance the green belt, and that is exactly what we intend to do. Secondly, we want a planning system that is based on local plans, where local people and their communities democratically choose sites, and they will be, and should be, a mix of not only larger ones but smaller sites, particularly brownfield sites, which can be developed at pace by small and medium-sized developers. One of the litmus tests for the planning reforms that we intend to bring forward later in the year will be whether they shift the balance from the large developers who can navigate the current convoluted and complex system in favour of small and medium-sized builders, such as the local entrepreneurs that my hon. Friend represents in Lincoln, and ensure that they, too, can prosper and build more homes.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent estimate he has made of the number of buildings that will have (a) dangerous cladding and (b) other fire safety defects beyond June 2022.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to promote home ownership.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

This Government are making the dream of home ownership a reality for people across England, taking generation rent and turning it into generation buy. I am delighted that earlier this month we launched our First Homes scheme, with the first properties ready for sale in Bolsover, providing homes discounted by at least 30% for first-time buyers, priority local people and key workers. Our new 95% mortgage guarantee has already given lenders the confidence to help families and young people get on to the property ladder, without the burden of a large deposit.

[Mr Holden [V]]

I am in my first home—I moved in only in May—and I want to see more of my constituents in exactly the same position. Will the Secretary of State outline what support North West Durham constituents in particular can access through the new schemes—particularly the First Homes scheme, in which so many of my constituents are interested in getting involved—and when they will be fully available and rolled out throughout the country?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to making sure that young people have the opportunities that they need to live and work in their local community, both in North West Durham and right throughout the country. I encourage my hon. Friend’s constituents to go to the Government’s ownyourhome.gov.uk website to check out the brilliant schemes that are available. I am also glad to let him know that later this month we will launch the first set of first homes in County Durham.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today, on the fourth anniversary of the terrible fire at Grenfell, we first and foremost remember the 72 people who lost their lives. Our thoughts are with the bereaved, as well as the survivors of that terrible night.

The Grenfell community has steadfastly campaigned for justice and for change, but it has come too slowly. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in buildings that we now know to be unsafe, with some even still wrapped in the same flammable cladding as Grenfell. Many of those people are first-time buyers who have watched their dream of home ownership become a living nightmare, in unsellable, worthless homes.

I welcome the building safety fund, but funds alone are not enough, not least because of the extremely slow progress in allocating them. We need active intervention and leadership, so will the Secretary of State commit that all buildings will be made safe—and not just in respect of aluminium composite material cladding—or at least be in the process of being made so, by this time next year? Will he free homeowners from the burden of the costs and anxieties of being trapped in unmortgageable, unsafe homes?

[Robert Jenrick]

I join the hon. Lady in giving my sympathies, thoughts and prayers to the survivors, the bereaved and the community of north Kensington. We all want to support them to ensure that their quest for justice continues and reaches its conclusion, as a result of the public inquiry and the police investigations. Of course, we will do everything in our power to ensure that it never happens again.

Earlier this year, I set out the next steps in our plan to ensure that homes in this country are safe. We are providing £5.1 billion to ensure that unsafe materials, such as cladding, are removed from people’s homes as quickly as possible. Some 95% of those high-rise flats that have the same ACM cladding as was on Grenfell Tower have either now been remediated or have workers on site as we speak, and the work on 65% of them has been completed. I want to see that work finished by the end of this year and we will do everything we can to ensure that that happens.

We are also working with lenders, insurers and surveyors to ensure that they also play their part and we have a proportionate, sensible approach to risk, so that those who do not need to be trapped because of this issue are not unduly trapped and those who created this situation in the first place—the builders and the developers—pay their fair share. We are currently consulting on an industry levy and we will encourage, as we have done throughout this process, those developers that have not already stepped up to do so, because it is unconscionable that leaseholders are having to pay for the faults of an industry that has profited at their expense.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the (a) levelling-up fund and (b) UK shared prosperity fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help high streets recover from the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

As we embark on what we all hope will be a great British summer, this Government have announced a vital package of support for our high streets, from planning easements to funding support. Taken together, we are seeing more than £385 billion of support for our businesses and high streets. With our planning reforms, we will allow our high streets to adapt and thrive, see outdoor markets spring up, and al fresco dining flourish. I am confident that, despite all the challenges, people across this country will rediscover the delights of their local high street this summer.

[Esther McVey]

Cheshire East Council continues to keep unnecessary barriers in place on the high street in Knutsford, blocking off the car parking spaces and damaging local businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Cheshire East Council should be helping local businesses and not literally putting barriers in their way?

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that bringing back people to their towns and high streets is vital, including to the one that I know well in Knutsford. Local authorities should be doing everything they can to make those high streets as welcoming as possible. Covid-19 guidance and our al fresco dining revolution should not come at the cost of despoiling otherwise beautiful high streets such as that in Knutsford. With just a little imagination and creativity, it is perfectly possible for barriers to be made beautiful, even if they do need to be there. We want to see council officers apply thought and judgment, rather than being over-zealous. Put simply, if they will not take them down, they should build barriers better.

[Sara Britcliffe]

First, I thank the Secretary of State for recently visiting Accrington to discuss what a difference the levelling-up fund could make to my constituency. We know that it is important to build more houses, but on that visit we also spoke about our dilapidated housing stock both in the town centre and across Hyndburn and Haslingden. Will he agree to meet me to discuss the VAT placed on renovation and repairs for old housing stock and look at the potential for removing this as a trial in certain areas to encourage builders to rejuvenate old housing stock?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend will know that such decisions are for the Chancellor to make. We have in place a reduced rate of VAT at 5% for certain residential renovations to encourage development and incentivise regeneration. However, she makes an important point that of course I would be happy to discuss with her. I thank her for hosting me in April, when it was great to see the town back open for business and still producing some of the best pies in Lancashire. She will know that I got into some trouble for saying that a particular shop in her constituency produced the best pies in the county, so all I will say on this occasion is that they are all pie-oneers and there is a slice for everyone if they visit Accrington.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say, Handleys in Chorley needs to be tasted.

[David Warburton]

Our splendid market towns in fabulous Somerton and Frome are driven by their high streets. They are the engine room of the local economy and the hub of the community, as I am sure everybody saw at the fabulous eat:Castle Cary festival last month. However, the past year has obviously been extraordinarily difficult, so does my right hon. Friend agree that support for high street businesses is essential both to keep our communities strong and to achieve a swift economic recovery?

[Robert Jenrick]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I urge all his constituents to get back to their local high streets to support the shops and hospitality businesses that he mentions and make the most of the sunshine in Somerset. We have seen some positive signs, with Springboard data reporting an increase of over 17% in people shopping on their high streets in the recent half-term break. He mentions the eat:Castle Cary festival. That is exactly the kind of thing we want to see across the country this summer. Outdoors is safer than indoor venues. My Department, for its part, is ensuring that through planning easement it is much easier and simpler for local communities to hold outdoor events such as markets without needing to obtain planning permission.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

One of the greatest divides in our country, and one that has been thrown into sharp relief by the pandemic, is between those who own a home of their own and those who do not. That is why I was delighted to be in Bolsover earlier this month to see the very first site of our new First Homes scheme, which will provide new homes, for the first time, at a 30% discount. I was also delighted to announce sites in a further 30 towns last week, worth over £700 million in total. On Friday, I saw the real difference that this is making to local people in Doncaster, Redcar, Bishop Auckland and Hartlepool, to name a few.

Today marks the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. I visited the site yesterday. I am sure the whole House will once again join me in paying our respects to the 72 victims, their families, their friends and the wider community in north Kensington who suffered as a result of the tragedy. It exposed serious and systemic failings that we are determined to address through our new building safety Bill, which we will bring forward shortly.

[Nickie Aiken]

May I also offer my condolences to those involved in Grenfell four years ago—an event that we will never forget?

I welcome the incredible work that this Government have done throughout the pandemic to support more rough sleepers, with a staggering £700 million in extra funding for local authorities. I pay tribute to the local authorities and charities involved in helping rough sleepers off the streets, day in, day out. Now we must learn from the Government’s brilliant Everyone In strategy, which saw an incredible 90% of rough sleepers taken off the streets and offered accommodation. As my right hon. Friend knows, I am campaigning to have the Vagrancy Act 1824 repealed. Does he agree that it is now time to learn from what we did with the Everyone In strategy, especially in terms of the reasons people find themselves on the streets in the first place, which are particularly around mental health and addiction issues? Does he agree that we need to learn those lessons and replace the Vagrancy Act?

[Robert Jenrick]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to councils and communities across the country, including her own council in Westminster, led very ably by Rachael Robathan. Rachael and I have walked the streets of the west end on many occasions over the past year and seen a tremendous reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. We must build on that and ensure that the progress we have made in the past year is not allowed to slip through our fingers. We will be working across Government to do that because, as my hon. Friend says, homelessness is a housing issue and a health issue. It is about mental health and it is about drug and alcohol addiction, and we need a cross-Government approach to the challenge.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]]

Last week, we witnessed a tragic Islamophobic attack in Ontario, Canada, which sadly killed three generations of a single family. The attack reminded us all of the dangers of allowing Islamophobia to seep into society and the impact it can have on people’s lives and communities. The Conservative Government announced in July 2019 that they would appoint two independent advisers on Islamophobia. Almost two years on, can the Secretary of State even tell us who both those independent advisers are and publish their terms of reference as well as the work they have carried out, or is this Conservative Government remorselessly neglecting to tackle Islamophobia across the UK?

[Robert Jenrick]

This Government have a zero-tolerance approach to racism and discrimination of any kind. We commissioned Professor Swaran Singh to undertake an independent review of the Conservative party. On the day of its publication, the Prime Minister unilaterally and in full accepted all the recommendations, and we will publish a plan as to how to implement them very soon.

I do think it is wrong of the Labour party to raise this issue quite in the way that the hon. Lady does. It was, after all, the Labour party that was investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It was the Labour party that was found to have breached the Equality Act 2010, and it is those on the Labour party’s Front Bench who almost to a man and a woman who were named in that report and criticised for their conduct. It is also wrong of the Labour party to publish leaflets during the Batley and Spen by-election campaign that suggest that the Conservative party does not take anti-Muslim hatred seriously.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Cornwall is beautiful, but that has meant a massive increase in the demand for second homes, pushing the price beyond what most local hard-working people can afford. What more can be done to help young people get on the housing ladder in Cornwall without concreting over my scenic home area?

[Robert Jenrick]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tremendous vision of Cornwall that has been seen by billions of people around the world in the past few days. The beauty of Cornwall was clear for everyone to see, but I appreciate that it is the very beauty of the place that creates problems for her local people and constituents. That is one of the reasons we have created the First Homes scheme, which offers 30% discounts for local residents, and I encourage her constituents to look on ownyourhome.gov.uk to see the schemes we have available.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

Will the Secretary of State meet the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods to discuss how we can take forward proposals from the Community Wealth Fund Alliance, which has more than 400 organisations as members, and the work of the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and establish a community wealth fund to convert dormant assets into long-term community-led investment for the most disadvantaged communities, such as Orchard Park and Bransholme in my constituency of Hull North?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady, as would my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. We have brought forward the community ownership fund, and we will publish details on that very soon. It will allow community groups to bid in for match funding to buy a village shop, a pub or a sports field—much-valued community assets. We have also announced the right to regenerate, which will enable people to bid in for public sector assets that are currently being neglected and bring them into better use.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Rushcliffe has been let down by the current planning system. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his reforms will put protecting our countryside at the heart of our planning system and abolish measures such as the duty to co-operate, which has previously enabled councils such as Labour-run Nottingham City Council to push thousands of houses from brownfield sites in the city where they are sorely needed on to Rushcliffe’s greenfield sites in the countryside?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want to see cities such as Nottingham have the investment they deserve to build more homes and to tackle the issues they face. We see having good-quality housing stock in cities such as Nottingham as a crucial part of levelling up and spreading prosperity. That is one of the reasons why we changed the local housing need formula to place a much greater emphasis on smaller cities such as Nottingham.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As a result of delays in processing applications to the building safety fund, increasing numbers of eligible developments in my constituency are finding themselves subject to soaring building insurance renewal costs. Will the Government finally accept that they need to step in and resolve this problem with the industry as a matter of urgency?

[Robert Jenrick]

As a matter of fact, for ACM buildings within Greenwich and Woolwich, of the 23 that have registered, 21 have completed remediation, one building has been removed and one building has started work. For buildings with applications to the building safety fund, of the 94 registrations made, 31 have been confirmed as eligible, 27 have been assessed and 12 have been withdrawn. So great progress is being made. I am working with the insurance industry, and we should ensure that it brings forward market proposals, not simply have the Exchequer step in and subsidise it.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Some local authorities are treading a fine line between being a planning authority and being a property developer. My local authority, South Cambridgeshire District Council, is buying land with a view to developing it. Whatever the other arguments about that, it raises a fundamental potential conflict of interest in that the local authority has to apply to itself for planning permission—something that is causing great concern among residents. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is a need to tighten the examination of this conflict of interest when a local authority applies to itself for planning permission on its own land?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there are occasions when a local authority may need to apply for permission to build on council-owned land—for example, a new school—but he is right that there needs to be a robust set of safeguards in place, because these applications do generate a great deal of interest and an appearance, on occasion, of unfairness. The applications must be transparently publicised, consulted on and determined in a way that is fair and open.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I have listened to the words this afternoon, but my constituents living in leasehold properties in Bedminster and elsewhere are rightly furious now with the Government for betraying the promises that they would not be responsible for the financial cost of rectifying building safety defects, and the delays in announcing the Government loan scheme have just added insult to injury. So can we have a bit more detail? When does the Secretary of State think he will be providing full details regarding eligibility and timescales for implementation to help these people?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have made good progress on the plan that we announced earlier this year. The extra funding is now available through the building safety fund, and we are working through the applications. For lower-rise buildings, we have said that we will bring forward a financing scheme in which no leaseholder will ever need to pay more than £50 a month. There will be long-term low-interest loans for cladding removal and remediation and associated works, and we have said that we will bring forward the details of that shortly.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

Lots of High Peak parents have been contacting me concerned about the poor state of repair of many of our local children’s play areas, including at least one that has had to go without a swing for well over a year. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that instead of spending taxpayers’ money and resources on their own pet projects, councils should focus on their core responsibilities such as properly maintaining children’s play areas?

[Robert Jenrick]

As a parent of three young children, I spend a long time in playgrounds and appreciate their importance to everybody in society. I think it is really important that councils take parks and playgrounds seriously. They may be a non-statutory duty, but they are a very important one to members of the public. We have now had two years of increases in council funding, which were voted on and supported by both sides of this House, so local councils have the resources, and they should prioritise open spaces as we come out of the pandemic.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

My constituents in Lancefield Quay are among many who now cannot afford full insurance due to issues of cladding on their buildings. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier that he was working with the insurance industry. There is not a market solution to this; there is an impending market failure on his watch. What is he going to do about it?

[Robert Jenrick]

I disagree with the hon. Lady, because a number of businesses have already brought forward market solutions—Aviva, for example, and I believe that E.ON is also doing so. It is extremely important that we in this House are united in putting pressure on the insurance companies, not simply asking the Exchequer to step in and bail out some of the most affluent and successful companies in the country. That is what we are trying to do, and we are seeing signs of progress.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Major housing developers are very quick to build new homes and take the money, but in Ashfield they are not so quick to finish sites and make them ready for adoption—some of the sites have taken 10 years plus. This is simply not good enough for my residents, who have parted with their hard-earned cash for their dream home, so will my right hon. Friend please give new home buyers in Ashfield some words of reassurance that the Government are taking this seriously?

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that developers, large and small, make good on their promises to local councils and local communities. There are already relevant powers in the planning system, but we are considering how to beef them up as part of our planning reforms, so that where homes have been permissioned, the builder gets on and finishes the job. We will also be legislating for our new homes ombudsman, so that where the standard of those homes falls below what people expect, a route to recourse is available to everyone.

Liverpool City Council

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

On 24 March 2021, I announced to the House that I was minded to appoint commissioners to take over functions associated with highways, regeneration and property management, together with associated audit and governance arrangements at Liverpool City Council (“the Authority”). I also announced that I was minded to appoint commissioners to take over functions associated with the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers.

At the same time, I also announced proposals to introduce electoral changes, in particular:

to make an order using my powers in the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for whole council elections in 2023 and every fourth year thereafter; and

to direct the authority to consider and consult upon a new submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as part of the current boundary review, which includes consideration of a proposal to reduce the number of councillors to those consistent with elections on a single member ward basis, and be approved by the commissioners.

These proposals followed the publication of the independent best value inspection report, led by Max Caller CBE, which concluded that the Authority had failed to comply with its best value duty over a number of years. The Report did not comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, on Mayor Steve Rotheram, or on other councils in Merseyside.

The main finding of the Report, as set out in the inspector’s covering letter, is that:

“Liverpool City Council itself, under the officer leadership of Tony Reeves, has started to make some of the improvements necessary. However, the burden of the police investigation, the pandemic, and the legacy of past actions by the Council has prevented speedy progress. At political level, the Council needs a reset, until that happens and the work that is currently being undertaken is continued at pace and embedded, I cannot be confident about continued progress.”

As part of my announcement in March, I invited the Authority to make representations about my proposals on or before 24 May 2021. The Authority and two advocacy groups made representations, as did 13 members of the public. Most representations were supportive of the intervention and the proposal to appoint commissioners. However, a number expressed concern about aspects of the electoral reforms which I had proposed, specifically in relation to the proposal to introduce single member wards and to reduce the number of councillors for the City.

Best value intervention in Liverpool City Council

Following consideration of these representations, and further consideration of the inspector’s report, I have decided to proceed with the proposals that I announced on 24 March, with the following modifications:

The commissioners’ functions relating to the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers are expanded to include the role of assistant director governance, audit and assurance.

This modification is to reflect what was proposed in the inspection report and has been accepted by the Authority;

The direction to the council to consider and consult upon a new submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE), as part of the current boundary review, is clarified to include consideration of a proposal to reduce the number of councillors to those consistent with elections on the basis of predominantly single member wards, that is single member wards across the whole council area save where the LGBCE consider a multi member ward is essential to balance their statutory duties of delivering electoral equality, reflecting interests and identities of local communities, and of promoting effective and convenient local government. This modification is in response to the representations I received; and

As part of my intention to make an order using my powers in the Local Government Act 2000 to achieve the fresh start the Authority requires by providing full council elections from 2023,1 am now setting out my intention that the order specifically provides for:

Liverpool City Council to hold all-out elections every four years from 2023 and to adjust retirement dates for existing councillors accordingly;

Postponement for one year of the May 2022 elections of one third of Liverpool City councillors and extend terms of office accordingly; and

The movement of the next election for Liverpool City’s mayor to 2023 from 2024 and shorten the term of office accordingly.

I am mindful that the lessons from past interventions suggest that once commissioners are in post additional issues can arise. I have therefore asked commissioners to specifically have regard to:

the Council’s LGBCE submission;

the Council’s governance referendum;

the financial position of the Council; and

broader service delivery insofar as they raise concerns for the Council’s wider improvement journey.

I will write to the lead commissioner asking him to provide assurance to me on these issues as well as to work with and support the council to minimise the risk of further intervention.

Rationale for whole council elections in Liverpool City Council

These modifications will help address the inspection report recommendation of ensuring as much stability as possible during a period of significant change. Going forward, the city mayoral and council elections will take place in the same year every four years. The order will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and will be made as soon as practicable and well in advance of the local government elections currently scheduled for 2022. Following the making of the order, the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be able to undertake their electoral review, with its necessary legislation, subject to parliamentary approval.

My decision to make an order providing for Liverpool City Council to have whole council elections reflects not only the recommendations in the best value inspection report but also our past experience of the merits of whole council elections. The absence of such elections is often a consistent feature of underperforming councils and a common thread through many council interventions. I of course recognise that there are many excellent councillors up and down the country performing their duties effectively with elections by thirds or other patterns. But holding elections three years out of four, or every other year, risks creating a culture of perpetual electioneering in a council where there is little focus on the strategic, an inability to address longer-term challenges and leadership which can lack the stability needed for a high performing authority.

In contrast, holding whole council elections every fourth year can facilitate stable, strategic local leadership, delivering a clear programme for which it can be held to account by the electorate, and having the time to tackle some of the longer term issues its communities might face. Whole council elections can thus add a higher degree of accountability, and the stability they can bring can help effective partnership working and give greater confidence to the business community in their dealings with the council. Whole council elections are also more cost effective than holding elections say three years out of four, and hence I am clear they represent better value for money for local taxpayers.

Accordingly, for all these reasons I would like to take this opportunity strongly to urge all those councils still not holding whole council elections to consider using the powers which Parliament has given them to switch to such elections. I believe this could lead to councils providing stronger, more accountable local leadership better able to serve their communities, promote local economic growth, and drive forward the levelling up of opportunity and prosperity across the country. If councils which still elect by thirds or halves now take the opportunity to switch to whole council elections, this could significantly strengthen local government and its ability to serve local people. It is an opportunity I hope all other councils will take in due course.

Appointing commissioners for Liverpool City Council

I have decided to appoint four commissioners forming a team with a proven record in adherence to the rule of law, leadership and delivering cultural change, together with specific expertise relevant to their functions:

Mike Cunningham QPM (Lead Commissioner). Has been involved in policing for more than 30 years, most recently as Chief Executive of the College of Policing from 2018 to 2020, the standards setting body for policing in England and Wales. Formerly one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary, inspecting forces in the north of England and Northern Ireland, and the national lead inspector for the development and implementation of inspections into police efficiency, legitimacy and leadership, and Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police.

Joanna Killian (Local Government Improvement Commissioner). Has more than 30 years of experience in the public sector delivering transformational change and service improvement. Since March 2018 she has been Chief Executive of Surrey County Council. Prior to this Joanna worked at KPMG and was also Chief Executive of Essex County Council for 9 years.

Neil Gibson (Highways Commissioner). Former Executive Director of Transport Economy and Environment for Buckinghamshire County Council, where he also acted for a time as Interim Chief Executive. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation and former President of the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport.

Deborah McLaughlin (Regeneration Commissioner). Extensive experience working in regeneration and housing for over 30 years across public and private sectors, including as Director of Housing at Manchester City Council, regional director for the North West at Homes England and Director of Capita’s real estate business. Also worked at the Audit Commission as a best value inspector and auditor.

The Commissioners have been appointed for the period from 10 June 2021 to 9 June 2024 or such earlier or later time as I determine. I am clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary.

I want to be clear that most decisions will continue to be made by the council; the intention being that commissioners will only use their powers as a last resort if they are dissatisfied with the council’s improvement processes.

The Government will continue to work closely with the political, the business and the cultural leadership of the city and with the wider region, including with Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region.

Conclusion

We will do all that we can to support Liverpool, as it recovers from the covid-19 pandemic, and to give confidence to those who want to invest in the city to contract with the council, and to do business in the city.

I have published the directions and explanatory memorandum associated with this announcement on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/inspection-into-the-governance-of-liverpool-city-council

[HCWS84]