Homes and Planning Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Friday 13th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest—a non-pecuniary interest—as a member of the Cornwall Rural Housing Association for many years and a volunteer board member of the Cornwall Community Land Trust. Both charities are, as I will refer to later, deeply engaged in the delivery of affordable homes.

The purpose of this Bill is to create tools that can be used—or not, as local communities and local authorities choose—to assist communities that are determined to address the desperate housing needs in their area. I think that all Members present today are here on behalf of their constituents who are concerned about the impact of the current circumstances in which many people are living. Certainly in my part of the world—west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—the housing needs of local families are extreme. Many people are living on the streets and thousands of families are on the Homechoice housing register.

I acknowledge, but regret, that the Government intend to block the Bill today—the Minister might use gentler language, but that is effectively what it amounts to. As a humble Back Bencher, I do not have the army of civil servants across a leviathan of Government Departments to assist me in drafting the legislation, so I appreciate that my version may not be quite as perfect as Government draftspeople would like. I acknowledge that there may be some technical deficiencies, but the purpose, intention and benefits of the Bill are clear and sound, and technicalities could be very easily ironed out in the remaining stages of the Bill.

I have already explained to the Minister that if the Government remain uncomfortable with the first part of the Bill, the community-led homes and the community rights element, I would be content to find another way, with the co-operation of the Minister and the Government, and have that part removed if necessary in Committee so that we can at least proceed with the second part, the planning use class element, which, after all, simply implements policy that was implemented by the Labour party in Wales. It is not unusual, even for Governments, to declare on Second Reading, as I have just done, an intention to amend in Committee. The Government did so with the Representation of the People Bill on 2 March this year—in column 625 of Hansard.

I am not new to this procedure. As long-standing Members will remember, in 2014 I was very fortunate to come first in the ballot for private Members’ Bills. On 5 September that year I brought forward an echo of today’s Bill, the Affordable Homes Bill. It succeeded on Second Reading and 540-plus Members of Parliament were here to enjoy the occasion. It was keenly contested to get it through Second Reading. Although it was ultimately unsuccessful in its remaining stages—through, I have to say, unacceptable mechanisms used by the Conservatives, during the coalition years—one of its primary purposes was to abolish the bedroom tax on social housing. All Labour MPs at that time were happy to support me in delivering that aim, but since the Labour party came into power I have not seen it do that. It is having a detrimental impact on how housing charities go forward with their development policies. We are building far too many smaller homes and not giving ourselves the flexibility to accommodate larger families. That is a result of the pressures caused by the bedroom tax, quite apart from its immediate impact on people who live in social housing.

The Bill does not impose from the centre but offers a menu of policy options for local authorities and communities to adopt if they deem that helpful in their area. It has broad, cross-party support, including from the local Labour party in my area. Indeed, those who read yesterday’s Hansard will see that I presented a petition, the signatures to which were gathered by the local Labour party in St Ives. The petition was handed to me by a local Labour activist, Cornelius Olivier, who was a candidate against me in a general election. Nevertheless, we work together, and he strongly supports the Bill because he can see the impact of the pressures not only on west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, but on many other places across the country. It may not be the same everywhere, but pressures certainly exist in our area, which is why we need a change in legislation to assist such areas.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Only this week I was contacted by a single mother who is set to become homeless very soon. The letting agent demanded evidence of an income of £39,000—Torbay has the third-lowest average income in the country, at £27,000. I would welcome my good friend’s thoughts on how the Bill will provide levers to supply more affordable homes for families such as that of this lady in need.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The problem experienced by his constituent is replicated throughout the country. It certainly is in my area, and I am sure the situation is the same in a tourism area such as Torbay. We looked on the internet—in the days when one could look on the internet—and found that 2,700 holiday lets and Airbnbs were available in the constituency, but there was not a single home for private rent within the local housing allowance. Some 65 private rents were available, but at rents significantly above the local housing allowance. That shows the degree of imbalance in areas such as ours, where there is an incentive for those who own more than one property to make their properties available for the holiday trade, rather than as affordable housing for local people.

The Bill’s purpose is to empower local communities to deliver affordable homes. I will come to the relevant clauses in a moment.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

For the past two years I have been trying to get suitable accommodation for Chantelle Black, a lady who lives in Devizes and has seven children. She is forced to live in a two-bed flat. Suitable accommodation to house her simply is not available. Such problems need to be addressed.

[Andrew George]

I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to assist Chantelle to pursue all the potential routes by which her housing need can be met. I often hold a casework surgery in my constituency on a Friday morning—I seem to be holding one now in the Chamber. Perhaps I should invite others to bring forward their cases, although I do not wish to make light of the seriousness of the issue.

As I said, the Labour party in my constituency supports the Bill. Indeed, my constituent Cornelius Olivier, whom I mentioned earlier, has travelled all the way to London, and we delivered his petition, with nearly 2,000 signatures, to Downing Street, and indeed to Parliament, last night.

I also note that the Conservatives support the proposals in the Bill. Only a few years ago, in February 2024, the now Lord Gove announced that the Conservatives intended to bring in a change of the use-class order to require those wishing to convert a permanently occupied home to a holiday let to apply for planning permission.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I am just trying to imagine a situation where two identical properties are next door to each other and one is currently being used as a second home. In those circumstances, under this Bill, would that property automatically have rights to be a second home with planning permission? What impact would that have on the value of the two homes in comparison with each other?

[Andrew George]

Markets find their own equilibrium. If the hon. Member is indicating his objection, his question should presumably be directed to his colleagues in Wales, who have already implemented this policy. There would certainly be a presumption that properties currently used as second or holiday lets, which would then need to be registered, would form part of that register. But the purpose here is to assist in communities where there is a risk of a proliferation of the properties that are desperately needed for permanent occupancy ebbing away from the local community and going into non-permanent use.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I wonder whether he recognises that some people are advocating instead for a licensing-based scheme, which moves away from a planning system that is arguably insufficiently funded and does not give planning authorities the means to carry out enforcement at later dates. A licensing scheme, in contrast, would give them income; importantly, it would also not be permanent, and would give the people issuing the licences the ability to remove them if they have been given to inappropriate landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I think the hon. Member misunderstands what this is about, and he also misunderstands what the Government’s proposal with regard to a licensing system would do and achieve. A licensing system is really just a bit of superficial dressing on the side, quite frankly, as far as actually getting to the nub of the issue. First off, a licensing system would apply only to holiday lets, not second homes, and would not give the local community any power to put a cap on the numbers within a particular area in order to manage the stock.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will know, as I do, that this is about not just the housing crisis, but communities. In Blakeney, in my constituency, four out of 10 houses are either second homes or holiday lets; this can have a devastating impact on community cohesion, particularly out of season. Does he agree that that is partly why his Bill is so important?

[Andrew George]

Yes, absolutely. The registration scheme is welcome—it will be a helpful side issue as far as actually addressing and getting to the nub of the problem.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

rose—

[Andrew George]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, could he explain whether he supports what the Labour party has done in Wales?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am ambiguous about what Labour has done in Wales on planning. I was genuinely asking what the impact has been on the prices of properties. What is important to me, though, is that we have not yet proposed a licensing scheme in this country. The hon. Member made the point about giving communities the power to put a cap on numbers, and such a scheme could be used with a cap. Does he agree that if a licensing scheme came with the power for communities to cap numbers, it could be a more powerful tool than planning, which gives planning permission in perpetuity?

[Andrew George]

First of all—

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Read the Bill!

[Andrew George]

As my hon. Friend shouts correctly, it is obvious that the hon. Member has not read the Bill. When a property changes hands, any permission would need to be renewed, so it is not in perpetuity at all. He has completely misunderstood that.

The hon. Member says that there is a cap. Well, that is a step forward, but it was very interesting that the Conservatives brought forward a proposal to introduce a planning use class, as well as a registration scheme. A registration scheme would be useful. I know that he has been encouraged by the Whips to come and make a brave defence of the Government’s opposition to this Bill, and I give him some credit for that, but frankly, a registration scheme does not cut the mustard. It is a useful and interesting sideshow, but it has no relevance and will not address this issue. I would have thought that there are a lot of second homes and holiday lets in the hon. Member’s area, so he should understand that this is a serious issue. Having a licensing scheme is not the answer.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Member supportive of taking further steps towards licensing and the potential introduction of caps, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)? I am sure that he is, but can he confirm that he would be happy with that direction of travel?

[Andrew George]

In case I have not made it clear, a licensing scheme is welcome. That will play a small role, but only in relation to holiday lets in a particular area. It will not have the impact that I think this Bill would have.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

A community in the countryside—not coastal—recently contacted me about an agricultural building that was given permission under class Q to become a residential property. The neighbours talk about how often it is being advertised on Airbnb and the problems caused by people coming in and out. Cleaners are coming in and out, causing disruption. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had a system like the one in London, where a property can be rented for a limited number of nights for it to remain a residential property, that would allow local authorities to work with the planning scheme? People could be told, “If you want to rent out your property for 100 days”—or whatever figure it is—“a year, you now need to register a change of use class.” Neighbours are becoming frustrated by properties changing from agricultural to residential to holiday, and that is not what was intended.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As a result of tax changes, we have seen properties moving from holiday lets to second homes, and from second homes to holiday lets. It is relatively easy to move from the council tax register to the business rates register.

Of course, the vast majority of holiday lets in places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are owned by people who do not live there. They run the business through agents, and the vast majority of those who apply for small business rate relief end up paying nothing at all. They must have been joyous, and were no doubt popping champagne corks in whichever part of the country they live in—not Cornwall—when the Government announced in the Budget that they would increase the valuation that will be used for small business rate relief, from £12,000 to £18,000. That allows people who are wealthy enough to own a second property to use it for their own leisure purposes, to let it out for holiday purposes or to do both. That is the point, and a lot of holiday letting agents make this quite clear to those people with second homes, “You don’t like paying double council tax on your second home? Well, you can enjoy it and, in the weeks when you’re not using it, you can let it out.” I could give quotes. Certainly, if we look at all the agents’ sites, the advice is clearly there: they say that second homeowners can switch from council tax to business rates, apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing.

[Noah Law]

rose—

[Andrew George]

I will finish this point—no doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) will want to assist me in making it. In Cornwall alone, since the small business rate relief change came in in 2012, well over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has subsidised those people who take advantage of small business rate relief for holiday lets. Admittedly, a large amount of that was covid aid—whether they should have been entitled to that is a moral question one might want to ask—but the fact is that that amount of our taxpayers’ money is being used subsidise people who, in many cases, are wealthy enough to have a second home. They enjoy that second home, using it for themselves, but do not live in the area and let it out to the holiday trade, yet we have not got enough money to invest for the many thousands of families in places like Cornwall who have desperate housing need.

I am trying to persuade the Minister to change his mind, and surely regulations that were better defined through planning law and registrations would help us to manage this better, close the tax reliefs and invest money better in social housing for the people who need and deserve it.

[Noah Law]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. Notwithstanding some of the issues that it can create, I hope he welcomes the dozens of high street businesses in his constituency and mine being lifted out of the business rate system entirely through some of those valuation changes; I hope he will confirm that he supports that. Does he agree that we need a co-ordinated approach to tackling the real, stark example he gave of second homeowners flipping between their two properties to avoid taxes? We need an approach that addresses that across the planning regime, taxation and licensing. It is essential that we get that co-ordination and the right level of property taxation for such properties.

[Andrew George]

I welcome that intervention, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about small business rate relief on retail, hospitality and leisure, especially for those in the hospitality sector, who in many cases—certainly in my constituency, as in his—are on their knees as far as future viability is concerned. At the end of the day, if one wanted to disaggregate the holiday letting fraternity from that definition, the Bill could be one means of doing that. If we had a planning register, we could see them all with their C6 categorisation, which would help us to say, “This category is exempt from the small business rate relief system.” Then we would not be wasting money in that area; we could instead invest it where it is desperately needed.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s Bill on housing, which is such an important issue to constituents across the country, as he said. In London, dark flats—flats not used by anyone—are a big issue for us; at the same time, more than 8,000 people are registered on the social housing waiting list and 4,000 families are in temporary accommodation. Many mums criss-cross London, taking their children to get on buses to school and back. Does he agree that the issue is not just having more homes, but where those homes are, so that they are connected to jobs and support networks and make life affordable for people in many other ways?

[Andrew George]

I entirely agree. Although I have highlighted rural and coastal areas such as my own, I am well aware that London and many inner urban areas also have an issue with the proliferation of second homes.

In fact, that brings me to what I was hoping to talk about some moments ago: the clauses of the Bill itself. The first four—the community-led homes element of the Bill—are simply a logical extension of community rights relating to assets of community value. The powers would simply extend those rights to the identification of land or buildings either in or adjoining a community. That would enable a local community organisation to advance a project to deliver affordable homes for local communities.

I declared an interest as having been a professional in this sector in the past, and I am still a volunteer in it; I therefore have some experience of being involved with local communities that wish to address their local housing needs. This is the opposite of the nimby: the yimby. This is, “Yes, please, in our backyard; we would like affordable homes,” not more unaffordable homes, which is what the planning system seems to deliver for many local communities in areas like mine.

How can we deliver more affordable homes? The way to do it, if all potential development sites are taken, is to undertake a call for land. In many of the cases in which I was doing that, through community land trusts or parish and town councils, there would be no response: the price available for affordable housing on rural exception sites was significantly more than the agricultural value currently available to the landowner, but less than might be available to that landowner—easily by a factor of 10 or 100—if the land were to get planning permission for unaffordable, open-market housing. Landowners therefore would not come forward with sites to deliver affordable housing. The purpose of the first four clauses is to give communities the powers—as a community right—to identify that land. That would strengthen the ability of communities—through parish and town councils, community land trusts and other community-led organisations—to meet unmet local housing need, including through the delivery of in-perpetuity social and affordable housing.

The Bill contains a number of safeguards. The local authority must be consulted, and land made available would have to be at a scale commensurate with the moderate growth of the community. Provisions would prevent the expropriation of private gardens and similar land, there would be a vacancy and utilisation test, and powers would be exercised only as a last resort, after a call for land and all other measures had been pursued.

The planning background to the Bill is that in places such as Cornwall we have for decades followed the policies of successive Governments in meeting very high house building targets. Indeed, Cornwall has been one of the fastest growing places for housing in the United Kingdom—almost trebling its housing stock in the past 60 years—and yet the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. One of the lessons that one learns from this is that pursuing a policy of a means to an end rather than an end in itself—that is, the building of homes, rather than meeting the need—has been an abject failure. This Bill would put need first, rather than simply building homes.

Cornwall has had its house building targets significantly increased—almost doubled—as a result of the Government’s changes to housebuilding targets. That has resulted in the counter-productive outcome that sites previously identified for affordable homes—rural exception sites on the edge of towns and villages—have, as a result of planning appeals, had those permissions changed to now deliver unaffordable homes. In other words, all the affordability has been stripped out of the development, and planning inspectors have been obliged to permit those homes to be delivered purely as open market homes.

The reason that the planning inspectors have said this is the case—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering at me; I am very happy to take an intervention from him if he wishes. Planning inspectors have said that because local authorities have had the rug pulled from underneath them, they are no longer able to demonstrate that they have a five-year supply of land. It takes two or three years for a local authority to go through the process to identify sites. Cornwall had identified a five-year land supply at a prior stage, but when the Government announced the new figures, it immediately no longer had that.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

To clarify for the hon. Gentleman, where an adopted up-to-date local plan was in place at the point we introduced the new national planning policy framework, its housing need requirement remained as per that adopted plan. Transitional arrangements were put in place. Yes, as the system progresses, local authorities will have to plan on the basis of the new standard method, but it is not the case to say that when we changed the NPPF in December 2024, immediately across the country those new targets kicked in everywhere.

[Andrew George]

In that case, the Minister has not explained that to his planning inspectors. If he looks at the appeal reference APP/D0840/W/25/3367358 for land east of Meneth, Bonallack Lane, Gweek in my constituency, he will see that Inspector Harrington was very clear on 23 February 2025 that a location that previously had permission for an all-affordable rural exception site was converted to an open market site, purely as a result of the lack of a five-year land supply. I think the Minister needs to look at this again. We need additional tools to address the housing need of local people because the current tools are simply not working; indeed, they have been undermined by the Government’s own policy.

The problem with the house building target approach is that it is built on a delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their finished product. We have found over a decade—certainly in Cornwall—that developers will only deliver their homes at times when the market is buoyant, and they will not collude with Government in order to achieve those outcomes.

I know the Government have a series of concerns with the Bill and, in the interests of time, I will quickly rattle through them. They say there is a risk it is not compatible with property rights under the European convention on human rights. I do not think that applies as far as the powers of my Bill are concerned. In any case, there would be other measures that we could introduce that would resolve these issues and provide additional safeguards.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The way the Bill has been presented is interesting. The hon. Gentleman says he does not think that the ECHR guidelines apply—surely we need more reassurance than just his thoughts. We are talking about a housing crisis here. I have been listening carefully to all the points being made, and I can see the benefits, but they all seem quite incremental. Can he outline the scale of the difference that he thinks the Bill will make, bearing in mind that we face a housing crisis?

[Andrew George]

Well, that was a very interesting intervention. This is a private Member’s Bill and I am a Back Bencher. I do not have a magic wand—neither do the Government, evidently—with which I can change things overnight. This is not going to change the tectonic plates of policy; it is a private Member’s Bill dealing with one element of how communities can respond to their own desperate housing needs. It is a tool that would be available to them. The hon. Member needs to wake up to the reality of the scope of private Members’ Bills.

[Dr Arthur]

I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he is presenting the Bill in the context of a massive housing emergency. It would be good to get some clarity on how many additional homes would become available in Cornwall, say, if the Bill were passed—not a precise number, just an estimate so that we can get a feel for the impact that it would have.

[Andrew George]

If one person were housed, would the hon. Member think that a waste of time? Of course I would want to see the approach scaled up, because it is a principle that could be adopted in every single community. We are talking about a potential impact on a high scale.

I disagree with the hon. Member’s point about the ECHR. In any case, that could be ironed out in Committee. As I say, if I need to find alternative routes to achieve the Bill’s aims, I will. If necessary, I will take the relevant provisions out of the Bill rather than allowing progress to be stalled on a good idea that we should pursue—in my view, obviously.

I know that the Government will say that there are already powers in the planning framework and routes to identifying and assembling land for development, but those are not as properly and fully available to community-led projects as they are to larger developers. The community-led homes sector has not found that the Government’s measures have assisted it in achieving the outcomes that it needs.

On holiday homes, clauses 5 and 6 would provide communities with powers of control, to be adopted in areas that wish to pursue this approach. I emphasise that this is driven not by the politics of envy, but by the politics of social justice, as I hope I have already made clear. I spoke recently to someone on the Isles of Scilly who is in his early 50s. His parents separated when he was eight, and since then he has moved more than 60 times on the islands, from garages to winter lets to temporary accommodation. He holds down an important job on the island, as does his partner, who works in the public sector. Those are not unusual circumstances. [Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members think that is funny, but it is a serious issue in our area.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I do not find any of this funny, actually. There are 3,000 people in my city who are on a council waiting list, and we have a council that built less than 40 homes and has not even brought back the homes that we had. I do not find it funny that all we hear is tumbleweed when we ask our Liberal Democrat council to do anything to house people. We need to ensure that people use the rules that they have, so we can get proper housing and so people are not moved 10 times.

[Andrew George]

There are 25,000 people on the housing waiting list in Cornwall, and the surveys that I and others have carried out professionally indicate that that is the tip of the iceberg. There are many people who do not put their name on the waiting list because they know that it is a complete waste of time, as they stand very little chance.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech about the issue, which he is passionate about and has spent his life campaigning on. The Government Members saying that Cornwall needs to build more were clearly not listening when he said that Cornwall has an exemplary record of building houses. In the Chapelfields development in my constituency, 10 affordable homes were put aside for local residents. The developer has now effectively bullied the registered provider out of providing those homes for local residents—and guess what? They are back on the open market. Does my hon. Friend agree that these massive housebuilding targets are meaningless unless they are focused on local residents who need the housing?

[Andrew George]

I strongly agree. Planning consultants will often say privately that when an affordable element is required within the planning permission, developers will often go to their local authority with two viability assessments—one that they show the local authority with violins and a sob story, and another in their back pocket that has substantial profits for themselves. As a result, the portion of affordable homes delivered on many of the open market-led sites often diminishes to none at all. It is a system where, I am afraid, cynicism has succeeded, and I wish the Government well in trying to bear down on the problem.

My speech has taken a long time because of the number of interventions I have taken. We have had an interesting debate, but I will bring my remarks to a close by reminding the Minister that this policy not only has the support of the local Labour party, but it was also supported by the Conservatives in the past, although I do not know where they are on that at the moment. It has been implemented by the Labour party in Wales. Indeed, I will quote the Minister, who said on 20 January last year, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), that

“the previous Government consulted on making short-term lets a different use class, but did not consult on second homes becoming a use class. As part of our wider consideration about the additional powers we might give local authorities, I am more than happy to have a conversation”—[Official Report, 20 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 713.]

on that issue. This was obviously in his mind at the time, and I do not know why it is not now, because it would certainly assist local communities.

I believe that the Bill represents a range of modest measures—necessarily modest because it is a private Member’s Bill—that would be available to communities to address serious housing problems. The second part of the Bill would particularly apply in those areas where there is high pressure for holiday and second homes, and I urge hon. Members and the Minister to think again and to back the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I agree. What the SNP Scottish Government have done to housing in Scotland is an absolute scandal, and it is affecting the hon. Member’s constituency, just as it affects my own.

I want to dwell a bit on how the national picture has been felt in my constituency. Scottish Borders council has declared a local housing emergency, which is not a phrase any council uses lightly. I pay tribute to my local housing associations in the borders— Eildon, Berwickshire Housing Association, Scottish Borders Housing Association and Waverley. Since the council transferred its housing stock, they have been the only providers of social rented homes in the borders, and they build homes of real quality. However, looking at last year’s figures, it is just not enough.

The Scottish Government allocated £16.2 million to the borders for affordable housing, yet only £10.8 million of that was actually spent. Just 94 affordable homes were delivered against a target of 141. When the money allocated to fix the housing crisis cannot be spent, something in the system is broken. Maybe it is the availability of land, maybe it is the cost of building in rural areas, or maybe it is the inability of planning and infrastructure to keep up; most likely, it is all of them. Those are the questions that I am going to keep pursuing, in order to get answers.

That brings me to rural housing. Too many national housing programmes are designed with cities and big towns in mind. In a village in Berwickshire or in the Teviot valley, a development is six or 10 homes, not 600. There are fewer contractors, connecting to water and electricity costs more, and the cost of building each home is higher. Too often, the numbers simply do not stack up. Rural communities need support for small sites and small local builders. They need backing for community-led housing, and they need flexibility for homes tied to local jobs—farm workers, care staff and people working in tourism and hospitality, whose employers cannot recruit because there is nowhere for staff to live. Without those homes, young people leave, the school rolls fall, the bus service is cut, and the shops close. Housing is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about the future of rural communities.

The Bill puts a particular focus on second homes. I understand why—in parts of Cornwall, the concentration of second homes is extraordinary—but I want to offer a slightly different perspective from the Scottish Borders. I am not opposed to second homes. In many of our smaller and more isolated communities, second home owners are a lifeline. They shop in the village store, eat in the local pub, hire local tradespeople, and support businesses that would otherwise struggle through the quieter months. Many have deep family roots in the borders, and many go on to make them their permanent home. Second homes already make a contribution in the Scottish Borders: Scottish Borders council charges a council tax premium on them, and uses that money to help fund affordable housing and bring empty homes back into use.

As such, I suggest that the answer is a balance. Where second homes become so concentrated that a community is hollowed out, councils should have the tools to act, but in the borders, the main problem is not too many second homes—it is too few new homes. Blaming second home owners is easy; building the homes we need is harder, and that is the task in front of us.

[Andrew George]

I do not think anyone is blaming the individuals. Indeed, I acknowledge that second home owners bring a great deal to their local communities, and many are strong champions and supporters of local initiatives in the way that the hon. Member describes. The purpose of this Bill is simply to give affected communities the power to, if they choose—only if they choose—cap numbers where they think second home ownership might get out of hand.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes an important point, but I think this is about balance. We do not want to stigmatise many of the people coming into rural communities, who are keeping the village shop open and the local tradesmen going during the harder months. I believe there is a balance to be reached. Many councils, and certainly those in Scotland, already have the powers to allow that balance to be reached, such as the second home council tax premium. I think we need to be careful about the language we use regarding second home owners.

That leads me to the planning system. Builders in Scotland say that a shrinking supply of land and poor viability are behind the fall in house building. Planning departments are under-resourced, and decision making takes too long. In the Borders, there is a particular pressure that I want the House to understand: the sheer volume of large electricity infrastructure projects. Wind farms, battery storage, data centres and grid upgrades that have resulted in massive pylons coming across the border—these have all made the Borders the epicentre for the expansion of the energy network.

Most large wind farms are decided by Scottish Ministers through the energy consents unit, not by the council, but the council must still assess each application, respond as a consultee, work through the environmental information and answer to local residents. These applications are often vast and complex. In the past year alone, the council’s planning committee has had to consider proposals such as Scawd Law and Glenburnie. When the council objects, Ministers can and do override it, as they did at Ditcher Law, where the council has now been forced to take legal action to review the Government’s decision.

All of this falls on a planning service that has had little extra support from the Scottish Government. Every hour that a planning officer spends on a 200-metre turbine is an hour not spent on an application for six family homes in a Borders village. If the Scottish Government want councils to deliver their energy ambitions, they must properly supply and resource the planning departments to do the work, and they must also give local communities a proper say.

My final point relates to infrastructure. In my experience, communities are not against new homes; what they are against are new homes without the GP appointments, school places, roads, water and drainage that go with them. Put the infrastructure in first and we win the consent for the homes. In the Borders, that means transport, properly staffed rural schools and nurseries, bus services to all parts of the Borders, well-resourced GP practices and roads without potholes.

The hon. Member for St Ives is absolutely right to raise these issues. Whether it is in Cornwall or the Scottish Borders, the message is the same: people need homes they can afford in the communities they love. That means building more homes. It means a planning system with the resources to do its job, it means recognising that rural areas are different, and it means putting infrastructure in first. The Scottish Government must do better by their rural communities. I will keep pressing them, as I hope the UK Government will, to act on behalf of the families across the Scottish Borders who simply want a place to call home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I will give him a number of examples. The Government are already strengthening the ability of local authorities to work with communities through neighbourhood planning and existing planning powers. We already have the Social Housing Bill going through Parliament, which will address issues to do with the disposal of social housing assets. There are also changes to the types of intermediate housing that can receive Government funding. I question what further value this Bill would deliver.

I appreciate that second homes and holiday lets are significant issues in some parts of the country, particularly coastal and rural areas, and for communities in the south-west of England. But they are in no way a defining feature of the housing market in my constituency of Mansfield, and nor do they reflect the challenges facing my constituents, which are really very different.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman actually helps to make my point. The examples he gave are totally irrelevant to my Bill, by the way. This is, after all, a Bill that proposes a set of tools that are available to communities that wish to take them. If communities in Mansfield do not wish to take those, they will not be imposed on them.

[Steve Yemm]

The issue that constituents regularly raise with me is not second homes but the growing concentration of houses in multiple occupation. I have spoken previously in the House about the impact that excessive concentrations of HMOs have on neighbourhoods in areas such as mine. I therefore want to put on record my strong welcome of the work being undertaken by Mansfield district council to assess the case for an article for direction in that respect.

It follows concerns raised by local residents and representations that I have made over the past year. I am pleased that the council in Mansfield, other local authorities and the Government are taking those concerns seriously and moving to give local communities such as mine a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhood.

Perhaps a more important issue in my constituency is the shortage of social housing. Identifying land and extending community rights can play a role, but those measures are not a substitute for a clear, deliverable approach to increasing the supply of council and housing association homes that people desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin]

I could not agree more. I know that councils up and down the country have been battling, but it is the national choices made that have put us in this position.

[Andrew George]

I agree with everything the hon. Member just said. I was on the Government Benches during the coalition years, and I opposed those measures; indeed, many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues did their best to try to face them down. But may I get some clarity? From what I understand, the hon. Member and other Labour Members are saying that my Bill—this sensible piece of legislation—should be opposed and blocked by the Government as punishment for the coalition years. So it is purely petty party political point scoring. Should we not be doing better?

[Andrew Lewin]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention. That is not my position at all. My position is that we need—[Interruption.] Let me answer. We need a national answer to the housing crisis, and I was setting the scene of why we are in the place we are today. I am about to reflect on what we need to do differently and what the Government have already done in their first two years in office.

First, and most importantly, we have had a sustained and significant increase in Government funding for social housing via the affordable homes programme. A 10-year settlement of £39 billion was initially announced—a 60% increase on what went before—topped up by £1.5 billion announced just a couple of weeks ago in the Budget specifically for council housing. [Interruption.] No, I recognise that some Liberal Democrat Members are in agreement, but it is also the case that this is about big macroeconomic choices. This was a choice by the Government to spend more money on housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am just going to make a bit of progress. I am happy to give way later.

As the hon. Member for St Ives knows from our recent discussions, despite agreeing with the Bill’s overarching intention, namely to support the housing needs of local people, the Government unfortunately cannot support it for the reasons I will set out in as much detail as I can in the time available to me. However, I want to reiterate from the outset that the Government recognise the acute need for social and affordable homes in rural and coastal communities. We understand and appreciate fully that many local authorities want more tools to bear down on excessive concentrations of second homes and short-term lets within them.

As the hon. Gentleman set out in opening the debate, the Bill contains essentially two measures: one relating to land for affordable housing, and the other concerning planning controls in relation to second homes and short-term lets. I do not intend to exhaustively detail the Government’s position on each individual clause in the Bill. Instead, I will set out our position in respect of each of these measures, starting with land for affordable housing.

Clauses 1 to 4 extend provisions around assets of community value and the community right to buy, so that they can apply to land for affordable housing. Clause 1 is the core operative clause in the group and we understand the intention behind it. We all want suitable land to provide affordable housing to meet identified local need. However, extending the assets of community value regime to allow vacant, substantially unused or materially underused land to be nominated because of its potential for affordable housing is not, in our view, a proportionate means of achieving that objective.

The new community right to buy, enacted through our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, was carefully designed to balance the legitimate rights of property owners with the ability of communities to protect buildings and land that are important to them. Bringing potentially much larger quantities of land within the assets of community value framework could, in our view, increase interference with property rights in an unjustifiable way.

[Andrew George]

On the franchise point, the Labour party seems to franchise different approaches with both the local Labour party member who delivered the petition in favour of the Bill, and the Welsh Assembly. The Minister heard what I have to say on the issue: these proposals could be improved and streamlined in Committee. If he wishes, we could find another route for that and deliver the second half of the Bill in Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but when a Bill is this flawed—I will come in detail to how it is flawed in several other respects—it is too much to ask the Government essentially to redesign it in Committee, with all the capacity that would require. I will come to what the Government are doing on these issues in due course.

The community right to buy already provides for a 12-month moratorium and a right of first refusal. Extending those effects across a wider class of land might also increase compensation claims against local authorities, including claims arising from delay to a sale or diminution in value following listing. Although the Bill now includes additional evidential requirements and chief planning officer scrutiny, those safeguards do not resolve our fundamental concern about the implications arising from expanding the purpose and reach of the regime.

The national planning policy framework already provides strong support for community-led development, including community-led exception sites, and the August 2026 revisions strengthened and clarified that support. Members are saying that such things are not working, but that measure was introduced only a few months ago. Our considered view is that those changes need time to embed before further primary legislation is considered.

Clauses 2 and 3 concern the identification of land in neighbourhood development plans, and the acquisition of land required to enable affordable housing respectively. Again, we understand the intention behind the clauses, but they seek to add further statutory processes and powers where relevant ones already exist—several hon. Friends made that point in their speeches. Clause 4 seeks to provide a safeguard in respect of the new provisions in clauses 1 to 3, in the form of a limit of one hectare of land for every 1,000 people in an adjacent settlement over each five-year period, thereby aggregating land listed as an asset of community value identified in a neighbourhood plan or authorised for compulsory acquisition. I understand fully why the hon. Member has included that clause in the Bill, and I commend his efforts to try to tweak it to reassure the Government about the effects of clauses 1 to 3, but I am afraid it does not resolve our fundamental concerns about those provisions.

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way, although I can already feel Madam Deputy Speaker’s glare.

[Andrew George]

Unless I am wrong, I will not be given the opportunity to wind up this debate, but on that point, the Minister needs to accept that there are thousands of communities around the country where, irrespective of the Government’s tools—those are all welcome in their own right—if there is a call for land for affordable homes, because of the frailties of the way humans operate, they will not get any offers of land. There have been dozens of cases where there is simply no land available for affordable homes because people want an open market.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about public land and what more can be done in that area. As I said, we strengthened rural exception site policy in the NPPF. I am interested—I have made this offer to him previously, and I make it to other hon. Members—to know why rural exception sites in particular parts of the country are not coming forward at the scale required. On the safeguard, in our view a national hectare-to-population formula risks imposing an arbitrary constraint that may bear little relationship to local need or the characteristics of a particular site. The requirement for population figures, land management, aggregation, record keeping and avoidance also demonstrates the administrative complexity of the model.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a bit of progress. The established planning system is the appropriate framework for assessing housing need, land supply, site suitability and the scale of development in the light of local circumstances. The Government therefore do not believe that the additional statutory ceiling is justified.

I will now turn to clauses 5 and 6 individually, starting with clause 5. I recognise the concern that has given rise to this provision. Excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes can impact the availability and affordability of homes for local residents to buy and to rent, as well as local services, and we agree that local authorities need effective tools to manage those impacts.

However, we believe the clause is problematic for the following reasons. First—I say this gently to the hon. Member for St Ives—the proposal appears to misunderstand the effect of the use classes order. The order is permissive: it provides that a change of use within the same use class is not development, and therefore does not require planning permission. However, it does not provide that a change between different use classes will necessarily require planning permission. The introduction of new use classes C5 and C6 would not therefore automatically mean that a change to or from those uses is a material change of use requiring planning permission, and whether a particular change of use is material would still need to be considered on the facts of the case.

It would also provide for a C5 second home use to cease automatically when a property is sold or otherwise subject to a relevant . A future owner wishing to use it as a second home would need planning permission for that use. Again, this requirement would be subject to specific carve-outs, such as a transfer between spouses or civil partners.

The important point here is that planning use classes run with the land or building and are not based on ownership. Automatic reversion on sale would cut across that established principle and create complexity for property owners, conveyancers and local planning authorities. Furthermore, the proposed exemptions would be at odds with the current functioning of the order and wider legislative scheme.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way a final time.

[Andrew George]

Has the Minister raised this matter with the Senedd? Has the Minister considered what is known as the St Ives clause in neighbourhood development plans, where permissions can be granted for accommodation only where it is specified that they cannot be used for non-permanent occupancy? This already exists in planning law. I am afraid that whoever is advising the Minister is not advising him correctly, because this can be done. It has been done in Wales, and it is being done here as well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? He has expertise in this area, but I think it is slightly rich of him to say that the expertise available to Government, including legal expertise, is wrong on this point. The Welsh Government do have a particular approach, as I have heard mentioned several times today; that does not need to contend with the 90-night short-term let limit in London, which creates additional legislative complexity in England. We are engaging with the Welsh Government, who are due to publish their final impact evaluation on a series of measures, including on planning use classes. As I have said many times in this House, we continue to give serious consideration to what further powers local authorities need in order to bear down on excessive concentrations of second homes and short-term lets.

As I was saying, the clause does not propose that C6 short-term uses would revert to C3 at the point of sale, nor does it propose an alternative method to facilitate the return of existing short-term lets for use as primary dwelling houses. There is therefore an asymmetry in the proposed clause. This could most negatively impact the place most in need of properties reverting from a short-term use to a sole or main residence use.

It is also not clear how the proposed new C3 dwellinghouses definition would interact with existing C3(b) and (c) use classes, which include up to six residents living together as a single household where care may or may not be provided to residents.