Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Broxbourne since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
392
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | Broxbourne | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Could he provide us with some examples of what MHCLG could use this money for to support renters? He has not listed any yet, and obviously there are none in the SI. I am a bit concerned about where this money is going to be used.
To residents across the country, a standard family home being converted into an HMO for a large number of adults is a material change. It changes the character of an area, and it places pressure on parking and local services. Too many <span id="566" class="column-number" data-column-number="566"></span>HMOs are being used to house people who come to this country illegally, and we know for a fact that many of these men are dangerous. However, the current rules do not reflect the negative impact an HMO can have, with landlords not needing to apply for planning permission if it is for less than five occupants, and the article 4 direction does not go far enough. What work is the Minister doing to investigate changing the rules so that all HMOs, regardless of size, require planning permission so that local people’s voices can be heard?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the Minister on his birthday today. It is also a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, whom I wholeheartedly support on new clauses 28, 44, 46 and 56. I will speak to new clause 46 and make some general points. We need a strategy for improving the existing management of the social housing stock. As the Minister knows—I alluded to this point when he came before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—overcrowding is an issue in social homes. I suspect we all speak to many constituents, as I do across Broxbourne, who are in a two-bedroom home and need a four-bedroom home. In a previous life, when I was a councillor on the planning committee, I always argued that, within section 106 negotiations or the affordable housing part of a development, we should get some larger social homes, because they are very hard to come by and people have to wait years for a four-bedroom home.
I go back to my earlier point: if we took all those homes back into social housing, the same people who are living in them now would still be living in them. They are not new social homes. They would not reduce the social housing waiting list. I speak to constituents who are overcrowded in a two-bedroom home and waiting on the list for a four-bedroom home. A three-bedroom home might alleviate some of their overcrowding. It would not be ideal— I completely agree that if they went into a three-bedroom home they would still be overcrowded—and it could be <span id="156" class="column-number" data-column-number="156"></span>seen only as a temporary fix, but under the current system they are forced to stay in a two-bedroom property while they wait and bid on four-bedroom properties, which do not come along often. We need to be better at securing larger social homes in developments. Sometimes developers do not want to build them because they are more expensive. Will the Minister look at changing the rules? If a family with a mum, dad and three kids in a two-bedroom property moved to a three-bedroom property, they would at least have the space of an extra bedroom. When I speak to my constituents, sometimes they say that that would be a good stepping stone, rather than having to wait to get a four-bedroom property. I say this in the nicest possible way: we need a strategy, because we can use the stock better to make people a bit less overcrowded. I am not saying that that will solve all the problems. Some constituents will prefer to move straight into a four-bedroom property, but they understand that they must wait a considerable time for that. Sometimes councils do not have the powers to force developers to build those larger social homes. Will the Minister reflect on the current rules on overcrowding? Changing those rules slightly might make our constituents’ lives easier.
I rise to speak in support of the new clause. I will be brief, because I have some comments to make on the next group of clauses. I am very proud that in around 2010, my local council in Broxbourne, which is Conservative-run, brought in rules for local connection such that someone had to have a connection for five years to the borough to get on the housing waiting list. That is good, because it is local residents who have to put up with all the disruption that goes with development. Where we can, we should support local people first on council housing waiting lists.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; we were both council leaders and neighbours before entering this place. As I have said, I have been a local councillor in local government and seen at first hand how social housing works and how it is allocated to different people who have different needs. As I have already said, while I was leader of Broxbourne council, I was proud that our council rules were some of the <span id="168" class="column-number" data-column-number="168"></span>strictest, requiring people to have at least five years of connection to the borough to be able to get on our housing list. We recognised that social housing is not just something to be handed out to anyone and everyone, because the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.
I know that a number of Members want to speak to this new clause, and we are having a robust debate. It deeply concerns me that communities should not be expected to subsidise others from outside their area so they can live in cheaper housing. That is why I encourage all councils to follow Broxbourne council’s lead and introduce a residency requirement. This issue alone is bad enough, but taken with foreign nationals, it brings it to a whole new level. London is a city that many hard-working British people would love to make their home but they simply cannot afford to. How can the Government tell people such as those in my constituency of Broxbourne that they should pay more in tax so that people from abroad can come here and be put up in subsidised housing in one of the most expensive cities in the world?
I am coming to the end of my remarks. It is even worse for young British people moving to our capital for work, having to pay a fortune for a tiny room in a shared house with complete strangers, while the priority rules set by left-wing councils mean that some foreign nationals who have never paid a penny into the system get placed into social housing with a whole flat to themselves. On the Conservative side of the House, we will never shy away from standing up for the British people and ensuring that foreign nationals who come to this country do not get a free ride on the benefit system and subsidised housing at our expense. That is why I wholeheartedly support the shadow Minister and new clause 32.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak in support of new clause 34, which is about prioritising brownfield for development. We always hear from the Government that they want to protect the green belt. I often laugh when they say that, because there is nothing in legislation: they never want to put anything on the face of the Bill or issue anything to protect the green belt. Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has found that 1.4 million brownfield sites have been left unbuilt since 2007. As I said on Second Reading, that number is rather close to the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, which they have all but admitted they will not meet.
I am slightly bewildered. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who invited me in a debate in the Chamber to visit a pub in his constituency. I did not take him up on the offer, but maybe I should have, because I could have corrected him on a lot of the things he has just said. I am slightly bewildered by the nonsense that has just been spoken. I was a council leader. The planning system is not why these houses do not get built. When I speak to developers in my constituency, lots of them say that it is now difficult to employ people because of the day-one employment rights that this Government have brought in. Lots of businesses speak to me about the increase in national insurance contributions. The Opposition have a plan to take £50,000 off the cost of building a new home, which will include social homes and increase the supply. This Government have done nothing to increase supply; all they have done is attack local councils for giving out planning permission. Local councils get punished when they do not have a five-year land supply, which is something that they have very little control over. The Government need to do much more to develop brownfield sites.