Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

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.

National Planning Policy Framework

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to take part in this debate about the impact of changes to the national planning policy framework. At the outset, I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this important debate. She made a strong speech, particularly focused on the danger of building in areas prone to flooding. I also thank the 10 hon. and right hon. Members who have made speeches—and the three who have made interventions—so far in this debate.

The NPPF is the rulebook by which our planning system is guided. It is an extensive and comprehensive statement of the Government of the day’s policy direction, and perhaps the clearest signal to developers, local authorities and local people about how a Government will approach changes to their surrounding built environment. It covers everything from roads to housing, local communities to land use, and provides the overarching checks, balances and direction in the planning system. We are not in blanket opposition to everything that the Government are seeking to do with the NPPF. However, we do have significant concerns about some aspects of it, and I will focus on those in my remarks today.

Since coming to power two years ago, this Government have twice proposed revisions to the NPPF, both times with severe consequences for our green spaces, rural towns and villages, and local democratic voices. In their first revisions, made just before Christmas 2024, the Government’s policy direction was clear. Unfortunately, what was on offer was an unwelcome gift of urban sprawl. That was because the Government made it easier for local authorities to release green-belt land for development in more ways than one.

The first, and most obvious, was the announcement that new golden rules would need to be met to expand on to the green belt. That effectively invited developers to test the waters by highlighting that the NPPF stated that, where a development complied with the golden rules, local authorities should give “significant weight in favour” of approving the scheme.

The second release came from the Government’s spurious grey belt designation. Concocted in the bowels of Marsham Street, “grey belt” is a disingenuous label. The Prime Minister has told us that it means low-quality land made up of “disused car parks”, but that is far from the truth, because, for too many sites, grey belt is simply a façade for releasing green-belt sites for urban sprawl and overdevelopment.

That is backed by research in December 2025 by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which showed that, a year after the first NPPF reforms, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes approved by Government planning inspectors on so-called grey-belt land, 88% of those 1,250 homes

“will be built on previously undeveloped countryside”—

not disused petrol stations, low-quality land or any other trumped-up example taken straight from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government press release, just our countryside. Worse, those developments make up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on grey-belt sites by inspectors; a further 21 smaller schemes, totalling no more than 91 homes, comprised the remainder.

That is not the only attack on our green spaces. The 2024 NPPF revisions also reintroduced mandatory top-down housing targets across England by removing the word “advisory” from the relevant paragraph concerning housing targets, alongside references to exceptional circumstances for alternative approaches to determining local housing targets.

As other Members have said, that came alongside a new standard method for housing targets. The hon. Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for Wells and Mendip Hills highlighted some of the bizarre assumptions underpinning the housing targets generated by the new standard method, alongside some of its counterproductive outcomes. When examined together, those disproportionately redistributed top-down housing targets on to rural areas from urban areas. For example, under the Government’s targets, housing numbers were cut by 11% in London, 38% in Birmingham and 55% in Coventry, while increasing by 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness.

That is particularly concerning given that major cities—and not least here in central London—have the infrastructure needed to support development. However, even in Greater London, although the collective target has been reduced by 11%, that has been achieved by sharp drops in urban inner London, whereas in the more rural outer-London areas, huge increases have been imposed. For example, in my London borough of Bromley, which is the largest borough in Greater London and is mostly rural, the target has been increased by 400%.

The conclusion is inescapable. The NPPF changes show very clearly that this Government are determined to build all over the green belt. What has been the result of these reforms? It certainly has not been large amounts of extra housing. As I pointed out in this place yesterday, the Government’s own figures show that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was just 208,600 in Labour’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 under the last Conservative Government’s final year in office. Indeed, the Government admitted that they will not hit the target through their own net additional dwelling forecasts, predicting that by 2029 they will have fallen well short.

It does not have to be this way. The Opposition recognise the need to build more homes, and we made it clear from the start of this Parliament that we are broadly supportive of the ambition to build many more homes. However, the Government’s actions, through some of their revisions to the NPPF, are the wrong way to go about it. A future Conservative Government will employ a genuine brownfield-first approach rather than releasing swathes of green belt or relabelling it under the murky and disingenuous designation of “grey belt”. We will not just pay lip service to brownfield development, but prioritise it and make it easier. That can and will be done.

The CPRE reported that a large proportion of England’s housing could be swiftly met using brownfield land that already has planning permission, without encroaching on undeveloped greenfield or green belt land. It estimates that there is enough brownfield land to build 1.41 million homes in England, based on the most up-to-date data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024. That amounts to 93% of the Government’s parliamentary target. Furthermore, it has shown that England’s brownfield sites are increasing in number, land area and minimum net dwellings—up 54%, 6% and 34% respectively between 2018 and 2024.

That is why, not for the first time, I press the Minister to go further and faster in helping local authorities and developers to access brownfield sites rather than freeing up our green belt and steamrollering over local democracy, local voices and local communities. Recent history shows that this approach can work. If the Government want to see urban regeneration or densification done right, they can follow Conservative examples and pursue brownfield-first and not greenfield-first. We will not only abandon the Government’s offensive on our green spaces, but harmonise supply and demand-side policies.

I will finish with a small note on that point. As the Government continue to tweak the NPPF, they are doing nothing to back first-time buyers, families and downsizers by axing demand-side schemes and cutting stamp duty relief. There is no point in delivering supply-side reforms if the demand is not there to make it worth while.

To conclude, it is evident from the speeches here today and the evidence before us that the impact of recent reforms to the national planning policy framework has failed to deliver more homes, failed to protect our green belt, failed to support the housing market, failed to make brownfield sites viable and failed to deliver for voters. Regardless of the outcome of that, the Minister is a man I have a great deal of respect for. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that he is a decent and thoughtful man, and I sincerely wish him well in the pending reshuffle. Regardless of its outcome, he has the chance to raise this with whomever his new boss will be after next week’s coronation. I hope that he grasps the opportunity with alacrity and delivers the right homes in the right places and with the right infrastructure—just as the country deserves.

Estate Regeneration

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate about estate regeneration. I find myself in agreement with much of what I have heard so far. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and for his opening speech about an estate regeneration scheme in his constituency; he made a strong argument. I also thank those who have spoken in the debate: the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also somewhat belatedly congratulate the Minister on her promotion and welcome her to her place; this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of facing her in a debate.

Estate regeneration is an important process in delivering the right homes for local people. That is true across all the main types of estate regeneration, from refurbishments, where homes are retrofitted to bring them into line with regulations and make them safe, viable and modern places for people and families to call home, to infill developments, where new homes are built on previously developed or undeveloped land to increase density and provide housing for the local population, or full redevelopments and regenerations, meaning the wholesale demolition and reconstruction of entire estates to provide fresh stock for residents and for new buyers or tenants.

That is why, alongside new housing delivery, the Government should think seriously about estate regeneration. Across the country, there are thousands of homes with untapped potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, alongside the vast and preponderant unrealised space that is ripe for increased density and new homes. That is especially true here in London, as I am sure the Minister will agree; I know it all too well, as a former Conservative leader on the London Assembly and as a Member of Parliament for a Greater London constituency.

With a population that has never been higher and continues growing, London is bursting with demand for housing. Greater London has been set a target of 88,000 homes a year by the Government. That means, on average, the equivalent of one London borough-worth of homes being delivered every 16 months. So far, however, the Mayor of London and his supporters in MHCLG are falling very far short of that. According to GLA figures, in 2024-25 just 7,124 social rent and London affordable rent homes were completed. Of course, that does not even come close to helping the 366,000 Londoners on the social housing waiting list.

The need for new homes is stark and urgent. The Government’s own figures show that across England, the number of new net additional dwellings was just 208,600 in Labour’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24, the previous Conservative Government’s final year in office. In Labour’s first year, 190,600 new homes were built; that is a fall of 8,000, or around 4%, from 2023-24, and suggests that the Government are on course to fall well short of their self-imposed target of 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament. They are on track to build something like 400,000 fewer homes than they promised at the election. By contrast, from 2013 to 2023, under the previous Government, the nation saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels of the 1970s. Between 2010 and 2024, 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes were delivered.

That is where estate regeneration can play a key role, particularly, but not only, in London. According to the London Councils estate regeneration report from November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply, but overflowing with demand. That is not true just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members from across the House have noted today. Estate regeneration is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution.

The previous Government understood that. As the mover of today’s motion, the hon. Member for Basingstoke, noted, they had a national strategy in 2016 to give this issue the national attention that it deserves. They also understood the role that estate regeneration can play in taking the pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, noted in his speech. Everyone has heard the lip service the Government pay to brownfield development, but MHCLG’s actions since July 2024 have shown a clear desire to build all over the green belt.

Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by this Government, the Conservatives believe in building where homes are wanted and needed, and where they can be supported by existing necessary infrastructure such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly. As highlighted by the architect Chloë Phelps, the director of Grounded, estate regeneration schemes

“are going to be critical to delivering new homes on brownfield sites over the next few years, with estimates that there is capacity for more than 120,000 homes on small sites in London alone.”

The Minister’s colleague the Planning and Housing Minister is well-versed in all aspects of his brief, but his Department’s Social Housing Bill suggests otherwise. Not only does the Bill fail to recognise the importance of delivering social homes on brownfield sites, but estate regeneration remains largely absent from it. That is because the Bill is dressed up as a law to support social housing and increase its supply, but is in fact more about destroying the right to buy.

If the Government were serious about social housing, they would have actually built some. In 20% of council areas across England, not one social home was built under this Government over the last two years.

[Fleur Anderson]

Does the shadow Minister know that since Wandsworth council became Conservative, the only decisions it has made have been to cancel all of the housing development on one estate and partially cancel it on another? We are now wondering what will happen with the Alton estate. Does he support building more houses and keeping them as social housing, especially on the Alton estate?

[Gareth Bacon]

I am not going to comment on that particular scheme, because I am not across the detail of it, but of course I support building more houses, and we need more houses of all tenure. That is something that we have said repeatedly, here and in the main Chamber.

Once again, Whitehall has the wrong priorities: targeting our green belt, the ideological attack on the right to buy and the failing new towns programme. Those come before the right priorities, such as estate regeneration. Replacement rates are too low for social homes and too many councils have been unable to deliver. The Government would therefore be wise to generate an appetite for regeneration, to feed the desperate hunger for new social housing. To date, they have not done that.

The Conservative Opposition believe in building more homes, prioritising brownfield land and making the dream of home ownership a reality. We believe in aspiration and, critically, in regeneration. Only through those priorities, and by acting on those beliefs, can we provide the much needed, much demanded and much wanted decent and modern social homes that people deserve. I hope the Minister will address those concerns in full and give our constituents on the waiting list, the developers in a position to build, and local leaders the confidence that the nation needs in order to make estate regeneration real.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to address the statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and I thank the Minister for his detailed opening remarks. At the outset I state that it is our intention to divide the Committee on the SI. Notwithstanding that, I am aware of the political balance of the Committee and the Government are likely to carry the day, so I have some comments and questions for the Minister.

As I said in a Delegated Legislation Committee two weeks ago,

“The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 June 2026; c. 4.].

It is therefore no surprise to be back again debating regulations relating to the Act. In that Committee I raised some of the Opposition’s important and long-held concerns about local democracy. This SI may be about the planning system on paper, but the core of the changes it seeks to make strike at the heart of future local democratic voices and their ability to scrutinise planning applications.

As I did two weeks ago, I am keen to make plain once again the Opposition’s firm view that we must get Britain building. There is broad consensus among the Government and the Opposition that this must happen, albeit with differences as to how it should happen. Still, that is better than the purely nimby sentiments expressed by some minor opposition parties.

Where the Government and the Opposition most notably differ is over the issue of local democratic oversight and scrutiny, and the uncertain future of planning committees. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, just 4% of all planning applications are decided by a planning committee rather than by a planning officer. However, it is that 4% in which local voices—democratically elected local voices—are so critical. That is because at present, local councillors can call in planning applications for democratic determination, but the Government seem determined to remove that ability by mandating which applications must go to committee and which cannot.

Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention? If so, how does he plan to ensure that planning officers are held to account under a national scheme of delegation? I know this is not the first time the Opposition have put this question to the Government, but it is of too great an importance not to be considered at every stage of this march towards a national scheme of delegation.

Secondly, any attempt to suggest that the 4% represents either a great blockage or an insignificant hill on which to plant one’s flag is very far from the truth. In the period from January to March, 91% of major planning applications were decided within 13 weeks of the agreed time, up from 89% towards the end of 2024. That is the same system that delivered consent for 1 million homes in England between 2019 and 2024, and 2.5 million between 2010 and 2024. Given that 96% of all applications are already decided outside planning committees, and given the high number of planning permissions granted, why is curtailing democratic participation necessary?

Removing local councillors’ ability to have their say is one thing, but doing so in exchange for a national scheme of delegation written and imposed top-down from Whitehall is a further insult to the town hall. I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the scheme includes the same local knowledge and understanding that local, democratically elected councillors provide at present? That is a concern not just on the Opposition Benches but for the Local Government Association, which, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, said:

“there remain concerns around how it”—

“it” meaning the national scheme of delegation—

“will ensure that councils—who know their areas best and what they need—remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”

As local authorities are being asked to deliver increases in new homes of up to 487%, what assessment has the Minister made of the loss of local knowledge and local democratic input to planning applications? As I said at the outset, we agree that there is a need to build more homes, but why do local people need to be taken out of the equation by removing their democratically elected representatives from the process?

There is also the question of transparency. How will the Government ensure that decisions taken by unelected officials are taken with sufficient probity? Then there is the question of applications made by local councillors themselves. For the sake of probity, it is usual for those to be heard by the full planning committee. Will that continue to be the case? What safeguards will be in place in the event that the council has a direct interest in an application—for example, where the application is made by the council itself or where it has a financial interest in it, perhaps by virtue of a loan to the developer?

Finally, between the removal of locally elected voices and the introduction of overarching and subsuming spatial development strategies, what role will local plans, which are decided by elected councillors, play after all of this? I hope that the Minister will carefully consider each of those points and address them fully as we continue this debate.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I would like to make a couple of additional points, adding to the really important comments made by the Minister about why these changes are important. It is worth dwelling on the fact that housing in this country is prohibitively expensive for too many people. That is the reason why people are increasingly having to wait so long to get on the housing ladder.

Fundamentally, housing is too expensive because, first, there is not enough of it and, secondly, increasingly it is too expensive to build new housing units. If we want to bring the cost of housing down, we have to address those two problems. We have to increase the number of new homes that are built, but also decrease the cost of building them. On the latter, increasing global pressures, from supply chain disruptions to the impact of geopolitical events, are pushing up construction and labour costs. Most of those headwinds are outside our control, but when we have difficult headwinds it is even more important that we do everything we can with the levers that are within our control to bring down the cost of construction.

I mention that because one of the most damaging, self-inflicted and unnecessary costs in our current house building system is uncertainty. Right now, there could be companies out there—including developers, housing associations or, as the shadow Minister said, local councils—that are looking to build new homes. They could be doing everything right; they could be putting the land together and coming up with a plan that builds the right amount of affordable housing, gives local planning gains and supports local infrastructure. After putting all that investment and support in, coming up with a plan and designing a project, they could still face the daunting prospect of having that development blocked at the eleventh hour by the whims of a small number of local councillors, who are often responding completely rationally to local political incentives.

Obviously, those trade-offs exists. That uncertainty comes at a cost: we either add to the price of a house that constituents are paying for, or we decrease the amount of planning gain that we can make from the developers. By definition, it either means higher housing costs or it means fewer GP surgeries, less road infrastructure or fewer affordable homes being built. That is the cost of having more uncertainty in the system. It is right that we reduce that uncertainty; one way to do that is by having decisions made by officers who are following planning laws, rather than by people who are responding to political incentives.

[Gareth Bacon]

There is a strong corelation between the hon. Gentleman’s argument and our position. I agree with much of what he has said, but I cannot get away from the ratio that both the Minister and I have outlined in our speeches: 96% of planning applications are already decided by officers under delegated powers. Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that democracy is the inhibitor here? Is democracy introducing uncertainty into the system? If that is the case, he should say so.

[Chris Curtis]

I do not believe that democracy is changing it. It is fundamentally the incentives of certain local politicians to do this when they can have a veto power over a development that has a wider gain, often outside their local constituencies. That is a wider consequence. I am democratically elected, as is the shadow Minister, so in this sovereign Parliament we have the ability and right to set the rules under which that democracy operates.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree that that is the reason for the existence of the Planning Inspectorate? If planning applications are refused for reasons that are not in accordance with planning policy, will they not be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters.

The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that.

We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I understand his point that the 4% of applications contain a significant number of units, but does he have a figure for that? How many extra units will be granted planning permission as a result of this change?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact.

The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery.

Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, for the first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I appreciate the remarks that he has made—and to address this draft statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking and has in many ways transformed how our planning system operates. In this House and in the other place, one of the key areas of concern for the Opposition when the Bill was being debated was local consent, democracy and control. The Opposition keenly recognise the importance of getting Britain building—we share that desire with the Government—be it more homes, more transport links or more new infrastructure. However, we acknowledge that that requires change in how the issues are addressed. For too long it has been too expensive, too cumbersome and too controversial to see major housing and infrastructure projects through to complete realisation. That is why the overarching ambition to streamline the planning process is welcome and is something that we in the Opposition are sympathetic to.

Although the regulations are, according to the civil servants who wrote the accompanying explanatory notes,

“consequential and/or minor and technical in nature”,

they continue a worrying trend of centralisation that I hope the Minister will comment on in a moment. Through the regulations, the Government will make England-wide the system of spatial development strategies: a form of sub-regional mandatory strategic planning. The spatial development strategies are plans that look ahead a minimum of two decades and set the framework for local plans. For democratically elected local authorities, that means 20 years of subordinating the democratically accountable local plan to the “high-level documents”. However, it is not hard to see how that inevitably leads to institutional conflict.

I take London as the example. In London, the spatial development plan is known as the London plan and is produced by the Mayor of London. Far from being a high-level strategic document, it is a 526-page tome containing more than 100 separate policies—often of a very granular and sometimes conflicting nature, which makes navigating the system excessively complex. In an area as huge and varied as Greater London, the “one size fits all” approach to the London plan is often in conflict with boroughs’ local plans. Given that spatial development strategies produce a mandatory framework, what recourse of action is available to local councils and local people who find it hard to reconcile the local plan of their local area with the determination of the overriding strategy? How will their voices continue to be heard?

Secondly, and most importantly, I must press the Minister again to adopt a genuinely brownfield approach. This is not the first time we have conversed, debated and potentially sparred over this issue; there is widespread concern. Will the Minister make it clear how he intends to ensure that any long-term strategies encourage a “brownfield first” approach? How will he ensure that the spatial development strategies do not give a new and undemocratic weight to greenbelt developments by overriding any elements of local plans that currently prioritise brownfield development? The Government have spoken before about their reluctance to enshrine a genuine brownfield approach into law, but the Opposition believe it is far better that we deal with the issues now, rather than sandwich them in at a later and perhaps overdue date.

Finally, we were told that a primary aim of the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to streamline and speed up the planning process. What assessment has the Minister made of the potential for the statutory inquiries that he has just referred to, authorised under regulation 2, to increase the amount of time necessary to get the planning system moving, rather than enlivening and quickening the process? Those important questions drive into the heart of the purpose of the very Act that the regulations seek to enforce. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will address those points and provide the assurances necessary to make the system workable.

Draft Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I think it is the first time, Ms Vaz, that I have had the pleasure of serving with you in the Chair; I very much look forward to it. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he just made.

As the Minister said, in 2020 the previous Government began the process of looking into policies to provide a more transparent picture of the control of land through the creation of a freely accessible dataset. This came out of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which provided the framework for greater transparency on contractual control agreements in England and Wales such as—as the Minister also pointed out—option agreements used to control the land short of outright ownership.

The process began with a call for evidence, which was followed by an eight-week consultation in which respondents demonstrated broad support for the increased transparency of contractual arrangements, including for key stakeholders such as developers and local authorities. However, respondents also made it clear that they had some reservations regarding unintended consequences in respect of things such as commercial sensitivity and the potential burdens on small and medium-sized businesses. On that latter point, it is vital that the Government fully and meaningfully engage with small and medium-sized businesses in the sector ahead of implementation, to ensure that this statutory instrument leaves no one concerned about additional costs and red tape to a detrimental effect.

The previous Government hosted targeted engagement sessions before and during the consultation period to ensure that those who were going to be impacted by the regulations were fully aware and given adequate opportunity to put forward their thoughts and views on the matter.

Times are, however, a little different now, and there is an important context for this debate. Small and medium-sized businesses such as developers, land promoters and conveyancers face increasingly higher costs and difficult market conditions. Not the least of their concerns is this morning’s data release regarding the inflation rate, which showed an increase to 3.3% in the year to March and forecasts of a potential high in excess of 4% this year—double the rate the Government are aiming for.

For the construction and development industry, the impact on input costs, supply chains, material and, in particular, fuel could be severe. The data release shows that fuel inflation increased by 8.7% month on month—the highest rate since the beginning of Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine.

Even before the data release, the Building Cost Information Service had forecast that building costs will increase by 14% over the next five years to 2031. That will hit SMEs especially hard and make it harder for them to compete as the major house builders dominate the more expensive land acquisitions, which data from the BCIS showed to happen in 2025. In addition to that are rising staffing costs, driven by increases to the minimum wage and employers’ national insurance contributions, and only compounded by the shortage of skilled workers available to the industry.

All that is alongside the regulatory and fiscal environment, which the industry tells us is stifling house building and development. Well-intentioned regulation is performing an important but far from perfect role in balancing the vital priorities of any Government to deliver a sustainable housing stock and ensure that homes are safe. That issue is much larger than the scope of this statutory instrument, but I know the Minister takes it very seriously and I look forward to further parliamentary time being spent on it.

Ultimately, I highlight all this because, for SMEs, this instrument produces new costs that are predicted to be about £4.2 million per annum. When that is added to the higher up-front capital costs, supply chain delays, increased taxation and the regulatory burden, it is vital that this important step to create better market transparency does not become overshadowed by the costs that come with it.

The instrument is right to promote a fairer and more open land market. Indeed, it is right that almost any market must be open to competition to allow SMEs to compete alongside major players. That is the foundation, of course, of any capitalist system, and I welcome regulation that provides more choice for consumers as well as fairness for small and medium-sized businesses. However, how does the Minister plan to ensure that that is exactly the impact of the regulations?

The regulations come with a real risk of unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns about how the instrument will impact land values, landowners’ and developers’ behaviour, and community engagement. For landowners and developers, it is vital that the Government monitor the market to ensure that the regulations do not encourage the tying up of capital and shrinking of the land stock available for development by encouraging a wholesale shift to outright land purchases to avoid the regulatory requirements introduced by this instrument.

For landowners especially, the Government must work with the sector to ensure that the public visibility of agreements does not foster an environment in which less land is brought forward for development. Without tackling those issues, the Government may only exacerbate the situation we increasingly find ourselves in—a situation in which the land, especially brownfield land, is preponderant, but where the high costs of construction and development preclude the laying of bricks or concrete.

I finish with a simple but essential ask: will the Minister commit to a regular review of the potential trends and ensure that the regulations work as intended? Without that, efforts to build a transparent and competitive market, which are essential to the success of the housing market, could end up being lost in the shadow of prevailing economic downturn, be it global or national.

The previous Government pursued this policy in 2024 to increase competition and transparency, and the potential of the intended consequences is why the Opposition will not divide the Committee today. However, the Minister must ensure that the regulations help to get Britain building and do not hinder British building, and must work with the industry to see that they work as intended.

Housing Needs: Young People

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

This is the first time I have served with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to do so, and to take part in this debate about the housing needs of young people. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for raising this important topic.

The housing needs of young people are multifaceted, with experiences ranging from those in temporary accommodation to those in the private rented sector, those who own their home and those who, for whatever reason, unfortunately find themselves sleeping rough. However, what is clear is that the Government are overseeing a growing problem, and forecasts for the rest of this Parliament predict further misery for young people, whether they are seeking their first home or merely a stable home.

One of the core issues behind the housing problem facing young people is a lack of supply, and the axing of measures that were designed to bolster demand. The dream of home ownership should be a reality for every hard-working person in this country, on which I think there is collective agreement in this room, but that is not the case. The Government have not yet done enough to make that dream a reality.

For example, recent ONS figures show that the Government’s record in house building is not just a sorry sight; in fact, it is significantly worsening. The statistics show that house building in England is on track to fall to its lowest level in more than a decade. During this Government’s first 15 months in office, just 175,290 homes were completed in England—a far cry from the lofty target of 300,000 needed to meet their manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament in 2029.

That crash is not showing signs of improvement either, with the three months to September 2025 seeing the number of dwellings drop to 30,880—the weakest quarter since the pandemic. Based on the pace recorded in the first three quarters of 2025, England is set for the lowest number of annual completions for over a decade, totalling just a measly 130,000. Those figures come alongside a release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last November, which showed that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was 208,600 in the Government’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 during the Conservative Government’s final year in office. Some 190,600 new homes were built, which was a fall of 8,000, or 4%, from 2023-24, once again suggesting that the Government are on course to fall well short of their 1.5 million homes pledge. If they fail to increase the rate of house building, there will be fewer than 1 million new homes completed by 2029, which is well short of their target.

What does that mean for young people trying to get on the housing ladder? It means it is becoming only more difficult to buy a home, not easier, and that young people are being failed by the Government. It is not just in housing supply that Whitehall currently presents more hinderances than help for young people. Demand for homes is far from insignificant in this country, not least among young people, but the Government are doing almost nothing to help that demand yield results. By November 2024, having been in office for just four months, they had taken an axe to the previous Government’s measures to get people on the housing ladder by cutting right to buy, first-time buyer stamp duty relief and the affordable homes to purchase programme. That has done nothing to help an already unaffordable housing market. It has in fact moved one of life’s primary assets—the ability to purchase one’s own home—further out of the reach of young people.

Young people already face huge challenges in buying a home. For example, the average age of a first-time buyer in England has climbed to 34, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire. New research shows the growing difficulty of getting on to the housing ladder, with the average deposit worth around a 10th more than a person’s yearly salary. Research also shows that the average age is rapidly being pushed up by the collapse of the portion of first-time buyers aged under 25. They now make up just 6%, despite having made up one quarter of those buying their first home in the 1990s. To compound the misery, more than half of first-time buyers now need two incomes to make a purchase.

Of course, it is important to consider not just those who are fortunate enough to consider buying their first home, but those who are renting, in social housing or in no house at all. On renting, a recent and very informative report by Centrepoint found that one third of young people in the private rental sector reported discrimination by landlords or agents, with the biggest issue being employment status. As unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds hits 16% as a direct result of the Government’s economic policies—a higher rate than during the pandemic—on the current trajectory, this issue will only worsen for young people, not improve. On top of that, young people face the prospect of a reduced supply of rental housing and, correspondingly, higher rents, which we are beginning to see on the back of the Government’s rental reforms.

For young people in social housing, the picture is no brighter. In the same report, Centrepoint highlighted that there are approximately 130,000 young households on housing registers. That means that if social housing were allocated at its current rate, with no new social housing applications from young households filed, it would still take more than six years to clear existing housing registers. To say the least, that is not a positive state of affairs. I hope the Minister will set out a clear path to addressing it in a couple of minutes’ time.

There is also a need to tackle the frightening rates of youth homelessness and young people staying in temporary accommodation. I am sure we all agree that no one should enter adulthood without the stability of a permanent and safe home, but under this Government, rough sleeping has hit its highest level since records began. More young people were staying in temporary accommodation, and for longer periods, in 2024-25, and 123,934 young people faced or were at risk of homelessness between April 2024 and March 2025—a 6% increase in just a year.

I doubt that the Government have done that on purpose, but young people deserve better. They deserve safe and affordable homes with demand-side support to make the dream of home ownership a reality. That is why the Conservative party has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. It is a bad tax, and one that needs to be abolished on primary residences to get the housing market moving and to give young people a better chance of getting on to the property ladder. I call on the Minister to get behind that plan, to reverse his Department’s recent failures, to get Britain building, and to get young people to obtain a real stake in their community, their society and their own lives through affordable and targeted housing.

Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and appreciate the remarks Committee members have made already. Ensuring the safety of people’s homes is, of course, a vital part of the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the aftermath of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the disaster that was the Grenfell Tower fire, the previous Government began that process through key pieces of legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. In many ways, the Opposition are pleased to see that work continue under this Government and the stewardship of the Minister.

Unfortunately, apparently not all parties see eye to eye on the matter. Changes to the planning system, including reforms to well intentioned safeguards such as the Building Safety Regulator, may be necessary. That is far from what Reform UK’s most senior designated spokesperson on housing said just before the recess. His comments cannot merely be described as misguided; they were insensitive to the point of being cruel and dismissive. That lamentable episode once again highlighted Reform’s inability to grasp the technicalities of many policy issues, and, critically, the inability of this one-man-band to muzzle its improperly vetted spokespeople and their shocking views.

Let me move on to the detail of the statutory instrument. The previous Government launched the responsible actors scheme in July 2023. The aim was clear and responsible: to use sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recognise action taken by responsible developers to locate, assess, remediate or pay to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings with a height of 11 metres or more that they had developed or refurbished over the 30 years leading to April 2022, as the Minister said.

The other side of establishing the scheme was to create a responsible actors scheme prohibitions list, and I note the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire. The explanatory memorandum says that the Department

“will continue to monitor and publish data”

on that, but it appears that there is no data, so I would welcome it if the Minister copied me into her response to my right hon. Friend. The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions.

As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding. The Government have said that

“the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.]

In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to

“provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.”

That pledge was made in July 2025. Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed?

It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.