Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jan 2025 · Marine Renewables Industry · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Betts. I place on record that although, since the general election, I do not work in renewables, I still own shares in a company that does.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Marine Renewables Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is criticising the lack of action on tidal, so can he explain why his Government cancelled the Swansea tidal lagoon?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That definition needs to cover the breadth of agricultural workers, and I am sure the Minister has heard his point. Liberal Democrats have long argued for a licensing system and tougher planning controls for second homes, with a new use class to cover second homes and short-term lets. Both this and previous Governments have said that they would create a new use class, so I urge the Minister to say in today’s debate whether that will really happen. Without controls, there is a serious risk of second homes proliferating if landlords do not wish to be part of a more regulated private rented sector following the enactment of this Bill. Our new clause 2 would therefore require the Government to assess properly the growth in short-term lets, and I urge the Minister to do so. In fact, I am not sure why anyone would oppose that amendment. Finally, our amendment 3 would apply the Bill’s proposed decent homes standard to military service family accommodation. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to write to me on this, but the argument that a standard would not be suitable for service family accommodation does not stand up, because clause 98 allows the Secretary of State to establish whatever version of the decent homes standard they feel is appropriate. I do not think anyone across the House would understand why that should be different for service families. We will no doubt hear the Ministry of Defence say that 90% or more of service family accommodation already meets the decent homes standard so it is all okay, but in that case, why not make that claim evident by subjecting that accommodation to the decent homes standard in the Bill? To say that the recently published “Service Accommodation” report from the Defence Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), says something different from the official reports would be a massive understatement. The Select Committee reported evidence from one service family, who said: “It is impossible to challenge the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ without paying for a survey yourself. It is widely accepted that each house has not been checked but either guessed or it is assumed that the standard of one house is the same as all in one area.” I therefore ask how sure we can be of the self-declared statistics from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, or were they from Annington homes? As another witness before the Select Committee said: “It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but” and “it is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.” Crucially, the witness added: “Moreover, there is no local authority”— or anyone else— “to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.” That is exactly what amendment 3 would provide. In the Kerslake report, commissioned before the election by the now Secretary of State for Defence—a former Housing Minister—reports of damp, mould and, in other service accommodation, rat infestations abound. If all the witnesses and all these reports are wrong and the official figures are right, showing that over 90% of properties meet the decent homes standard, there is nothing for the MOD to fear in subjecting service accommodation to that assessment, just as social and private landlords will have to do under the Bill. The hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) got even the previous Government to come round to the idea, and the then Minister, the former Member for Redcar, said in this Chamber on 24 April last year that the Government: “intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”. —[ Official Report , 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.] Service families such as those of 40 Commando Royal Marines, part of our Taunton and Wellington family community, make massive sacrifices for our country, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve decent homes, and the MOD should be required to meet the standard, just as the Government are requiring that of other landlords. I am grateful to see support for amendment 3 from across the House. We will be voting for it this evening to support our service families, and I urge Members across the House to vote for it, too.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his constructive work with the Liberal Democrats and other parties in Committee. For a generation cut off from the dream of home ownership who find that, after half a century of flogging off social houses and council houses—over 1.5 million have been lost since 1980—there are now basically none left, it is vital that we restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home. As such, the Liberal Democrats support the key principle of this Bill, which is to bring an end to no-fault evictions. After the continual stop-start of the previous Government, giving tenants the security they deserve is long overdue. It is time to end once and for all the fear that any complaint from any tenant could be met with an instant eviction notice at any moment. Of course, landlords do not generally act in such a cavalier fashion; most are good landlords, and we value them and what they bring to the market. As such, to sustain a healthy private rented sector, we have tabled amendment 10, which would extend to off-street student rental landlords the same possession laws that apply to purpose-built student accommodation. Given that fully 31% of properties on the Accommodation for Students website are one or two-bedroom properties rather than houses in multiple occupancy, as Unipol and the Higher Education Policy Institute have pointed out, that is a big chunk of the market, and one that needs to be addressed. The need for more homes is why we have tabled amendment 2, which would particularly incentivise more build-to-rent accommodation. In Taunton and Wellington, our Lib Dem council has supported the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes; our population increased by 10% up to 2021. Our manifesto called for 150,000 social homes per year—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my experience as a social landlord. We clearly set out the borrowing of £6 billion per year that would make that happen, unlike the Labour and Conservative manifestos, which included no numbers whatsoever for social housing. We need a lot of that build-to-rent accommodation also to be rent to own, so renters can accrue ownership of their own home. It is time to give a whole generation of young people who have been excluded that elusive first step on the housing ladder. Amendment 2 would therefore give a developer of build-to-rent housing the security of a fixed term of 24 months for the first tenancy. Since that was tabled, I have heard from the British Property Federation and others, and they have suggested that an initial fixed term of six months would enable them to secure the investment they need to build more and to get building. That would not undermine the general principle of moving to periodic tenancies, as build to rent is only 0.1% of the housing stock. We will not press amendment 2, but I genuinely urge the Government to take up the idea, run with it and generate more investment in new homes. Let me turn to the interests of tenants, which have been so overlooked for so long. My constituent and friend Mike Godleman, who was disabled, died while recovering from major surgery and under the threat of a no-fault eviction notice, for no reason he could possibly work out. In part in his memory, our new clause 23 would ensure that landlords of both private and social tenancies must give permission for home adaptations when a home assessment has been carried out. If rental bidding is to be outlawed, as the Minister said, it must not be replaced by bidding up rent in advance, so our new clause 1 would limit rent in advance to two months’ rent. In that respect, I welcome Government new clause 13. In-tenancy rent increases also need to be limited to protect tenants from exorbitant increases. The most sensible way to do this is set out in our amendment 1, which would peg increases to the Bank of England base rate. Property is a financial and investment asset, and landlords’ costs are more directly influenced by mortgage rates rather than by the general inflation and the cost of living. New clause 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require landlords to pay for alternative accommodation when dwellings are unfit for human habitation. Turning to the amendments proposed by other hon. Members, we support the proposed new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), which will prevent the guarantor from being liable on the death of a tenant, and we recognise that the Government have tabled new clause 15 to limit that liability, rather than end it altogether. We also support amendment 7 on the content that must be submitted for inclusion in the database. The database could be a very powerful instrument for tenants if it provides information, as I spoke about at some length in Committee. We also support new clause 6, which would give care leavers support through funding for a deposit when they move out of care. Both those amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). One of the biggest concerns to landlords, tenants and local communities in Taunton and Wellington, as it is in Cornwall, the lakes and other places, is that there is no control over the number of homes being turned into holiday lets and Airbnbs. This has prompted a significant increase to about 3,000 holiday homes in Somerset—a 33% increase in short-term rentals in the south-west since 2019. Visitors of course bring welcome investment, but in some areas second homes are pricing locals out of local markets.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is generous in giving way. On the question of accommodation behind the wire, to clarify, amendment 3 deals with service family accommodation. Service family accommodation is generally not behind the wire; it is on the street, where councils can access it.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his response on that issue. Will he comment on the question of a use class order for second homes?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Tara and Keith in my constituency have written to me about the appalling one-hour delays on First Bus’s 22 bus service. Lessons are being missed and a gentleman in my constituency missed a serious operation because of the appalling service. Will the Leader of the House arrange time to debate public transport in Somerset, including the need to reopen Wellington station on the same route as the 22 bus service?

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

  More

  We do need to have a clear and effective deterrent. If we do not have properly working police forces and community policing, we will not get that. How we would fund that is something I will return to in my closing remarks. Everyone deserves decent accommodation. We must provide that, alongside a new generation of rent-to-own housing—so that people have a stake in the houses they live in, because they will ultimately own them—and more key worker accommodation. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) mentioned the experience in New York, where key worker accommodation for police officers and other community professionals in social housing areas had a massive impact. But that depended on resources being put into the police and public services on a big scale to make it work, and that would be needed here in the UK as well. Together, those things can create the stable, mixed communities that are the antidote to antisocial behaviour. Sadly, the sell-off of council housing over decades of different Conservative Administrations has left too many estates only for those with the most problems, and with fewer and fewer public services to support the families and communities who need them. If we add to that divisive rhetoric pitting one struggling family against another, in an argument about who deserves the home the most, and we have a race to the bottom for the community concerned. Instead, we should increase the pitiful level of social housing, inject proper community policing, invest in public services and let landlords use their legal powers strongly and appropriately, including through acceptable behaviour contracts, which were pioneered right back in 2003 in Somerset, Islington and other council areas. Together, those measures will prove the most effective way to tackle antisocial behaviour. Above all, we need to bring back proper community policing, after its total erosion under recent Conservative Governments, and have more bobbies on the beat. Our manifesto would fund and deliver that by investing in acceptable behaviour contracts; making youth diversion schemes a statutory duty, so that every part of the country has pre-charged diversion schemes for young people; freeing up existing officers’ time by creating an online crime agency; drawing up a national recruitment and retention strategy to tackle the shortage of detectives; and abolishing police and crime commissioners, instead investing the savings in frontline policing, including in tougher action on antisocial behaviour.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this important debate. Liberal Democrats believe that everyone deserves to feel safe in their own homes and walking down their own streets, but for too many that is not something they can rely on. Antisocial behaviour can have a devastating impact on individuals, families and neighbourhoods, causing distress to tenants and landlords. Police force freedom of information requests obtained by the Liberal Democrats last April found that under the previous Government, average police response times to antisocial behaviour incidents increased by 37% from 2021. Some forces took an average of 17.5 hours to attend, if they attended the scene at all. In some ways, that is unsurprising, given that under the last Government 4,500 police community support officers were taken off our streets from 2015 onwards. Only last April in my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we saw how the outgoing Conservative police and crime commissioner reduced PCSOs by a further 80 in Avon and Somerset, where only 19% of reported antisocial behaviour incidents are attended by the police. I am urging the chief constable to put more officers on the beat in Taunton town centre right now to tackle antisocial behaviour in that environment. Years of ineffective resourcing under previous Conservative Governments, particularly since 2015, have left police forces overstretched, ending the kind of community policing that is so valuable in tackling antisocial behaviour. The Liberal Democrats stand for bringing back proper community policing and for a tough, evidence-based and therefore effective approach to eradicating antisocial behaviour for the benefit of all decent, law-abiding residents and communities. Antisocial behaviour can include a range of nuisance and criminal behaviours that cause distress. Examples include noisy, abusive behaviour, vandalism, intimidation, drunkenness, littering, fly-tipping, drug use and excessively barking dogs. Whether someone’s actions can be classed as antisocial behaviour relies heavily on the impact it has on other people, so antisocial behaviour is a complex problem. It has many root causes, which means they all need to be tackled together to effectively address it. Landlords rightly have important powers to remove tenants who are genuinely damaging property or the surrounding community, and I refer the House to my experience as a social housing landlord, as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, those powers cannot come at the price of putting all tenants at unjustified risk of eviction for no reason. That is why we have long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions, and we welcome the Government’s legislation to bring that to reality in the Renters’ Rights Bill. We fought hard for a fair definition of antisocial behaviour during consideration of the Renters (Reform) Bill under the previous Government, and we will continue to defend tenants against unfair eviction, which itself can be a form of antisocial behaviour. Landlords, the police and local authorities rightly consider all the factors when deciding how best to deal with reports of antisocial behaviour. Each report is looked at individually, with consideration given to the suffering of the victims and the impact on the wider community, but just one such incident can lead to eviction from social housing—a form of “one strike and you’re out”, which is in place across the country. That is a vital tool, which landlords need and have, and the Liberal Democrats support it. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) support a similar approach. Extending the one-strike approach we currently have to three strikes would simply be a soundbite and would make the law weaker, giving comfort and credence to the most antisocial culprits. The best deterrent would be to resource the powers and police forces we already have and to make them work. Simply evicting people on to the streets will not reduce the incidence of ASB—rather, it will move the antisocial behaviour from the house to the street, where all the evidence suggests it will only get worse. One cause of antisocial behaviour, according to studies such as that by Stansfield in the British Journal of Criminology, is housing instability itself. That is why social housing is critical, not just to provide homes for those who need them, but to create stable communities where people can thrive. Liberal Democrats are actively pushing for 150,000 new social homes per year to be built, which would not only reduce housing instability but ensure that there are enough homes for those who need them.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. So many entrenched problems in families and communities need the support of public services and investment in them. If we systematically take away policing, social services support, and local authority support and housing officers, as we have seen with the shrinking of local government over recent years, it is hardly surprising that we get an increase in social problems—we are not investing early on to deal with them. Thank you, Ms McVey, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are going to provide for the selling off of council houses, they should invest in replacing them, so that we do not have a massive loss of council housing in this country as we have had over the last few decades?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Heat Batteries: Decarbonising Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way; she has been very generous and has brought a genuinely important issue to the House. She mentioned the future homes standard. According to a calculation I carried out, if every new home built since 2015, when the Conservatives cancelled the zero-carbon homes programme, had solar panels on the roof, we would have saved around 30 MW of energy—enough to obviate the need for an entire gas-fired power station. As a complement to what she is arguing for, I hope that she would support solar panels on every new house. My constituents in Taunton and Wellington cannot understand why that is not already a regulation.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent and balanced case for protecting children. Many children with mental health problems and autism are educated at home because there is no realistic alternative. Does she agree that the Secretary of State should be encouraged to ensure that the support given to home-educating families under clause 25 includes free access to examinations, which can cost hundreds of pounds? Children are struggling to benefit from a good home education because of the cost. Does my hon. Friend support that idea?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  Taunton and Wellington is a trailblazer in taking mental health from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention. The trust is the first in the country to merge mental health with the hospital trust. Will the Minister meet the trust and me to understand how successful that programme is, and to discuss the much needed maternity and paediatric unit at Musgrove Park hospital?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Mental Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  20. What steps his Department is taking to improve access to mental health services.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Electronic Waste · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I wish you and all a merry Christmas. We know that electronic and similar goods in landfill can leach into our waterways and affect water quality. Will Ministers reintroduce water restoration funding, as part of the package of measures they were talking about earlier, so that the River Tone and bathing stations elsewhere across the country can benefit from cleaner water?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my thanks to all those in my constituency who will be caring for others over Christmas, whether they are unpaid family carers or paid care providers. That includes the registered nurses and registered care providers who have written to me to say that there will be an extra cost of £615 per employee as a result of the changes in the Budget. I will not attempt to ask whether the money announced today will cover national insurance contributions, but I will ask what the Government will do to help registered care providers. Where will the money come from to enable them to meet their increased national insurance contributions?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies for joining late, Mr Efford. I attempted to explain that to you through the Doorkeeper at the beginning of the meeting; I apologise if there was some mix-up. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing this important debate. The wide range of constituencies represented in the debate and in other discussions on the subject shows just how many parts of the country are affected negatively by this proposal, and why it needs to be thought through again. The proposals underlying the original HS2 Bill were very different from what we have ended up with. I think we can all understand why parties across the House supported the original HS2, but they did not expect it to mean that almost every journey to almost every station in the west of England would be delayed, with a long period of diversions as well. Taunton and Wellington sits at a transport fulcrum, 99 minutes from Paddington and 33 minutes from Bristol Temple Meads. Although we are further from London than Bristol, we are actually closer in terms of journey time. Decisions taken by businesses and by people deciding where to live are changed by differences of a few minutes’ journey time and the distances that they need to travel, so the Old Oak Common project would have a major negative effect on our local economy in Taunton. One of the biggest factors in our local economy is the connections at the fantastic railway station, designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, in the heart of the town. As hon. Members across the west country have said, these decisions are important to all our local economies. As well as the six-year diversion, which seems totally unnecessary, the key point that I hope the Minister will address is why it should be necessary for every single train to stop at Old Oak Common. I have been told in meetings that even if not every train stops, the journey time will be increased by trains having to slow down as they go through the station. I have stood on many station platforms, and I am absolutely certain that trains have not slowed down a jot as they have sped through, leaving the wind blowing across the platform. I do not understand why all trains need to be slowed down. We are undermining the strength of the Great Western line, and the speed to stations across the whole of the west of England. It seems totally unnecessary, and it is totally unacceptable to me and my constituents. The history has been well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) as a misadventure in rail planning over recent years, and the inadequacy of current services exacerbates the problem. Sunday services are treated like a voluntary sector operation, in which passengers might get a driver if they are really lucky. A catalogue of cancelled trains on Sundays is a certainty. That has to change. It is totally unacceptable in the 21st century. I also reiterate the comments of hon. Members about the lack of wi-fi, the shortage of carriages, the shortness of trains, and the fact that it is normal for passengers to sit on the floor outside the toilets when they may have paid more £200 for a ticket. How can that possibly be justified? I am grateful that the Minister for Rail in the other place has met with hon. Members. I know he is concerned, and I hope that the Government will continue to strive as hard as they can to mitigate some of those effects. Somerset has not been blessed with enormous amounts of investment in transport in recent months. We have had the cancellation of the A303 and the A358, which has reduced investment in the area by £2 billion, so it really is time that we saw some transport investment coming into Somerset, not being taken out. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth wants to see the Cullompton and Wellington stations project go ahead, which is also my dream. With a benefit-cost ratio of 3.67, we believe that it is the most economically important station reopening project in the country. Let us see some compensation for that project, and let us ensure that not every single train to the entire west country has to be slowed down. I urge the Government to think very hard before disadvantaging such a huge region of England and Wales.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the water companies need to be regulated, to protect not profits but the environment? Does he also believe that bathing waters, like the wonderful Tone bathing water in which I was swimming the day before yesterday, should not automatically be de-designated?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Few of the natural features of the Taunton and Wellington constituency in Somerset are as valued as the River Tone, which goes through the constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I welcome this Bill but wish it would go further. In particular, we need a much stronger regulator. As long as Ofwat has a duty to protect profits and returns for shareholders but not to protect the environment, it will be more of a tame kitten than a watchdog. When it comes to managing the quality of our water and our waterways, profiteering surely has no place in the equation, which is why we want to see privatised water companies replaced with not-for-profit companies, which work very effectively in Denmark. Water companies also need to be held to account for longer when it comes to investing in the infrastructure that is needed. From preparing and submitting its bathing water status application—with a lot of support from the hard-working volunteers of the Friends of French Weir Park—I know how much goes into designating a bathing water such as the Tone in Taunton. I therefore urge the Minister, in the context of the ongoing parallel bathing water consultation—to completely end automatic de-designation after five years. Wessex Water and the Environment Agency have made it clear that we can get improvements in water quality in the Tone in five years—and who would disagree with improving the tone, Madam Deputy Speaker?—but they are unlikely to be enough to protect its designation unless more time is available. We in Taunton also strongly disagree with making new designations dependent on already having sufficiently clean bathing water quality. The whole reason that communities are seeking to get their designations is to stimulate that improvement. As Surfers Against Sewage has pointed out, making quality a prerequisite rather than the goal to be established would have prevented almost all the current inland bathing waters from being designated. Also, we would oppose allowing bathing seasons to be curtailed. I hope the Minister will also say something about bringing in water restoration grants, which would have the dual advantages of supporting the drive to eliminate phosphates from the Somerset levels and moors and improving river and bathing water quality. Having canvassed the views of my fellow swimmers the other day, I know how much people want to see the river improved. We therefore need to give rural communities the support they need for water restoration. We need to establish a tough regulator bound by legal duties to protect the environment, not just profits, and give bathing waters enough time to be brought up to standard without the threat of de-designation and being pushed into the “too difficult” pile. Our rivers and our environment—

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats support the provision of new homes. Somerset West and Taunton district council in my constituency, under Liberal Democrat control since 2019, has approved thousands of new homes to the extent that the town is now one of the fastest-growing in the UK, with 9% population growth to 2021, partly because it is such a wonderful place to live. Somerset is now pioneering the first new council houses in a generation in parts of the county, many of them zero carbon. We welcome the policy change on renewable energy and the extension in the transitional arrangements, although I urge the Minister to consider, in exceptional circumstances, a six-month transition rather than three months. I know that Members on several Benches wish to see that on behalf of their authorities. Trust in the planning system, like trust in politics, is not where it should be. As with bypassing planning committees, imposing housing numbers on councils takes decision out of the hands of elected councillors and local people, which is undemocratic. We would reverse that. Trust in planning demands that people know that our most precious green spaces are fully protected. Every authority should have the same level of green belt protection, plus precious green wedges and green spaces in their areas. Rather than Whitehall diktat, plans for new homes should be led by communities and our councils, and those homes should be genuinely affordable to local people. Councils such as Eastleigh have shown that where those new homes come with jobs, schools and public transport, community consent follows. We will not solve the crisis in care, for example, unless we have the homes for older and vulnerable people, supported by the GP surgeries and care services they require. If any target is to be mandatory, therefore, it should be our country’s need for 150,000 new social homes per year and for low-cost home ownership through options such as rent to buy to give people a real foot on the ladder. That should be funded from capital borrowing, just as Labour Governments and, historically, Liberal Governments funded our stock of council houses in the past, including the use of compulsory purchase, before Conservative Governments sold them off hand over fist until soon there will be almost none left. Top-down planning diktats risk a surge in speculative greenfield permissions of the kind that the Minister is concerned about, for homes that are out of people’s reach. Instead, let us fund, incentivise and focus on the social and affordable homes that we need: zero-carbon homes that tread lightly on the land, restoring nature and in doing so restoring trust in local people and the councillors whom they elect to take the decisions that most affect them and their communities.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on their contributions. Too often, in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, big housing developments are not completed as they should be and fail to come with the infrastructure that is needed. In one close in Taunton—a development substantially completed over a decade ago—the developer still has not finished the road surfacing, making the adoption of the close by the local authority impossible and meaning that there are no streetlights there. Liberal Democrats support the construction of more homes. About 5,800 homes in Taunton, and about 1,000 in Wellington, have been approved or constructed since 2012, but we believe that the focus and priority should be the 150,000 social homes a year that the country needs. It would therefore surely be right for private developers to be given “use it or lose it” permissions—losing them, for example, when they have not completed developments to the required standard and with the required infrastructure. A “use it or lose it” system might mean ensuring that developers that do not comply are not able to avail themselves of subsequent permissions. Despite the construction of over 6,000 new homes in Taunton and Wellington, no new doctor’s surgery has been provided. Although local councillors are working hard to secure land and buildings for a surgery, there is a real worry that no doctors will be available to fill it; the Blackdown GP practice in my constituency is closing in the afternoons to save money in the face of higher national insurance and staffing costs. As we have heard, estate management agencies often charge large sums to freeholders for the upkeep of shared areas or assets. Such arrangements are often referred to as fleeceholds, given that the charge paid to the management company is so high and it is effectively a form of leasehold arrangement. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for it to be the norm for shared assets in freehold estates to be adopted by the local authority, rather than by housing developers or estate management companies. If an estate has been constructed by a rogue or cowboy developer, freeholders can often pay extortionate fees for the upkeep of infrastructure that has not been properly completed or is not even fully in place. In addition, residents do not receive any reduction in the council tax that they are expected to pay to account for the estate charge or to reflect the specific services offered, because of course council tax is collected to deliver a broad range of services. As we have heard, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 received Royal Assent in May, with the aim of strengthening the regulation of the housing sector. Will the Minister give us a clear date when the relevant sections will be commenced to give residents the powers of redress that they urgently need? Liberal Democrats have called for further regulation of management companies such as FirstPort, including to ensure that they respond to all correspondence and hold regular AGMs. If they fail to do so, we have called for residents to be given the power to take ownership for themselves. Liberal Democrats have often called for zero-carbon homes and better standards. We welcome the decent homes standard proposed in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but we want it extended to military service family accommodation. Why should those people be excluded? We also want to see local authorities better funded to enforce those planning conditions that can be enforced. Somerset council has been handed what the outgoing Conservative leader of the county council has called a “ticking timebomb” of social care costs—which are falling on local authorities across the country. According to the National Audit Office and the BBC, the promised £1 billion of funding for social care was taken away exactly 12 months ago, leaving many councils, especially Somerset—with its historically low council tax base—having to make massive savings and often heartbreaking decisions. Finally, it is important that we do not leave the provision of homes just to the private sector. It has a role to play, of course, but housing need will not be met unless we build 150,000 homes for social rent per year. That is the Liberal Democrat focus: genuinely affordable homes for local people, with properly funded local authorities to look after the infrastructure that needs to come with them. Unless Government support is provided for social housing and social care around the country, councils will be unable to cope with the need to properly regulate housing developers and ensure that they meet the obligations placed on them.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to court chaos. A tribunal judge and a court worker from my Taunton and Wellington constituency wrote to me. The tribunal judge said: “tribunals are being cancelled every day as they say there are not enough judges to cover the cases. This is absolutely not the case,” and “People are waiting months for their benefit appeals in appalling poverty and again we cannot deal with the cases because of this limit” on sitting days. What will the Minister do to increase sitting days in Taunton and Somerset courts?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  As there are 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need, the Liberal Democrats welcome the plans for further house building. For us, the priority has to be the delivery of social homes. We need 150,000 annually, and we need housing that local people can genuinely afford. On the topic of social housing, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: when Whitehall takes planning decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it is taking decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic, and we would reverse that. Instead, Government should unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built—for example, through “use it or lose it” permissions, by having more than just one extra planning officer per local authority, and by allowing councils to set their fees and to ringfence that income for planning departments. Will the Minister allow councils to set their application fees, and ensure that that funding is ringfenced for planning departments?