Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, which anticipates the Liberal Democrats being in government and in a position to ensure delivery of housing. I point him to Eastleigh council, which has taken over a development of 2,000 homes not being delivered by its developer. It has made it a local authority development and is now driving it through. I recently went down to visit Liberal Democrat-run Cornwall council. The previous Liberal Democrat administration set up a housing company that is building 180,000 homes a year—sorry, I mean 180; I wish it were 180,000—and is using the profits from that to build social rent homes.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in my constituency, where we are building 400 council homes on the North Taunton estate and have retained our council housing stock. Sadly, because of right to buy, it is not the 30,000 units it used to be—it is now only 6,000 homes—but we are doing what we can. My colleagues in Somerset council are bringing new council houses to parts of Somerset for the first time in a generation. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the activity of Liberal Democrat authorities on the ground.

New clause 1 would set a target of 150,000 social homes a year, which would something for the Government to aspire to. If not that target, what target will the Government set and when? The new clause does not require that many to be built; it is not a money resolution. It would simply require the Government to publish a strategy for what would be required to reach the target. If the Government are serious about the housing crisis, they should have no objection to setting a target of this kind. In our manifesto, we set an allocation of £6 billion a year towards that achievement. I appreciate that it would take a number of years to reach 150,000.

In the interests of time, I will move on to new clause 4, concerning borrowing restrictions on local authorities. I will give some “Hear, hears” to the Government for the Prime Minister’s words about reviving council housing and delivering a lot more of it, though I fear there are more words than pounds in his pronouncement. Shelter has commissioned research from Savills examining the impact of the housing revenue account debt on councils’ ability to build new social homes. The research found that writing off HRA debt could unlock between 190,000 and 284,000 dwellings.

Shelter also recently published research with Pragmatix Advisory that assesses the economic and financial case for cancelling HRA debt and investing in social housing. The central conclusion is that the policy would be compliant with the Government’s fiscal rules, while generating a substantial long-term economic benefit of £140 billion over a 60-year timeframe. My colleagues in Somerset council told me that if were not for the Government’s self-financing debt rules, they could build out another 630 council houses on top of the ones that I outlined to the hon. Member for Rugby.

I appreciate that the costs of writing off that debt would be significant—I am sure that the Minister has made that point—but if the Government will not write off all that debt, will they write off some of it? In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats put an extra £2 billion a year into this area. Will the Government put in £2 million to write off some HRA debt? It is important to get councils building again. Those that have their housing revenue account maxed out have the political will, and in many cases the experience, to do so, but they lack the necessary financial headroom. If we want to get councils building, we need to look seriously at the HRA debt.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my new clause 34. I regret that my pointing out that the Bill will not create a single new social home appeared to get under the Minister’s skin on Tuesday, but the fact is that the Bill does not create any extra housing. That is not a surprise, as it comes from a Government who have built just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of their time in office. None the less, it is simply not good enough.

Moreover, in the places—few and far between—where the Government have tried to get Britain building, that has nearly always come at the cost of green belt protections, despite the fact that research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could swiftly be met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Member talks about the importance of building on brownfield land first. That is certainly the policy of this Government. Would the hon. Member agree that although the previous Government professed to want to focus on developing brownfield land, they did absolutely nothing to make that viable, whereas this Government are putting money into the brownfield land release fund, which will help to clean up that land? Those are steps that the previous Conservative Government absolutely failed to take.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but we are looking forwards, not backwards.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Ah!

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady says that the Government are making brownfield land development more viable. Where are the signs of that? There is no development happening. Development in this country has ground to a standstill under this Government. That malaise did not start under this Government—I will accept that criticism—but it is most certainly being exacerbated by this Government. They are doing nothing to turn back the tide. In fact, they are pushing it further.

Those 1.41 million starts would amount to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which seeks to require the Government to publish a strategy for prioritising brownfield land for social housing development.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area.

I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence.

In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove.

I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward.

On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so.

Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy.

On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.

[Gareth Bacon]

This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers.

The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary. It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.

In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight.

In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.

Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart—in this case, I think it is my first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this debate. I also welcome this opportunity to address the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.

A fair, honest and accountable private rented sector is important for landlords, agents and tenants alike—I think there is no dispute on that. Indeed, any system concerning people’s homes and property must be transparent. From what I have heard, providers in the private rented sector are broadly united in agreement on that point. The National Residential Landlords Association said,

“If designed well, the Database should make it easy for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their obligations…whilst empowering tenants to distinguish between the responsible majority and the rogue and criminal minority of landlords.”

The Large Agents Representation Group said:

“With the correct design, it would make compliance easier to demonstrate for landlords and their agents…give tenants greater confidence about the homes they rent and provide local authorities with better information to target enforcement against those who fail to meet the required standards.”

However, the NRLA has described these regulations as “a costly mess”. The idea of a national register is not in itself disagreeable, but the proposed implementation and structure of this database is alien to any common-sense approach. First, and most strikingly, the Government have designed the database with barely a fifth of the providers in mind. Landlords with a single property are responsible for just 21% of tenancies in England, according to the 2024 English private landlord survey. The other roughly four fifths of tenancies are managed by landlords with more than one property, including some with thousands. Indeed, around one in five landlords hold nearly half of all tenancies.

It is 2026. Advanced technology is available, yet the Government’s proposals envisage the manual uploading of each individual property. The regulations as they stand make no provision for bulk uploads, forcing landlords to upload properties one by one—Noah processed more animals on to the ark at a time than that. Each property requires around 70 data points, so that is an awful lot of admin with huge time implications, and much of the information required is already submitted to councils through existing licensing schemes.

The Large Agents Representation Group, which represents some of the largest portfolios in the country through clients such as Chestertons, Hamptons, Knight Frank, Savills and Foxtons, calculates that if it takes 10 minutes to register an individual property, as the Government’s estimate apparently shows, that means over 1,600 staff hours for a 10,000 property portfolio—or about 3,300 hours for the 20 minutes it actually expects it to take.

On that point, larger providers disagree with the Government’s estimate of the time it will take to upload data, so the associated costs of uploading per property could be even higher. Assuming that it takes 30 minutes per property and there are seven productive working hours in a day, that amounts to 214 working days for a 3,000 property portfolio and 714 days for a 10,000 property portfolio.

That is a long way from being the only problem with the proposed database. The regulations stipulate that landlords must start and end the registration themselves, and agents can supply only certain information. That directly contradicts the Government’s impact assessment, which assumed that agents would register on the landlord’s behalf.

Then there is the lack of an audit trail. Because of the system favoured by the Government, landlords have no ability to verify and validate data on a portfolio basis. They have no access controls nor an audit trail for data uploads, changes or deletions. The consequence of that is obvious: a heightened risk of exposure to administrative errors, consequent fines, which can range from £7,000 to £40,000, and a host of compliance and audit risks.

Then we come to the subject of cost. The Renters’ Rights Act included in its impact assessment an estimated data registration fee of £28.85 per property every three years. Now the Government have confirmed a fee of £65 per property every single year, as the regulations require entries to be renewed every 12 months. For the 80% of landlords in the market who care for more than one property, that represents a significant and unplanned recurring cost, and no one in the sector knows where the £65 figure came from nor how it can be justified. Perhaps the Minister can provide a clear explanation in his closing remarks of how that £65 has been calculated.

Although the providers in the private rented sector are in broad agreement with the concept of a database, they are also united in viewing the approach of this Government as a total disaster. None of the concerns that I have outlined should come as news to the Government, because they have all been raised directly with Government officials by industry representatives. Many of those who I have spoken to thought that the Government had heard their concerns and were making adjustments, only to discover later that they had been ignored entirely. How do the Government expect to earn or maintain the trust of the whole sector when they ignore its concerns and blindside it with extra financial and labour costs?

The Large Agents Representation Group has summed up the Government’s proposals:

“Instead of making best use of data already held across Government and other established systems…the proposed approach required landlords and agents to manually and repeatedly input and maintain information that in most cases is already available elsewhere…creating unnecessary duplication, administrative burden and risk of inaccuracy for all stakeholders. The decisions being made now about its underlying architecture risk embedding unnecessary bureaucracy and practical problems from the outset. This is concerning when significant fees are being imposed and non-compliance carries substantial and lasting penalties.”

The significant additional costs and administrative burdens imposed by this approach are likely to have damaging repercussions. Voices in the build-to-rent sector, a sector vital to assisting in the delivery of new homes, have said

“This will inevitably deter much-needed investment in new homes…particularly at this time of ‘viability crisis.’”

These are just a few of the significant issues shared with me by industry. The database, as proposed by the Government, is not fit for purpose. It is not good enough to impose something that everyone knows is not going to work just so that the Government can claim that they are taking action. The regulations represent the very worst of a Government hellbent on regulating first and worrying about the consequences later. Empty promises of continuing improvements do not cut the mustard. The sector, already saddled by over-regulation and tax hikes, needs efficiencies, not even more constraints.

I implore the Minister to pause the impending roll-out of the regulations, which are due for implementation in just a couple of weeks’ time, scrap the current proposals and produce new ones after proper consultation with industry. I say that more in hope than expectation, so the Opposition will seek to divide and vote against the measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, but if landlords have a way of integrating their service and of providing that faster upload, that is precisely what we are trying to look at already.

[Gareth Bacon]

Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are not going to pause—I say this to the shadow Minister quite plainly—because we want the database in place. It has benefits for landlords in understanding their legal responsibility, and it has benefits for tenants. This is the first of two statutory instruments, as I have made clear. We think we can do that work, working with the sector to understand how we might integrate their management systems.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Dillon]

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert—

“(7) In exercising functions under this section and section 171A, the Secretary of State must have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers.”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the independence of housing associations when exercising powers under new sections 171A and 171B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 20.

Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 13, line 11, at end insert—

“(h) whether the dwelling is let at social rent,

(i) the dwelling’s energy performance certificate rating,

(j) whether the dwelling meets the Decent Homes Standard,

(k) whether the interest to be disposed of is freehold or leasehold,

(l) details of any accessibility adaptations made to the dwelling,

(m) details of any public grant received in relation to the dwelling, including any disabled facilities grant, and

(n) whether the dwelling was previously transferred from a local housing authority and, if so, the consideration paid on that transfer.”

This amendment requires that sale notices provided by a private registered providers to local housing authorities must provide additional information about the dwellings for sale.

Amendment 100, in clause 12, page 13, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) The private registered provider’s stated reason for making the relevant sale must be one of the following reasons—

(a) financial viability,

(b) the cost to retrofit energy efficiency measures,

(c) stock rationalization, or

(d) another specified reason as set out in regulations made by statutory instrument.

(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A)(d) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

New clause 8—Monitoring and reporting on private registered provider disposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on notifications and disposals of social housing by private registered providers.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the number of sale notices given under section 171A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in the period to which the report relates or otherwise notified to Homes England;

(b) the number and tenure of the dwellings to which those notices related;

(c) the number of those dwellings that were subsequently disposed of;

(d) the number of disposed dwellings that remained within social housing; and

(e) the number of disposed dwellings that ceased to be social housing.”

[Gareth Bacon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will be relatively brief. I tabled amendment 82 to introduce a vital legal safeguard to protect the structural integrity of the UK housing association sector.

Private registered providers are independent, non-profit businesses. They work hard to run a fair and efficient sector providing social housing and to see much-needed homes built. The amendment would protect registered providers from overreaching state interventions that could have serious, if inadvertent, financial consequences.

Housing associations can rely on private debt to fund development, and any perception that central Government can arbitrarily dictate their financial operations is a threat, both to business independence and to the positive outcomes that they effect. We must ensure that even well-intentioned regulatory oversight does not compromise the financial viability and building capacity of some of the most important businesses in our housing industry. We will seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.

[Mr Dillon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I would like to speak to amendments 100 and 7. Amendment 7, which in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, really gets to the “what”: what is being offered for disposal, whether it is at social rent and what the energy performance certificate rating is. Amendment 100 is a follow-up to that: the “why”. Why is a property being disposed of? Is it for financial viability? Is it because of the cost of retrofit? If we were to collate that data, the Government would be able to reflect on the success of this policy in later years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will deal with both, in that case. Amendment 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would significantly expand the information required to be included in sales notices where a private registered provider intends to dispose of a property outside of the regulated sector, to include, for example, whether a property complies with the decent homes standard, its EPC rating and whether it has been adapted for accessibility.

The Government’s view is that adding requirements for more information to be included in the sale notice would not be proportionate. We do not want to impose additional unnecessary burdens on providers, and we certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced that would mean additional reports need to be produced, or surveys carried out, though I note the hon. Member’s amendment does seek to avoid this.

Our view is that extending the notification window to eight weeks will allow providers to have the opportunity to request further information that they judge to be necessary to their consideration of a potential purchase. However, I do not think that requiring the inclusion of all this information by law is a proportionate response. Our aim is to capture the basic elements that will always be relevant to providers when considering purchasing a home, and provide more time for inquiries to be made where needed. That point has come up previously. The provisions in the Bill do not prevent those notifications and requests for further information between the parties in question from being made. That is the basis on which I brought forward amendment 19, which requires information on the category of rent, which we think is an important improvement.

Amendment 100, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newbury, would require providers to categorise their reason for disposing of a property as either financial viability, the cost of energy efficiency retrofits, stock rationalisation or some other reason that might be specified through secondary legislation. My concern is that seeking to prescribe particular categories of reason in the notice might result in a less helpful notification. Let me explain why.

First, it requires providers to identify one particular reason behind the sale. It is possible that the proposed sale will be based on more than one of these categories. It is also possible that there might be a different driver entirely. In response to a very reasonable question from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I tried to give a sense of the variety of reasons that individual providers might be disposing of particular stock.

Secondly, there is a risk that by setting out the categories in legislation, providers will just use the default descriptions of the reason and fail to provide a fuller and more helpful description for those being notified. Thirdly, although I do not think this was the intention of the hon. Member for Newbury, the amendment would have the effect of preventing sales from going ahead. No sale can proceed without a notice, and the notice must be valid. To be valid with this amendment in place, the notice must include one of a limited list of reasons. The Government cannot support an amendment that would prevent legitimate disposals. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment to a Division.

[Gareth Bacon]

I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Shared ownership is an important route into home ownership and has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to get on to the property ladder who otherwise would not have been able to do so. However, the Government are fully aware that shared owners continue to face serious difficulties relating to affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges. Although some of these challenges affect leaseholders more widely—high and rising service charges are a good example—they can have a disproportionate impact on shared owners, given that the product is aimed at households on lower-to-middle incomes.

Yesterday, I tabled a written ministerial statement setting out the Government’s position on shared ownership and the action we are taking to improve the experience of shared owners. We are determined to ensure that shared ownership is fair, transparent and affordable across its life cycle. That is why we are taking forward a phased programme of targeted improvements. The first phase, which has been under way for some time, has focused on improving the customer experience and giving providers greater certainty, stability and confidence to deliver new shared ownership homes.

We have set clearer expectations for registered providers receiving funding through the social and affordable homes programme, including giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness around costs, and allowing customers to opt out of fees for optional services. We have also made it clear that fees charged to shared owners should not be used as a source of profit or to cross-subsidise other activity.

Work is now under way on the second phase of our improvement programme. This will include reducing barriers and costs associated with staircasing; exploring options to support resales; improving information and guidance for existing shared owners; and reviewing buy-backs as an exit route for those who either cannot afford to remain in or cannot sell their home. Alongside that, we will improve shared ownership data quality and collection, helping us to better understand the experience of shared owners over time and pressures such as long-term affordability.

Clause 13 would require a statutory review of shared ownership. I recognise the concerns that motivated the amendment in the other place—Lord Young has been a consistent and forceful champion for shared owners and I commend his work in doing so—but these are precisely the issues the Government are already focused on and will continue to progress through the improvement programme that is already under way.

As is set out in the written ministerial statement I made on Monday, we have done lots to date. There is more to come on those issues I identified. For that reason, we feel that a statutory review would duplicate that rather than deliver the practical improvements that shared owners need beyond the work that the Government are already undertaking. I urge the Committee to oppose the question that clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government.

My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause.

New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well.

I therefore think that clause 13 is important. I do not in any way want to gainsay the important work that the Minister is doing. As I said this morning, I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is extremely able and I know that he will be pursuing this work with vigour. However, I believe that a statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this issue in the round, and actions such as those that the Minister has outlined can sit under such a review perfectly reasonably.

The two things are not in contradiction. A statutory review would not stop the Minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions that he has already set out. It just provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership to assess whether it is working well. Where there are things that the Government or the Minister may have missed—as diligent as I know him to be— it gives that extra opportunity.

I know that the Minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing shared ownership, as he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. However, I have to say that this Minister, in whom I have a lot of confidence, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this issue as him. Therefore, I think that a statutory review as set out in clause 13 offers the opportunity to publish something that has been considered carefully, which Members of this House and future Ministers can then refer back to when considering the way forward. I do not think that it trammels the Minister’s freedom in deciding what to announce or his discretion in any way; it would just be a very important addition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

I will speak to amendment 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington. The amendment looks at the impact of rent arrears on a victim of domestic abuse and quite simply asks that that not be a consideration when bidding for a future social home.

While on my feet, I will also talk about clause 14 in its totality. We Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled on domestic abuse, but will the Minister outline why the Government use only discretionary powers rather than mandatory powers, such as ground 7A, which is mandatory for antisocial behaviour?

[Gareth Bacon]

I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need.

That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims. If the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.

[Edward Argar]

I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 17 introduces schedule 3, which will repeal uncommenced provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies and required new social housing tenants to be given fixed-term secure tenancies instead. As with the provisions that we have just debated, the rules were never brought into force and would have reduced security for tenants. Indeed, the inclusion of the fixed-term provisions in the 2016 Act received strong objections throughout the Bill’s passage.

The Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households, and help people to put down roots in their communities. Security of tenure matters, particularly for families, older residents, disabled people and others for whom a settled home is the foundation of wider wellbeing and opportunity. That was the rationale for the changes we recently implemented through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

Although we promote the use of lifetime tenancies, the Government expect landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need. Landlords can support tenants to downsize, transfer or mutually exchange their homes if their circumstances change. That helps people to move to properties that are better suited to them and ensures that social housing is used in the fairest way possible.

Retaining the option for landlords to grant fixed-term tenancies is an important tool that allows councils to respond to specific circumstances, such as supporting time-limited resettlement schemes. The schedule also retains the existing approach to succession by reinserting the relevant provisions from the 2016 Act, ensuring that there are no substantial changes to how succession works in practice.

The repeal of the uncommenced provisions will provide greater certainty to tenants and landlords, and ensure that the law continues to work properly after they are removed. The previous Government confirmed in their 2018 social housing Green Paper, after listening to residents’ concerns, that they had no intention of implementing those provisions. Once again, this Government are going a step further and repealing them from the statute book.

Government amendments 75 to 77 make minor and technical changes to the succession provisions in schedule 3. Amendment 77 corrects the provision dealing with demoted tenancies so that it refers only to changes that apply to those tenancies. References to provisions that apply only to introductory tenancies are removed, as those cases are already covered separately. Amendments 75 and 76 make it clear that the sections 143H and 143J to which the provisions refer are sections of the Housing Act 1996. The amendments do not change policy or tenants’ rights; they simply clarify the Bill’s wording and make sure that references are correct and in order. I commend clause 17 and Government amendments 75 to 77 to the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled.

Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need. The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion.

Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.

[Danny Beales]

I completely agree that there is a desperate need for social homes in this country after decades of under-delivery, which this Government are starting to turn the tide on. It is interesting that earlier in Committee, Opposition Members were proposing amendments to support the further loss of council homes through allowing extensive right-to-buy provisions. The arguments do not seem to be compatible. Does the shadow Minister have any reflections on that? Does he not think that the threat of a review and potentially losing a council home if a person earns a bit more money might dampen their aspiration of trying to progress in life and get a better job?

[Gareth Bacon]

As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource.

Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not.

New clause 58 is not an eviction notice. It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me start with new clause 40, which seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies.

Fixed-term tenancies will no longer be available within the assured tenancy framework once the relevant Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms take effect. I therefore understand that the proposal is aimed principally at ensuring that local housing authorities and other secure tenancy landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies when appropriate.

I want to be clear that the new clause is not needed. Nothing in the Bill prevents secure-tenancy landlords from granting fixed-term tenancies. As I have said, the Bill repeals uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies to be fixed-term tenancies. As we have just debated, those provisions were never brought into force and we are now removing them in order to provide clarity. Secure-tenancy landlords will still be able to offer fixed-term tenancies where they consider it appropriate to do so; as I have said, the Bill does not change that. The proposed measures risk repeating what is already the case in law for secure-tenancy landlords and would create confusion by suggesting that the Bill removes flexibility in this area when it does not. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister not to press new clause 40.

New clause 58 would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years. I made it clear when speaking to clause 17 that the Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households and help people to put down roots in their communities. That is precisely why we are repealing uncommenced provisions in the 2016 Act that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies in favour of mandatory fixed-term tenancies.

We expect local authorities and other social landlords to make the best and most effective use of their stock to meet housing need. However, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for local authorities to review every secure tenancy once every five years would be an appropriate way to support them in doing so, given the administrative burden that that would entail. We also believe that it would have detrimental impacts on tenants and communities. Those are some of the reasons why the previous Government did not commence the provisions they had legislated for in the 2016 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 18 will repeal unimplemented provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants. We are now removing them to provide certainty and clean up the statute book. The provisions, as with others we have debated this afternoon, were never implemented. Once again, I note that the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections during the passage of that legislation.

A mandatory pay-to-stay scheme would be difficult and costly to administer. Indeed, the previous Government, despite legislating for this policy, chose not to commence it on the explicit basis that the costs outweighed the benefits. Income alone is also not the only determinant of who is allocated social housing. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances which mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list.

Social housing is targeted at those who need it most, but some tenants’ incomes may rise over time. Our focus is on keeping rents affordable and supporting all social tenants, not penalising tenants for improving their circumstances. As we debated in the previous group, landlords can encourage tenants to move if their circumstances change. Where tenants want to move or downsize, we expect landlords to support them to do so through transfers or mutual exchanges, which helps people move to properties that are better suited to them, and helps to ensure that social housing is used in the fairest way possible. Where councils and private registered providers choose, they can run voluntary pay-to-stay schemes, which allows landlords to decide whether a scheme is suitable for their area.

Councils can also consider an applicant’s income and financial circumstances when deciding whether they qualify for social housing and what priority they should receive. Households with higher incomes may be given less priority, or may not qualify at all. However, councils will also consider whether the household has other needs, as I have referenced, which can mean that social housing is still the right option for them.

Repealing these measures provides a fairer and more workable approach. This change will help keep rents affordable for social tenants, especially those on lower and middle incomes, avoid disincentives to work and mean that tenants are not incentivised to reduce their working hours to avoid higher rent. I commend clause 18 to the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so.

We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time. Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Before I respond to new clause 42, I must address something that the shadow Minister keeps saying, which is that the Bill does not build any new social housing. I have made this incredibly clear, and I encourage him to go and talk to his local authority, although I am not sure its record on social housing is a particularly good one. Local authorities are very clear and have said to us in plain terms that the measures in the Bill will incentivise them to build more social homes. Of course, it is not the case that this piece of legislation is the only means by which we are building new social and affordable housing. We have a £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, which dwarfs anything that the previous Conservative Government allocated in this area, and there is additional funding to come on top of that.

New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing within two years of the Bill’s passage, and every five years thereafter, and to publish the findings and lay them before Parliament. Each review would consider trends over the previous five years in household earnings, regional housing costs, housing affordability and demand for social housing.

I recognise the importance of considering income to ensure that social housing is targeted at those most in need. Indeed, it is a sad truth that the residualisation of social housing over many years—not least because of the engineered decline of it under previous Conservative Governments, with increased right-to-buy discounts explicitly targeted to ensure that more is sold—has meant that, in most cases, it has become targeted to those on very low incomes, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary.

Eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process, and there is no general national income eligibility threshold for social rented housing. As I have made clear, local authorities can take financial resources into account in determining qualification and relative priority under their allocation schemes, subject to statutory requirements, and private registered providers also operate their own lettings polices. This allows local and individual circumstances to be taken into account.

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.

I rise to support the clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important and significant clause in the Bill, as it constrains the selling off of council houses. It is concerning that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment that would essentially reverse it. With 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list and 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing that we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. There has been a net loss of 2 million social homes since the introduction of right to buy. If that does not show that we cannot fill the bath with the plug taken out, nothing does. We stand squarely in support of the clause, although we would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend right to buy completely if that is right for their area so that they can rebuild their stock of council housing and social rent homes.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.

This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes.

I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name. On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder.

Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Your First Home—the product that the Government announced to get young people on to the housing ladder. Does he agree that the targeted approach of that new idea is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government’s Help to Buy scheme? About half of the people who bought under that scheme were already able to buy a home, and it just allowed them to buy a bigger home, probably in a more affluent area.

[Gareth Bacon]

It rather depends on the detail, but if the income caps that we hear about in the press are even remotely accurate, we can rule out the whole of Greater London and the south-east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. That would be yet another example of the Government pretending to do something without actually doing it, but we await the detail on that.

Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is it an exercise in capitalistic greed. It is a hand up on to the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property. New clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it is critical that more is done to help young people to buy their first home. They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation, and yet the Government’s answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe that that approach is fundamentally wrong, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55.

On new clause 57, clause 1 in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard-working residents from owning their own homes but prevents current tenants from doing so. The Opposition are completely against that retrospective change. The Government have shown time and again that they have no regard for the property rights of individuals. The Government’s socialistic focus has targeted landlords, freeholders and renters, now they turn their gaze towards residents in social homes.

The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up on to the property ladder and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through right to buy.

[Rachel Blake]

On new clause 55, can the hon. Member share the evidence base for his proposal, including the number of tenants aged between 16 and 25? I struggle to believe that the proposal would make any difference in terms of home ownership for people aged between 16 and 25. In fact, it is the long-run shortage of genuinely affordable homes, rental properties and home ownership products that is responsible for young people struggling to get on to the housing ladder.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but she does not say how the Government will increase home building. There is no increase in home building. The point of the new clause is to raise awareness of right to buy among 16 to 25-year-olds. The point of the new clause is about aspiration—something this Government have absolutely no idea about. Aspiration turned into opportunity by the Conservative party in the 1980s is being arbitrarily and retrospectively axed by a Bill that offers no other route into the housing market, builds no more social housing and effectively excludes 5 million people from the fundamental right to property ownership.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Gareth Bacon]

I will not give way. I need to make some progress.

That is the least that can be done to support families aspiring to own their own home, whether they find themselves on the cusp of reaching their three-year qualifying period or on day one of the road towards making their home ownership dream a reality.

On amendments 84 and 85, the Bill opens with a statement claiming that its purpose is to make provision about social housing, but clause 1 makes no effort to increase the supply, build-out rates or funding for social housing. Instead, an ideological aversion to property ownership—a fundamental right—takes the top spot at the very beginning of the Bill. Ever since Margaret Thatcher gave millions of people the chance to own their own home, rather than rent it from the state, local authority or a registered provider, Labour MPs have for generations sought to crush that right and the aspiration that it exists to serve.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home.

Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Orpington for tabling new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, and for speaking to them. I should say at the outset that, in political terms, he and I could not be further apart. However, he is a decent and diligent shadow Minister, as is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—I do not want to leave him out. I very much look forward to the robust yet civil debates we will have over the coming sessions.

I do not want to dwell too long on the more general points made by the hon. Member for Orpington, but I think it is worth responding to two of them. We are not extinguishing the right to buy through the Bill. We could have abolished the right to buy outright, but that is not what we are doing. We are ensuring that those who benefit from the scheme are long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill having no impact on supply, he really ought to get out and speak to local authorities. They tell us that the benefits that they will see from the regulatory certainty and stability that we are providing, as well as the grant funding, will give them the confidence to go out and build new social homes, safe in the knowledge that, thanks to clause 1, they will not be immediately sold off after three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We come next to clause 7.

[Gareth Bacon]

What about new clause 29?

[The Chair]

New clause 29 was debated with clause 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

No, it wasn’t. I was not asked to speak.

[The Chair]

You did not bob. I stated the need to do that at the beginning of the sitting.

[Gareth Bacon]

I was not called.

[The Chair]

You did not bob, Gareth. We will move on.

Clause 7

Right of first refusal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I can see no one bobbing, so I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Exceptions to the Right to Buy

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 8, leave out from line 2 to end of line 18.

This amendment removes the restriction on those living in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and areas designated as being exempt from Right to Buy.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 13.

Amendment 104, in clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1)(a) above must use the Rural Urban Classification to determine whether an area is rural or urban.”

Amendment 83, in clause 8, page 8, line 25, leave out “35” and insert “10”.

This amendment seeks to reduce the period during which newly built social housing is exempt from the Right to Buy from 35 years to 10 years.

Amendment 9, in clause 8, page 9, line 10, at end insert—

“Community-led housing

20 Irrespective of the provisions of paragraph 18, the right to buy does not arise in relation to a dwelling where—

(a) the dwelling is owned, managed, controlled or on land owned by—

(i) a Community Land Trust;

(ii) a Community Benefit Society;

(iii) a housing co-operative; or

(iv) another community-led housing body prescribed by regulations; and

(b) the dwelling is subject to arrangements intended to secure affordability in perpetuity.”

This amendment seeks to provide a permanent exemption from Right to Buy for community-led housing, instead of the 35-year exemption otherwise provided by the Bill.

Government amendments 14 and 15.

Amendment 91, in clause 8, page 9, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—

“(c) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require an affirmative parliamentary approval for regulations defining rural exempt from Right to Buy.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 16 to 18.

New clause 2—Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy—

“Before section 121(A) of the Housing Act 1985 insert—

‘Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy

(1) A local housing authority in England may make a determination that the right to buy does not arise in relation to dwelling-houses in its area.

(2) A determination under subsection (1) may apply to—

(a) all dwelling-houses within the authority’s area, or

(b) dwelling-houses of a description specified in the determination.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed by a local housing authority in making a determination under this section.’”

[Gareth Bacon]

It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to speak to amendment 90, which stands in my name.

Since 2024, when the Government have raised rural issues, they have often found themselves in trouble. The Opposition were therefore surprised to see the elements of clause 7 giving the Secretary of State the power to decide what is classed as rural housing and to restrict the rights of those deemed to live in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member is quite right. Not only that, but local authorities end up paying over the odds for placing families in temporary accommodation, sometimes in homes that were built as council houses to provide for those families in the first place. Now they are being sublet, sometimes multiple times, to provide that housing.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made a point that has been made by Members today and on Second Reading: right to buy diminishes the social housing stock. I would agree on paper that it does, but that has to be read in the context, as shown by the House of Lords Library, that right to buy applies only to people in long-term tenancies who have been social tenants for a long time. Some 78% of people living in social housing are on lifetime tenancies. Those properties are not available. They could not be given to anybody else because they are lifetime tenancies. Right to buy is actually providing the receipts to build more social homes for people to live in.

[Rachel Blake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

I cannot give way; I am in the middle of an intervention.

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions should be reasonably brief.

[Gareth Bacon]

Stopping people from getting on the housing ladder does not help one bit, because it does not increase the supply, and that point seems to have been missed completely by the Liberal Democrats and by the Government.

[Gideon Amos]

I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition spokesperson has entered into the realm of social housing supply, given the record of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, we need to increase supply as well as saving the stock that has been built with public funds—taxpayer’s money—for the community, rather than giving over discounts, sometimes to the extent of a £70,000 or £80,000 transfer of cash, from the taxpayer into the hands of individual property owners for no good reason.

We need to increase supply. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a target to build 150,000 social rent homes per year. I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s party’s target for the delivery of social housing—they did not build many when they were in government. We need to give local authorities the power and flexibility to decide for themselves whether it is right to continue with right to buy in their areas. If we believe in local communities and local democracy, we should give them the ability to say that right to buy and the loss of more council housing stock is no longer right for their area. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee and urge all Committee members to vote for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification from the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 91 would require regulations made under section 37 of the Housing Act 1985, which allows restrictions to be imposed on the disposal of a home in a rural area, to be approved by both Houses before they could come into force. I understand that the intention of the amendment may have been to require the affirmative procedure to designate areas as rural for the purposes of the right to buy. Under self-designation, rural areas will be designated by local authorities instead of by regulations, so no parliamentary procedure will be needed.

The new power to prescribe the criteria will be, as I have said, subject to the negative resolution. In any event, the Government do not accept the premise that the affirmative procedure is required in that instance; there may be a principled point of disagreement on that. The current powers are subject to the negative procedure—that is the existing arrangement—which, in our view, provides an appropriate, proportionate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The powers amended or created by the Bill are also subject to the negative resolution procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure would add an additional parliamentary step without affecting the substance or effect of the policy. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, not to press amendment 91.

Amendment 83 would reduce the exemption from the right to buy for newly built social homes from 35 to 10 years. The Government cannot support the amendment. Our starting point is that the exemption should reflect the time needed for rental income to repay the costs of building a new social home. That payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on the viability of the site. We therefore concluded that 35 years strikes the right balance. It protects councils from losing newly built homes before they have recovered their investment while retaining a route to home ownership for tenants over the longer term. Reducing the exemption to 10 years would not provide sufficient protection and would act in direct contradiction to our commitment to back councils to build again at scale. It would allow homes to be sold long before their development costs have been recovered. A 35-year exemption will give councils the certainty and confidence to build, knowing that new homes will remain available as social housing for a meaningful period. 

New clause 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concerns that motivated this proposed new clause. However, the Government cannot support a proposal that would allow individual local authorities to suspend or abolish the right to buy in their area. We remain committed to a reformed right to buy that continues to provide long-standing council tenants with a route into home ownership while better protecting social housing stock, and we are reforming the scheme nationally to strike that balance. This new clause would create inconsistent access to that statutory right, with a tenant’s position depending on the local authority in which they live. That would, in effect, create a postcode lottery and make it difficult for tenants to understand whether the right to buy is available to them. 

We believe that the right approach is a consistent national framework, supported by national reforms that better protect council housing stock. That will ensure a fair and consistent offer for council tenants across the country. We also recognise that housing markets vary significantly across England. However, rather than creating different rights in different areas, the Government’s reforms reflect those differences through the discount regime. As I have already set out, discounts are calculated as a percentage of a property’s value and are subject to regional cash caps, helping to ensure that the scheme responds to local property market conditions while maintaining a fair and consistent national entitlement for eligible tenants. 

Amendment 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, has been spoken to by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. Again, I recognise the intention behind this amendment. Community-led housing is established to meet local needs and often includes arrangements intended to protect affordability for the long term. This Government have done a huge amount in this area and there is more to come to better support community-led housing. But in our view, the amendment is not necessary in relation to the principal form of community-led housing it identifies. Homes owned by community land trusts and fully mutual housing co-operatives are already outside the right to buy, and for those reasons the amendment would not provide the protection intended, beyond that which already exists. For those reasons, I would respectfully ask that hon. Members withdraw all their amendments, and I commend clause 8 to the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon]

We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

No, I will not. I am just summing up. We will press for a Division on amendment 83, because we think that 10 years is more appropriate than 35. On amendment 91, we also disagree with the Government. We think that there should be an affirmative rather than negative procedure for this, so we will also be pressing that to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

This simple and straightforward clause ensures that the reforms to the right to buy are applied fairly and consistently. It protects tenants who have already made a valid application by ensuring that applications received by landlords ahead of the reforms coming into force will continue to be subject to the existing rules. That will avoid retrospective changes that could disadvantage applicants partway through the process.

The clause also makes important provision in relation to rural exemptions, which links directly to the reforms in clause 8 and Government amendments 13 to 18. It provides that existing rural designations will continue to have effect after commencement, as if they were made under the new powers introduced by clause 8. That means that there will be no gap in protection for rural areas while the new framework in which local authorities self-designate as rural is implemented.

Together, these provisions ensure a smooth and legally certain transition, protecting both tenants’ rights and the integrity of rural housing protections. Overall, the clause provides legal clarity, fairness and continuity as the reformed right to buy scheme is introduced.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Right to Buy: receipts

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”.

This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 93, in clause 10, page 10, line 29, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”.

This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.

Amendment 94, in clause 10, page 10, line 30, leave out “A determination” and insert “Regulations”.

This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.

Amendment 96, in clause 10, page 10, leave out lines 33 to 40.

This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make different provisions in respect of different local authorities and to make retroactive provisions through a determination.

Amendment 97, in clause 10, page 10, line 39, leave out “determination is” and insert “regulations are”.

This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.

Amendment 95, in clause 10, page 10, line 41, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 5 on page 11 and insert—

“(5E) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.”

Amendment 98, in clause 10, page 11, line 5, at end insert—

“(5F) Before making a determination relating to the use of capital receipts under this section, the Secretary of State must consult local housing authorities.”

This amendment would require consultation before determinations are made on the use of capital receipts.

Clause stand part.

[Gareth Bacon]

The amendments concern the Bill’s proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State would gain new powers to make significant determinations, including scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively.

Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of “rural”, this is not about firming up an already over-rigid system, but about ensuring that the Bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall. It is only right that Parliament, not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. That is why we have tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities. This is an essential change to the Bill, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it.

As it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilises already fragile funding requirements. The amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance, with amendment 95 specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on that by also requiring consultation with local authorities.

The Minister may believe that bringing such decisions in-house comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street’s corridors rather than in town halls means local authorities will be left with uncertainty, which will not speed up the building of social homes, but slow it down. Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being siphoned away.

Under clause 10, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out. It is never going to be popular with councils when they find that, after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council. It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the Government’s disastrously unfair funding review. I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92 to 98 and ensure that power stays local.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. They involve a perfectly reasonable and proportionate request for this House to have a role in scrutinising what is put forward by the Government and recommended by the Secretary of State.

I spent six years as a Minister. I took countless statutory instruments through Delegated Legislation Committees. By and large, it is not a complex process; it requires a bit of time on the part of officials to get the drafting right, but the process in this House is not complicated. It ensures that a Minister is directly accountable: they have to be on their brief, and they have to be able to clearly articulate the rationale behind what they are doing and, quite rightly, to be challenged by right hon. and hon. Members. That is so important in maintaining or even in creating trust from our communities—the transparency that that democratic accountability brings to what, as my hon. Friend clearly set out, will on occasion undoubtedly be relatively, if not significantly, contentious decisions relating to significant sums of money.

My hon. Friend set out the case for amendment 95 very clearly. The powers in clause 10, when exercised, may well see some local authorities feeling that they are losing out, to the benefit of other local authorities. Without getting into what those decisions may be or where the money may go, in terms of process and democratic accountability, it is not unreasonable that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the powers in clause 10.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, we believe that the current approach strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight and reduces unnecessary administrative burdens. The Opposition are always telling me to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. This is a good example of doing that. Our approach also improves responsiveness and supports councils to deliver more replacement homes. We therefore cannot support the amendments and I ask the shadow Minister not to press them. I commend clause 10 to the Committee.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Minister has said that his intent is to improve efficiency and, as always, I respect his sincerity and what he said. It is simply a point of difference between us.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made a compelling case about the democratic accountability and transparency of the affirmative procedure as opposed to the negative procedure. The point that we have made in the amendments is about the process not the outcome, and our contention is that the process should be as democratically accountable and transparent as possible. We will therefore press all the amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.

British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with. I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry.

According to the Home Builders Federation, house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 for biodiversity net gain and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes standard—and that is not the end. Indeed, under this Government’s watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements, such as nutrition mitigation requirements.

Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London:

“Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”.

She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases.

It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point.

It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases.

The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the explanatory notes and in the other place, the Government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review.

It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications.

A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability.

Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000.

Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, as a result of the gap between the fees they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on the principle of the matter, that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service.

The shadow Minister spoke at some length about viability pressures and the role of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain pressing in many parts of the country—London is a good example—and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing.

I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.

[Gareth Bacon]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service.

On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced.

The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities.

On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities.

To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put.

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister.

The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations.

As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities.

Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side?

Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more.

Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement.

For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins.

As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater.

It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.

Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to take part in this debate about the definition and application of so-called grey-belt land. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate and for his excellent opening speech.

The first mention of the Government’s novel term “grey belt” came in their 2024 election manifesto. Labour MPs campaigned on a promise to release

“lower quality ‘grey belt’ land”,

which they described as scrub land, disused car parks and old petrol stations, alongside a commitment to “preserving the green belt”. Those policies were part of an overarching pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029.

Just over two years later, however, and almost halfway through this Parliament, we are left wondering where it all went so wrong, because the Government are not releasing low-quality land, they are not preserving the green belt, and they are nowhere near their stated target of building 1.5 million homes. How could that be the case, given that they have such a mammoth majority with which to make it happen? The answer is that the concept of the grey belt was a fiction from the start. It is, and always has been, a thinly veiled conceit. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) highlighted, the grey belt has been talked up as low-quality land made up of disused car parks, but behind the façade it is usually found to be prime green-belt land.

That is not just a political point; it is a factual one. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England has shown that by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes that had been approved by Government planning inspectors on so-called grey-belt land, 88% were earmarked for building on previously undeveloped countryside. To be clear, that is not disused petrol stations or low-quality land, but our local and valued countryside. What is worse is that those developments made up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on allegedly grey-belt sites.

With so much grey belt looking far more like green belt, at least according to the Government’s own NPPF definitions, what is the true definition of grey belt? For the sake of our concerned constituents, perhaps the Minister can explain what definition inspectors are working to, as it is clearly not the same as the one that has been codified and publicised.

Even if the Government stuck to their stated definition of grey belt and refused to waver from it, we would still be left without a clear route to their target of 1.5 million homes. As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) pointed out, that is because the Government have done nothing to make development on previously developed land any more viable than before; indeed, they have made it worse.

The Government have made an effort to increase and swiften planning permissions, but there has been no corresponding effort to make proposed sites more viable. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 did much to silence the voices of democratically elected local councillors in order to push planning permissions thicker and faster through the system, but it did nothing to make building new homes more affordable. There has been no recognition at all of the barriers—largely been created by the state—that have been thrown in the way of developers. The top-down housing targets that our rural councils were saddled with, representing an increase of up to 487% in some cases, make sites no more viable; they just put more pressure on local planning authorities to grant more permissions.

Superficially, supposedly grey-belt sites may be an attractive prospect for development because there are likely to be fewer complications than anticipated for brownfield development. However, when supposedly grey-belt sites are released, they might not deliver substantially more housing because the Government will still have done next to nothing to improve the site’s viability. The Government have imposed the golden rule of at least 15% affordable housing above local policy requirements, up to a 50% cap. Sites still come with a biodiversity net gain requirement; they still require landfill tax payments, they still have to meet building regulations and soon they will be subjected to the building safety levy.

After a site’s release, some building will likely take place. But given the Government’s unwillingness to help to make brownfield sites more viable, we will be left with the lamentable scenario of losing chunks of green-belt land without getting anywhere near the required housing numbers. As the Government hide behind their own nebulous grey belt definition, they chip away at our local green belt without making a dent in their 1.5 million homes target. That is not progress; that is failure.

The statistics show it too. It is estimated from the energy performance certificate lodgements data that the Government oversaw the net addition of just 392,400 homes between 9 July 2024 and 14 June 2026—a paltry 26% of their manifesto target. Far from using the green belt to meet their targets, they are ditching its protections and removing its special place in our communities, all for the sake of plodding progress towards an increasingly distant target.

I am pleased to say that there is a way out of this malaise that dually serves to protect the green belt and build more houses. Instead of sham terms and shady insincerities, the Opposition stand for a genuine brownfield-first approach to building. We on this side of the Chamber will not just pay lip service to brownfield development but prioritise it and make it easier. It can and will be done. We all want to see more homes built, but they must be built in the right places, with local understanding and on brownfield sites first. That is the common-sense answer. It is the Opposition’s answer, and it is an achievable outcome.

Further research from the CPRE shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could be swiftly met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024. The same data shows that, as of September 2025, more than half of those sites had planning permission already. The 1.41 million amounts to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. Perhaps when considering this, the Secretary of State may change her mind again and once more view 1.5 million homes as a viable goal rather than a “stretch target”, as she described it at the weekend.

The Government must change course. The returning Secretary of State has already U-turned on her disastrous and costly programme of local government reform. Perhaps the Minister can use his platform to join Conservative colleagues and stand against concreting over our green belt. I hope he uses his time to do exactly that. I hope he also takes the chance to not just acknowledge but to respond to the concerns shared by hon. Members and take a better and fairer approach to our green belt.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Housing Bill [Lords], despite supporting the measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse, because the Bill will effectively abolish Right to Buy, destroying the aspirations of social tenants who wish to one day purchase their own home; because the Government is failing to build the homes required, as in 2024-25 there were 12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year, and the Bill does nothing to promote much-needed housebuilding; and because the Bill does not ensure that social housing is used effectively and is reserved for British citizens.”

We come to the House, as we have done many times, to find that the Government are still failing to build more homes and still failing to support home ownership. This Bill is no different; indeed, it is a failure par excellence because for a Bill supposedly concerned with housing, it does nothing to build any new homes. The Bill does nothing to support the aspiration of home ownership; in fact, it goes out of its way to diminish it. It does not even free up any social homes for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list. It is a dud Bill and an ideological red herring.

Most egregiously, however, the Government have taken a much-needed reform—the need for a new and effective framework to enable landlords to take possession action against perpetrators of domestic abuse—and surrounded it with unnecessary, damaging and punitive reforms to right to buy. We agree with the Government that it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways they need, so His Majesty’s Opposition support this aspect of the Bill, but it is a shame to find the Government wedging it uncomfortably alongside the ideological and anti-aspirational measures that make up the majority of this counterproductive Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

As somebody who, I would wager, has rehoused more victims of domestic abuse than almost anybody in this House, I just want to say on behalf of victims of domestic abuse that building more council housing and ensuring that more council housing is in the system is literally the thing that almost every victim in the country would ask us to do. With that, I commend the ideology of the Bill and suggest on the hon. Gentleman’s point about “wedging it together” that they are the same issue.

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the hon. Lady—sorry, the right hon. Lady.

[Jess Phillips]

I am not right honourable, although I am right. [Laughter.]

[Gareth Bacon]

Sorry—I missed that comment from a sedentary position. This Bill does not contribute to building a single extra social home. I agree that people who are victims of domestic abuse should be rehoused—I said that in my remarks. We do not agree, however, that this Bill is the way to do it.

Let us come to the main thrust of the Government’s policy: the effective end of right to buy as we know it. In 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s Government offered millions of people a hand up on to the property ladder by extending the opportunity to own property to hard-working, aspirational people living in social housing.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

I will make some progress.

Ever since and right up to the present day, Labour MPs have called for restrictions on the scheme. They have essentially called for an end to the opportunity to exercise the right to own one’s own home for around 5 million households. When owning one’s own home can bring such pride and such a sense of community, and can offer security and safety, one might wonder why on earth anyone would seek to lock millions of social housing tenants out of doing so. Aside from ideology, which of course is a major part of the problem for Labour Members, the Government seek to do this because they have misdiagnosed the problem. In their mind, it is somehow acceptable to lay the blame at the door of right to buy, as 1.34 million households—children, families, the elderly, the disabled and others—wait for a social home, while every year approximately 33,000 new social tenancies, funded by British taxpayers, go to households where the lead tenant is not a British national.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I speak as the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants who came to this country and had a council house, and then bought that council house and profited from right to buy. The conversation we had around our dinner table was, “Isn’t right to buy great? The problem is they are not rebuilding the houses.” The idea of changing the policy is to stop the leakage out of the system. We cannot continue to pour more into the top while it comes out of the bottom. I hope we can agree that building more social homes is everyone’s objective, but keeping them in the system will also alleviate the pressure on social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I agree with the hon. Lady that building more social homes is part of the answer, but I will address the central point of her question a bit later in my speech.

Right to buy is not the reason for the diminishing available social housing, nor the reason for our current shortage of social housing. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out in the other place, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales leading to 5,450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this Bill were to pass and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales would fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes. That means that by their own analysis and admission, the Government would oversee a housing system in which there would be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

While we are talking about statistics, between April 2012 and March 2024 there were over 124,000 right-to-buy sales and fewer than 48,000 homes built to replace them. Which party was in charge during that period? [Interruption.]

[Gareth Bacon]

The point I am making, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) says from a sedentary position behind me, is that there will be even fewer new social homes under this Bill. It is not the answer to the problem.

The Government’s own data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting right to buy. The Government have argued that the Bill will mean that around 3,000 additional homes are retained a year, but research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that about 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant every year, instead of 5,000.

The very premise that right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy. The only people who qualify for right to buy are long-term tenants, and Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that in three quarters of cases, we are looking at social homes that are unlikely ever to be available to a prospective tenant when they need it. All of that clearly demonstrates that right to buy is not the issue—it is part of the solution.

That is not the only available avenue that the Government could take to support those on the waiting list and get more people into the housing they need. I hope that you will not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I offer two key areas in which progress could be made. First and foremost, it could be made through house building. The Government put forward clear and definite promises to voters in 2024. We were told that by the end of this Parliament, the Government will have built 1.5 million new homes, including

“the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.”

The new Prime Minister—a self-proclaimed opponent of 1980s policies—has similarly committed to a social housing revolution, albeit without a defined target or an idea of what that looks like. But now, halfway through this Parliament, after the slog of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, multiple updates to the national planning policy framework and the publication of this Bill, we are left without a clear route to building more homes, and projections from the Government themselves show that they have managed to build just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of the time.

The Bill does nothing to prioritise building. It will not add a single social home to the housing stock.

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

Is it not slightly misleading to suggest that the delivery rate for those homes pledged in the manifesto will be constant throughout the term of this Government? In fact, we have to do the enabling work in terms of legislation and then we will see more of those homes built towards the end. Is it not also right and good that we have a target that stretches us? I would hope that the Opposition would join us in helping to deliver that target.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Opposition will be very happy if the Government hit that target, but the point is they will not. The target was not nuanced in the way the hon. Gentleman sets out in the manifesto, nor was it nuanced straight after the election. We were told that 1.5 million homes were to be built by the end of this Parliament. There is no chance that the Government will hit that target.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that while under the current right-to-buy rules only 20% to 25% of the receipts go back to the local council, under the Government’s proposals it will be 100%, which will make it much easier to build those homes? Richard Parker, the West Midlands Mayor, has already delivered nearly 2,000 new homes and is on target to deliver 5,000. Would he therefore agree that it is possible to deliver the target?

[Gareth Bacon]

On the contrary, it was the last Conservative Government who in 2023 introduced 100% receipts going to councils to rebuild the homes that had gone. Although Government Members like to pretend that history only began in 2010, I point out to them that successive Governments since the 1980s could have changed that and did not; it was the last Conservative Government who did so.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On housing numbers, there is no Reform MP present this afternoon, but Reform-led Rochford district council has just published its regulation 19 local plan. During the May elections, Reform made a great thing of defending the green belt, and in the intervening period its councillors intimated to lots of local campaign groups that, when the plan came out, they would be all right. Yet we now find that nearly every single one of those green-belt sites has been recommended for development. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they do not really mean to defend the green belt—clearly they do not—they should never have said that?

[Gareth Bacon]

I share my right hon. Friend’s shock that no Reform MP is present in the Chamber. I am similarly totally taken aback that Reform would say one thing and do another. Of course, Reform councillors should not have said that if they did not mean it.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Unprecedented!

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

That is very well put by my right hon. Friend.

The Government do nothing to prioritise building. The Bill will not add a single social home to the housing stock. The Government are seeking to heal an illness before they have properly diagnosed it, and are offering a solution to a problem to which there is already an answer. If they were serious about reforming the right to buy and building more homes at the same time, perhaps they would look at how proper management and effective reinvestment of receipts could lead to an increase in housing supply, especially on brownfield sites. As my colleagues in the other place noted, it is better for everyone and for the economy if we make two homes out of one. Through efficient, productive and successful management of right-to-buy receipts, we can both sell a family home and support a family on the waiting list into another one. As homelessness peaks at record levels and the number of children in temporary accommodation reaches a dizzying summit of 178,000, it beggars belief that the Government are not looking at that more closely.

However, I recognise that house building is not an overnight fix; it takes time, but for many families on the waiting list, that is something they simply do not have. We must therefore consider how best to free up existing stock to support those most in need.

[Luke Murphy]

The shadow Minister is giving his view eloquently on social housing, but in 2010, the then coalition Government cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. Five years later, there was a 97% fall in the building of social rent homes. Would he like to apologise to the House for that record?

[Gareth Bacon]

I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, one of the things we do not get from Government Members is any commentary at all about the state of the economy in 2010, after 13 years of their party being in power. The public finances had to be right-sized—the country was heading towards bankruptcy. They are happy to disown their record and criticise everybody who followed, but perhaps it would be slightly more honest if they prefaced their arguments with an acknowledgement of that.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Mayor of London has been in power for over 10 years, and that London’s housing starts have fallen through the floor. Over 300,000 Londoners are estimated to be on housing waiting lists, the majority of them in Labour boroughs. Does he find the rhetoric today somewhat confusing, given that even though the Government have cut Sadiq Khan’s affordable housing target by 22%, he continues to miss it?

[Gareth Bacon]

My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. The Mayor of London’s record on housing is, of course, execrable. It is totally mystifying that at a time when London’s population and housing need is the highest it has ever been, the Government have simultaneously reduced the housing target for London and massively ramped up the target in outer London, where most of the green belt is. That tells us everything we need to know about their intentions, both for housing and for the green belt.

To the Opposition, two answers seem too obvious to miss, yet the Government wilfully ignore this part of the puzzle. The first answer is efficiency of stock management. Many councils and housing associations are well-run and proactive organisations, but too many remain plagued by poor stock utilisation, improper management and under-occupation. A proper understanding of national stock will go some way towards creating a fairer and more efficient system, in contrast to the failures we witness now. For example, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. That is clearly an inefficiency worth fixing, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility for many suppliers and managers to fix it, yet that does not feature in the Bill. Again, the Government look at the breadth of the issue and give a narrow and ideological legislative response.

The second answer is this. Too many struggling families are understandably frustrated to find foreign nationals in homes paid for by the British taxpayer. To be clear, we are not talking about just anyone—after all, until recently, British taxpayers were funding the First Lady of Sierra Leone’s central London pad, which was a British social housing flat. There are other egregious cases—more precisely, another 127,000 cases. Official figures show that 72% of those who identify as Somali in England and Wales live in social housing.

[Natasha Irons]

I want to clarify the point about people born in other countries and living here. If a person is born somewhere else, it does not mean that they are not a British citizen, or that their children were not born in this country. Being in social housing does not mean not being in work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if someone becomes a British citizen after moving to this country, they should have a different tier of support in the system, even if they have paid into it?

[Gareth Bacon]

No, I am not.

[Natasha Irons]

Would you like to clarify?

[Gareth Bacon]

No. If the hon. Lady will listen to the remainder of my speech, she will hear what I have to say.

It is understandable that as more and more people watch more and more of their salary slip away from their pockets and into the hands of the taxman, they begin to ask why they bother, and to question the fairness of the system. If the Government are not going to build enough social homes, they could follow our example, as laid out in our alternative King’s Speech: end all new social housing tenancies for all foreign nationals, as well as current tenancies for couples in which neither person is a UK, Irish or EU citizen, and free up those homes for British families. To be clear about the scale of what we are talking about, this would add 228,144 homes to the social housing sector—more homes than the Government built in the whole of 2024-25.

Finally, I turn to the problems around shared ownership that could be fixed—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in her place. My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully to bring this issue to the attention of the Government and see it added to the Bill. For far too long, and for far too many people, what should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder instead became a logistical, legal and financial nightmare. I am proud of the Opposition’s work in the House of Lords to force the Government to finally realise that this has become a national issue, and to obtain a welcome commitment from the Government to reviewing shared ownership practices. I call on the Minister to reiterate that promise, and not to seek to remove any such commitment or obligation from the Bill in Committee.

It is clear that this Bill fails the British people. By effectively destroying the right to buy, it does nothing to increase available social housing stock. It merely keeps people trapped in the system and not in control of their own life. It fails to provide more homes, to support aspirations of home ownership or to free up existing stock. Most crucially, it undermines the very essence of what makes for a successful and viable housing system. In such a system, people are supported to get into housing when they need it, and to own housing when they aspire to do so. This Bill, this Government and the Secretary of State—who is absent for reasons I think we all probably understand—not only fail but refuse to create such a system. That is why the Opposition tabled our reasoned amendment. We believe that the Bill is so lacking in ambition, so ideological in its motivation and so punitive in its measures that it should not proceed beyond this stage, or get anywhere near the statute book.

I say that with great sorrow for the helpless victims of domestic abuse and violence, who deserve everything that the Bill promises on those issues. It is a shame that the Government have wedded such necessary support to such punitory legislation. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure the House that if the Bill makes it to Committee and beyond, it will be amended to make it fit for purpose for those in need of housing, in need of escape from abuse, and in need of shelter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Member for I forget where—he does not mention it very often, but maybe it is Harlow. He is right and I will come to exactly that point about temporary accommodation.

The Resolution Foundation found that only one home was replaced for every five sold. That is a direct failure of Governments of all persuasions to build enough social housing. The Conservatives reversed their policy of allowing councils to spend 100% of receipts soon after they introduced it. In comparison, in 2004, a Labour Government required three quarters of receipts to be sent straight to the Treasury. Homes were sold at around half their value, and what money there was from receipts went elsewhere, not into building new social homes, and building rates plummeted.

I am glad that the new Prime Minister talks a good game on devolution, but even under the measures in this Bill, councils will remain unable to stop the loss of council homes from right to buy. The Liberal Democrats would give councils that power to end right to buy in their areas, if that is right for them and their communities. The Government should trust councils to understand their communities and their own housing markets.

When it comes to the Conservatives, who seem to be chasing their ideological bedfellows in the Reform party, apparently the priority is not building housing; it is finding a minority to blame for the problem—a group to alienate as “the other” when we should be focusing on building for the whole of the UK and everyone who lives here. Their amendment banning people who are not full British citizens from social housing overlooks the fact that people subject to immigration control are already ineligible for social housing—that is the law—but they want to go further.

The nurse on the ward at Musgrove Park hospital, in my constituency, would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment and would not be allowed to have a social home or a council house. The care worker who looked after people during the pandemic would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment. Under a Conservative Government, they would have nowhere to live when it comes to council and social housing. That is ironic for a party that has produced two Prime Ministers born outside Britain. As the Member of Parliament for Taunton and Wellington, I do not know whether I should inform his grace the Duke of Wellington that the first Duke of Wellington would not fully be a British citizen under the Conservative amendment tabled today because he was born outside Britain.

[Gareth Bacon]

That is total rubbish!

[Gideon Amos]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads the Conservative amendment that refers to reserving social housing for British citizens.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Duke of Wellington was British.

[Gideon Amos]

No, the Duke of Wellington was not born in Britain—the hon. Gentleman needs to have a look at his history books—[Interruption.] Regardless of the history of the Duke of Wellington, attempts to use the Bill to pump up divisive culture-war claptrap does not deserve our attention. Rather than pointing the finger of blame at minorities, we should be talking about how to build more social homes, and that is exactly what I will go on to do.

The failure to replace social homes, among other factors, means that more and more people are in temporary accommodation. There are 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, and councils spent £2.8 billion on it last year. The scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation exists for far too many children, and that is why we need a big public housing programme to match the scale of the challenge. If for no other reason, we must do that because it is incumbent on all of us in this House, across parties, to end the tragic loss of children’s lives. The Shared Health Foundation has highlighted that temporary accommodation was found by a coroner to be a contributing factor in the deaths of 104 children in the last five years.

Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I am pleased to be able to call her that—whom I congratulate on her appointment to the role. I warmly welcome her to her place and appreciate her remarks on the regulations.

The Opposition stand alongside the Government—and, I am sure, with Members from across the House—in saying that building safety and remediation are critical tasks. We cannot be a world-leading economy or global power and still have citizens who live in—or, worse still, are trapped in—homes that have been rendered unsafe. People’s homes are the very places that they should feel safest. I therefore agree with the Minister on the need to make buildings safe, and I recognise that the building safety levy is intended to play a part in doing that.

When assessing the regulations, we must consider the juncture at which we find ourselves. I was pleased to support plans for the Grenfell Tower Memorial earlier this year, and I welcomed the constructive tone adopted by Members from across the House and the value of the wider discussions about remediation and building safety during that debate. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), highlighted in that debate, Government figures show that work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the type used for Grenfell Tower—has been completed for 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings with such cladding, and remediation work at most of the remaining sites is progressing.

That is good news, as is the fact that Committee members are here to discuss and debate how to complete that task. As I said, I recognise the role that the building safety levy is intended to play in that mission, which needs to be completed, despite the extensive progress made under the previous Conservative Government and under Labour Administrations since 2024. None the less, the Opposition have concerns about the levy and, more germanely, about the specifics of the regulations.

Perhaps the most pertinent is the deep concern that I and many colleagues share about the potential impact of the levy on the building of more homes. As we have debated back and forth many times before, this country is currently in the midst of a significant housing shortage. The Government’s own impact assessment raised concerns about the viability of sites, as this additional cost is added to pre-existing development costs. The Minister is right to say that developers have known about the change for some time, but that will not mitigate the impact of the cost when it arrives. That is especially the case in areas where residential land value is lower, as the impact assessment highlights. The Government have previously stated that that is why:

“Levy rates have been set such that rates are lower in areas where house prices are lower and viability is more stretched.”

I do not believe that the levy in isolation will cause house building to grind to a halt, but I am deeply concerned that, when costs in many parts of the country are already too high, yet another cost to development takes us another step closer to a critical—perhaps even fatal—moment for house building. We must remember that the housing industry is already paying, among other things, a 4% surcharge on corporation tax, worth £2 billion; a voluntary self-remediation pledge, worth more than £4.1 billion; and reimbursements to Government funds, worth more than £700 million. Those totals, alongside other measures, are worth almost £7 billion—more than double the value of the funds expected to be raised by the levy.

The Home Builders Federation examined the proposals and found that developers are staring at a potential average additional cost of £2,320 per unit when building new homes. In London, the increase amounts to more than £3,00. As the HBF stresses, that is on top of the myriad other average additional costs, including £10,220 per unit for the future homes standard, £2,000 per unit for the proposed changes to landfill tax rates, £5,700 per unit for biodiversity net gain, £7,700 per unit for building regulation costs, £2,055 per unit in taxes and £37,000 per unit for materials and labour. Inflation on relevant building materials has exceeded 40% since 2020, and labour costs rocketed after the employer national insurance hike was introduced.

We in this place have a duty to ensure that everyone can live in a safe and decent home, and remediation is a critical aspect of that. If these costs continue to layer and swell, however, we will eventually bury the affordability of new homes beneath the unaffordability of the costs that come with building them. That is not just a fear for the future, but one that I worry has already joined us in the present in some parts of the country—not least here in London, where new housing starts over the past two years are at negligible levels, despite record levels of housing demand. The Minister, who is like me, a Greater London MP, knows that to be the case. I acknowledge that safety, affordability and viability are a difficult triumvirate to harmonise, but the Government are on track to miss their target by up to 400,000 homes across the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is clear that something must be done differently.

Finally, I turn briefly to an issue that I believe cuts to the heart of future viable housebuilding in the UK: brownfield development, which the Minister touched on. I welcome the fact that the draft regulations recognise the importance of getting more homes built on previously developed land, especially as that has not always been recognised by Labour Members. The Opposition acknowledge that a 50% reduction in the levy for brownfield sites is a positive step on paper. However, the definition of brownfield land under the national planning policy framework means that 75% of it must be previously developed, while these draft regulations now clarify the treatment of fixed-surface type infrastructure and unlawful operations, and exclude from the definition wholly underground buildings and underground parts of buildings, That leaves me concerned that we will see fewer buildings falling under the scope of brownfield land, and therefore fewer buildings benefiting from the rate reduction. I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications on that point and on my concerns about the potential impact on house building.

As I have said throughout these discussions, it is vital that all sides of the House work together towards a constructive, viable and affordable system of house building and remediation. That is essential for a safer future and safer homes, for the ownership and security of personal welfare, and for a fairer system in a modern society in which we never leave a single one of our constituents living in a home they know is not safe and secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Opposition for their positive contributions to this debate. In that spirit, we need to continue to work across parties to address this important issue.

The shadow Minister asked about viability, a key issue that continues to come up. As he mentioned, we both serve as London MPs and see the impact across London and right across the country. It is important to recognise that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply while also balancing the revenue required to make homes safe. The measures include variable rates to local authority levies and a 50% discount on developments on previously developed land, reflecting the additional costs of building on those sites.

As I highlighted in my opening remarks, affordable housing is exempt from the levy, which should help to bring forward new housing supply. On average, the levy charge represents 1.1% of house prices on non-previously developed land, and 0.55% on previously developed land. It is therefore expected to have only a very small negative impact on supply. As I also mentioned, the levy was announced in 2021, so the sector has known about it for some time. We appreciate that many issues outside the sector and outside the Government’s control, whether locally, nationally or internationally, are having a big impact on developers, but it is important that they continue to price this work into the deals that they are doing.

[Gareth Bacon]

I think the Minister misspoke. She said that the regulations had been designed to minimise housing supply. I am not sure that that is what she meant.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. I should have said that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impact.

The shadow Minister asked whether the levy could have an impact on our ambitious target—rightly so—of reaching 1.5 million new homes. We continue to work closely with the housing market to look at supply. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that homes continue to be built at pace. This issue comes up in my inbox, as it does for many hon. Members—it is not isolated to London. It is important that we build good-quality homes.

The shadow Minister also highlighted the impact that the measures could have on innocent homeowners, who should not be burdened with the cost. I thank him for agreeing that the cost should not be placed on them. It is right that developers and house builders be responsible for it, in order to protect innocent homeowners.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, highlighted an issue on which many of us have campaigned for many years: ensuring that innocent leaseholders and homeowners are not responsible for paying the levy. Many of them struggle with housing costs and the cost of living crisis on a day-to-day basis. It is important that developers have a way to fund the levy with no additional cost to the taxpayer.

The Lib Dem spokesperson asked about properties that fall out of scope. We will continue to identify those properties and work with the sector to highlight other ways of supporting them, in order to ensure, again, that costs are fairly shared across the market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her return to her position, and to welcome her to her place. What steps is she taking to proactively protect the green belt?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, there are strong protections in the national planning policy framework. It is for local authorities to decide whether exceptional circumstances exist for the release of green-belt land, and whether very special circumstances exist that would outweigh the harms involved when it comes to inappropriate development. Those safeguards remain. We are committed to preserving England’s green belts, which have served our towns and cities very well over many decades.

[Gareth Bacon]

I agree with the Minister’s last point, but I am not too sure that I believe the preceding point. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and generating new housing, one of the best ways of doing both would surely be to ensure that planning permissions are actually built, but according to the Local Government Association, there are up to 1.4 million housing units that have been granted planning consent over the past decade and have not been completed. The Government may claim that they are serious about solving this problem, and point to their planning reform working paper, entitled “Speeding Up Build Out”, but that paper was published in May last year and requires primary legislation for it to have any effect at all. If the Government are serious about protecting the green belt and getting homes built, where is the legislation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, knows full well that development can stall at particular sites for a variety of reasons, not least the viability pressures that we discussed earlier. We are taking action to get sites moving, and the NPPF strengthens expectations in this area. On the specific matter that he raises, primary legislation is not needed. Primary legislation was taken through by the previous Government, and we have a plan to switch on the necessary secondary legislation to ensure that we have transparency over build-out rates. He does not have long to wait for that to come forward.