Alex Norris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2025 · Parking: Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. It is at the heart of this Government’s approach to give communities tools to change places, and I will go through some of those at the end. There is a financial aspect to that, but there also a power aspect about shaping the things that shape the community. The debate gets to the heart of that, because parking is one of the major levers that a community has. The important point is that it is the community’s lever. Yes, it is held by the local authority, but it is the community’s lever. Fundamentally, responsibility for parking provision in town centres rests with the relevant local authority under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The accompanying statutory guidance clearly sets out that parking policies have to be proportionate and have to support town centre prosperity, and that it is for local authorities to decide how parking should support that—whether it should be free, whether it should be tariffed and for how long. Local authorities are best placed to do that, through their local transport plans and their local insight. They have to find a balance between residents, local businesses, those who live and work in an amenity and of course access for emergency services. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities can set their own parking tariffs. I think almost everybody will at some point set tariffs, certainly in a busy area, but they must be proportionate and should not be set at unreasonable levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley emphasised that the point of local parking policies is not to be revenue raisers or indeed cash cows. How a surplus is spent is prescribed under section 55 of the 1984 Act, which requires any surplus raised from parking schemes to go back into local authority-funded transport or environmental schemes—back into communities, as my hon. Friend said. Colleagues need to keep a discerning eye on that to ensure that that is really taking place, and that, crucially, communities have a voice. I and other colleagues in the Chamber have been council members. I remember wrestling with the problem of how to create that convection in Nottingham. We do not want people to come to a town centre and park there all day for work and then go home again and not contribute to the local economy. We want a turnover, but we want incentivisation as well. Colleagues have talked about the effectiveness of providing a free hour in pulling people through. There are very good examples of where that has worked. The challenge for me and for local authority colleagues who are listening to this debate is that, yes, this is a local authority function, but local authorities are their community. All our local authorities should ensure that their policies reflect the wishes and interests of the local community and that they are getting the public into the conversation—I was challenged to do this when I was a member of my local authority and I challenge mine to do so now. Local authorities must also get business into that conversation. I was surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that local businesses clearly do not feel that that has happened.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Parking: Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really important intervention. I wonder whether, looking back on some of those decisions on out-of-town retail, communities would make the same decisions now as they did at the time. It is clear from my hon. Friend’s intervention that parking is a driving factor in success. To some degree the public are telling us what they want to see and we really ought to listen to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley talked about broader support, particularly around vacancy. I encourage colleagues to support their local authorities in promoting the new high street rental auctions to bring those vacant units back into use. I also point to our work on safety in town centres. If we are driving footfall, people will only come, or come a second time, if they feel that they are safe. Footfall alone promotes community safety because energy and people being present deter crime and antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, our commitment to 13,000 more police and police community support officers will have town centres at its heart, so there is that visible presence and our town centres are places where people feel safe to park their cars and shop. I want to address the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East about parent and child parking bays. There is no current legislative requirement in this space. I am conscious that my hon. Friend has a ten-minute rule Bill designed to change this. In the interests, as she says, of challenging colleagues—particularly male colleagues—to come up with solutions, there is a possible workaround solution using the current legislative framework. Authorities can make parking provisions for specific road users, whether residents or blue badge users—we have many examples in our own communities. Under current rules, it would be feasible for a local authority to make specific on-street bays permit holder only, and to include a permanent identifier on that sign—again, we see those in our resident schemes and in our communities—but then issue those permits only to pregnant women or parents with children. Authorities would have to justify reserving those spaces—I think my hon. Friend probably did that for them—and find a decent way to publicise where those bays are located. I expect it would probably be about those being in the right place. That is something that colleagues can raise with local authorities. It is a bit of a workaround, but in the spirit of meeting her challenge to be being solutions focused, it would be one option. I thank her for her contribution. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for securing this important debate. She set out clearly some of the challenges that face our town centres. At the heart of it comes footfall, and at the heart of footfall is that lever of available and affordable parking facilities. Local authorities have leadership, responsibility and stewardship of local transport plans, but fundamentally that is for the community, and should be something that reflects the needs of local residents and local businesses. Clearly, that is not happening here, and that is why my hon. Friend had to take the significant step of bringing this from the high street in Dudley all the way to Parliament. She was right to do so. It is hugely important that the communities in Dudley, Kirkcaldy, Ilford, Bolton, Southend, and all the other places we have heard from today, are heard. The subject is clearly important throughout the country and I am grateful to colleagues for raising it. Question put and agreed to.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Parking: Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this important debate and for the powerful case that she made. It is one of the great joys of being the Minister responsible for high streets and town centres that I get to attend these debates where people talk about their communities. It is always interesting to hear the commonalities, differences, and challenges they are facing, though I might say with a degree of mischief that it is not often that such debates inspire such coverage of all the nations and regions of the UK as we have today. That is a sign that my hon. Friend is in exactly the right space.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I could talk all day about Clement Attlee. His policies and politics were rooted in organising in the east end of London. We often forget this, but—well, the hon. Gentleman is no stranger to internal Labour party dynamics. Clement Attlee was a man of exceptional privilege, but he chose to go to the places where life was hardest. He looked at the living conditions of individuals in the east end of London and non-judgmentally sought to change them. He understood that some people had substance abuse issues—they manifested perhaps a little differently compared with today, but it is the same principle—and others had mental health or physical health issues. There was domestic abuse. We are talking about the 1930s, but it is not so different nearly 100 years on. He sought to change those things, but he never sought to divide people into worthy and unworthy people. He would never write people off. There is an important conversation at the nub of this debate: what is too much? Where is the line? What is tough love? What is an effective way of changing things? The hon. Gentleman talked about not caring where those who are evicted go. I do care, and I will address that point in a little while. There is a balance.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Christmas may be over, but I have been visited by the ghost of Christmas future, who has shown me what my life might look like in 2030. I have to say that I would be amazed if I am still a Minister in 2030, but it would be a privilege to have had a long career serving my country. I would love that. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this debate. I am in this Chamber a lot, as are a lot of other hon. Members here, and my favourite debates are not the ones in which individuals bring up very interesting issues that they are interested in— I have done that myself with things that I have a long, enduring interest in—but those that are really rooted in the lives of our constituents. This is one of those. Colleagues of different political persuasions from different parts of the UK have the same challenge, and we get a lot of correspondence about it in our mailbags. More importantly, people in our communities deal with it every day. They do the decent thing—they go to work, work hard and bring their kids up—and they do not want much other than to be able to get on with a quiet life, but they have to go home to disturbance, noise, aggression, smell or whatever it is. It is so unfair and unjust that they have to live their lives that way. It is right that the Government and the Parliament of the day believe that this issue is important and that we have a role in changing it. Antisocial behaviour is not merely a nuisance but has devastating personal consequences. It corrodes people’s freedom, makes them not want to leave the house, damages their mental health and ultimately undermines their sense of home. That is why tackling antisocial behaviour is an important priority for this Government through our safer streets mission. We have committed on the record to put thousands of neighbourhood police and police community support officers into local communities so that residents have a named officer to turn to when things go wrong. Hon. Members have talked about the existing powers, which we think need to be augmented through respect orders. We need tough sanctions and proper penalties. Crucially—this is a significant gap at the moment—we need serious and growing penalties for those who persistently offend. The hon. Member for Ashfield said that social housing is a gem, and I agree. The bedrock of my community is good, decent homes where people can grow up, go to work, thrive and live their lives. It makes it doubly painful when a small number of individuals who have this gem—this thing that many others on the waiting list would be desperate to secure—choose to perpetrate antisocial behaviour and make their neighbours’ lives a misery. It is a double insult. I will address his three strikes point a little later, but I will give a clear response on that. The hon. Member also talked about the important relationship between central Government, local government, the providers and the police. This is an all-sector approach to try to tackle these individuals and to assemble the right powers, whether through tenancies, the effectiveness of the courts, or providers themselves doing their jobs. Those are points that I will cover. Any debate that starts with Clement Attlee is a good debate. If we look around the country we can see the impact of his Labour Government and subsequent Labour Governments. Whether it is social housing, our national health service or the minimum wage, we built the basic standards that make people’s lives better and help them thrive. This Government will govern in that spirit, and I look forward to the support of the hon. Members for Ashfield and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with that. To continue the New York example, I think of Red Hook and the courts there: the idea was that they would not just nick people for low-level crimes, but get them through court very quickly and ensure that there were sanctions, as a proper deterrent. Sadly, we are very long way from that. One of my biggest challenges with constituents is that they fear there is no point in staying in the game with the courts system, because they are already getting hearing dates for 2026. That is a real challenge at the root of justice in this country. The issue starts with social housing providers. We would always want any issues to be nipped in the bud. If someone has done something that they should not have—had a loud party or left a bicycle in the way—then the necessary interaction should be quite an easy one, and there should be a resolution and no recurrence. That reduces antisocial behaviour. We want to see providers do that and they ought to do that. Similarly, it is right that, when preventive measures fail, landlords can move decisively and quickly to tackle tenants who persistently abuse their tenancies. There are a range of powers already on the statute book, including eviction, but again, as we know from colleagues, that process does not feel like it always works. We have had conversations with social landlords. Of course, we would emphasise that they can apply to a court to remove tenants who carry out antisocial behaviour, but the process can be very difficult. I will talk shortly about how that might be made better. It starts at allocation. There is a little bit of conversation about who gets access to social housing. Local authorities, including my own, can and do deprioritise tenants who have a history of bad behaviour. The majority—we believe it is about 75%—of local authorities undertake antisocial behaviour or other criminal behaviour-type tests ahead of allocating a social home. I suspect that colleagues may be interested in checking with their local authority whether they are in the three quarters or the quarter, because that is the front door to ensuring that those who have behaved badly in the past do not get access and the opportunity to do it again. When it comes to eviction, there are powers at the moment—the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1988—but it is difficult. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness suggested that there should perhaps not be more legislation, but our plan is for more legislation in this space. Through the Renters Rights’ Bill, we will enable housing association landlords to make a claim to a court for repossession immediately in the most serious cases, rather than having to provide a notice period, with all the harm that can happen in those cases. We will also amend the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This is very important—to give judges particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants. Often, as we know from our casework, they simply do not answer letters or let the housing patch manager in. That will be a factor in the future, which is very welcome. On the point about not being interested where people go, I am interested in that—not least because, as the crow flies, Kirkby to Bulwell is about eight or nine miles. One way or the other, either people being booted out of houses in my constituency end up in that of the hon. Member for Ashfield, or vice versa. That is why we should take an interest. If we can help people to resolve mental health issues, we should do that. If we can help people to address substance abuse issues, we should do that. We cannot pretend that, if we evict them from their housing, they suddenly will not be a problem elsewhere. I do not think that is the case, which is why we must take an interest and want to reduce reoffending and improve and promote rehabilitation. My particular issue with the three strikes point is the rigidity. I would be very clear with my local authority that, if someone set their neighbour’s car on fire or attacked them, or was the organiser and perpetrator of a drugs network from their social house, one strike should be plenty. I would also say that, in a case where perhaps a lone parent is doing the best they can do, and they have a child who is clearly struggling and showing bad behaviours, I would try to solve that problem before thinking that shifting them out of their house would help rather than hinder. The three strikes system is not flexible enough, and I fear it is at risk of being weaponised. We will have situations where we see both neighbours in the constituency surgery. If there is a hard and fast rule, and someone knows they only have to get three complaints found against their neighbour and they are out, it might promote that type of activity.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  That is why we are making changes within the Renters’ Rights Bill. In those cases, the neighbours must tear their hair out and wonder what has to happen for the right thing to be done. I am conscious of the time remaining, but I wanted to mention our approach to antisocial behaviour and policing more generally, because we must have neighbourhood police back on the street. We have lost neighbourhood policing in this country. The shadow Minister talked about the importance of tackling low-level crime. We have essentially decriminalised retail crime in this country. We have seen an explosion in it, with all that misery. We must have the proper policing resource to get into that space. That is why the Prime Minister announced on 5 December, through our plan for change, our zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour and, critically, our 13,000 more police and police community support officers. They are named contacts, working on antisocial behaviour action plans with local communities and using new tools, such as the respect orders, to ensure that individuals doing the wrong thing are tackled about their behaviour. There is a straight line across that. After 13 years of talking to people about problems with their neighbours, my first question—I really cross my fingers behind my back—is whether their neighbour is a private or a social housing tenant. It is much easier with a social housing tenant, because there tend to be behaviour contracts and a legislative framework. If I have to chase a private landlord who might not live in Nottingham—I cannot believe anyone would not, but if not, or if they lived in Derby, for example—or even in Britain, that becomes really hard. We need broader tools that go beyond the ones with which we could work with social housing providers. That will be in our crime and policing Bill in this Session. To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield for securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their contributions to it. We are alive to the issue, and that is why we are acting through the Renters Rights’ Bill and have the policing and crime Bill to come. We are interested in hearing people’s ideas. We will always engage with them properly. I have given a sense today of the direction in which we are going, and I look forward to working with colleagues in the future.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with that, and I have that conversation with my constituents. I was the shadow Policing Minister before the election, and I saw the Policing Minister and Home Secretary at the time, both of whom I hold in high regard, tearing their hair out over this question. As the hon. Gentleman says, we have employed more police officers than ever before; we have cut them and then we have added them back. Why are people not happier? The reality is that the funding mechanism squeezed out civilian staff, so that we now have 10,000 fewer police officers in frontline roles. There have never been more police officers—6,000 in this case—sat behind desks, doing things that they were not trained for and that their skills are wasted on. We have to change that, and getting 13,000 more police and police community support officers is part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I totally accept that point. The challenge will be, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his leadership in his business career and his senior status in the previous Government, that every individual reacts differently to different circumstances. Like many colleagues, I like sport. No one needs to shout at me about the mistakes I have made. I know the mistakes. I carry them and think about them all the time. I need an arm around my shoulder. Other people need shouting at. It is about finding the model to make a change, if change is the thing we want, which I think it is for most of us. But people like me, who advocate change and perhaps take a longer lens on it than Conservative Members, cannot lose sight of the fact that in that moment, the people living next door are living in misery. That is why we have to have a line and I will talk about where that might fall. The shadow Secretary of State should not be surprised by the quality of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm); if he hears him speak on other issues, he will see that the quality is there. With both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ashfield here, I had to check whether this was 2024 or 2014—had we got the old band back together? There is a lot of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire here. We have all known each other for a very long time. I associate myself with the comments that my hon. Friend made about Nottinghamshire police and how important it is that we have good policing and we give the police the tools and resources to do that well in our community. The thing that I took from both my hon. Friend’s contribution and that of the hon. Member for Ashfield is just how frustrating the process is. Having sat for 13 years on the local authority and in this place, I know about sitting there yet again saying, “Well, have you done any diary sheets?”, the burden of proof constantly being on those who are doing the decent thing, and the seemingly ever-higher mountain to climb to get some degree of justice. Again, that is something I will return to shortly. I was pleased, as always, to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As he said, in Northern Ireland policing is a reserved matter, but the issues are similar. I suspect that people in Bulwell, in my constituency, and Newtownards, in his, are not that different. They want decent treatment, and the vast majority of people in both his community and mine are decent people who do the right thing. That is why it is all the more frustrating when individuals do not. I particularly took his point about reputation; people sometimes talk my community down, and that angers me, because my community is chock full of brilliant people who, whether by being great parents, by being great friends, or by contributing and volunteering, make the world a better place every day. That is why it angers me that a small number of people choose to cause a big amount of disruption. The hon. Member mentioned legislation. Some colleagues have said that we need legislation; others have said we do not. I will set out the case for why we do. Given that the Renters’ Rights Bill is back next Tuesday for its Report stage, this is a good moment—an amendment window—for colleagues to bring forward ideas, and there are also the stages in the other place. Clearly there is a broad interest in this issue, and there could be a lot of very good contributions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) set out, the rebirth of social housing is at the core of what this Government intend to do. We think that having a social house can be a foundation on which people build their lives. That makes it all the more important that we have appropriate checks and balances for those who do not behave properly in social housing. I will address his point about policing shortly, because without police, it does not matter what laws or rules we have; we simply will not be able to enforce them. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness talked about the broken windows theory, which is interesting and important, but I might challenge it slightly. It is not as simple as saying, “We don’t want any broken windows round here.” It is saying that when we have broken windows, we fix them: if there is one broken window, a second window is more likely to be broken, because people think, “Hey, you break windows round here.” It is about having the resourcing to do that. The hon. Member also talked about a visible police presence, which is very important to this new Government. There is a trade-off here—as he says, these things need to be paid for. Balancing that is the challenge for the Government of the day, and it will be the challenge for Opposition parties.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Playgrounds · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the first time, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I know that you are always fair, but I know that you can be hard as well, if need be—hopefully I will not stretch the Chair’s patience today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for securing this debate and for the way in which he has led it. He took us on a beautiful tour of Bournemouth, but I most enjoyed the way that he brought the views of his constituents into the room and on to the record—to get 640 responses to anything is quite something. It shows the amount of energy and interest in Bournemouth, but clearly, judging from the contributions of colleagues, that energy and interest is replicated across the country. Playgrounds are a vital part of our social infrastructure. As we have heard, they contribute to the health and development of our children and young people across the nation. Importantly for us as a Government, they also build on our mission of opportunities for all by ensuring that everyone has the best start in life. I pay special tribute to the parents who my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East referred to, and I commend them for the insights that they gave to him and that he has been able to give to us. I also recognise Councillors Millie Earl, Sandra Moore and Andy Hadley, and Rebecca Whelan-Edmonds and Barbara Uphoff, for their work on a play strategy in Bournemouth —there is clearly something very special going on in the area—and Councillor Sharon Carr-Brown for her work to improve the quality of play in her ward and beyond. I also thank Eugene Minogue and Play England for its work, including the support it has given to Bournemouth and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. He asked me some specific questions, which I will come to later, but I will first pick up on a couple of the themes that were echoed by other hon. Members. First, it is important to start with the principle that unstructured, free play is important in child development. Fun in general is important—it is not all about development; children have to be able to enjoy themselves and we need to make sure that the spaces are there. We have a strong, able and technically evolved competitor for our children’s education: screen time is part of this conversation. The answer in such circumstances is never to smash the machines; we cannot unlearn the technology, so we have to compete. If the alternative is compelling, our offer must be compelling. I will make a couple more points on that later. At a time when the cost of living challenges mean that parents are making difficult choices, those offers have to be there and they have to be accessible. My hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members said that this is also about social justice. For many in my community, the Bulwell Forest is their garden. They do not have the garden of their own, so that is their play area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) said, play and parks should be a great leveller and accessible to all—just walk up and pitch in. Too often, however, that is not the case for children with a disability, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said, nor is it for neurodiverse children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) said. Whatever plans we bring forward, we have to weave in accessibility. We need to seek to tackle those inequalities. I will make a few points on where we are as a Government and address the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. The early years of childhood are crucial for the healthy development of our children, and physical activity is at the root of that, but as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) said, we face a real challenge around childhood obesity. Over 2 million children in this country do not do 60 minutes of physical activity each day—that problem is coming down the line for us. I will of course meet with the hon. Gentleman to talk about the adventure playgrounds in his community. We know that this is a social justice issue, as I said, because the levels of activities are lowest among the poorest children, children from ethnic minority backgrounds and girls. Factors such as poverty, lack of access to safe green spaces and poor local natural resources contribute to this inequality. We also know that parents are increasingly concerned about the welfare of their children and about antisocial behaviour, which plays into the Government’s crime mission. We have to make sure that we have community policing to give reassurance. The lack of physical activity among children needs to change, and active play is one of the key ways that we can make that change and get children exercising, stretching their minds and, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) said, building skills, problem solving and building resilience—all of those come through active play. Whether it is at adventure playgrounds, sports facilities or park playgrounds, or in the natural environment, all those things need to be present and accessible for our children. We have a lot of parks and green spaces in this country —27,000 of them. They are much-loved local assets and can provide opportunities for free. As has been said, that reflects the cost of living. The great thing is that our children are telling us the answer. As so often in politics, if we stop talking for long enough, generally people will tell us the answer. The 2024 children’s people and nature survey for England tells us that the single most important factor for encouraging children to go outside is access to playgrounds. We tear our hair out about why our children are not out more often, which comes up in debates, as hon. Members have said, but the answer is there ready for us—access to playgrounds. Local authorities are at the root of this. Five in every six of our urban parks are managed by local authorities. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about community power. The local authority’s connection to local communities is about empowering them; I have no desire, as the Minister, to make granular decisions about play parks in Stoke, Stockport, Bournemouth, Thurrock, Ealing or wherever. I have very strong views about Nottingham, but my role as Minister is to get the powers and the resources to those communities to shape things for themselves. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about some of the pressure that councils have been under in recent years. There is no doubt that playgrounds have been seen as a discretionary, non-statutory service. As a result, we have seen the decline that she talked about. I am very proud that the recent Budget had the best settlement for local government, with significant resources being made available. That will start to see some of those important services being built back. I am passionate about, and could speak all day on, the Green Flag award scheme, and I thank super-judge Chris Worman for the work that he is doing. That is a really good way of ensuring that we have quality offerings, of which we have over 2,000 in the UK. In the Department we have novated the parks working group to build on that work, and Chris is playing a big part in that. I am going to ask that group to expand to ensure that play parks and playgrounds are part of that conversation, so that we are tackling some of the inequalities and the accessibility issues. I will address the specific asks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. First, I would be delighted to meet Eugene Minogue from Play England to discuss the issue. I am very keen to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents, and having had the aural tour of Bournemouth, I am keen to have the physical one. With regard to the 2008 play strategy, I am going to deftly sidestep any historical comparisons to individual politicians and say that as part of our opportunities Government mission, we are working with sector experts around play provision and will build on what has been done in the past. I steal liberally from what has been done before—often there is not much that is genuinely new—so we will building on that strategy and making significant reference to it in our work, while making it fit for the modern day. We are going to take a similar approach with regard to play sufficiency legislation. I want to follow the evidence with the experts in communities, and I want to understand more about Scotland and Wales, because there is clearly a distinction and difference there, and about where the law could augment that. I would not want to run ahead of that work. My officials are working with those in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look further into sports fields, and I will keep my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East updated. On mapping play facilities, we want to get the burden on local authorities right so that we do not put too much on them. We are looking at other ways of doing it, however, because it is an important goal. One of the biggest driving factors beyond quality is distance. My community is a former mining community, so we have lots of country parks and people think that we are well provided for, but the gates are never on our side, which is a cause of great frustration. It is therefore about ensuring that we know what the distances are, as well as being about access. There is a significant correlation between mental health across the population and the distance to green and open spaces. Rather than asking local authorities to map play facilities, last August the Office for National Statistics produced work on access to green space for the first time, and we are committed to further refining that work to ensure that it is doing the job. Similarly, the Green Flag award scheme provides a map of where the highest-quality facilities are. We are keen to get that mapping right, and to ensure that we understand that equity piece and which communities may need greater support. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East will need some time to wind up. I look forward to meeting him and his constituents, and I look forward to working with hon. Members in the spirit referred to by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and by other hon. Members throughout the debate.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and for the spirit in which he has led it. Despite this being a half-hour debate—one of the shorter ones—the interest from colleagues, shown through interventions and through being here to listen, demonstrates the importance of town centres and their health to all our communities, wherever we are across the UK. My hon. Friend’s diagnosis of the challenge was really well put, because although no two town centres are the same, all our town centres face the same problems: lower occupancy rates and footfall due to economic headwinds and changing consumer habits; the legacy of austerity on public amenities; and hollowed-out high streets becoming a breeding ground for crime and antisocial behaviour, which then feeds a vicious cycle that affects the confidence of consumers and investors alike. That is true in Basingstoke, it is true in Bulwell in my constituency and it is true in the constituencies of colleagues across the room. This is an important debate for us all—it is a significant debate for the Government of the day and for Parliament. I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said about the entrepreneurial spirit in his community, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). As we see across the country, there are brilliant business owners who are taking risks, bringing their ideas forward and making them real under very difficult circumstances. Quite rightly, they are not looking for the Government to operate their enterprises, but they are looking for the Government to make their life easier, which is entirely reasonable. Today I will cover the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and talk about some of the support that will be coming from the new Government. I will also reference that critical underpinning—that whatever we do, whatever support we give to business, and however good the trading environment, we have to have safe communities. If we do not have those, even if we have all the other pieces, people will still not feel safe and will not be able to visit their town centres, and businesses will not be able to thrive. I will start with the high street itself. My hon. Friends the Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) referenced high street rental auctions, so I will start there. In December we brought forward new powers for local authorities to require landlords who have persistently vacant properties to bring those properties back into use. The new regulations will make the tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, and give local businesses and community enterprise a right to rent valuable space on their high street. We are calling time on those persistent vacancies, and this will be a significant development in reducing vacancies and improving footfall along the way. We have heard about the work going on in Bournemouth. We are also working with Bassetlaw, Darlington and Mansfield as early adopters, and I want as many areas to come forward as possible. I encourage colleagues to talk to their local authorities about getting the best out of these powers. There is also a lot of insight that we can support them with centrally. If they lean into this, it could be a really good way of addressing vacancy rates and of giving business and local community enterprises their first steps. We will continue to invest in the high street accelerator model and from that learn what else we can do to improve communities across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned, that model is telling us a lot about partnership between local communities, businesses, and property owners, who want to see their communities thrive. We also heard about business improvement districts convening that family of interested parties to drive forward a shared vision for an area. At the moment, the overheads are really challenging—the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) put it very elegantly as the “cost of doing business crisis”. As the Government of the day, we want to help and to ameliorate that situation. Retail, hospitality and leisure form the backbones of our high streets, and support our local economies and communities, providing jobs and attracting visitors, but they cannot do that with a chokehold on them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said. He asked for more specifics on permanently lowering tax rates for such ventures. From 2026-2027, we intend to introduce permanent tax cuts for those with rateable values of less than £500,000. Those businesses will have certainty going forwards, not having to wait from Budget to Budget to see if cuts have been maintained; they will be baked in. Indeed, I believe that legislation has been making its way today. It means that businesses will have certainty around costs, so that they can plan and can operate their businesses in a profitable way. There are other ways in which we can make life easier, including by tackling the scourge of late payments and long payment terms. That is a theme we hear constantly when we talk to small business and self-employed people. We are therefore introducing a new fair payment code, and we want people to engage with it to make sure that it works for real—for the way in which they do their business—and they are not caught in the ripple effects of bigger organisations that do not pay on time. That is an important point on support. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the importance of energy costs, which we know have been a problem domestically and for businesses. There are businesses now that were in a cycle of contracting when markets were at their most challenging and which are now locked into longer deals. We encourage businesses or non-domestic organisations to engage with suppliers about moving away from contracts agreed at higher prices and instead move towards approaches such as blend and extend contract to try to reduce costs. That would give short-term relief. What we have to do in the medium and long term—as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said—is transition away from fossil fuels and towards home-grown, clean energy through the establishment of Great British Energy. In December, we took steps with our 2030 action plan, outlining our efforts in this regard. That will mean there will be access to clean, green energy, and that there will be domestic jobs and more money in people’s pockets—the single biggest problem affecting my town is that people simply do not have enough money in their pockets to shop. We will be winning each way: keeping bills down with better energy, and putting support and vitality back into our communities with jobs too. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned transport, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). Reliable bus and public transport services are vital to the economic success of our high streets. At the back end of last year, we made announcements about the £5.7 billion long-term transport settlement to transform the local transport networks of our largest city regions, helping to drive growth and productivity, and perhaps bringing back into use those routes that have been lost. There is also a further £650 million for local transport outside city regions in the forthcoming year, to make sure that we can improve connections between our towns, villages and rural areas as well as our major cities. On 17 December, we introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which will put power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders, so that those decisions reflect the nature of the local community and public transport gets to the right places. On driving footfall and making sure that the high street has the amenities that our constituents want and need, we are also pushing hard on the roll-out of banking hubs. I know, having talked to colleagues, that that is of significant interest across the country. We have plans to roll out 350 such hubs, and there is plenty of work to do on that. Again, this is about having anchors on the high street that mean that people routinely come in and out of their town centre and, while they are there, perhaps go for a cup of tea or whatnot. We need those staples come what may, and that is an important way of making sure that we protect banking. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) talked about some of the ways in which Government have funded projects previously. To be clear—I could speak for another hour on this—we want to move away from the competitive, beauty parade-style bidding process that has pitted communities against each other, created a lot of disappointment and, frankly, been less than the sum of its parts. Our approach to local growth funding will be more integrated settlements over the longer term, with less central direction and more local choice. We think that will get the money to the areas that need it. In the meantime, we have the UK shared prosperity fund and the transition year there. I know that that is important for Northern Ireland—I have had the chance to see some of the services it pays for there—and across the country. Colleagues can look for more information about that when we get to the multi-year spending review later this year. In the time remaining, I will move on to a couple of points about safety in town centres, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern). As the Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is surely our man with a direct line on the spending review and other things. The point about safety is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has, like me, raised the issue of car meets. This has, at times, really dogged my town, making me want to tear my hair out. In order to push these kinds of behaviours out of our town, we have had to chase them and really be on top of it. The issue has caused misery and anxiety, and people do not want to leave their houses because they do not think they are safe. That is also true for crime in town centres more generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned that terrible phrase, which I absolutely hate: “low-level crime”. The previous Government ceded ground around theft below £200, which has led to an explosion of stealing and other types of antisocial behaviour in our towns. That has made working in a retail environment a misery for people at times. We see staggering levels of violence, which we have to address. That is at the core of our safer streets mission, and we are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing through our neighbourhood policing guarantee—13,000 more police and police community support officers as a visible deterrent. My hon. Friend also asked about timelines and where we are in the process. On 5 December, the Prime Minister announced our Plan for Change, which committed to a zero tolerance approach to ASB. That means a dedicated lead officer in every force, working with communities to work up a local antisocial behaviour plan. There are also our recently announced respect orders, which will give police and local council stronger enforcement powers, so that proper action is taken to change the behaviours of people who are persistently disruptive—others in our towns could name those people, and retail workers certainly could. This means banning them from the amenity they are disrupting, but also tackling the root cause of their behaviour through, for example, mandated alcohol and drug treatment. If people break respect orders, there are significant penalties, with offenders facing up to two years imprisonment—a real deterrent. We want to tackle the root cause. For time out of mind, the behaviour of young people around town centres has been a challenge, whether they are on bicycles or causing shopkeepers challenges. Through our young futures programme, we want to give young people a positive thing to do, but it is also a chance to tackle and reduce offending where it happens. Together, all these things will make our communities safer for people to live, work and visit. I am coming to the end of my speech, so I will probably leave it there. There are important points to be made about housing and our role in ensuring that, as more housing is created in town centres, it is done in a sensible and planned way with local communities. I think most people would accept the value of that—but if there is not proper planning and co-ordination, we end up with units in different places, as well as the weird and desperately sad situation where people move next door to a pub that may have been there for many years and then put in public order and nuisance complaints, leading to the pub closing down. We have to plan these things, so that residents can live alongside business in a way that promotes all of their interests. To conclude, the interest that my colleagues have shown means that we could have gone on for a very long time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for securing the debate; it is a really brilliant way to start the new year. Our town centres are the beating hearts of our communities, and the Government are committed to giving that support. We will continue to engage with business to make sure the things we are doing are reaching the places they need to, and we will also work on that with our parliamentary colleagues. There is an awful lot to consider in terms of business support and public safety, so now is the time to grab this for our town centres—for my community, and for all of our communities. I think we can make a real difference. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an important debate on the findings and recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. As the inquiry’s phase 2 report and today’s debate have made clear, fundamental change is needed to make our homes secure and safe, both now and in the future. I said in a building safety debate a few weeks ago that, like other colleagues, I reflect on where I was on that night seven and a half years ago. It was a poignant moment. Having sat on the other side of the Chamber, I think that if we had said then that we would be where we are now, we would have been exceptionally surprised and disappointed that not enough progress has been made. It now behoves the Government of the day to move at much greater pace, building on the inquiry’s recommendation to move at speed. The inquiry’s findings on the causes of the tragedy tell us something about a building safety system that was fundamentally broken, that had baked-in deficiencies and that went unchallenged by authorities across the piece, and about the relentless dishonesty of individuals. But it also tells us about Britain and the country in which we live. The consequence was buildings with unsafe cladding and 72 people losing their lives, which was devastating for their families and for the community. As the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have said, we apologise on behalf of the British state. We cannot say sorry enough. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are considering our response to the report and have committed to come back within six months with our response to the recommendations, as well as to give Parliament the opportunity to debate it at that time and on an annual basis. I say from the bottom of my heart that this has been an important debate for shaping the Government’s response to the report. I have some points of my own to make, but I will major on the points made by colleagues, because there have been a lot of important questions and comments that need a reply at this stage. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who shaped both the spirit and the content of the debate. He spoke with purpose, but I could detect quite a lot of anger as well. When I speak to bereaved people, the next of kin, survivors and the immediate community, it is clear how angry they are with how little progress has been made, how tired they are of telling people like me their story, how much pain it causes them to tell their story again and to hear it played out in our nation’s Parliament, and how angry it makes them that we cannot say that this tragedy will not happen again, which is shameful for our country. My hon. Friend talked about the merry-go-round of blame. Let me tell him that the report’s recommendations provide a chance for a single response, owned singularly by the Government of the day, to break that merry-go-round. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), spoke with characteristic power. What I took from her contribution, and what I suspect will be the work of her Committee, is the need for more systematic action. We have said that we will address the recommendations within the timeline to which we have committed, but we understand that systematic challenges in the building safety industry have been highlighted by the inquiry report, the Morrell-Day report and the Hackitt review, all of which we will pick up as part of the process, because the whole system needs reform. That takes me to what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said. He is coming to see me in the next few days to discuss his thoughtful ideas about safety investigations that have worked in other industries, and the Government are all ears. My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green talked about manufacturers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Prime Minister has committed that we will take action against culpable manufacturers. As the first step in that process, the Cabinet Office has written to organisations named in the inquiry who bear different responsibilities for these failings. For those found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, this is the first step in stopping them being awarded Government contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government intend to publish guidance to support this first set of decisions early next year to stop the most egregious companies getting Government contracts. A number of colleagues mentioned issues relating to leaseholders, and I shall start with leaseholder protections, which came into force on 28 June 2022. Qualifying leaseholders are protected from the costs of legal or other professional services relating to the liability or potential liability incurred as a result of a relevant defect. The Building Safety Act 2022 also provides for remediation contribution orders, which allow interested persons to apply to the first-tier tribunal for an order requiring building owners to pay to fix unsafe buildings, but I am struck, as a Minister, by how often colleagues tell me that these things are not happening. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is no longer in his place, mentioned Abbey House, which I am keen to talk to him about. I will also meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) to understand how this is manifesting itself for her constituents. My hon. Friends the Members for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) talked about insurance for leaseholders, and it is impossible not to be struck by the financial and emotional impact that high insurance premiums are having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying high premiums for too long, and as part of the remediation acceleration plan, we have announced that we will work with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities in order to reduce the high insurance bills that leaseholders are facing. We have also launched a public consultation today on our plans to prevent excessive buildings insurance commissions for landlords, for property managing agents or for freeholders being charged to leaseholders. Our intention is to replace those with a fair and transparent fee. I have mentioned qualifying leaseholders, which takes me to the point about qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders that the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) raised in this debate and earlier in oral questions. She invites me to set out a path of logic for the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. I would maintain that, in principle, the difference between what we would consider an ordinary resident and what we would consider a business owning perhaps very many properties is a distinction that we would want to draw when providing public relief. At some point we have to draw a line. The hon. Lady spoke with great eloquence about how that has manifested itself for married couples, and I know from my conversations with many others that there are similar edge cases. We will look at those edge cases, and I am keen to meet her because she spoke with great power about one such case in her community. With your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to correct something that I said during oral questions earlier, because it is an important distinction. I talked about the need to find the balance between those who built a building and those who live in it, but in reality, the balance we need to find is between those who have financial interests in a building and those who live in it. That is slightly different. I will correct the record formally, but I did not want to miss this first public opportunity to do so, given the importance of the point that was raised. The question of justice was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). Speaking to survivors, to the next of kin and to the immediate community, it is impossible not to be struck by their anger and their entirely natural need for justice. I have to say, as building safety Minister, that to some degree this is the element of the entire piece that I find most challenging because, quite rightly, the police and courts are independent of Government. We of course speak with the authorities, and I know that they hear very clearly from those affected about the need for pace. The Metropolitan police have said that it will take time, that it is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations they have ever conducted, and that they have 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. A question was asked about court capacity, which colleagues will know is of great importance to this Government. We are working very hard to relieve the pressure on Crown courts to ensure they are not the point at which justice is prevented. An hon. Member whose name I have not noted asked about memorialisation, and it is important that I make it clear on the record that no decision has been made about the tower’s future. This matter is being led by the Deputy Prime Minister, who recognises the importance of listening to the community on this sensitive issue. She is actively doing so, and it is right that the bereaved, the survivors, the next of kin and the immediate community are at the heart of this conversation. It is part of a process, and there is unanimity across all involved, including in this place, on the need for a fitting and lasting memorial. We salute the important work of the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and will support it in any way we can. Colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), mentioned the role of local authorities. As the shadow Minister said, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has admitted that it failed in some of its most basic duties: to keep residents safe; to listen to and act on their concerns; and to respond effectively when disaster struck. The Government will work very closely with the community to hold the council to its commitments to improve its services for residents. I will shortly meet the council leader to discuss a number of issues that residents have asked me to raise—we will work very closely. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East both spoke about the importance of transparency. Transparency is always important in local government, but it is crucial when rebuilding trust after a tragedy has laid bare such failings. In that spirit, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke powerfully about Rod Wainwright, the brave firefighter on duty that night. The actions of the London Fire Brigade have been referred to the independent inspectorate, which is very important. However, with the Fire Minister sitting beside me, I assure the House that the Government are responsible for overall oversight of fire and rescue services, and for ensuring public safety more broadly. We will work with the inspectorate, the Mayor of London and the LFB to support the brigade’s continued progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke about skills. Seven years on, it is clear that we have missed an opportunity. Young people should want to go into the house building industry, as this is skilled, well-paid and important work. The Government are working with the Industry Competence Committee to make sure that we have a competent house building workforce capable of delivering safe, high-quality homes, which is especially important in the light of our commitment to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. In the autumn, the Government launched Skills England, which will work closely with employers and other key partners to identify and address priority skills gaps, including in construction. The Budget made more money—£300 million—available for further education, including in construction. Today, I have had a conversation with mayoral combined authorities and elected mayors about how they can use their locus on skills to promote this industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked whether we would be willing to lean on the shortage occupation list, if needed. That would not be the Government’s preference, of course, but it is a commitment that has been made. I will use my remaining time to talk about the remediation acceleration plan, because a number of colleagues have talked about the importance of quicker remediation. I am grateful to the Opposition and the Select Committee for their warm sentiments, but I am clear that success is never in a plan’s publication. As the shadow Minister said, we expect to be held to account for the commitments we have made today. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about the need to be quicker and, again, 2029 is not when it will start but when it will be resolved. Our commitment is that by the end of 2029, all residential buildings 18 metres and over with unsafe cladding in a Government-funded scheme will have been remediated, and every residential building 11 metres and over with unsafe cladding will have either been remediated, have a date for completion or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties. Our plan has three objectives. First, it will fix buildings faster. I am pleased that we, as a Government, have secured an important commitment from developers to accelerate their pace. Secondly and crucially, it will identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. If we talked to ourselves seven and a half years ago and said, “In seven and half years’ time will not even be able to say how many buildings there are with unsafe cladding, but the best range we will be able to give the House is somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000”, that speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) that that clearly is not good enough. Finally, it will support residents. On acceleration, our plan has set a clear timeline and we will actively pursue the landlords of buildings who refuse to act. We will ensure better co-operation between regulators. We are working hard with metro mayors to provide localised plans, because often the buildings are in combined authority areas, so we need to work in partnership. On identification, we have set up a “tell us” tool through the cladding safety schemes, so residents can tell us directly. We are working very hard going through Ordnance Survey maps and doing all the line-by-line work needed to assess 175,000 building records by April—540,000 in total—to ensure we find all the buildings that have cladding defects, so remediation action can take place. I know there is a lot of interest in protections for residents, which I have talked about a little. I hope what I have been able to say about insurance is welcome. We look forward to making good on that. If the market will not deliver, we will work closely with developers to change commissioning. I will draw my remarks to a close. Today’s debate has been very important and has highlighted just how far we have to go, as the inquiry shows us. We still have thousands of buildings with unsafe cladding. We need a complete reversal if we are going to put people and safety first, ahead of profits, empower residents and hold those responsible for the safety crisis to account. We have committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, which our country desperately needs, but they must be safe, secure and decent homes. The package of measures we have set out today through the remediation acceleration plan will help us with that. As has been mentioned, residential PEEPs will improve fire safety and evacuation of vulnerable people in high-rise and high-risk buildings. I have not had time to talk about the replacement of waking watch, but we are extending the waking watch replacement fund, so that leaseholders can access that and get an alarm in place. All of our work takes place with those 72 lives held at its heart, and in our hearts. They were failed by the system at all points and failed by this country to all degrees. We are so sorry for what happened, but I know the people involved have heard those apologies and those words from people like me too often. We can do only one thing to make things better: deliver. The inquiry has helped us on our way and our plans are developing. I am grateful for the contributions colleagues are making, but now we must deliver. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Local Growth Funding Allocation · Hansard source

  More

  That is another important argument for why we need longer-term, allocative settlements. It is my hon. Friend, her local authority, her local residents and her community who know Rhyl. They are the experts, and they should have the flexibility to break the one-size-fits-all model to make things work for themselves.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Local Growth Funding Allocation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady tempts me to discuss the shared prosperity funding, which communities will receive shortly. I have to say that my enthusiasm is for all tiers of government in local areas—whether that is metro mayors, upper-tier authorities, boroughs and districts or indeed parish and town councils—to come together in shared interest to improve their communities.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Local Growth Funding Allocation · Hansard source

  More

  We are intent on moving towards allocated, multi-year funding settlements targeted at need. We will set out this refreshed vision for local growth funding in the multi-year spending review, working with local leaders to drive growth in the areas that need it most, and ending the plethora of competitive pots.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Local Growth Funding Allocation · Hansard source

  More

  I am always careful not to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, given that at the High Street Heroes awards for Retail NI last year, I awarded the winning high street to Ballymena rather than Newtownards, and I am not sure he is ever going to forgive me. I assure him that I am having conversations with ministerial counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive. We are also talking to local authorities and some of the groups that have been delivering projects, such as Go Succeed. Those conversations are ongoing as we speak, and the full answer about the allocations will be coming shortly.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Local Growth Funding Allocation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point about the harm done by that “beauty parade” funding model, which was inefficient and created so much disappointment. What follows will be much better.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I completely understand the challenge. Drawing a line between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders—between people who own a property and therefore suffer from things that have been beyond their control, and landlords that are businesses and therefore have multiple assets—will always be a difficult job. At the edge, where the boundary between qualifying and non-qualifying becomes blurred, there are some difficult cases. As a new Government, we are committed to working with people to understand better how we can go forward on that. As for the substantive point on where the liability should lie, it is about finding the right balance between those who built the building and those who live in it. [ Official Report , 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, 3WC.] Correction

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, I am very keen on community ownership, and I am sad to hear about the situation in his community. I would definitely steer him towards the “asset of community value” process in the immediate term, and of course, I would be very happy to meet him and campaigners on this issue.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. It will probably not surprise her to hear that the first question I asked when I became Minister with responsibility for building safety was, “How many buildings need remediating?” I do not think that it will surprise her or colleagues to hear how astonished I was to find out that between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings were unidentified after seven years—which shows the previous Government’s intent. We are going to identify them, work out what their risks are and get them remediated.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are clear that dangerous buildings need to be remediated. That is why the best thing that any building owner can do is get into a scheme today to unlock the funding and meet those duties they have as building owners. When they do that and when they are approved for the grant, they would have an inspection at that point, so I am surprised to hear that dangerous defects would be locked in, as the hon. Lady says, but I am interested in having a conversation with her to understand that further.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. High street rental auctions, which were launched at the weekend, are a brilliant way— [ Interruption. ] Indeed; they were part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which I am sad to say the previous Government did not commence—as part of the war on woke, I believe. Nevertheless, we have commenced those auctions. They are a tool in the hands of local communities; if there are vacant properties, let us get them brought back into use.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, of course. The issue of cladding defects is exceptionally important and, indeed, the subject of a debate later today, but so are non-cladding defects and protecting leaseholders from their impacts.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Community Ownership of Local Assets · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, although I am sad to hear it. The asset of community value status really ought to give a degree of protection, but I am happy to talk about that further. As I have said, round 4 of the community ownership fund will be coming forward very shortly.

• 2 Dec 2024 · Community Ownership of Local Assets · Hansard source

  More

  Now then, Mr Speaker, you know there is no greater enthusiast in this place for a local pub than me— [ Interruption. ] And indeed for flying saucers. These are exactly the types of assets of community value we are talking about, and exactly the sorts of assets that will be in the scope of the new community right to buy. Of course I would be keen to meet my hon. Friend and the campaigners on that issue.