Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. There is a lot of support for brownfield-first development, but also for gently densifying our towns and cities so that we have houses where people want to live within the existing infrastructure.

The Government have been elected with a clear mandate to build, build, build, and I accept that. But I hope that they will do the hard yards to plan, plan, plan, and ensure that the 1.5 million houses that they build are the right houses in the right places, as part of the right communities and with the right infrastructure. It is in that spirit that I bring forward this debate, because Bedfordshire is not a place that is standing still.

I congratulate the Government on completing the negotiations, begun by the previous Government, to secure the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick. That will be a game changer for our local economy, and I will continue to support the Government, Universal and our councils as it progresses through the planning system, but to maximise its potential, it will be important to get the infrastructure right. That means we need to plan for the planes, trains, automobiles and accommodation. Through the planning system, we need to see work done to deliver the right accommodation that will be available in Bedfordshire for people to come and stay, hopefully to enjoy Universal and then stay a while in our towns and villages, spending their time and money enjoying everything that Bedfordshire has to offer.

As I noted earlier, I understand that Government have a mandate to “just get on and build”. I have some sympathy for their frustration with Members of Parliament like me who they see as trying to put the brakes on that ambition, but I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not my intention. I believe as fervently as he does that we need to deliver new homes for young people growing up right across Britain, but I believe we must do so in a way that is sensitive to our countryside and our communities, and that delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure.

The current planning system is not working for anyone. Too often, it blocks good development and allows bad development—development that erodes local character, that builds houses but divides communities, and that comes without the right infrastructure, leaving new residents and old alike frustrated and unwilling to accept the further houses the Government want to deliver in their communities. As this Government’s planning reforms progress, I hope they will take time to consider how the planning system can more effectively protect the character of our towns and villages, and how it can seek to disarm those blockers that the Government are concerned about by addressing the things they are concerned about, not by tying their arms behind their backs. That is a harder job, I accept, but is anything that is worth doing in politics easy?

In Bedfordshire, I would like to see the Government give us the tools through the planning system to protect everything that makes our communities such special places to live—protections for our historic character and our villages, protections for our beautiful and unique countryside against unending and unplanned urban sprawl, and protections for the great British pub; indeed, I would like to see more of them built as our communities expand.

In Mid Bedfordshire, we have always done the right thing and taken our fair share of housing—we have even taken Luton’s surplus housing need. We have done everything we were supposed to do, but our communities suffer the effects of bad development. Still, residents in Maulden see development crawling even further up the slope of the Greensand ridge, as their flood risk steadily worsens. Still, residents in Wixams find themselves fighting for a GP surgery that no one locally seems keen to take ownership of. Still, residents find themselves fighting developers who are keen to pocket the profits of development but less keen to deliver on their promises of well-maintained green spaces, proper flood protections and local amenities.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

As a fellow MP representing Central Bedfordshire, I know that while good people can have reasoned debates about the right locations for new housing, no one can defend the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with development that we have seen in parts of Central Bedfordshire. It is therefore all the more surprising that the council has one of the highest levels of unspent section 106 contributions in the country. Does the hon. Member agree that Central Bedfordshire owes it to its residents to ensure it is putting that money to good use, and that we owe it to the council to ensure we are removing all possible barriers to its providing the infrastructure that our residents are crying out for?

[Blake Stephenson]

Again, I must declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor. I learned recently of the sums that are held at Central Beds from section 106 contributions. The council is very good at collecting the sums but not necessarily at spending them, particularly in the right places and on the right things. Residents would be keener on development in their local communities if they knew that section 106 contributions would be spent there, not in some other part of the large unitary authority area. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and thank him for it.

Worse still, these developers often put in planning applications for big developments, have those fights with the local community, make promises about local infrastructure, secure their planning permission, and then nothing happens. The community sits and waits while more and more other developments get planning permission around them, but the developers do not get on and build the things they have got permission for. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 1.1 million homes that were given planning permission between 2010 and 2020 were not built by 2024. That is 1.1 million homes that defied the Government’s blockers and got through the planning system but did not get built. So far, this Government seem to have failed to grasp that problem—there is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that even acknowledges it. If the Government are determined to block the blockers and back the builders, perhaps they should take some action to stop the blocker builders that are failing to build out planning permissions that they have received, because they are having a real impact.

In Central Bedfordshire, planning inspectors have twice concluded that we cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply in recent months. That means that our countryside now stands virtually unprotected against speculative development, yet our communities have taken more than 20,000 new homes in the past 10 years. The Central Bedfordshire local plan sets out locations for thousands more, but despite its passage four years ago, key strategic sites in that plan sit without a single shovel having been put in the ground. This Government must hold the builders to account to get on and build things, and not put the blame for our broken planning system on my constituents’ desire to avoid flooded homes or see a GP.

Looking ahead, this Government are asking our communities in Bedfordshire to take tens of thousands of additional new homes. That future housing pressure will put our communities under huge additional strain. We need the Government to work with us to do more to ensure that developers deliver what they promise—and deliver it at the right point in development.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. Issues with leasehold, fleecehold and management companies might seem quite parochial, but they are actually quite pernicious and affect an ever-growing number of homeowners across the country. As the CMA pointed out, with over 80% of new developments now subject to fleecehold, it is increasingly the default model for housing delivery. That means that thousands of new homeowners across the country are on the hook for what is effectively a stealth tax, trapped paying a management company for a service—or the lack of a service—that a council would normally provide.

Alongside that, the agency that home ownership is meant to deliver is being undercut. Residents are often hit by punitive mortgage charges by overly penal management companies, and their home sales can fall through as a result of companies not providing paperwork quickly and efficiently. If we are going to live up to our ambition to deliver on the aspiration of home ownership for many more households across the country, we clearly have to tackle fleecehold, which is why I was so pleased to see the commitment in the Labour manifesto to do that.

What do we do? We know that switching on some of the regulatory provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act from the last Parliament will have some benefits for these homeowners, but we need to go much further. My ten-minute rule Bill, which was introduced before the recess, set out some important measures on the right to manage and on common adoptable standards, as well as on mandatory adoptions. I think that those will go a long way towards starting to tackle this issue at source for future households.

We need to think about what more we can do to support those homes that are already being impacted. We also need to think about what more we can do in the interim to prevent more unadopted estates from becoming the norm before we can act. I was pleased to join over 50 colleagues in writing to a number of large developers to challenge them on what more they can do with local authorities to prevent unadopted estates from becoming the norm. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on what more we can do in the meantime to move on that ambition.

Town Centres

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Murphy]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend and look forward to seeing auctions playing a role in rejuvenating high streets such as those in Basingstoke and in her constituency. I also welcome the Government’s action on small business access loans in the Budget, with £250 million for the British Business Bank’s small business loan programmes.

We know that the high streets of tomorrow will not look like those of the past. The modern consumer is looking for more than a place to shop. They are looking for an experience, and a reason to visit that goes beyond everyday retail. Independent, forward-facing business owners such as those running the Dice Tower and the Post Box in Basingstoke, which provide engaging experiences alongside the food and drink offerings, show that they already understand the habits of their customers. Events and experiences are clearly the future of the high street.

Innovation is the way forward for our town centres. A shift towards more diverse, mixed-use developments, integrating housing, leisure, culture, banking hubs, centres of education and public services, will help to create more vibrant high streets where people want to spend time and money. Alongside innovation, we must also address the factors that deter footfall.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the importance of regenerating our high streets with a new modern vision for their success. Does he agree that, for them to be successful, they must be seen to be safe? That is why it is so important that this Government do not tolerate, as the last Government did, a rise in antisocial behaviour and retail crime. A strong neighbourhood policing presence is required to assure residents that our high streets really are there for them, safely, when they need them.

[Luke Murphy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend—I was just about to come on to that point. Antisocial behaviour and retail crime remain significant barriers to a thriving town centre. I am sure that businesses in his constituency have shared with him, as those in mine have shared with me, their frustrations over theft, vandalism, drug use, knife crime and things like illegal car meets. These are not merely nuisances; they are economic threats that drive shoppers away and force businesses to close. Labour’s plan to tackle these challenges head on—with robust action to tackle antisocial behaviour, stronger powers for local police and more town-centre policing, as well as support for businesses to invest in safety measures—is critical to restoring confidence in our town centres.

Since 2014, our police force has been diminished and retailers have been left to fend for themselves against the so-called low-level crime of shoplifting, which we know is absolutely nothing of the sort. It wrecks the bottom line and puts staff and shoppers in harm’s way.

I am glad to see the Government tackling shoplifting by reversing the rule under the previous Government that meant that the police would not usually investigate shoplifting of goods worth less than £200. Only by putting more police on the streets and empowering them to tackle shoplifting and antisocial behaviour can this Labour Government truly bring consumer and business confidence back to town centres like ours in Basingstoke. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the recent work in his Department to support high street businesses that continue to be victims of antisocial behaviour and retail crime.

The recent Budget provided £1.9 billion of support to small businesses and the high street in the next financial year by freezing small business multipliers and providing 40% relief on bills for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, up to a £110,000 cash cap. I welcome those measures, but would also be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the Government’s plans to deliver the promised permanent reform of business rates. This is an absolute key issue that is raised with me time and again whenever I am in the Top of the Town.

Building Safety and Resilience

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

An enviable choice of hon. Friends wish to intervene. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern).

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is clearly very popular. I want to follow up on the compelling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who said that a lot of the issues we have talked about today are exacerbated by the fact that the owners of the buildings—the freeholders, in these cases—are not always willing to fulfil their obligations to do right by their tenants. This Government are committed to enacting legislation to bring in the important reforms needed to truly bring an end to the problematic nature of leasehold relationships. Will the Minister be working closely with others in his Department to ensure building safety is at the heart of those regulations, so we have a joined-up approach to tackling the issue at its root?

[Alex Norris]

I will come back to what we are going to do about leasehold in more detail in a second, but the principles are exactly as he says. We will be holding those principles in our heads as we consider our response to the report, to ensure our actions, legislative or otherwise, meet the moment.

Building Homes

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Alistair Strathern.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister will be all too aware of the extent to which the planning system is failing communities like mine. It is not building the affordable homes that people are crying out for, not delivering the infrastructure my growing communities need, and not even protecting some of the nature-rich parts of our countryside. Opposition Members might not like to hear this, but under the last Government, green-belt approvals, often haphazard, increased tenfold, while brownfield approvals halved. Will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that her golden rules will ensure that brownfield and greyfield sites are truly prioritised, and that infrastructure and affordability will be prioritised too, so that we finally deliver growth that works for communities like mine?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the haphazard way in which the green belt has been built upon under the last Government, although some of the responses that I have had from Opposition Members give the impression that that never happened. I am clear that brownfield should always be the first port of call, which is why we have been making brownfield development easier under the NPPF. We will also take firm action to limit the scope to game the system, and consult on how to stop developers who have paid over the odds for land using that as an excuse for negotiating down their section 106 contributions. A number of measures, including our golden rules, will ensure that we push towards brownfield. The release of grey belt has to be within our golden rules.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Between them, the local planning authority and the Environment Agency should always find the most appropriate sites for development and take hydrology and water management into consideration. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and may contact him in due course.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

10. Whether he has had recent discussions with local authorities on adopting private roads on new estates.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

The adoption of roads is largely an issue for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who leads on that policy, but I know—because we have spoken about this in the Committee considering the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill—that the hon. Gentleman has a significant interest in this matter. We understand the strength of feeling about it, and we are considering it further.

[Alistair Strathern]

Across the country, homeowners in a state of adoption limbo are being left exposed to exploitative and often unaccountable management companies. Despite their warm words, sadly the Government did not take any of the actions that the Competition and Markets Authority urged them to take in order to end the issue of fleecehold once and for all. Given that the Secretary of State is rumoured to be on the lookout for legacy accomplishments, will the Minister urge his colleagues to finally act on this issue during the current Parliament, or will fleecehold be yet another issue left for the next Government to tackle?

[Lee Rowley]

With the best will in the world, the CMA report was published a few days ago, and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill had been progressing through the House for a number of months before that. As for the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, I hope he will accept, as other Members, including his colleagues, have done, that the Bill is a significant improvement for estate management, providing the right of redress to a tribunal, further information and the right to absolute clarity on service charges. All those changes have been rightly demanded by residents, and we are considering carefully whether there is anything further than we can do.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The House sees my hon. Friend’s passion, which he demonstrated in Committee and is demonstrating again today. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch made passionate cases in Committee.

I recognise that this is a real and significant problem, and there is a huge iniquity at stake. I have heard from colleagues, both today and previously, about why we should act, and we are currently working through the detail of the issue. We will report back to the House with more details shortly.

Finally, a comprehensive debate in Committee on freehold estates was led by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). He is a committed campaigner on this issue, and I know that many other Members also have very strong views. I have also been involved in this in places such as Alderman Park and Hunloke Grove in my constituency. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue, and we are considering it further.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Residents of estates across my constituency are trapped in extortive relationships with unaccountable private management companies while their estates go unadopted. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State expressed his willingness to bring forward and consider measures to make sure that residents have the right to manage on such estates, at a bare minimum, before considering wider action. Is there any reason why the Government would not accept new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Minister to finally give the residents of these estates the right to manage and to get out of these extortive relationships?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman made that case in Committee, and I am grateful to him for that and for repeating it today. As I say, we understand the strength of feeling on the issue and are considering it further.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; it is a habit that I hope he continues because I think there is common ground here. When it comes to common adoptable standards, Ministers have often put it to me—the Minister no doubt will; previous Ministers have done—that local authorities have the tools they need to drive up the standards of public amenities that are constructed, but there is clearly something going wrong in that they are not ensuring that those standards are in place. As a consequence—not in every instance, but in many—local authorities have good reason to be reluctant to take them on.

We have tabled amendment 150 in an attempt to challenge the Government to consider how they might utilise the regulatory framework introduced by part 4 to drive up the standards of public amenities on the estates in question—that is the other half of the equation that I think we are all agreed we need. Our amendment would ensure that services or works on private or mixed-tenure estates that are required as a result of defects in construction are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management. I think that, rather than the amendment of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, would be the incentive that developers need to ensure that high standards are in place at the point that they hand the estate over. Ours is consciously a probing amendment and I hope the Minister will understand and appreciate the problem that it attempts to address, as does the hon. Member’s amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to add my weight to the comments of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I wholeheartedly share the concerns on this issue expressed by my Bedfordshire neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. I know that, like me, he has received a lot of correspondence from constituents who find themselves with a variety of challenges and exposed by a situation whereby regulation simply has not kept pace with best practice.

As the CMA outlined last year, we have gone from a situation in which it was simply the norm that estates were adopted by the local authority to one in which that is far from the norm. In the last week, I have spoken to residents right across my constituency who have faced incredibly high service charges. Estate management companies are looking for the next frontier for their rent-seeking behaviour, often by charging fees for services that would normally be covered by council tax. Such is the fragmentation on estates, as the shadow Minister set out, that they sometimes even duplicate the fees charged by other management companies on the same estate.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 25th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the shadow Minister for the amendment. Again, while I understand and acknowledge the underlying intent behind it, and share his inclination to reduce the cost for leaseholders to exercise the rights to form a company and bring a claim, we will not accept the amendment today for reasons that I will explain. It is perfectly clear that, and I think we will all accept this across the Committee, up until now the situation has been balanced in favour of landlords, who have been able to recover their process costs from leaseholders at times. The Bill will change that, as has been acknowledged, and will significantly broaden the cases in which each party will be required to bear their own costs. However, it is important that we take steps to protect landlords from unfair costs.

On amendment 7, the Government judge that it would be unfair if a landlord were required to meet their own process costs where a right to manage claim is withdrawn or ceases to have effect as a direct result of unreasonable conduct from the RTM company. The power for the tribunal to order payment of costs for such ceased claims also includes protections for leaseholders. The landlord will not be entitled to costs automatically and it will be necessary to make an application to the tribunal for an order to that effect. If the tribunal does not consider that costs should be payable, it can decline to make an order. I note that the shadow Minister acknowledged that in his initial remarks.

In aggregate, and with that in mind, my and the Government’s view is that, while the cost regime must change, if the amendment were passed, it would expose freeholders to the risk of facing burdensome and unfair costs. I ask the shadow Minister, if he is willing, to withdraw the amendment.

Turning to clause 23 itself, as has been indicated, leaseholders bringing forward a right to manage claim currently face unknown and potentially significant costs. That is because, under current rules, they must meet reasonable costs of a landlord as well as their own costs, and the costs of others often run into thousands of pounds. Those costs—also known as non-litigation costs—include professional services, surveyors, accountants and insurers from which a landlord may incur costs as a result of the claim. Clause 23 seeks to help by removing the requirement for right to manage companies and their leaseholder members to contribute towards those non-litigation costs, meaning that both parties to a claim will bear their own. It does so by replacing the existing cost regime in the 2002 Act.

A requirement that landlords should bear their costs means that they have an incentive to keep costs down, which hopefully reduces some of the issues that the shadow Minister highlighted, and to process claims quickly because they will not be able to pass those costs on to leaseholders bringing forward the claim, potentially reducing the overall cost for both landlords and leaseholders. To protect landlords from frivolous right to manage claims, the clause includes an exception, so landlords can claim costs where the claim has been withdrawn, abandoned, struck out or otherwise ceases, or where a RTM company has acted unreasonably. Under those circumstances, as has been outlined, the landlords can apply to a tribunal.

To reduce existing obstructions to the process, the clause amends the 2002 Act to ensure that a person complying with the duty to provide information cannot withhold supplying a copy of a document to a right to manage company on the basis that they are waiting to receive a reasonable fee. However, the right to manage company will still be liable for reasonable cost of a person complying with that duty.

The clause also removes the current one-way cost shifting rule for litigant costs, which means that only landlords can currently claim the litigation costs from the RTM company, if they are successful. It is only fair that parties to litigation should bear their own costs, and that is the change that has been made.

Finally, the clause prevents landlords from passing costs on to leaseholders via the service charge. We believe that, in aggregate, these measures will reduce uncertainty in making a right to management claim by making sure that each side to a claim bears their own costs. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to support the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Although I welcome much of the Minister’s message about removing some of the deterrents to taking on the right to manage on estates, having spoken to a number of residents and campaigners in my constituency, I know that if the clause is not removed it will continue to be a real deterrent and to expose them to a risk of significant financial liability that they would be poorly placed to take on. I know the Minister has already set out that he is unwilling to support the amendment today, but I hope that the Government will reflect on whether they might be willing to come back to the point to ensure there is no unnecessary deterrent to leaseholders in obtaining the right to manage effectively.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for his response. There are two differences of opinion, the first of which is on the principled point of whether it is right that leaseholders should be charged for exercising their statutory right. We lean quite strongly towards the argument that they should not be, in principle.

The more pertinent argument for me is the second point I made, which, in all fairness, I do not think the Minister addressed. Let us be clear: in many respects, the Bill forces the Government to judge the right balance to strike between the interests of leaseholders and landlords. In coming to that view, the Bill has to account for the possibility that it creates quite perverse incentives, and I do not think it does that here or in a number of other places. This is one example of where that might happen. If a landlord wants to frustrate, disrupt or stop an RTM claim, the way in which the Government have implemented the exception to the general rule will incentivise them to fight the claim on the basis that they can try and convince the adjudicating party that the claim is defective, in the hope of recovering costs. A leaseholder exploring whether to take forward a claim is then faced with the risk of significant liabilities, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire.

That will deter a huge number of leaseholders from exercising the right. Landlords will know it and fight more claims because they know that the deterrent effect of the exception to the general rule will be quite powerful in a number of cases. We argue quite strongly that we should just end the process costs for leaseholders as a matter of principle. That will incentivise many more groups of leaseholders to seek to acquire the right to manage. For that reason, we are minded to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Alistair Strathern Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. As I said before, and as I think the Secretary of State acknowledged, there is a lot of work to be done in Committee on these issues. Hopefully, we will be able to help the Secretary of State improve his own Bill, which needs significant improvements.

[Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I suspect that my right hon. Friend will welcome the strengthening of the regulation of management companies in the Bill, but we need to go further. Just last Friday, I had some heartbreaking conversations with residents on the Froghall Fields estate in Flitwick—a lovely part of the world with which I am sure many Members will be familiar from the by-election—who have been left brutally exposed to successive failed management companies by ongoing adoption conversations with the council that are dragging on and on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more we can do to strengthen the proposed regulations in this area, to ensure that my long-suffering residents finally get the redress and resolution they deserve?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am so pleased about the work he has been doing since he was elected to this place and the way in which he has been a real champion of his constituents, which they did not feel they had previously. He makes a really important point, and he is right to point out the huge problem of estate agent charges and fees. The steps the Government are taking to address the issue are welcome, of course, but we absolutely believe there is room to improve the measures in the Bill. The shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), will look to do so in Committee.