Oral Answers to Questions
What steps he is taking to support high streets.
The Secretary of State was asked—
I associate myself with Mr Speaker’s comments about Lord Hattersley.
I gently remind the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) that the Liberal Democrats had many years in government with the Conservatives in which they chose austerity. That speeded up the decline of our high streets, but this Government are committed to rejuvenating our high streets. Later this year, we will introduce a comprehensive high streets strategy, backed by £300 million of support, to transform the high streets that are most in need. That funding will be used to support the creation of high street innovation partnerships to reimagine and revive the country’s most struggling high streets.
It is Independent Bookshop Week, and we are fortunate to have some fantastic independent bookshops in Winchester, including P&G Wells, which I visited recently. It is possibly the longest running bookshop in the country—it has been running continuously for over 300 years, and Jane Austen and John Keble used it. Not only is it important for our local economy and our high street; it is an important part of our historical culture and a real community hub. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that independent bookshops, which provide so much to communities, can cope with energy costs and business rates?
Speaking as a former publisher, I am very committed to the success of bookshops, and I congratulate the bookshop in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on its many years of service to the public. This Government are bringing in long overdue reform to rebalance the business rates system, which should support independent bookshops, and creating certainty by replacing a temporary relief with permanently lower taxes. We are looking to support such independent shops, because they are the kinds of businesses that give high streets identity and that local residents like.
It gives me pleasure to call Dame Jessica Morden.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Two thirds of businesses in Newport city centre are independent businesses, and it has been brilliant to see businesses such as Kingsway Market, Rock and Scallop and Banc open in recent weeks. However, this is undermined by shops selling illegal cigarettes, illegal vapes and counterfeit goods. What more can Ministers do, working with Home Office colleagues, to help trading standards—which does an excellent job in Newport; it shut two shops last week—tackle the issue of shops opening up again after being shut?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her very well deserved recognition. She raises an extremely important issue, which I am sure is of concern to Members right across the House. That is why it will be welcomed on all sides of the House that the Home Office has announced a high street organised crime unit to tackle organised crime where it is operating through high street shops and bringing down the high streets that residents want to see returned to vibrancy, as places that symbolise the life and heart of the communities they are part of.
I know the Secretary of State will agree that access to cash and banking services is an important part of vibrant high streets, particularly in market towns in North Yorkshire such as Stokesley. Will he join me in thanking Link for agreeing to representations by me and the local community to install a banking hub after the closure of the last bank branch in Stokesley? It will make an enormous difference to the local community. I know this is something that the Secretary of State is also passionate about, and we are all delighted to have that banking hub coming to Stokesley.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work he has done in his constituency on this issue, as well as those residents who have been advocating for the banking hub. Many businesses—particularly smaller businesses—and many older people who prefer not to access banking services digitally need a physical bank where they can go to hand in the money they are making or to take money out. We need banking hubs, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work he has led.
Cornish towns such as St Austell and Redruth desperately need support for their high streets, but Pride in Place criteria such as those on community cohesion and green spaces count against such towns. It is virtually impossible to be in Cornwall and not be close to green spaces. As those criteria are starting to be used across Departments, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how they are currently counting against areas such as Cornwall?
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, and indeed we do meet regularly. I am happy to continue doing that. We want to see high streets everywhere succeed. Pride in Place is a highly targeted programme, but we need to make an offer for high streets everywhere. I am sure he will welcome, as I do, the high street rental auctions programme that we are bringing in, backed by Government funding, to support communities to buy and use empty units. In that way, they can be put to purposes that the community wants to see, rather than lying empty as a blight on high streets.
I call the shadow Minister.
The Government came to office promising to support our high streets with a permanently lower regime of business rates, but the Department’s answers to written questions indicate that the Government expect a 22% rise in the business rate take over this Parliament. Can the Minister tell the House whether the 100,000 job losses in hospitality since the Government took office, or the 74,000 job losses in retail since the Government took office, have been impacted by the rise in business rates, or are they solely down to the Chancellor’s massive hike in national insurance?
The shadow Minister will be aware, as I am, that high streets went into steep decline under the previous Conservative Government. It is this Labour Government who are having to support those businesses and communities that want to fix them. We are carrying out long overdue reform to rebalance the business rates system, and we have replaced the temporary relief that they offered with permanently lower tax rates that will support high streets to succeed into the future. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), the high street rental auctions scheme, which includes Government funding, will support communities to bring empty units back into use so that they can be valuable places where communities can gather and meet, bringing footfall and therefore life back to our high streets.
The Government continue to implement those leasehold reforms that are already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. In respect of the latter, the King’s Speech confirmed our intention to introduce the substantive commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which will include fixes to the small number of specific but serious flaws in the previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
I met residents of the Hucknall colliery development in my constituency who have been left frustrated by high estate management charges, a lack of transparency and the appalling performance of managing agent FirstPort. Many cannot understand their bills or how they are calculated. Some are paying different amounts for similar properties, and many were led to believe that roads and public spaces would be adopted, only to find themselves facing ever increasing charges. They have been misled and ignored. Does the Minister agree that homeowners should not be trapped in these so called fleecehold arrangements? Will he set out what action the Government will take to ensure that managing agents, such as FirstPort, are properly regulated, transparent and accountable to the residents who are ultimately funding them? My residents continue to be treated with contempt.
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy on this issue. Homeowners should not be subject to unfair management charges or poor standards of service at the hands of managing agents, and I commend her for bringing this case to the House’s attention. Our recent consultation on enhanced protections for homeowners on freehold estates closed on 12 March, and we are analysing the feedback received alongside continuing to develop plans to strengthen the regulation of managing agents.
I thank the Minister for coming to speak to the all party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform and setting out so comprehensively his vision for ending fleecehold for good. He has explained many of the things that need to be done to get us to that place, including fixing some of the flaws in the 2024 Act, which will enable enfranchisement to proceed. There is a great deal of interest in this issue, so can he set out when we will see the long awaited consultation on valuation rates for enfranchisement?
My hon. Friend has considerable expertise on leasehold reform, and he is right to press for clarity on this important matter. To commence the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act’s enfranchisement provisions, we unfortunately do need to fix the flaws he refers to through new primary legislation, and we will do so in this Session. In the interim, we will need to establish what capitalisation and deferment rates to set, and I am pleased to tell him that I am aiming to launch a consultation on those in the coming weeks.
A couple of weeks ago at my constituency surgery, I met my first victim of FirstPort. He and his wife live in a sheltered accommodation flat on the third floor, and the lift has been out of use for months. They are paying exorbitant management fees, and recently his wife had to negotiate three flights of stairs to get to an appointment while on bottled oxygen. This is not just a rip off, but an accident waiting to happen. Will the Minister meet me and other concerned MPs to sort out what we can do about FirstPort?
As you will recall, Mr Speaker, this is not the first occasion on which I have had to mention FirstPort at the Dispatch Box. We need to drive up standards across all managing agents. I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and a group of other Members, as she suggests, to discuss this particular provider in more detail.
Shortly after becoming the MP for my constituency, I was contacted by Jeremy in Wimborne, who lives with his wife in a leasehold flat. In 2023, all the funds from the management company were fraudulently stolen. I have been working with the Financial Services Authority, but have been told that such issues are not covered, and that there is no route to redress via the financial services compensation scheme. While I welcome the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, will the Minister commit himself to developing it and working with the Treasury to bring property management companies into scope?
As the hon. Lady is—hopefully—aware, the last Government asked Lord Best to chair a working group to look at the regulation of property agents in the round. We are giving careful consideration to the recommendations in its report, with a view to strengthening the regulation of managing agents. If the hon. Lady will write to me with more details about that specific case, I will look into it.
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
I thank the Minister for allowing my Committee to have a really good look at the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill before it was laid before the House. I also thank my Committee colleagues and our specialist Clerk, Jack Edwards.
I was pleased to read in The Times that the Government may be willing to accept our recommendation of the implementation of a £250 cap on ground rents by late 2027. Can the Minister confirm that? Will he also update the House on when the Bill will finally be introduced? As he has heard from Members on both sides of the House, this continues to be a pressing issue for many leaseholders. People continue to be ripped off. The earlier the Bill is put before us, the sooner we can bring this leasehold nightmare to an end.
I commend my hon. Friend, the other members of her Committee and its officials for the thorough piece of work that they have done in scrutinising the draft Bill: that will make for a better Bill when it is introduced.
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on press speculation but merely build on what I said in my letter to her of 8 June, namely that the Committee and the Government are of one mind when it comes to the necessity of making progress with the substantive Bill as quickly as possible so that we can transform the lives of leaseholders. While I remain committed to ensuring that any Bill put forward is robust so that we do not have to fix problems in primary legislation, as we had to in the case of the 2024 Act, I am seized of the urgency of both presenting the Bill and commencing the ground rent provisions as quickly as possible.
I welcome the measures introduced in England and Wales through the 2024 Act to improve the transparency of service charges. Unfortunately, however, in Northern Ireland leaseholders have limited control over service charges imposed on them, and under the current legislation they have limited means of challenging the underlying justification for those charges. The Minister is always a very good Minister who always gives me a very good response, so I am looking for one today. Will he liaise with his colleagues in Northern Ireland to support the introduction of similar protections in Northern Ireland to ensure that leaseholders there are not left exposed to unjustified charges?
The hon. Gentleman is as charming as ever, but all I can say to him is what I say in respect of this and many other issues: I am more than happy to help our counterparts in Northern Ireland to learn from the very good work that this Government are doing in relation to leasehold reform.
I welcome the new shadow Minister to the Front Bench.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Like millions of people across the country, I am a leaseholder. We have been waiting nearly two years since the Government promised to improve the system. While the Government dither, leaseholders are being ripped off with higher service charges from companies such as FirstPort. We need action, not words, to take on these bad companies. Every MP in this House is aware of the situation, so can the Minister tell me why the leasehold Bill does nothing to hold management companies to account?
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, I have a great deal of respect for him, but he has some front in standing up and accusing this Government of dithering when it comes to leasehold reform. The Conservative party had 14 years in which to end the system, and did not do it. It raised expectations, and let leaseholders down. We are going to end the system within a Parliament. We are going to strengthen the regulation of managing agents. We will respond to the Select Committee, and will set out further details in the near future.
My hon. Friend will be aware that response standards and resource decisions are set locally by fire and rescue authorities, which understand their risks and communities best. We will continue working with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service to support the delivery of improved services for Poole through national reform, stable funding and stronger co ordination.
My hon. Friend will know that Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service has received an 11.8% increase in core spending power. Despite that, there are plans to merge Hamworthy fire station with the one in Poole. Not only will this increase response times, but it fails to take account of specific challenges in the area, such as flooding, heathland fires and seasonal increases in traffic. Will the Minister consider what more can be done to keep Hamworthy fire station open?
I recognise the very real concerns that my hon. Friend raises, including heathland fires, flooding and seasonal traffic. The variable nature of those risks is exactly why such judgments must be informed by local fire and rescue authorities, using local risk and operational evidence. As he set out, Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service has received an 11.8% increase in core spending power, giving local services a stronger foundation. The Government are committed to wider reform to improve outcomes for the public, but it is not for central Government to intervene in local operational decisions.
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. That consultation included proposals designed to promote healthy communities. We are currently analysing the extensive feedback received and will publish our response in due course.
Health inequalities are driven by social determinants such as access to green spaces, which is directly associated with higher life expectancy. In my constituency of Worthing West, we have the lowest amount of green space per person in the country—less than a snooker table. Could the Minister set out how the Department is working across Government to ensure that this essential health determinant is being secured and increased across all areas of our country?
I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend on the importance of local green spaces. Such spaces are vital community assets that provide significant benefits, not only for physical and mental health but to mitigate growing challenges, such as the urban heat island effect. Although I cannot speak for other Government Departments, the new NPPF recognises the importance of safeguarding local green spaces and ensures that such spaces are excluded from the definition of grey belt land.
On adding things to the NPPF and the importance of green spaces, may I urge the Minister to consider adding greater protections for our national landscapes? There have been two outrageous decisions by the planning inspector in my constituency in the last month: one is about a car park north of Whitchurch, and the other is about a large solar farm just above St Mary Bourne, towards Andover. Both are within the national landscape, and they run the risk of setting a precedent for large scale industrial development in our “once lost, gone forever” beautiful parts of the country. If we can persuade the Minister, will he strengthen those protections? If not, can I please bring the National Landscapes Association to meet him to discuss the problems we are facing?
If the right hon. Gentleman would not mind sending me details of the two cases in question, I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with him about how he thinks those decisions interact with the proposals set out in the recent consultation.
The plan led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system, and we have been very clear that we expect all local planning authorities to make every possible effort to get up to date local plans in place as soon as possible. To support LPAs seeking to protect their communities from piecemeal and speculative development by getting up to date plans in place, we distributed £19.8 million following the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024. We recently supplemented that funding with a further £15.7 million through our local plan implementation fund to support nearly 200 local planning authorities to progress plan development.
My local authority, Woking borough council, is doing exactly as the Minister asks: it is creating a local plan, which is where our democratically elected councillors decide where we will build the homes that local people need. Is there any point in local authorities pursuing local plans if planning reforms will render them toothless?
I am afraid I refute the assertion the hon. Gentleman makes about what the NPPF will do to local plans. We do need local plans in place, and as I have said, the plan led approach is the cornerstone of the system. The NPPF kicks in where in certain instances authorities do not have an up to date local plan in place, which is the case for far too many. I am very pleased that his local authority has taken the steps necessary to get one in place as soon as possible.
In Suffolk, many villages need new affordable houses, so what can be done to make the rural exception sites more attractive to developers?
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have spoken before about the importance of rural exception sites and what more can be done. In the NPPF consultation, which I have referenced, we set out proposals to strengthen rural exception site policy. As I have said, we are analysing the feedback received before we can set out the next steps.
The Government expect all developers to build high quality homes, delivered in line with their planning consent, and to treat customers fairly. The Government are actively considering mandatory standards of warranties for all new build homes, and we are committed to introducing a statutory new homes ombudsman to improve redress when things go wrong.
Constituents of mine living on the Kingsley Farm development have spent months chasing the developer, Stonebridge Homes, to finish elements of the estate that were agreed and outlined in the planning permission when it was granted. Residents of The Willows now find themselves in the exact same situation with the same developer. This is an issue not just in North Yorkshire, but across the country. My mum, a councillor in the neighbouring local authority, has outlined issues in her patch—in both Knottingley and Normanton—where developers are clearly taking residents and customers for a ride. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to give local authorities the additional powers they need and to ensure that they use them?
I am sure many Members across the House recognise the situation the hon. Member describes. One of the reasons building control in local authorities became so weak is that so many of them were underfunded for so long. Following the fair funding review, councils have funding in line with levels of deprivation, so local authorities have additional resources to beef up their building control functions and take action against the kind of organisations he refers to. Longer term, we are bringing in a new homes ombudsman, which will be a better and a fast way for people to seek redress in those circumstances.
Little Stanion in my constituency is a brilliant community with lots of first time buyers who moved there to put down roots, but they have been let down time and again. The developer went into administration and the management agency connected to the developer continues to ask for more money, with no transparency in how it is spent. When the roads fall apart, they have no one to turn to; when the community centre still looks like a building site, they get no update; and when the play equipment starts to break, the Little Stanion Farm Management Company becomes hostile. Will the Secretary of State outline what more we can do for new build areas such as Little Stanion, so that they do not keep getting let down?
My hon. Friend raises incredibly important issues, and it is incredibly difficult for people buying their first home to find themselves in those circumstances. She will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing refer to changes in leasehold, including a consultation due to end within weeks, which for the first time will allow for far greater transparency in charges for leaseholders. We have also changed the regulations under the national planning policy framework, which will change the way that some of the problems she has mentioned can be dealt with; and the new homes ombudsman, when that comes on line, will provide a new form of much faster redress for her constituents in those circumstances.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
What many people see as the Government’s developer led planning approach is draining local communities’ trust in the planning system. The new national planning policy framework proposes the most centralising changes in planning in my lifetime. It will mandate granting permissions under wider than ever presumptions in favour of sustainable development, which for the first time will overrule local plans. With no statutory protection available to them, even the most precious green spaces—not just national landscapes, not just land around railway stations—and the nature they support are under threat, including land at the Wellington monument in my constituency. As the National Trust launches its Nature equals Future campaign, will the Government allow this House to debate and vote on the proposed new national planning policy framework, which according to the Town and Country Planning Association signifies an “unprecedentedly permissive planning regime”?
I am very disappointed to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesperson arguing the case for nimbys, because in other circumstances I have heard Liberal Democrats recognise that we have a housing crisis, recognise that the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled under the previous Government, and recognise that the number of people left sleeping on our streets doubled under the previous Government and that young people cannot find anywhere they can afford to rent or buy. We fix that by getting a fair balance between the rights of people who need a home to buy and the rights of local people over their local area. They need local plan proposals to give local people the framework within which they can express their views, but we have to speed up the slowest planning system in the western world if we want to get people the homes they deserve and have a right to live in.
People will have heard the Secretary of State referring to people wanting to protect the most precious green spaces as nimbys. They are not nimbys; they are trying to protect the most important nature in our country. If the Government will not allow a debate on the NPPF in relation to green spaces, will they allow a debate on the NPPF in relation to the expected 430,000 mortgage prisoners that the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has identified from houses that will be at risk of flooding under new NPPF policies? If they will not allow a debate, will the Government meet the Association of British Insurers, which wants to discuss its objections to the NPPF?
Just to be clear, I was not calling people who care about the green belt nimbys; I was calling the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches nimbys. We have retained protections for the green belt, but we need to get new homes built. I am sorry if the Liberal Democrats want to deprive young people of the chance to find somewhere they can afford to rent and deprive young people who want somewhere to buy to get that vital first foot on the housing ladder. They used to support aspiration; now they are slamming the door shut in the faces of young people who want to get on in their lives.
National planning policy makes clear that planning decisions should minimise potential adverse impacts resulting from noise. Associated planning practice guidance sets out that good acoustic design needs to be considered early in the planning process.
Sownd Certification is the UK’s first accreditation for spaces that are audio inclusive and comfortable for neurodivergent people, spaces such as Oscar Acoustics innovation centre in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the benefits of incorporating measurable acoustic performance and audio inclusivity standards into building regulations or guidance to support more inclusive spaces?
Building regulations already require protection against sound or reverberation in houses, flats, buildings that have residential rooms and schools, but I am always open to considering how sound insulation standards might be improved in new builds. I would work on any further information my hon. Friend might send to me about the referenced projects in her constituency, including the Oscar Acoustics innovation centre.
We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to make sure the Building Safety Regulator aids the delivery of critical NHS infrastructure. That includes introducing a dedicated team within the BSR to focus specifically on hospitals, as well as producing targeted guidance for NHS trusts.
I am very grateful to the Minister’s Department for its work with me on unblocking a major housing scheme in my constituency. The Minister rightly mentions challenges with the BSR and major health facilities. I am pleased to hear what she says, but will she work as closely as possible with the Department of Health and Social Care? We need new NHS buildings to be built, just as we need new homes to be built.
I am sorry to hear about the delays and problems in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and I want to reassure her that we are taking serious action on that particular matter. I will work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as the BSR, to try to improve the situation for her.
My Department is working closely with the Department for Transport to consider reforms to adoption and highways frameworks. We also recently consulted on reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, including proposals to increase the adoption of estate amenities such as roads on new developments. That consultation closed on 12 March and we are analysing the feedback received.
Residents in Fossett Grove have been battling for 10 years for the adoption of a piece of land that is strewn with litter. Elsewhere in my constituency, roads are not gritted during the winter months, in Bidwell West we have an area where they cannot get a post box and, where a car crashed into a house, we cannot get any speed humps. What can the Minister do to put pressure on the council to hurry up?
Those cases sound particularly egregious, and I am sorry to hear about them. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the detrimental consequences of declining road adoption rates. The Department for Transport is reviewing barriers to adoption, with a view to identifying improvements and informing future reforms, alongside the consultation that I referenced. When it comes to individual local authorities, to put it mildly, some are better than others—we know that—and Central Bedfordshire obviously has some ground to make up. That is one of the issues we are considering as part of the policy development process in respect of that consultation.
In my constituency, we have to deal with increasing numbers of unadopted roads, either because the developer wants to leave the road with an estate manager, which means an annual charge, or because the road does not meet the construction standard to satisfy the local highways department. Both issues are ripe for the exploitation of residents. Will the Minister consider issuing guidance to control those abuses?
We will do better than that. As part of our consultation on ending the prevalence of those arrangements, we specifically consulted on what more we can do on common adoptable standards, and we are exploring mandatory adoption for certain public amenities in certain circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman has read the Competition and Markets Authority report into the issue, he will know that the two are essential; we cannot mandate local authorities until we have common adoptable standards. If that is the route we go down, we have to do them at the same time.
Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government engage regularly with ministerial colleagues across Government in relation to a range of housing policy matters. We continue to consider what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short term lets, as well as second homes.
In my constituency, Whitby is being hollowed out by short term lets. Bordered by the sea and a national park, house building cannot solve the problem of a lack of affordable housing for residents. We must also release more existing homes for families in the town. Will the Minister commit to legislating on licensing for short term lets at the earliest opportunity in this Parliament? Registration schemes, while welcome, will not be robust enough to tackle the problem.
To be clear, there is no credible solution to the housing crisis that does not involve significantly boosting housing supply, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to argue that the distribution of homes in any given area has a significant bearing on housing availability and affordability. As she knows, the Government have already made changes to the tax system to reorientate the housing markets away from second home owners and investors and towards local people looking for homes to live in. While I cannot commit to future legislation, I assure her that we continue to consider how best to ensure that local planning authorities have the full set of tools they need to manage challenges of the kind described by my hon. Friend.
Last week I met representatives from 22 town and parish councils who were all deeply concerned that new Government policies are curtailing their power over planning decisions, and concerned at the lack of truly affordable homes for locals. I understand the Government have a house building target, but the housing crisis in South Devon is exacerbated by the spread of second homes and holiday lets, removing even former council homes from the market and leading to a shortage in rental properties. However, we do not know the true extent of the issue without the short term let registration scheme. When will the Department introduce the register, so that we can control short term holiday lets in our rural and coastal towns?
My Department is not responsible for the national registration scheme for short term lets. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for that and is committed to implementing it as soon as possible. When it is implemented, the scheme will capture any property used as short term rental accommodation, importantly including second homes that operate as short term lets.
We have introduced the Representation of the People Bill, which will close loopholes that could allow foreign money to enter UK politics and undermine trust. Alongside those measures, we are considering the Rycroft review’s recommendations, including on candidate donations, and we will set out our full response shortly.
What if I told you, Mr Speaker, that just before the general election, a soon to be MP had pocketed a £5 million cash gift from a crypto billionaire who lives halfway across the world, and that soon after receiving that lucrative gift, the very same politician announced a new policy of slashing taxes for the crypto industry? You might think that something concerning was going on. Does the Minister agree that no British politician should be for sale to the highest bidder, and will the Government commit to using the elections Bill to slam the door shut on secret cash gifts to senior politicians?
The Government are clear that the integrity and transparency of our political system must be protected. The rules we have in place are designed to ensure that political donations come from legitimate sources and are properly declared. However, we recognise the need to ensure that our rules remain effective and address emerging risks. We are already delivering a package of reforms through the Representation of the People Bill; we will also consider the recommendations from the Rycroft review and work with the Electoral Commission and others to ensure that the system remains resilient for the future.
Event fees should be fair, transparent and communicated effectively. The Government continue to give careful consideration to the recommendations set out in the final report from the older people’s housing taskforce, including in respect of implementing the Law Commission’s 2017 recommendations to regulate event fees.
A constituent of mine has been unable to wind up his late uncle’s estate since 2023. The shared ownership retirement flat, managed by Abri in Poundbury, is incurring £15,000 in service charges; even if they find a buyer, those charges plus the exit fees will effectively wipe out any value from the sale. What steps are the Government taking to tackle excessive service charges and ban exit fees in the retirement housing sector?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—this is a really important issue. We consulted on a package of measures last year to strengthen leaseholder protections, including on the use of event fees, and will hopefully be responding to that consultation in the near future. More broadly, resale values are influenced by a range of factors, but the older people’s housing taskforce commented on resale values and on what might be done, and produced a series of recommendations, which we are carefully considering.
Unfair terms on retirement village leases are leaving grieving families in Derby trapped, facing huge exit fees while extortionate service charges rack up on their empty properties. Will the Minister support those families by addressing the unfair terms that they face when a parent or loved one passes away?
As I have just made clear, we are looking carefully at resale values and the recommendations made by the older people’s housing taskforce in this area. I wonder whether both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) might send me some of the examples they have referenced, as any evidence we can get on how this issue is affecting homeowners and their families across the country would be incredibly useful.
I call the shadow Minister.
The Minister should also consider the impact of the conveyancing process on this important issue. I have heard many complaints from older people in my constituency about the lack of transparency from solicitors, with families then hit with huge fees at the worst possible time. I am sure if people knew what they were signing up for lots of these properties would never be sold. Will the Minister commit to going further than the older people’s housing taskforce report and look closely at the entire conveyancing process?
It was remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, and I do so now. He has diligently pursued the issue of conveyancing and buying and selling over many months, not least in his role on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I cannot go further at the Dispatch Box than saying that we are carefully considering the recommendations from the older people’s housing taskforce, but I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and discuss this issue if he would like to do so.
Me again, Mr Speaker. We remain focused on implementing the five step plan we published in July last year to deliver a decade of social and affordable housing renewal. We received incredibly ambitious bids for our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme and are in the process of assessing them with a view to a timely announcement of allocations. As Members will know, our Social Housing Bill, which will give affordable housing providers the clarity and confidence they need to build more social homes, is also making good progress in the other place.
For 14 years, the Conservatives presided over a house building crisis that locked a generation out of home ownership and left social housing in short supply. In Blaydon and Consett, my constituents have been calling for years for more social and affordable housing to be built. Will the Minister say how this Government are going the extra mile to ensure that we deliver on the calls of my constituents for more social homes?
My hon. Friend is right. I would go further than she did: I think the previous Government deliberately set out to engineer the decline of social rented housing, not least through the reforms that they made to the right to buy, which we are reversing through the Social Housing Bill. As I made clear, we received ambitious bids from affordable housing providers across the country, including in the north east. That will allow councils and housing associations to start using the grant to build at scale once again.
Minister, you’re very busy!
The Government remain committed to the principle of tenants and leaseholders taking over certain management functions from their landlords, and following a review of arrangements for the oversight of tenant management organisations, we intend to take steps to make it easier to do so. Statutory guidance sets out a process for intervening in cases of mismanagement, but as part of our reform agenda, we will strengthen governance and oversight, including by providing stronger safeguards in cases in which tenant safety is at risk.
Residents on the Loughborough estate in my constituency have suffered years of appalling service from their resident management organisation, the Loughborough Estate Management Board. It has a failing repair service; dangerous chemicals were being stored in the community centre; there were allegations of threats and harassment; and more than £350,000 of its funding was spent on overseas trips and gifts. Eighteen months ago, residents voted overwhelmingly in favour of not renewing the board’s mandate, yet it is still operating, and there appears to be no straightforward mechanism that the local council can use to close down this failing organisation. Will the Minister work with me to bring this scandalous situation to an end, and to ensure that the Loughborough estate’s residents receive the housing services that they pay for and deserve?
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this alarming case to my attention. We are clear that as we look to make it easier to establish TMOs—we want to do so; there are some very good ones out there—we must strengthen governance and accountability. I assure her that as part of that effort, the Secretary of State and I will be giving specific consideration to how extreme cases of mismanagement might be brought to an end, as a mechanism of last resort.
I call the shadow Minister.
I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for raising this issue, which is part of a wider issue that many hon. Members will have heard about from constituents. Through legislation passed by the Conservative Government, with Labour Members’ support, and the legislation that is being consulted on, what concrete steps do the Government intend to take to prevent rip off fees, and unfair arrangements that shuffle costs on to private tenants—or council tax payers, in the case of social housing tenants—so that people can have confidence that the homes that they need will be provided, and will be fit for the future?
I thank the shadow Minister for that reasonable and apt question. We do need confidence in the system. Many tenant management organisations provide excellent resident led housing services, but it is right that councils can intervene if things go wrong. Powers to intervene in cases of serious failings are included in the management agreement between councils and TMOs, but as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), we are reviewing where we can go further on governance and accountability to ensure that the right safeguards are in place.
Minister, welcome.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that Cherrywood in my hon. Friend’s constituency will receive up to £20 million over the next decade through the Government’s expanded Pride in Place programme. The Government have committed significant sums of money to equipping communities with the resources and power to drive local change, so that they can bring people together and restore a sense of pride in their area.
Having campaigned hard for investment in my community since becoming a Member of Parliament, I am really proud that the Government have invested £20 million in Cherrywood ward. Will the Minister set out how this Pride in Place funding will help strengthen community ties, give local people a voice in shaping the place they call home, and make a difference to families living in Farnborough?
I commend my hon. Friend on her strong campaigning to secure investment for her area. She asked an important question about local people having a say over their areas—because they know best. The Pride in Place programme represents a break from the micromanagement approach taken with previous regeneration funds. Local boards are provided with the power of intervention and the autonomy that they need to pursue the change that their communities want. Youth centres, libraries, green spaces, cultural venues and help for families, including family hubs, will all be in scope of support for more cohesive and resilient communities.
Yesterday marked the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire—a day for remembrance and for sombre reflection. The 72 residents who so tragically lost their lives will never be forgotten. My thoughts are with the survivors, bereaved families and all those affected, and I know that they have the deepest sympathies of the whole House. We accepted the inquiry’s findings last year, and we will take forward action on all 58 recommendations. We are determined that nothing like this will ever happen again.
I thank the Minister for his comments about Grenfell. I welcome the legislation that the Government have introduced to lower the voting age to 16, and to make it easier for people to register to vote, but has he considered the benefits for increased participation in elections of adding a “none of the above” option on all ballot papers? This change could be made without primary legislation.
The Government are very interested indeed in increasing participation in elections, and I know from personal experience that the biggest way to do that is to increase campaigning, because that increases turnout. Beyond that, the Government have already piloted flexible voting pilots at the May 2026 elections; we tested early voting, and the use of non traditional places to vote. Also, the Democratic Engagement Fund is providing £2.5 million to support local projects that encourage more people to vote. Of course, we want to look at all proposals for getting people voting, because that is central to the efficiency and effectiveness of our democracy.
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Sir James Cleverly.
May I echo the words of the Secretary of State, nine years on from the terrible fire at Grenfell? It is incredibly important that we learn the lessons from that tragedy and ensure that people are protected in their home.
Labour says that 16 and 17-year olds are mature enough to vote, but in a written answer to me, it also says that 16 and 17-year olds are not mature enough to serve on juries, because that is “an adult duty”. It says that 16 and 17-year olds should vote, but should not play on their phone after the Government defined bedtime of 8.30 in the evening. These are just two examples from the list of inconsistencies triggered by Labour’s “votes at 16” policy. The only consistent thing about that policy is the blatant party political self interest, isn’t it? [Laughter.]
I am not sure about the right hon. Gentleman’s last point; I think the laughter across the Chamber probably answers that one for him. Of course, 16 and 17-year olds were able to vote in some elections in parts of the United Kingdom while he was in government. If he had really felt that 16 and 17-year olds should not be able to vote anywhere, he would have done something about it. It is only right that we standardise the system, so that people of that age can vote in all elections across the country. I, for one, welcome the increase in the franchise, and the encouragement of more people to participate. It is their country too, and they deserve a say. I hope that young people under the age of 18 see the Conservatives who are trying to deny them the vote, and will remember that at the ballot box in the future.
Travellers built an unauthorised development in Willows Green in my constituency over a bank holiday weekend. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this, and his reply amounted to little more than a hand wringing word salad. If he is serious about ending the abuse of retrospective planning in Essex and elsewhere, why will he not take up the proposals that we have put forward and end the “build first and apply later” culture?
That is exactly what the Government are doing. We are looking at how we can tackle those developers who go ahead and build and then seek planning consent retrospectively. It is not acceptable. We have put more money into councils, so that they can fund building control functions, which were severely underfunded by the Government when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That gives councils more power to take precisely the action that he is calling for. He had 14 years to do this, but he did not—so we are doing it for him.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive engagement on the new towns programme, and on Tempsford in particular. It helped to inform our approach, including to the decision that new town proposals will contribute to meeting the identified housing need of relevant authorities in all instances. We are assessing options for delivery vehicles across the proposed sites, with a view to ensuring that each is best placed to drive delivery and secure essential infrastructure in a timely manner.
I thank—[Interruption.] I can assure the shadow Secretary of State that I was very busy last week. Most people are bothered about the fairness of the council tax system, and that is why it is right that the Chancellor introduced this policy. Rather than debating what it is called, it is important that we get on with it and introduce fairness into the system.
Yes, I will.
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 goes some way towards addressing it, but I highlight that the Government are pushing ahead with high street rental auctions, which are helping to bring long term empty shops back into use.
The cheer across the House is a second reminder for me of the importance of coastal communities; the first reminder came when I responded to the Adjournment debate in the week before last. The Government are committed to mayoral strategic authorities having the fiscal tools to drive good growth in these areas. We have recently consulted on extending those power to FSAs, and will publish a response shortly.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the process of establishing the greater Cambridge development corporation. We will set out further details, as we did just a few days ago, about its development management powers, its planning powers and the specific sites that it will look at.
Rural housing availability is in crisis, and all the tenants of an estate near Haltwhistle in my constituency, many of whom are elderly tenants in their 70s and 80s, received section 21 notices a week before the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 came into effect. In a rural community like that, there simply is not similar housing nearby. It is the dismantling of a rural community. Will the Minister therefore meet me to discuss the support he can offer for constituents and the further steps we can take to stop rural communities being victimised by these practices?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I appreciate fully his concern about the potential mass eviction of his constituents. It is precisely so that private tenants can enjoy greater security, including the growing number of older people who now rent their homes, that we abolished section 21 no fault evictions. I am happy to meet him to discuss the case further and what more support we might provide.
We meet a range of stakeholders through the water delivery taskforce. I understand that, in response to Canterbury’s local plan consultation, the Environment Agency has recommended close liaison between the local authority and South East Water to ensure that planned housing growth is located where additional water is available to supply new development.
In 2022, my constituents at No. 1 London Road in Newcastle under Lyme were told that urgent action was needed due to fire safety concerns over the building’s cladding. It is now 2026 and, four years later, that urgent action is yet to begin. Can the Minister set out what steps she will take to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator functions effectively and does not create greater risk through significant delays—delays that have a huge impact on those directly impacted in Newcastle under Lyme and across the country?
I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard to support his constituents in Newcastle under Lyme on these important issues. I am happy to meet him, but let me also reassure him that work to improve the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is ongoing and is bearing fruit.
Many councils, especially Brighton and Hove, with hundreds of acquisitions since 2017, are doing their best to buy, as well as build, their supply of new council housing. More family homes can be provided, and the speed of the benefits gives it a different Treasury business case. Will the Secretary of State help me win the Chancellor’s support for the idea of a massive, new dedicated “buy the supply” fund for councils?
Funding is already available for councils to acquire new market homes for social and affordable housing through our social and affordable homes programme. They can obviously also rely on section 106 contributions and the local authority housing fund, the fourth round of which makes £950 million available for councils to acquire homes for better quality temporary accommodation.
National parks and natural landscapes provide huge benefits to people’s health and wellbeing, and to biodiversity and the economy. Can the Minister tell me what steps we can take through the next iteration of the national planning policy framework to ensure that the aforementioned benefits are not undermined when infrastructure projects must be progressed?
We continue to target a win win for both development and nature. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss how the NPPF contributes to that objective.
Outrageously, today the Government have stripped Epping Forest district council of the sole local right to determine major planning applications. That means that my constituents will have major planning decisions taken by central Government and not by our local council. Epping Forest district is largely green belt, and we are already under threat from speculative housing applications, farmland being sacrificed for solar plants and the Labour Government arbitrarily reclassifying green belt as so called grey belt. Will the Secretary of State step in and reverse this awful planning policy decision, which is a complete affront to local democracy?
I do not intend to reverse the decision; I made the decision. The hon. Member’s local authority is one of nine that have been designated for poor performance, just as the previous Government designated local authorities when they fell below the required standards in their planning processes.
Sadly, the recent closures of family run businesses, such as Scent from Dudley, Black Star Ghanaian product and Family Bargains hardware in Dudley, are symptomatic of a wider trend of high street shopfronts closing. What steps is the Minister taking to speed up high street regeneration by bringing empty shops back into use, and will he visit Dudley town high street to see what else we can do?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I will point to two things: first, later this year we will bring forward a high street strategy backed by at least £150 million; and secondly, as I said earlier, we are pushing ahead with the high street rental auctions programme, which is already seeing empty shops being brought back into use.
How will the Minister stop developers using viability assessments to wriggle out of providing affordable homes for communities such as mine in Westmorland, where an agreement for 12 affordable houses to be delivered in Allithwaite near Grange over Sands has been torn up and the council has no power to stop it? Will he help us?
We think it is right that developers can use site by site viability assessments, as the alternative where viability challenges are acute is that we get no homes coming forward at all. We have consulted, in the recent consultation on the NPPF, on standardised inputs to viability, and we will set out further steps in due course.
Leaseholders at Southend’s Meridien Point are trapped in an unbearable financial situation, as a result of an internal defects bill of £3 million, and a £450,000 fight against the building developer. Their block is 18 metres in height, and they are not entitled to funding for the support that they desperately need. They have been offered just £50,000 towards their legal fees by Homes England. How can we look at existing funding criteria for mid rise buildings, and encourage Homes England to fully support leaseholders in taking on well resourced developers?
Buildings between 11 and 18 metres may be able to enter the cladding safety scheme, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.
How can it be justified for a unitary authority to be formed that rips the waterside away from the New Forest, and places it under the control of Labour dominated Southampton, when the building blocks of the new unitary authorities were stated by the Government to be the existing areas covered by district and borough councils?
The Secretary of State took the decisions about local government reorganisation according to the criteria that we set out, but I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and will take them into account as we move forward.
I thank the Minister for his decision about the continued and ongoing failings by Cherwell district council regarding a major planning application. Given that Banbury has a huge and desperate housing need, will he agree to meet me to discuss how we can fix that, despite the council?
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the housing challenges in his part of the country.
I am leading the campaign to have Eastbourne pier registered as an asset of community value in order to safeguard its future. Will the Government back the campaign to ensure that Eastbourne pier continues to stand strong?
Having served as a council leader, I know just how important community assets are, and I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the matter further.
My hon. Friend will know how enthusiastic I am for a Thames Valley foundation strategic authority covering Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, but he will also know of my concerns about a spatial development strategy being imposed on us using a different, larger geography. Does he share my concern that that would undermine devolution before it even started?
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s robust views on this matter. There are a range of views about the right geographies for spatial development strategies. The Under Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), and I are looking at all the consultation responses we have received, and we will make decisions on the full basis of having those fed in.
Further to the Minister’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), will he take the opportunity of the new NPPF to make it absolutely clear that if someone wilfully ignores—not inadvertently, but deliberately and wilfully—the need for planning consent, they will not subsequently get retrospective permission?
We will not rule out retrospective planning applications of any kind—I think residents across the country who build a conservatory and then make an application, having forgotten to submit the paperwork, would take issue with that. There is a specific issue of intentional unauthorised development, and we are looking at that through the NPPF. I recently had a meeting with a large group of Members from across the House, including Front Bench Members, and we discussed possible options that we could use to bear down on the practice we are seeing, which is a new business model that exploits a particular set of challenges.
Last week we held interviews for the chair of our Pride in Place neighbourhood board in Redditch. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those who put their name forward and encourage all residents in Greenlands and Woodrow to take part in the scheme, which will see the largest single financial investment in my town in my entire lifetime?
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the significant investment for his area. The Pride in Place programme, rolled out by the Government, is our commitment to devolution, and we are investing in areas that have been ignored for far too long.
Will the Minister for Housing and Planning review the 2,500 square metre threshold for edge of town centre and out of town centre planning applications and conduct an assessment of their impact on the high street, particularly through the lens of supermarkets setting up things like key cutting and shoe repair kiosks, which decimate our high streets, as has recently happened in Princes Risborough?
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with further details about the matter, I will of course consider it.