05/09/2017 Westminster Hall

It is vital we get design and quality right. Mr Chairman, I will

make two points in my speech. I will argue that the majority of these new

homes should be built in designs that are popular with the public.

Second, I will call for the creation of the new homes on the spine to

give new buyers and be dressed for any new homes are of the best

possible standard. There was a policy in the Conservative

manifesto, one that I was delighted to recommend to everyone, like one

or two in the manifesto. In our manifesto we committed to building

better houses to match the quality of those we inherited from previous

generations, supporting supporting high quality, high density housing

and terraced streets. This commitment really stood out to me.

As a former member of the planning committee which lasted for some 12

years, I know just how terrified some communities are of new

development. Not because they are NIMBYs but they are aware of

previous development have left community is with horns and suitable

for the area. This is actually backed by hard evidence. A recent

survey of 2000 edition adults showed 81% are an interview is about living

in new-build housing developments. What is more, 60% feel there are too

many unattractive or poor elite built new-build popping up across

the country. I agree with every word but will he

also agree it is possible to have attractive houses that have no net

energy bills across the year? They have examples of them. Would he

agree that we should go further down this route vesture Mac houses that

don't have energy bills as well as being attractive houses. Not only do

the houses need to be attractive. It makes those power stations and I

were a gas supply go a lot further. He makes a really good point and one

that I would very much endorse. Over two fifths feel that new-build homes

with lack character and be an eyesore in the local community.

These are shocking statistics. We will never build the support for new

homes when people fear new housing designs. The latest research shows

over half of households would be less opposed to new building at they

had more to say over the design and layout of developments. A separate

survey shows design clearly influenced public support for

new-build homes. Asking people about their local area housing designs in

traditional form and style command about 75% support in that local

area. Less traditional development styles command variable support,

about one fifth, two and one third. The message is clear. People want

and are happy to accept new housing if it has got the right design and

if we can take local people with us when they are producing new designs.

But we can't go back to the mistakes of the 1960s and the 1970 two Adweek

modernist designs were imposed on communities, and the damages trust

on development for generations. Some of those properties were not fit for

purpose and some of them had to come down. This is a once in a generation

opportunity and we only have one chance to get this right. We must

build new housing in the right way. Thank you for giving way. My

honourable friend is making a strong case for something that I think it's

terribly important but would he agree it is important to deal with

all types of people, new homes for young families quite often. In

Somerset, with than a decade, the number of people over 75 are going

to double. Is it not right that we should consider purpose-built,

well-designed developments for them. More level, sliding doors, perhaps

modular, looking attractive, fit again with the vernacular. Is this

not essential to Britain to the entire planning process? My

honourable friend makes a very good point. We can still have a

reasonably traditional design, a regional design, that also fits into

the new type of living. With all the people, the particular meat will

need wheelchair access, wider doors, all sorts of things. These can be

fitted in. I think we probably spend, almost our housing fits into

that category, affordable homes, homes for young people, homes for

elderly. It wants to be a complete mix. Then can we have a complete mix

within the design, we can then get it right. Traditionally you would

not have had one type of housing all put together. That is the point that

my honourable friend makes. It is a good one. We must build new housing

in the right way with design and form sympathetic to local areas.

Ruth Davidson hit the nail on the head when she recently wrote, the

biggest ally we have been increasing housing supply is beauty. This new

houses complement the local environment and avoid the disastrous

design choices of the past, we can build sustainable local support for

extra construction. I must say, as a Scottish MP, I find

it ironic last week, and was looking to see if Ruth Davidson would be

getting the polish out for her brass neck to be talking about investment

in housing when the Conservative Party have left the mass of social

housing crisis in Scotland as a result of the disastrous rights to

buy, which has only been helped... Having not have experience directly,

I do not intend to answer his question. I believe Ruth Davidson

does a very good job. But you would expect me to see that, would you

not? She is right, good quality design will boost support for

development and then encourage further growth. I want to give a

special mention to social enterprise, Creates Streets. They

have done fantastic work in the past three years, encouraging the

development of quality town and city homes. Their focus is on terraced

streets and housing and apartments rather than complex multistorey

buildings. We must know these designs are popular, we do know that

these designs are popular, with the public. How do we achieve this? The

key is a strong community engagement. The tools are already

there in the form of neighbourhood plans and design chords. But he need

to make sure that the neighbourhood plans are not then overruled by the

local district councils and others who decide they still know best.

That is something that I want to make sure that local people to get a

real input into design. The design code is a set of drawn design rules

which instruct and advise on the physical development of an area.

Used well, they create certainty about what should be built. But they

are not enough used. Local people should be given the encouragement

and resources to create the neighbourhood plans with their own

design chords. And then be able to carry out the plan that they have

put in place. Then they can plan the development they want in their local

area. This has two main benefits. It improves quality of housing stock.

It also gives local communities a steak and a sense of civic pride in

the new development. They are very much buying in to the new

development and I think that's what we need to happen more. Shelter

recently published a report called New Serving House-building, with

practical solutions to building popular and affordable homes. This

recommended strong master planning process so local groups, landowners

and residents could influence the design of new housing in the area.

In turn this will build public support. The Royal Institute of

British architecture has also recommended every neighbourhood

forum or parish council should have the funding to develop a design code

for their own area. This is a very good idea. And there is a village

that has drawn up its own local plan but the problem is that there is

trying to be overruled by the local District Council and that is where

our Government ideas are right and we must make sure that that Cilic

can get its way because it has had a local referendum, it has done all

the right things, but still it has been scuppered by the local District

Council. Imagine how this could Stemmet local design of housing and

really boost support for new housing in towns and cities across England

and the country. I will give way. Thank you for

securing this important debate. Does he agree if we want local people to

properly engage in the manner that she is describing it as critical

that their decisions, their guidance, their local plans are not

over ruled by bodies of which they have very little control? I thank my

honourable friend for that intervention. Designs are put on the

table. They can be quite exciting designs from developers. Further

along the line the developer decides because of economic circumstances

they cannot build to that specification, or a water park drops

out that was in that particular development. That is where people

become very cynical. That is why when things are put forward and

local people have an input we do actually need to build what they

decided upon, not something that is foisted upon them. It also gives

certainty developers about standards they must hit instead of the current

race to the bottom. Local people must always have confidence

developers will build to their plans. For example in Devon, a new

town is being built. There is a proposal elsewhere for a garden

town, village, that'll have a water park, a lot of green open space, and

what I have seen so far is very exciting. I want to make sure that

the developers do actually develop what they say they are going to do.

That is a great example of how design should be done, with the

design code and proper consultation. This now developers apply the code

to mere guidelines, that is a retrograde step that cannot be

allowed to happen around the UK. When communities come together to

influence local housing design they must know that these plans will be

fermented. The local authority should only meant them in

exceptional circumstances, not amend them because it doesn't particularly

suit their plans for the future. Not to be railroaded by big

house-builders chasing some extra profit and deciding the economic 's

changed. I have a clear question for the minister. How is the Government

is working to meet its manifesto support for high-quality high

density tell -- high-density terraced housing and how is it

helping to shape design in these areas? The second part of my speech

calls for a new home 's ombudsman. The concept is simple. The ombudsman

focuses on complaints on new-build homes. I do not suspect that as a

member in this chamber at this morning that has not had complaints

from their constituents about new build. It would give new home-buyers

redress for any dispute from house-builders or warranty

providers. I am sure every member today could reel off examples in

their constituency. In my constituency, there has been a

problem with new homes, and I will name the company, it is Barratt

homes, and they have an offshoot, David Wilson homes. The reason I

named him is not because they have had problems with the houses there

that they have not to it and they have been very reticent. We have

contacted them and they are difficult to get hold of and they

take ages to make the repairs. Things like roofs are not sealed

properly, rendering that is wet and supposed to be damp proof, but is

not. All sorts of problems that they do not sort out quickly enough. That

is I will give way. A point in my

constituency, Bell we homes have been negligent to my constituents.

Which he agreed with my constituents that new consumer groups have a

dedicated ombudsman, consumers who have bought homes have no redress

and are discriminated against by the Government? I thank the honourable

lady for her intervention. I do not know about the individual case but I

suspect it is similar to ones we all get when we cannot get re-dress and

I think that is where an ombudsman where he she could directly

intervene to get the builder to rectify the situation quickly. That

is what it is about. Builders will eventually get to do it if they have

not gone and corrupt in the meantime and all sorts of reasons that the

use to make sure we do not carry out those improvements and repairs. If

you buy a new house, you should be able to get the quality and the

re-dress that is a problem. We have got to accept that when we built a

new home, you can get problems with it. I accept that but it is about

getting it we dressed properly. By this debate on the House of commons

Facebook page, I asked members of the public to give examples of

problems they have have with their horns. There was a strong response

from leaky pipes to be rendering that is needed. A whole host of new

building problems are raised. These are depressing anecdotes and are

backed up by hard evidence. The national new home customer

satisfaction survey showed an overwhelming 98% of new home buyers

have reported snags or defects to the buildings after they moved in.

Over four in ten reported over ten faults. I think this is shocking

with a new property. I will. I am very grateful for giving way on

this. The new homes ombudsman would create a new opportunity to look at

the situation of warranties and assurances. As you would know with

the modern methods of construction built site, it would be an assurance

rather than a warranty. Is there an opportunity to look at all of these

again and really give the consumer, give them the powers they need to

get decent homes and get the good build they would require? Yes, I

thank my honourable friend for that intervention. If you could get that

quality of assurance, rather than having to be a warranty, it would

work much better because if you take the National house-building Council

you will find they can act but once the builder has started doing

repairs, they can do no more. If that builder takes a very long time

to instigate those repairs, you have no real re-dress and that is where I

think there is a rule and the idea of having an assurance scheme so you

build is standard and then you deliver it, and you held accountable

for it, would be good and I think this is where the ombudsman and I do

value that point. If a customer buys good in a shop, they have an

automatic power of redress. If someone spends their life savings on

a new home, they can sometimes struggled for years to get what they

had paid for. If we make mistakes when we -- correcting poor quality

homes in the decade, the general public will not forgive us. We are

building to higher quality, building to a higher installation quality,

but we have also got to make sure they are designed to the way they

fit in not only to the local area, but they have a regional variation

so you do not go all over the country and see exactly the same

design, whether you are in the north of England, Devon, Wales or

Scotland. You could almost have an off the peg development and the all

look the same. That is what I want to see in the future because the

costs will not be that much greater if we can use more imagination as we

build. As it stands, the National house-building Council cannot step

in if the builders claim they are stealing these problems and this

seems to be no time limit on how long the builder can deal with these

problems. This is where a new homes ombudsman could step in to close the

loophole. It would also give a wake-up call to all house builders.

Many argued, but many are not. To sharpen up their act and build

design standards and quality is the promise. Builders will know they

cannot cut corners as we dress will be swift. The APD for excellence in

the build, in the last Parliament, published a report last year into

the quality and workmanship of new housing. Their number one

recommendation was a new homes ombudsman. Mr Chairman, I think the

screw is beginning to turn on this issue and we need to take action.

This country is going to embark on a new house-building drive, which is

needed but we need to make sure that property is built in the right way.

Let's seize the opportunity to give people the sort of housing design

they want. Quality, popular design with community backing. All backed

up by a powerful new housing ombudsman. I look forward to the

Minister's response. Thank you. The question is that this house... It is

clear that are a number of colleagues wishing to speak. The

wind ups will start at 1230. I hope everyone will be that in mind with

speeches of 45 minutes at the most. Thank you and it is a pleasure to

serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my honourable

friend from running forward this issue. It is a big issue in my city,

for those who know Cambridgeshire, you see the view across. Used are

seeking is chapel and the University library, two examples of

architectural styles, but now you see cranes everywhere. It is a city

being rebuilt around us. Whether we are building homes that people can

afford, is a debate for another day. There are two issues I want to raise

this morning. They are the issues that have been addressed. A couple

of weeks ago I was taken to see a new house in Cambridge, is very

expensive new home. A line of houses, one that looked like a

building site because people have moved in, than so many problems that

it had literally needed to be taught apart from the inside. Not once

called we did it once, they went back in and there were more

problems. It had to be done twice. These people had to not be in their

new home for over a one year. Their lives have been wrecked and ruined.

As has been suggested, there are same issues elsewhere. I will not

name the house-builder because I hope they will do the decent thing,

you give them the opportunity to get their money back and go somewhere

else. The house-builder should still do that, in my view. That is not the

only case as I have heard and I have had others in my constituency. This

was shocking. I think it is a matter of attitude from the House builders

about how they treat their customers. It is an individual

problem, it is also a collector problem, too. As has been set,

communities are feeling they are being disempowered. There has been

much talk about taking back control. I have to say, from Cambridgeshire's

perspective, Brussels are pussycats compared to the House builders and

developers, who have not kept their side of the deal, you come to

Cambridge and you see the new station development. Many promises

made and as has been suggested, as it goes down the line, things are

taken out, the promises made. The local council is doing its best but

up against the power of the developers, in many people's views,

letting people down. At the end, a delightful Terrace, not much to ask

about the developers, that had to go as well. I asked a former Secretary

of State in the lobby, lots of Cambridge people in this place, he

shrugged and said that is not much I can do either. Talk about no

control. The Secretary of State cannot do anything about it, the

community cannot do anything about it. It is a very engaged community,

and imbalance of power. It is not all bad, we have good developments

in Cambridge. On Saturday I am joining others to celebrate a new

development in north-west Cambridge, which has been developed with the

University of Cambridge. A fantastic development for. Trips. That has

worked because the University of Cambridge is also a powerful player

and they have been able to deal with some of these things, whereas the

local community does not always have that same power. Part of fighting

back is, I congratulate companies for beauties in my back yard.

Agencies like the National Trust are supporting that. It is not just

about engagement, but the balance of power. I think that has got to be

addressed. There needs to be a new settlement between developers and

home-builders and the customers and their communities. Thank you. It is

a pleasure to work under your chairmanship. I would like to

congratulate my honourable friend for calling this debate and giving

so many people the opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns

about this area. I would like to commend the Minister for coming

today and the work of the Government in trying to innovate the housing

market. I am talking about things like the self build projects which

the Government has been so good at getting behind. My honourable

friend, spearheaded a lot of the work there and my own constituency

of Basingstoke is going to be one of the pilots for that. I am excited to

look at that thinking. There has been a fundamental change in the

housing market in this country, which I do not think has been

reflected in any fundamental changes to how this market is regulated.

Most homes are built by a hand full of housing companies. Now more than

ever, buyers rely on the Government to make sure that those homes, those

dudes, well-designed homes, are also built well as well. I hope the

Minister can also update the House today in his response on the work he

is doing to update building regulations. It is hugely important

we do reflect this market in which we operate. It is sad to hear that

almost more than half of home buyers have experienced a major problems

with their new homes. That was in EU Gold report earlier this year. I

would like to reflect on three issues. Firstly, we have to make

sure new design actually works. My honourable friend mentioned the

Parliamentary group on the built environment report which I was

caught sure of. Talking about having an ombudsman in place to make sure

that any problems that do experience are mediated and results roughly.

Like many other members here today, I have a number of ongoing cases

where major house-builders are frankly dragging their feet over

dealing with major problems with my constituent's homes, making their

life hell and it is not good enough. I am listening with interest. Last

year, I spoke at the Federation of Master builders conference and they

had the house-building Council who put up slides of shoddy workmanship.

The largest numbers of shoddy workmanship came from the largest

house-builders, the biggest of the top three. Does you not find that

surprising, these are the businesses that could do more about it? Is it

not time for the Government to grip this? I think my honourable friend

is right. This is why an ombudsman would be important, is a people

could get redress and house-builders with note there is somebody holding

their feet to the fire and now is the time to act. The second issue is

around the warranties that house-builders give because I think

most people do not realise that all home warranties are the same and

Premier guarantee is not the same as it. Consumers do not understand this

and I think consumers are being potentially misled. My honourable

friend, the minister, make no from looking through his in trade from

his predecessor that I campaigned very hard for a change in building

control performance standards because of the problems of

inspections of houses on the site being carried out in a shoddy way.

New performance standards came into place to reflect this on the 1st of

April this year and I was wondering if he could update the House on how

the implementation of these new performance design control standards

are going? New houses should promote well-being

in our community. They should not promote disharmony and concern. As

part of that review of building control standards will the Minister

look at a particular issue that has been raised by one of my councillors

around the issue of sound insulation and houses. I have written to him

about this. Many new homes have poor sound insulation, plasterboard

walls, should he not be looking at amending building regulation part E

to enrich the standards for sound transmission in homes are set. Full

standards are currently falling short of what people need to have

good mental health when they live in their new homes. Finally, I would

just also asked the minister as he could give me an indication of when

the governments might be responding to the women and equality Select

Committee report on the availability of housing for disabled people. The

report made important recommendations about the

availability of housing for disabled people, particularly people who when

we get older we may get more disabled, as was mentioned earlier,

perhaps when he could give me a response to that important set of

recommendations? I want to congratulate the honourable friend

for securing this debate. This housing crisis is unprecedented. The

housing market is broken and it is failing to deliver anything close to

the 300,000 homes per year we need to address housing need. The broken

nature of the housing market and the failure of the Government to tackle

it is stifling the number of new homes being built but also damaging

the quality of those homes being built. Last year, an inquiry was

undertaken into the quality of new homes. The inquiry was undertaken in

response to an increase in complaints for people who purchased

a new home, the most expensive item they ever purchased, only to find

her in the mood then there was something seriously wrong, faulty

electrics, rising damp, poor quality. Research by Which found

that half of new homes have seen his defects, indicating that this is a

serious and widespread problem. This is not acceptable. Not only is the

brand-new home that someone had anticipated moving into flawed, but

the flaws can undermine quality of day-to-day life, physical and mental

health, and can take months or years to resolve. Several recommendations

were made for new-build homes, including changes to the inspection

regime, with a defined minimum number of inspections, and the

setting up of a new homes ombudsman. The ombudsman must have teeth, be

properly resourced, act quickly to right the wrongs that it identifies.

The ombudsman and the compensation scheme should be funded by the

development industry providing an incentive to get homes right first

time and not to compromise quality standards in the rush to increase

profits. I support this recommendation on the basis of the

problems my constituents have had to get redress, but I want to focus on

the underlying reason why the homes are so poor. There is too much

speculation in the land market, artificially inflated prices, many

developers believe they had to make as a profit before they can build a

scheme. This result in a structural focus on the bottom line and

therefore on cutting costs. Since staff costs are relatively fixed

that is the cost of materials that is pared back to the minimum. On so

many housing schemes any generosity of design which was intended in the

original plans is costs ensured out by using cheaper materials, meaner

proportions, or cutting corners on the build itself. This is something

not an adequate basis for a housing market that needs to deliver so much

so quickly and it is not acceptable that short-term profits are being

achieved at the expense of the long-term quality and health and

well-being of residence. The second is the systematic reduction in

resource and regulation that underpins design quality of homes in

the UK since 2010. The Coalition Government simplified planning

policy. There was no disagreement about the need for super thickish

and that they went too Fat and one of this project was -- but they went

too far. Under the previous Labour Government the commission for

architecture and the built environment advised and reviewed the

quality of many planning applications and master plans for

new homes and published a huge body of work on design quality. That is

no an organisation with a diminished resource and since services are no

longer funded by Government the number of authorities which can

afford these services is reduced. There has been no comprehensive

review of the quality of design of new homes being built across the UK

for more than ten years and there is no systematic post-occupancy

evaluation of the quality of new homes. Good design is about more

than the appearance of a new home, it is also about sustainability,

energy efficiency, robustness, flexibility to the changing

requirements. Since 2010 this Government has removed many policy

requirements that previously helped to drive up the quality of design

including the zero carbon homes, and the lifetime standard. The

Government has also refused to incorporate the space standards and

to building control regulations resulting in a situation where the

number of homes built below the standards trebled from 2013-2016 and

some homes are being built in London at just 16 square metres. The home

building industry is responsive to the policy environment that is in

and it will adapt to meet new quality standards and the standards

matter because many parts of the sector will only deliver the bear

minimum the Government requires them to. Leadership from the Government

in this area is lacking and must be a rapid change of approach to set

the standard UK residents require from the new homes. Finally, the

lack of direct Government funding for genuinely affordable social

housing, a problem in itself in addressing the housing crisis, also

contributes directly to poor design quality. The number of social homes

built with Coalition funding since the start of the Coalition

Government has dropped by 95%. The Government has not increased the

borrowing cap on councils. Delivery of affordable housing, often not

affordable it was built to this Government definition, is dependent

on cross subsidy from private seals which creates an incentive to

maximise the number of homes at the expense of design quality and

minimise materials and lower specification. The Government must

do what the Labour Party has pledged to do and restore the building of

genuinely affordable social homes, with a civic purpose to the building

of new homes. We face such a huge challenge to build the new homes we

need is that the Government must at the same time make sure that the

homes we built our high quality, energy efficient, with a generous

space standards, open space, good storage for bicycles, refuges,

pleasant places to live that can stand the test of time and become

communities of the future. Ensuring new homes in the UK are of high

quality requires structural change in the land market and reform of the

viability assessments that are used to justify cutting costs. It

requires a Government commitment for genuinely affordable new homes built

for a social and civic purpose to beat our desperate need for housing,

rather than for profit, and that commitment is lacking. It requires

properly planning, good access to design, a framework that raises the

bar in particular on environmental sustainability and accessibility on

new homes. I congratulate my honourable friend

on organising this timely debate. He made some very important point is

particularly about the manifesto commitment, the Conservative

manifesto commitment, for higher density housing, mews houses,

mansion blocks, and the like. I would like to join with him and

emphasising the importance of this because I thought his speech neatly

summarised the slightly schizophrenic approach which we have

in this country. It doesn't matter where you are on the political

spectrum, which part of the country you are in, if you mention high rise

living, people automatically picture some sort of brutalist 1960s tower

block and their hackles start to rise and they get concerned about

the quality and design of the bills, and the impact on the people living

in that development, and also on the public realm which are influences

around it. But mention mansion blocks, terraced streets, mews

houses, all together on a more human scale, things which are four, five,

six stories tall, friends in long-established city centres in

London, Bath, Bristol, many of the prosperous Victorian cities of the

Midlands and the north, and they take a very different approach. They

are much more welcoming because those designs have stood the test of

time. I thought his comments about trying to make sure that you get

local buying is important. You may have vernacular style, a local

style, often using local materials as well, that it can be of a high

modern building technique and a modern building standard which

allows you to deliver some of the other things, made by other

colleagues, greener buildings, more energy-efficient and so on, at the

same time. He is making a very good point about

higher density but would it not be right that green spaces must be

included, if not in these properties, everybody does not need

to have a garden, they must have some dean space nearby, because the

survey has indicated that that is a direct link between health and

well-being and green space. That is an important point. The advantage of

building up, not out, is precisely that you managed to preserve, in

some cases enhance, available green space, because by taking existing

urban centres, they may not be city centres, it can be seaside towns,

market towns, take those kind of city and town centres and increase

the density by working within the existing street plan, the existing

plots, by saying many of the town centres are two stories tall, maybe

three, what don't most mean streets in most towns and you look up, you

will see large amounts of fresh air which is economically potentially

valuable if it is properly developed and providing it is developed in a

modern style. Not this is sadly a modernist style. Modern materials,

in keeping with the local style, so that many of the problems that have

been mentioned by the preceding Speaker from the Labour Party about

value engineering and difficulty of making sure that economic value is

achieved go away. If you have an existing plot and they put an extra

couple of stories on it, you are by no means tripping over problems

which my honourable friend was talking about about high-rise

living. People will accept that. You only have two walk-through town

centres like the ones nearby to see that will accept that. It is an

extraordinary statement to consider that parts of Kensington and and

other parts of Westminster, and you we are, are some of the highest

density housing developments in entire country was they are hardly

bywords for inner-city and urban decay. They argued examples of

designs and systems of living which have stood the of time. I want to

make a plea. Sing a hymn of praise if I can't building up, not out.

Because it attract new investment into existing town and city centres,

hotels of urban regeneration. It also reduces urban sprawl, helping

protect green spaces. You do not have to eat into green belts. It

breaks the stranglehold, we have heard from this, the stranglehold of

established housing developments, because they often are not so keen

on building in small plots in the centre of towns. Smaller local

developers and builders are more keen to do so. And it is greener

because it reduces commuting times, people can live closer to work and

live in an energy efficient fashion. Might we lead to the Minister is

this. How can we get this manifesto commitment to build up, not out?

Increase urban density? Get that to go faster? The White Paper committed

to development to build up and not out, I hope he will take that

seriously consider whether or not we can increase the level of credit

which local authorities get for local development orders, to allow

people to build up in the middle of towns. Housing inspectors, when

considering local plans, will give credit for the extra building which

might happen, which they do not currently accept as part of that,

the assessment of local housing needs, whether or not that will

provide incentives to local communities to want to have people

to build beauty in their backyard. I would thank him in securing the

debate. I was working for a consultancy. This is an area and a

little bit about, from skyscrapers to new housing developments. We all

recognise is a need for more housing. I recognise the agenda that

the members spoke of, something that is powerful in cities like

Manchester and London but also places like Plymouth. We do need to

make sure that the housing quality we are building by not only

attractive on the outside but usable and sustainable on the inside as

well. That is why looking at the sustainability of those homes but

also the lifetime nature of the people that are living in those

homes, is essential in building in the quality of life. In the push to

address the housing crisis, which is real and pressing, poor housing

design and poor quality buildings are being built. We have heard today

about housing that has been bought on the open market, but I am also

concerned about affordable housing that has been transferred to housing

associations. I know from the area that I represent, the affordable

housing that has been built lacks the sound installation that was

spoken about earlier and is producing a negative social impact

for the people who live in that property, simply because there was

not enough sound installation installed. That makes it very

difficult to retrofit. A quality product is not need to be an

expensive product. That is something we need to take into the heart of

the housing strategy going forward. That is not the experience of the

new-builds implement, but we need to make sure is built throughout the

whole strategy from now on. Plymouth is seeing a housing boom and bust of

student blocks are being built left, right and centre. Some of them had

been retrofitted milk built, in light of Grenfell Tower, having

cladding removed to make sure they are safe. Too many of those student

blocks look poor quality from the outside and look poor quality from

the inside. My concern is the being built quickly and cheaply with the

design they will last for 20 years and get knocked down. That may seem

good on a spreadsheet, but my concern is when it comes to the

practicalities of 20 years' time, we will be there and existing for

another 20 years. We need to be clear where they are built. Too many

of the student blocks, poor quality I been built on the wrong place.

Near the Plymouth station on the right-hand side, that has been built

on the wrong place. It was objected to but sadly the Government planning

inspector approved it at the end. That is not look was in action.

There are superb examples where housing is being built. I would

single out one example in Plymouth, the Nelson house self build project,

creating 24 affordable homes. That is a self build project being built

by veterans. The Devon community and housing and the building 24 homes

with veterans who were previously homeless. Not only are the building

their own homes, they are gaining skills that help every single better

and that has worked on that project now secure a job in the construction

industry. In terms of learning from good quality design, that is only 24

units, we need more of those. As an idea, that is scalable. I would

encourage him to look at what is happening there and encourage

veterans self build in a way of helping homeless veterans to gain

skills and get a home for their own. In our history built, let's make

sure we build well. The remaining speakers have four minutes. Thank

you. It is an honour to be called. May I also joined the chorus of

congratulations to the Right Honourable member who has secured

this essential debate. It is a topic I have been interested in since

childhood where my father who worked for a house-building company, took

me to see Banbury, the village designed by the Prince of Wales in

Dorset. It is a model village. The whole point of it is that there are

separate houses built to look individual with a view of detail and

architectural merit. The reason I draw attention to that, it seems to

me that people, and many members will have seen objections to

planning applications, the objections can be on two grounds. It

is practical, how do I get to work? Is the doctor 's surgery going to

court? I will not address that, given the topic of the debate. The

second point, is it going to wreck the nature of the place that I love,

that I have moved into? That is the place that I call home. It is that

second aspect where housing design is critical. The issue is, how to

square the Circa. Most people's attitude to development is

reasonable. We do not want to see fields concreted over the do

understand is a for housing. The understand our young people need

somewhere to live. That is the challenge we all have today. We need

to ensure we do not have housing in unsustainable numbers, it is

critical we do not have an obsession with obsession with politicians with

numbers. It is that I would like to address my comments too. If the wok

down the street of any of our market towns, we will all have examples in

our constituencies. I would urge all members to do is to look up. If we

look up, we will see all sorts of features that were once built and

used to be commonplace. Victorian Georgian housing, that is what

happened. It happens abroad. There is no reason why they cannot

continue to do this. It might be Flemish brickwork work chimneys,

crowd mouldings or details, or guttering that has a design and

merit of itself. There are so many of these that one could do. The cost

implication will all be something that is set by developers to be is

not the case. A report has been produced on this as to the cost

implication does not increase. What this does, it might be in my

constituency, slate roofs are important. Any new development is

not vast amount of numbers that are on the outside of an attractive

village and fundamentally change its nature, it means the building

complements the area it is in. In that way, we can look to have public

consent to the building that we have to have. Without public consent,

without people accepting they have to get to work but also the nature

of the village and home not change, then we will not have public consent

for the housing that is required. The planning process is important.

The local planning process is essential. That is one of the ways

we have to combat speculative development. Developers are coming

to a constituency, impose housing on a village who may not want in that

form and then leave a part of the problem here. Part of the solution

is to use local smart builders. I have some superb examples. If

someone is born locally, if you works locally, if his company builds

his house is locally, whose children go to the school and will be staying

in that area long after the houses are built and weathered into the

environment, they will make sure their housing and development

complements and does not like the area. That is critical, as is the

reference to self build. I agree that Juliet with that. I would like

to make the terms of cost, timber frames are made in other countries.

It was forbidden for many years to be lifted. I have an example of my

constituency. It offers speed of construction, cheaper cost and has

environmental benefits. We should be looking at using a great deal more,

I would submit. It is the same with prefabrication. It was used after

the war and seems to have a dirty name. But there are examples that

have all of those benefits. My conclusion, in the time I have

available, the white paper is Alexa bill -- is an excellent start. I

would ask those who start a conversation and not the end. Local

communities must have a say. I welcome the focus on design quality

and quality of design and architectural merit. We must have

public support and we must not be obsessed pure lead with numbers when

we are building houses. We need the infrastructure but the environment

is crucial. We must, I conclude by saying, we are building homes not

houses. We must remember we are building places, not just filling

spaces in our countryside. Had I congratulate the honourable

gentleman for bringing this forward. It is an issue that is important in

my constituency. I declare an interest. For this debate today, I

have been concentrating on design element and design and along with

that health as well. The ramifications of purely designed

buildings, it is incumbent on us to build an environment that is healthy

and safe. Everyone loves moving into a new home or a home that is freshly

built or just new to the owner, it is important we must make sure they

are safe and healthy homes. The healthy homes established the

highlight the health and cost benefits. Constructing our homes to

the highest quality and low standards. We spent 90% of our times

indoors, it is important we look at these issues clearly and have homes

that are fit for purpose. The cost of health service of purely

instructed homes is monumental. These figures will indicate that. It

is estimated that cost 2.5 billion throughout the UK every year.

Getting the homes right and you address some of the issues of

health. That is stopping people being unhealthy and the cost

involved in that. Poor installation and poor a quality, light quality,

have all been proven to cause or exasperate a variety of health

problems. Including mental health problems. These are queer issues

that homes are not designed well will lead to. -- we issues. I would

encourage all members to to be be paper recently put out a

consultation that makes a number of key recommendations that ensures our

homes are built to promote health and well-being. If you do not have

one of those, I will send it to you and the initiator to this debate as

well. Issues over health and housing has been disjointed with

responsibilities over multiple departments. Quite clearly, that

being the issue, we want to make sure a cross departmental committee

to champion change in that sector, recognising the interaction between

building, health and the economy. We would also ask the Government to

support projects such as the healthy new towns, promising to rethink how

health services can be delivered, as well as building a solid base of

evidence of the dilemma between health and housing provision. The

two have to work together. Thirdly, a report by the Green building

Council suggests... It is insufficient to talk only in terms

of new housing design, retrofitting new homes must be a governmental

priority. My constituency up in Northern Ireland has a lot of

construction firms, small firms, who build lots of individual houses but

also development as well. We in Northern Ireland, must be one of the

first steps in moving forward. This is not training our young people

simply in new methods of building, but engaging the older members in

training them as well. I will conclude with this, I am conscious

that you are giving BBI. The warm home scheme, these really do make

you difference to the quality of homes. It is surprisingly how many

homes in Northern Ireland did not have a ten year warranty and a lack

of insulation and other things. That shows to me there has been a beer

minimal standards. Not every home is built on a good standard. More needs

to be done. It is skills and training. It must be for the benefit

of families UK wide. I am very happy to have the opportunity of talking

about something I have been writing about for most of my career and I

would like to say that I can curb an hundred percent with my honourable

friend 's on the issues that have been covered. -- I concur. I would

like to challenge the honourable gentleman proposing that all modern

ugly design. It is not a quitter everybody, it is personal taste and

we should remember that the 60s gave us off all buildings but also

amazing Estates, dressing and Gardens, and of course Grenfell

Tower, which is amazingly still standing despite of what happened

there. The structure is there, it was solidly built and some of those

buildings could continue forever. It is interesting witnessing how the

debate has gone from design to construction quality. I have new

builds in my patch, Portobello Square, which I have more casework

from the older buildings than new buildings. It is appalling. Pounds

break, is also suffering from poor construction quality, from people

who have visited it recently. From Portobello to that area, we have the

same problem. That must be addressed. When I was trying to deal

with the development is down to what they can and cannot do. Planning

officers came and they shook their heads...

And seen good quality. In those? A very esteemed architectural

journalist who has written widely abated in the press has told me

about it. I have not visited that myself. Is she aware that there are

many architects about -- in what one might call the ancienne regime.

Despite the fact that many people who live there think it is great. I

am talking about quality, not design. We are talking about what we

can and cannot do with this new homes ombudsman Richard Deeley is a

good idea that there should be another level of monitoring. --

ombudsman which I think is a good idea. There is no proper enforcement

on quality at that level and there should be. Before you get to an

ombudsman there should be building enforcement officers who can come

and before a building collapses or a ceiling collapses and looks at the

quality of that. All of this is to do with local Government funding and

the funding formulas of how buildings are put together and where

they have to make cost savings as we have heard recently. That is for

another day. We have two review the entire way that design and build has

diminished, the quality of how the buildings are delivered.

I congratulate the honourable gentleman for securing this debate

on an important and timely subject. I always welcome the opportunity to

debate housing and house-building. I will try to focus on social housing,

affordable housing, which I think the Labour Party is doing as well.

The most important thing about housing policy is ensuring that we

have an adequate supply of safe housing, which is what the SNP

Scottish Government is doing. The MP for Glasgow's East End, following

the footsteps of John Weekley, MP for Shettleston, 1922-1930, upon

being appointed Health Ministry he tried to tackle the housing crisis

at the time. It allowed central Government to provide subsidies to

build housing. As a result, by 1933, 500,000 council homes had been built

in the UK. That housing legacy lives on today. Parkhead Housing

Association is celebrating its 45th anniversary today and it will be

hosting the John Weekley lecture. I mention that because last week the

leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Ruth Davidson,

suggested the Scottish Government should build more new towns in

Scotland to ease the housing shortage in the country. I was not

alone in being taken aback by that rank hypocrisy of a Conservative

politician lecturing us on the need to invest more in social housing not

least because a Conservative Government under the stewardship of

Margaret Thatcher sort of vast swathes of social housing, worse

still the social housing stock was not replaced, that left generation Y

struggling to get social housing, squeeze them into the private

sector. Before moving the substance of today's to beat title it would be

remiss not to highlight the excellent work being undertaken by

the Scottish Government to build good quality affordable housing in

our communities. I mentioned mismanagement of housing stock by

the Government in the 1980s, and the initial development of devolution

did not improve this, with the Lib Dem administration, since 2007 under

the SNP has come on leaps and bounds, ?590 million available this

year to improve supply of affordable housing, ?18 million, 2016-2017.

Because of action we have maintained higher build rates and lower price

inflation unlike the situation in England. If we had built up English

rates since 2007 we would have 20,000 less affordable homes. In

2009 we introduced council House building and since then have

delivered 7500 council homes. Between 2003-2007 Labour in

Government built six council houses in the entire parliament. We are

investing in affordable housing. A 76% increase. 35,000 of the 50,000

target will be for social rent. That is a 75% increase. I mention this

because our large part of the debate has been focused on the private

sector but I would like in my capacity as the third party

representative from the SNP to bring Westminster back to looking at

investment in social housing as well. We are determined to

accelerate housing supply across all sectors, quality homes that fit

local needs. Mid market rent offer to alternative properties. Increased

housing subsidies by ?14,000 for social and affordable homes for

rent. In preparing for the debate I was pleased to come across the

regulator 's national report which states the average satisfaction of

the quality of homes has increased. I want to pay tribute to CCG which

provides kit homes in the Dalmarnock area, 700 homes about one year ago.

While Ruth Davidson and the Conservatives were polishing their

brass necks, we got on with the job of building for communities. I want

to talk about housing design. This debate focuses on policy which is a

devolved competence. This is a different dimension to the debate. I

would commend to the House and I have left a copy in the library, the

documents published by the Scottish Government in June this year.

Colleagues will be announcing this, I would suspect there would be

something in terms of planning legislation which is long overdue

and welcome. One suggestion in that document is the suggestion that

local development plan should be considered over a 10-year period

rather than a five-year period. Another aspect I want to introduce

from the Scottish point of view is ten and stop properties. Aberdeen is

famous for its granite buildings. Glasgow is famous for sandstone

tenements. Many of these buildings are at an age where they require a

lot of attention. I hope that the Government in Scotland, local

authorities are factoring this into their plans as well as investing in

new housing supply. Summing up, when I came to this debate, the point

about a new homes ombudsman is pertinent. Last night I attended a

public meeting in my constituency and the honourable lady made a point

about belly. Too often we see some of the house-builders week promises

to communities and they are no longer held accountable for that.

That is why I want to see housing associations. Broom House and

Eastfield 's, builders have made promises that are not necessarily

been covered, and ombudsman is something we need to pursue.

Excellent speeches from the honourable gentleman from Cambridge.

I agreed with the points from the honourable member from Dulwich. It

is good to see this focus on tackling the housing crisis. The

honourable member for Weston-Super-Mare, I was having a

chat in the tearoom, everybody has a perception of the House, a detached

House, a bungalow, the entire point about building up and not out,

absolutely worth looking at. As a new member here, looking at moving

into a flat, I have looked at various parts of London, interested

to see more developments where growing up down out, not necessarily

the case in Glasgow. The honourable member spoke about looking up. I was

intelligent to come to Glasgow because we are a city that is

renowned for looking up. I pay tribute to the work of the

honourable member for the work he does on healthy homes. I want to

conclude by saying that today's debate, I started talking about John

Wheatley, I am confident that in Scotland we are tackling the legacy

of lack of investment in housing, but I would finish with a word of

advice from colleagues here in England. We need to look at

abolishing the right to buy. It is not popular in this Parliament. We

did it a couple of years ago and it is bearing fruit in Scotland. It is

very difficult to build more homes, get people into social housing, when

you sell off that social housing, it is a conversation that people had to

happen in this building. We need to identify with John Wheatley,

ultimately. I congratulate the honourable

member. It is an important debates. A lot of what he had to say creates

a consensus across this chamber. And across these nations of hours. There

was some credible contribution is all around, there is a wealth of

experience from the members who spoke. I will not mention every

constituency at this stage. But there were some very serious point

is that the Minister will take on board. No serious debate can begin

without as recognising that we are in a bad place at the moment. Every

member who has spoken has illustrated with in their speech the

fact that things are not going in the way they should be. That is

important to recognise. We are doing much to institutionalise significant

change. Houses are homes, they are part of the communities in which

people make their lives and we have got to do better than we are doing

now. I would add a couple of cautions. The first point is, it is

worth recalling that almost everything that has been said,

particularly about environmental impact of homes, noise insulation,

applies just as much to the existing built stock. The bulk of homes that

will be around in 20 years' time are already in existence, 80% of them

already exist. We have got to do something about retrofitting to make

existing homes the buildings that we want. Even if we are to see the

building boom that we await, there are going to be some real impact.

One of those impacts is something we have seen in the past, that when it

is a housing boom, the quality of the Elders, the constructors, does

not keep pace with the scale. There is an issue that this Government is

not addressing which is the nature of the ageing workforce, and coupled

with that, the lack of adequate training places for younger people,

and not so young people coming into construction. That has got to be

dealt with if we are to make sure we have got the kind of policy -- kind

of quality constructors that will deliver homes in the future and

retrofit homes of the past. The member Fred Kensington and Chelsea

Council unless we have adequate funding of local authorities and

those parts of our local authorities building control and planning, which

have been cats, these have been cats across these nations of hours

because of the austerity budget, then we are not going to see the

type of ongoing control that we need to guarantee that the build for the

future avoids the mistakes of the past. I would also like to make an

obvious point, that we cannot allow first class and second-class

housing. Tenants have got to be housed in the same quality by way of

design. That is part of the background to the conversation we

are having. There are some real challenges for the Government. But

we are to look at the issues around design, the issues of high quality

homes, Government has a responsibility to set up standards

and framework. Good design does mean ecstatically pleasing. I agree there

is nothing intrinsically wrong with building up, although like

everything it is a question of whether the design of building up is

of a standard we would accept. The honourable member Fred Kensington

and Chelsea Council eight, let us not be so concerned with replicating

the past that we failed to take advantage of what the future can

offer us. There are amazing buildings going up all around this

country that would have been impossible, but new building

technology has come in to a load more interesting buildings.

I think he is saying we should not allow tragedies like Grenfell Tower

sway us against the other advantages of building higher, providing it is

done any sensible weight with the right standards and right design.

Indeed, but if I can repeat the points. We already have a building

stock of homes in the sky. I am old enough to remember we are going to

build a vertical streets. I gave away my age when I said that. People

live in vertical streets and whether those that exist now or the future,

we need to make sure they are fit and proper homes for the future. We

have to take some of the challenges of new builds. I was involved when

greater Manchester was going through its process of looking at the

spatial framework for the future. One of the things that was obvious

there, there is some nimbyism in people's objections, the legitimate

objections they have is that when they see the development is not

going to have the infrastructure and development that is fundamental. Not

simply the new community that is being built, but those are

legitimate whether we have the transport links, local schools, the

facilities, medical facilities, access to the world of work. Those

are the things that make real amenities work properly. Within

that, within the concept of local infrastructure, has the capacity to

have within communities the ability for people to move homes as life

changes. The honourable member for Basingstoke made the point for

people with circumstances that change. An ageing couple with issues

like disability, it is not impossible to adapt existing homes,

but not impossible to keep them their own community or were they

prefer to make that move. Designing communities around people's

progressive needs is sensible. If I can concentrate on some issues. One

of the issues that has been raised already is the question of space. I

would say to the Minister that there is a real challenge that the

Government has got to pick up. When we know this Brent Council building

is seeing homes for a single person is offered with 16 square metres

floor space, we have an issue. This is way below the national designed

space standards, which is the Government brought in. I received

the Minister those space standards were implemented nationally and made

mandatory. They are unacceptable minimum. There is always the

capacity to use adequate design for eroding that standard, that should

be firmly lodged with the local planning authority, the guarantor of

the safeguard that we are not seeing developers overreaching themselves.

If I can turn to the question... Quite often these space standards

are being eroded, it is consistent with other property use, office

space been converted into homes, retail space been converted into

homes. The Minister needs to look harder blocking that loophole if we

are to prevent these ridiculously small homes being built. I will say

is more thing about section one 06. I was amused about seeing recently

an advert that was put forward by a local company called section 106

profit. In the advert they say to would-be developers, do I really

have to pay or provide affordable housing's Big Horn to talk about

what their owner -- they go on to talk about what they can do.

Affordable housing contribution was demanded by Westminster Council was

reduced to inhale contribution. They go on to say to the would-be

developer, the final point of the promises you can go on holiday with

the money you have saved. That is not a responsible use of what the

section is there to provide. The Minister has got to look again and

making the process of the section transparent but also enforceable by

the local authorities. In the end, if we're going to have the homes of

the future that the honourable member is demanding and is writes up

to demand, and so are other colleagues, we have to have the

capacity for our local authorities to say to developers that those

developments must be of an acceptable standard and they have

the power to control the rogue builder or rogue developer. Time

allowing to leave a moment for the Motion to wind up. The matter rests

with you. Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your

chairmanship for the first time in this Parliament. Can I congratulate

my honourable friend for securing this debate on a new housing design.

My honourable friend has been a long-standing advocate of high

quality development and is passionate about the subject and

that has come through clearly today and on the media. All members have

spoken with passion on white design is important. We all acknowledge

that it is critical we build more homes and our housing white paper

sets out how we intend to to tackle this challenge. Just as important as

building more homes is the need to insure they are good quality and

well-designed and respond positively to the local context. Around the

country, there have been some fantastic examples of good design in

new house-building and a number of colleagues appointed those out. We

can also point to soulless developments that destroy the

character of the local area. This is something I feel we must change. The

Government has put in place a robust framework that promotes and supports

high-quality design. Both the National planning policy framework

and our planning guidance emphasises the importance of good design and

provide advice on planning processes and tools which local planning

authorities can use to help achieve this aim. Over the months ahead, the

Government will be engaging with the housing industry to showcase good

practice and develop new qualities that support that ambition. We know

we must do more. The housing white paper contains a number of proposals

to improve the polity and character of the development. We want to

strengthen the national policy framework. To bring in an

expectation that local planning documents should set a clear design

expectations. This will provide greater certainty for applets what

type of designs are acceptable. -- for applicants. We want to use the

policy to strengthen the importance of pre-application discussions. A

means to encourage more value discussion between amenities,

developers and local authorities. The Government also has a longer

term ambition to support the development of digital platforms on

design. My honourable friend talked about a number of surveys in his

remarks and he concluded that people would support the building of homes

if they are well-designed and in keeping with the local area. Of

course, it is important that local authorities and developers work with

communities to ensure they get the quality of new housing development

that they want. There are a range of tools in place to engage local

community, both when preparing plans and at the planning application

stage. Yet I know amenity engagement is far too inconsistent. Far too

often, local people you about the housing schemes late in the day. Of

course, there are also good examples where engagement works and the

honourable member for Cambridge talked about the toolkit and there

are others. Our housing white paper proposals will go a step further, to

help make sure local communities are not left behind. I do see

neighbourhood planning, a number of colleagues have mentioned, as an

invaluable tool to encourage local engagement. Our plans driven by

local people with a vested interest in the quality of design for the

place you live in. Since 2012, over 2200 groups have started the

neighbourhood planning process in areas covering 30 million people. Of

course, in some areas, the groups are keen to ensure the good design

does happen in practice. For example, the plan for Bristol old

market quarter sets her design principles are the development of

key sites to ensure new buildings make a valuable contribution to the

character of the neighbourhood. The Government recognises the effort

neighbourhood planning groups makes and that is why we are supporting

them with funding. The housing white paper sets out a commitment to

further funding for neighbourhood planning groups in this Parliament.

We are committed to providing ?25 million of funding to boost the

capacity of local authorities 43 year period starting this year and

this will open up opportunities to support design resources to grips.

-- to neighbourhood planning groups. Turning to the issue of the

ombudsman, we are... But, of course, it is the case that according to the

latest survey, 84% of new home buyers would recommend their builder

to a friend and this figure has fallen steadily from 90% in the last

four years. 16% of new home buyers would not recommend their builder.

In any other market, this would spell the end of the most cruelly

performing companies. This has really been the case in the House

building sector. I went to make it clear to colleagues that I am having

a set of discussions with the developers and I made this point

them as well for the need to improve quality and design. The commission

survey, conducted for the home builders Federation, that told them

that 67% of buyers would prefer not to or are unlikely to buy the

product of volume house-builders. Well, I think my honourable friend

makes the point that customer satisfaction is key and home-buyers

need to step up to the plate. The housing white paper sets out the

Government plan to diversify the housing market, improving the

quality and honourable members have talked about custom buildings and

the importance of small and medium-sized builders as well. There

are of course mechanisms in place for redress and a number of

colleagues are clocked about this, such as the consumer code from home

builders. I have been encouraged by the industry's responds to last

year's report on more homes and fewer complaints. The working group

was set up and the home builders and the working group has commissioned

an independent report into consumer redress and this should come forward

and the next few weeks. I will review the report and I would also

say that I will consider my honourable friend's call for a new

home is ombudsman. My colleagues have raised a number of points, I

will respond on those. The report for the women's inequalities

committee, we expect a response and will respond next month. Colleagues

have also raised an issue about space and, of course, as the

honourable member for Dulwich and West Norwood and Rochdale will know

we have committed to reviewing the space standards because of the

feedback we have got from the sector. The member for Western Wall

have talked about building out. Will be addressing the school for high

density housing. Can I just end by saying that the Government will

continue to work with industry, local community, developers and all

those with an interest in the quality of new homes to drive up

standards and create the type of places that people want to live in.

It is clear, members here, they want it to happen, their constituents

want it to happen and I want it to happen. Can I just press the

Minister on this? He said the Government's intention is to review

the standards, that is welcome. The suspicion, I'm afraid, as this is a

review that will reduce those standards rather than enforce those

standards. Will parts of the review be about making these obligatory

across the length and breadth of the appropriate domain?

We are not talking about a race to the bottom and we want new

developments to be well designed. Thank you for those comments. It

would be a good idea at the idea on the ombudsman could be brought

forward. He also talked about Regis for those that can get it. There are

many good builders out there but if the Government could highlight those

that are not that would put pressure on them and give people choice. I

want to thank all honourable members. It is interesting that when

it comes to architecture, beauty is very much in the eye of the

beholder, but if we can take local people with us, then we have a

greater chance that they can support developments because we can take out

a lot of the objections for further developments. We need quality homes.

We talked this morning and this afternoon about the need for a good

insulation, good building standards, building quality homes for the

future. I believe we can do that and I welcome the Minister's remarks.

This House has considered good housing design. As many of

dependency the contrary now. The IE 's macro habits. -- the Ayes have

it. If members could move quickly please

we can start the next debate. I beg to move that this House has

considered the combined Fire and police service in Northamptonshire.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I thank Mr Speaker for giving me the

honour of having this debate today on an important issue for my

constituents in Kettering and across the county of Northamptonshire. The

title of the debate is probably not really very accurate and that is

probably my fault because we are not actually talking about a combined

fire and police service, but I do hope that one day we will have a

completely combined fire and police service and would urge the Minister

to consider that. But any constituents that might be tuned in

to today's proceedings, Northamptonshire is a county of over

720,000 people, we have got a single police force and a single Fire and

Rescue Service that have coterminous boundaries, which is quite helpful

when you are thinking of joining these two things together. That

picture for policing and fire and risk is changing and has changed

rapidly in the past decade. Four fire and you, demand for fire

related emergencies has increased by 50%, -- reduced by 50%, compared to

a national figure of 40%, Fire and Rescue Service to diversify into

more proactive activities, they now provide first response activities

with East Midlands Ambulance Service. On a recent visit, I was

amazed and surprised to learn that 60% of the Fire Service calls are

known for medical emergencies. The emphasis is on rescue as opposed to

fire. The reason I attended the Fire and Rescue Service is that I have

taken part in the parliamentary Fire Service scheme on two levels. One

year I spent with the London Fire Brigade and the second year I spent

with Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service. I have also

completed two years with the parliamentary police service scheme,

with the Northamptonshire Police force some years ago, but also as a

special constable with British Transport Police. I placed great

emphasis on talking to individual police officers, individual fire and

rest officers, to find out what life was really like for them at an

operational level. And I would like to place on record my thanks to all

the wonderful police and Fire and Rescue Service we have in

Northamptonshire. We are truly blessed as a county to have so many

individuals with such dedication, resolution and resolve, who day in

day out, week in week out, are prepared to serve the local public

as best they can. The Northamptonshire Police have a

budget of ?116 million. They have 1242 officers. 99 PCSOs, 488

specials, 84 volunteers, they operate on 38 sites. The Fire and

Rescue Service has a budget of ?24 million, 242 full-time firefighters,

254 retained firefighters, 74 support staff, and operate off 24

sites. In terms of the scale of the operations, they are quite

different. But of course police officers and firefighters are

actually attending many of the same incidents. And indeed, in the

southern part of Northamptonshire, we now have two brutal intervention

vehicles, which on one side are charged with Northamptonshire Police

loverly, blue, yellow and white, and on the other side are badged with

the Fire and Rescue Service loverly, yellow, red and white. On one side

of the vehicle there is a police officer and on the other side there

is a firefighter and they are going around in little parts of the county

to respond to call outs and it is a very efficient way to manage

resources of police and fire fighting. This is evidence, and I

know the Minister will appreciate, of the boys and girls in the

service, actually getting on with mixing up their operations to

increase local efficiency regardless of what happens at this senior level

in terms of Government. On the ground individual police officers

and firefighters are already operating jointly in many cases. I

would like to back 100% the business case presented to the Minister by

the Police and Crime Commissioner Steven mauls, for Northamptonshire,

that he become the police, fire and crime Commissioner for

Northamptonshire. I will give way to my honourable friend.

I am grateful. I am pleased that the Police and Crime Commissioner in

Northamptonshire has taken up the opportunity to look at the

Government's model of becoming a police, fire and crying Commissioner

and which he joined me welcoming the news that this has happened in

Staffordshire also. The consultation looking at the Police and Crime

Commissioner kicking over the role of the fire authority will see

greater collaboration and joint working.

I am delighted to hear that positive news from Staffordshire. I know my

honourable friend is developing a well-deserved reputation for being

badly on top of local issues in her constituency. And I join her and

welcoming the news from Staffordshire. I believe there are

seven Police and Crime Commissioner 's who are now actively consulting

on taking over Fire Service responsibilities. I very much hope

that they will succeed and I would like Northamptonshire and

Staffordshire and the five others to be successful role models for the

other authorities around the country. Because it seems to me to

make huge sense to deliver emergency services as joint up as possible. My

understanding is that under the police and crime act 2017 which my

honourable friend and I and the Minister supported, for options were

given to Police and Crime Commissioner 's and local Fire and

Rescue Authorities. Eg Key to collaborate with no change in

governance. Police and Crime Commissioner taking place on the

Fire and Rescue Authorities. The Police and Crime Commissioner

actually become the Fire Commissioner as well. This services

be combined. May I say to the Minister that ultimately I hope

option for is delivered in Northamptonshire but I recognise

that option three is the right place to be at the moment. Operationally,

the police service and the Fire and Rescue Service will be two different

organisations, but the police, fire and crying Commissioner, will be the

head of both of those. While structurally separate, separate

organisations, below the commission, as I have already evidence, on the

ground, police officers and firefighters are increasingly

working together. I think there are three fire - police - ambulance

stations in Northamptonshire know. In Wellington that there is an all

singing, all dancing, police, fire and ambulance station with all

services together. Ultimately I think we should be ambitious, I

would like to see a Northamptonshire- wide police, fire

and angle and service dedicated to Northamptonshire. I don't see why

East Midlands and blood service is to provide services to

Northamptonshire. Police, fire and crying Commissioner is well able to

run Ambulance Services locally. If the Minister ever feels he would

like to pilot such an initiative may I invite him to Northamptonshire

because I think we could persuade the Police and Crime Commissioner

that this could be a good idea especially at the Fire Service is

already providing 60% of its calls to medical emergencies. Both

services will remain operationally distinct but increasingly there is

lots of joint working. This does not mean that police officers will be

putting out fires and does not mean that firefighters will have the

power of arrest. It just means that they will work sensibly together.

This is not a police takeover of the Fire Service. It is not a merger of

the two. It is just a shared governance structure that should

lead to joint decisions. I think this move, if approved by the

Minister, will accelerate collaboration and better protect the

front line, that under the existing models. At the moment the Fire

Service as part of Northamptonshire County Council, and with the best

will in the world, any Fire and Rescue Authorities within a county

council structure is not going to get the funding certainty that could

be provided by governance, by a separate police, fire and crime

Commissioner. I am grateful to have the

opportunity to intervene again. Does he also agree that by virtue of

having a police, fire and crime Commissioner, we increase democratic

accountability of the Fire Service by virtue of having the fire

authority have got counsellors who are appointed to the authority, but

they are not electorally accountable to the public? My honourable friend

demonstrates that she has a wise head on young shoulders as this is

the same argument in favour of police commissioners. Who knew who

the members of the local police authority work? No one. Sometimes

even members of the local police authority did not know and the same

is true of the Fire and Rescue Authorities, therefore transparency,

accountability, also more funding security uncertainty are big drivers

behind this. I am pleased that local people in Northamptonshire basically

agree. 1200 people have responded to the Police Commissioner's

consultation, 61% are in favour, 92% of those working in the Fire and

Rescue Service are in favour. They know that the proposals will deliver

efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and also improvements in public

safety, because of the increased funding certainty. These are

impressive results from the consultation which have certainly

impressed me, and I hope will impress the Minister. The business

case is known on his desk. It requires this signature for this to

be moved forward. If it gets his signature, with his distinguished

hand, then this new change could come into effect from April 20 18.

And I would urge the Minister to read the case, study the case, and

approve it. Because I think Northamptonshire has demonstrated on

the ground that police officers and firefighters are getting together to

deliver sensible joint working, and now, the governance structure is

catching up with that. If we can get the Home Office approval then over

time move onto stage four, combining of both services together. The

crucial thing about this is that it should not lead to any increased

costs for the taxpayer because basically the money given to the

county council now to fund the Fire and Rescue Service will be given to

the police, fire and crime Commissioner, that there will be

transparency on people's council tax bills because there will be a

separate line for the fire authority presets. That I think will improve

transparency and accountability. Thank you for your patience with me

today. I hope I have outlined my 100% support for these proposals. I

nor the Minister is diligent, assiduous, very much on top of his

game and he will take these proposals seriously, and can I say,

if he agrees with the local Police and Crime Commissioner and approves

the business case in Northamptonshire, we are up for the

challenge to deliver the country's best combined police and Fire

Service. It is a great pleasure to serve

under your chairmanship for the first time and to respond to this

very welcome and timely debate from my right honourable friend. We came

into the House in the same year and I know that back in 2005 and he has

been a tireless champion of the interest of the people of Kettering.

I am delighted to hear him stand up in the House today and expressed his

support for the proposals coming from the Police and Crime

Commissioner. I hear him urging me to go even further in terms of the

ambition there. It is typical of him that in order to get the insight

into the operating reality of the people serving his constituents, he

should have invested his time in the schemes and being a special

constable himself. I congratulate him on that. I also note the

presence of the honourable member here. I hope to support him in

registering what appears to be a consensus across Northamptonshire

and popular support for this initiative, which to some degree, he

himself reflected, reflects the ongoing reality on the ground at the

moment. Northamptonshire is known to be in the vanguard of collaboration

between the emergency services and I would like to place on record my

congratulations and respect for those involved in that leadership

that has been shown in Northamptonshire and this debate is

very welcome. If I could give him some very immediate reinsurance

about the Government's support to the principle of enabling Police and

Crime Commissioner is to have greater involvement in fire

governance. This goes beyond words. We have approved the first proposal

from Essex and we are very encouraged to see about our dozen

areas introducing proposals and I welcome the intervention from my

honourable friend. I dozen areas have responded to the legislation

that enables this and are actively developing proposals to take on

governance for fire and rescue and as I have said, areas like

Northamptonshire leading the way. We all know as MPs that public service,

have done a very impressive job in terms of responding to the pressure

to control costs and find savings. Many of them have embraced

collaboration. It is easy to talk about but quite difficult to do in

practice. We are keen to encourage leadership to go even further down

that direction. Not just in the interests of better use of taxpayers

money and finding efficiencies, but also to deliver a better service to

the people we serve. In that context, I want to pay tribute to

the Police and Crime Commissioner and to his team in two the proposals

that give rise to this debate. They have worked at such case, they have

submitted a proposal. I have to correct something he said. The

proposal is not sitting on my desk, it is sitting in the bowels of the

Home Office being processed by officials. It has only just come in.

When it comes to me, I take a view, it goes to the Home Secretary. That

is the process. That means that I am restricted about what I can say on

the detailed case because I will -- but I will. We will be robust in

testing it. The honourable gentleman will want the reassurance that I won

that it is sensibly rooted in good economic 's and will result in a

better service for his constituents and leaves Northamptonshire County

Council in a solid financial base as well. There are various tests that

the statute requires us to make of this. It is in the system and will

be processed as quickly as possible. I am a bit restricted about what I

can say, except for I note his message to get on with it. Thank you

for giving way. He will welcome, I'm sure, the fact that the county

council, unlike some county authorities, is supporting this

case. We are all singing from the same hymn sheet in Northamptonshire,

if that gives them any courage meant. I am grateful for my

honourable friend for that intervention. It is an important

point. It is easy to talk about but not that easy to do. Particularly in

terms of the work that that the county council has to do with the

Police and Crime Commissioner to do some of the data and segregation

that he is talking about. It is very consecrated to do. He is quite

right, some county councils have set the face against this. At the right

to place on record my respect for Northamptonshire County Council for

the leadership they have shown in cooperating with this complex task

very fully. What I would, with your permission, chair, draw out key

themes by way of conclusion to the debate. First, I should of course

join my honourable friend in placing my thanks to the Government of the

hard work and service of the police across the country for the work they

do on our behalf. There are operational aspects that are common

so it must make sense to explore where these services can be joined

up more effectively to maximise capability and resilience and

everything that he talked about in his remarks. There are some

fantastic examples of collaboration out there, joint control rooms,

multi-agency prevention teams, support capability. The Government

has invested it in ?1 million in local bluelight collaboration logic.

We're not sitting here saying, get on with it, we are actively trying

to support that. Four and have million pounds for police

intervention... Perhaps we are not in danger of going over the time

limit, I just want to intervene again and see to the Minister that

we are blessed in Northamptonshire, too, with two outstanding senior

officers. The Chief Constable is fantastic. Very much down to earth,

hands-on, he knows all of his officers. The chief fire officer,

likewise, has years of experience, knows all the boys and girls in the

Fire Service and the two are determined to work together to make

operation work. Whatever the Government structure might be. I

think the changes to the Government structure will just help them do

what they are already doing. Again, I thank him for his intervention.

I'm sure that will be noted in both those offices and in this place we

do not do enough to celebrate and recognise individuals that two

outstanding work inside the public service. I have in the course of my

process of engagement and police forces, spoken to the police chief

on the phone and I look forward to visiting Northamptonshire and

meeting him and the fire chief in person. Not least because it is very

clear that it has been at the forefront of many collaboration

initiatives. Joint committee prevention work, which he brought to

life in his speech. I am very encouraged that PC malt has made the

collaboration of the services a main theme in his police and crime plan

and his conviction about the service transformation is very evident and

very encouraging to us. While in the good work is going on in some local

areas, it is fair to say and I think my honourable friend alluded to

this, the national picture is patchy and what be done. In terms of reform

of the Fire Service, in some ways the ambition with which policing has

been transformed since 2010, much the credit of police leadership

across the country, can serve as something of a model the changes we

want to see in fire. The Home Office now being responsible for this area,

we are able to support what we hope to see as a continuous improvement

of Fire And Rescue Services enabling it to be more accountable, effective

and professional. My honourable friend pointed out that the scope,

very important scope within these reforms of Government to introduce

much greater transparency and accountability, not least around