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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it depends where you are, doesn’t it?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am confident, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm to me whether it is now the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition that if all reasonable options for meeting identified housing need have been exhausted, including grey-belt land, no green-belt land can ever be released, even in those very special circumstances. If that is their position, the Opposition are consciously and deliberately consigning people in this country to longer misery as a result of the acute housing crisis that got worse on their watch and is still causing misery, which we are undoing.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Government have previously claimed that so-called grey-belt land is comprised of old petrol stations and disused car parks, but by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes on so-called grey-belt land that had been approved by Government planning inspectors, 88% were due to be built on what had previously been undeveloped countryside. The evidence is unequivocal: the green belt is under attack from this Government. Why will the Minister not just admit that the term “grey belt” is in fact a dishonest concoction designed to mislead the general public?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is anything but a dishonest concoction. As I have said, grey-belt land is determined by local planning authorities where it does not meet the purposes of the green belt, as set out. I come back to the question of what the hon. Gentleman is saying: is he saying that our strategic and targeted approach to the green belt should be replaced by the chaotic and haphazard approach that the previous Government took, under which we saw swathes of green-belt land released across the country, often in the wrong areas? The grey belt is ensuring that the right kind of low-quality green-belt land is released where all other options have been exhausted and where need for housing needs to be met through that avenue.

Women’s Safety in Rural Areas

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to take part in this debate about the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas. Any concern about the safety of women and girls in their local communities is, of course, of real importance, and I welcome the opportunity to examine the issue from the context of the planning system. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. Let me start by setting out why this debate is important, because the safety of women and girls should be a whole Government effort and of concern to the whole of society. It is relevant to consider the context at the outset.

In July 2024, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing described the problem of violence against women and girls as a national emergency, making up just under 20% of all recorded crime in England and Wales. Data has shown that in rural areas, convictions for domestic abuse are less likely, and victims in rural areas are subject to domestic abuse for 25% longer than those in urban areas, and are half as likely to report it.

It is clear that a strong disparity exists between the safety of women in urban locations and those in rural locations—I appreciate the value of this aspect of today’s debate. I have no doubt that the Government share the police chiefs’ concern. Despite that, the Government’s “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy” mentions rural locations just once. I suspect that is unintentional, but would welcome confirmation from the Minister in a few moments.

When we think about safety, we often focus on laws, policing or personal responsibility. That is entirely understandable, but one of the most powerful tools we have is something perhaps less obvious and the subject of this debate: planning. The way we design and organise rural spaces, roads, transport systems, lighting, housing and community services can significantly shape how safe women and girls feel and actually are. It is important that women and girls feel safe in the built environment around them, and that choices are made to ensure that safety can be upheld. That is why it is noteworthy that the Government have said:

“Design and planning are critical tools in achieving this.”

The planning system may at first seem a somewhat unrelated aspect of Government policy in the context of women’s safety, but as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset emphasised in her speech, that assumption is wide of the mark. Through the planning system, both central and local Government can shape the built environment around women and girls to provide the infrastructure necessary to make rural streets, hamlets, villages and towns safe places for local people in general, and local women and girls in particular. For example, we know that well-lit streets, accessible transport and thoughtful design can work towards reducing violence and opportunities for harm.

Those examples do not guarantee women’s and girls’ safety. It is of considerable regret that so many women and girls do not feel safe on our streets, despite efforts made locally and centrally by figures of authority. But the changes that such planning choices can lead to in making women and girls feel safer in rural communities are none the less of great importance. That is clearly why the Government have announced that they will

“update national design guidance to reflect a VAWG perspective, ensuring that safety considerations inform how public spaces are designed.”

I hope the Minister will update us in a few minutes’ time on the progress regarding that pledge. What specific changes will be made and when?

In addition, the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport launched a consultation regarding the third cycling and walking investment strategy recently. In that consultation, the Minister’s colleagues noted:

“Investment in well-lit, safe, high-quality walking, wheeling and cycling routes increases feelings of personal safety, as well as improving road safety”.

The Government are yet to release their response to the consultation, which closed in November 2025. I hope the Minister will confirm that he will investigate how that pledge can be enacted, and what impact it will have on rural areas and the women and girls who live within them.

On rural issues specifically, I have already spoken about better lighting and creating safer spaces, but rural areas face a multitude of other issues that can actively work against the protection of women and girls. Technology and communication infrastructure are key parts of modern planning. Access to mobile networks and emergency services can literally be lifesaving in rural areas, but, according to a report from the House of Lords, although the situation is improving, rural areas often suffer from much worse access to the internet and worse phone coverage than urban areas.

In January 2024, the proportion of rural premises with access to gigabit-capable broadband was only 47%, compared with 84% of premises in urban areas. Around 5% of premises in rural areas were not able to access a decent broadband service at all, compared with just 1% in urban areas. Access to efficient broadband and speedy ways to contact key agencies in emergencies, including the police, would intuitively seem to be an important part of increasing the safety of women and girls in rural areas.

The lack of public transport in rural areas can force women and girls to take longer, less safe routes home. Given that, as I already mentioned, rural areas tend to be less well-lit and are often less heavily populated, the increased risk to women and girls caused by the lack of public transport is obvious.

In the planning system as a whole, there is a difficult balance between more effective regulation and making the system not just work for everyone, but actively support everyone in all aspects of life. It is clear that it will require a whole-Government approach to get that right. Planning alone is not a complete solution; it must work, as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, alongside other agencies, such as education, community engagement and strong legal protections. Without good planning, even the best policies can fall short if they attempt to work in isolation.

The safety of women and girls must be improved and protected with a holistic and multi-departmental approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

This will be one of those rare occasions when there is a broad consensus across the House. The Opposition support the Government in wishing to continue the work begun since that tragic night in 2017 to ensure that lessons are learnt, changes are made, and the 72 victims who lost their lives are properly remembered. My Conservative colleagues and I welcome the Bill, and will support it today on Second Reading and during its further stages.

The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 54 adults and 18 children, was a national tragedy that still sits as a dark and distressing memory within our national conscience. The failures that led to that horrific blaze, and to so much bereavement and distress, have now been studied in great depth by the Grenfell inquiry. They had to be addressed in detail, which is why we welcome the Government’s work to implement the inquiry’s recommendations and support their efforts to meet all of them by the end of the current Parliament. It is firmly the responsibility of the Government of the day to implement those recommendations, but it is our collective parliamentary responsibility to allow the means for that to happen, to support the Government’s work, and to ensure that, nine years on, we continue the process of remembrance.

It is very difficult for us here to judge how best to commemorate the 72 people who so tragically lost their lives. That is why I believe that it was the correct approach, in 2019, to allow the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to develop proposals for a fitting and permanent memorial. The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside it to remember the tragedy. It is very important that in remembering the fire, we also remember all those affected by the events that night: those who lost their lives, of course, but also the bereaved families, the survivors, and the immediate community who have previously lived, or currently live, in close proximity to Grenfell Tower.

As this process of remembrance reaches one of its most important moments—the realisation of the monument promised to the Grenfell community by the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and by successive Governments —it is vital for any future monument to keep the four promises made to the community: the promise of a mission to create a place of dignity and peace; the promise to create a bold memorial to ensure that the tragedy of the fire is never forgotten; the promise to introduce key measures to ensure that the memorial is looked after and not allowed to fall into disrepair; and a final promise to ensure that the voices and wishes of the Grenfell community are always at the heart of decisions made about the memorial. As for the future and the preservation of the memorial, it is important for this space to be protected from decay and enabled to continue to serve as a focal point for peaceful and reflective remembrance of the horrors of the fire. That is why my colleagues and I welcome the provisions in the Bill to allow the maintenance and preservation of the monument.

As was mentioned during a recent debate on the Grenfell Tower annual report, it is necessary for the Government to deliver on their promises of funding. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about that, and I hope that he will confirm the funding arrangements in due course.

On a related note—although it is not directly connected with the purposes of the Bill—perhaps the best possible tribute to all those connected with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower would be for the Government to honour funding commitments regarding the completion of the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate for those who are still living there. The refurbishment was intended to be funded 50-50 by the Government and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The funding required from the Government is a small additional fraction of the reported cost of the memorial. The council has done its part, and I understand that agreement regarding Government funding is close, but the longer this is delayed, the more costs will inevitably rise, so let me take this opportunity to urge the Government to conclude these proceedings with haste.

The inquiry’s finding that decades of systemic failure, as well as sheer dishonesty and dangerous negligence, allowed this tragedy to occur represents a shameful and damning conclusion on the work, or lack thereof, of culpable industry figures, regulatory bodies and successive Governments. The least that we can do now is support the full implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations, and we on the Opposition side of the House will constructively scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are proposing, to try to ensure that anything that is done is done properly.

For today, however, I look forward to seeing the Bill through its remaining stages in this House, and to working constructively to move the memorial a step closer to realisation. That is why the Opposition do not plan to amend the Bill today. As I said at the start of my speech, we will support it, and support the aim for the memorial to become a real place of peace and remembrance for the Grenfell community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work today to shepherd this important Bill through Second Reading. I also want to thank all hon. Members, who contributed thoughtful comments and points, as we strive to work across the House to see this memorial realised. I thank the hon. Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin).

As outlined earlier on, it is of great importance that the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war is remembered with a fitting and lasting memorial. Built in a peaceful and appropriate way, according to the wishes of the survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the memorial will go some way towards helping the nation to remember the 72 people who lost their lives. But it is first and foremost a space for the Grenfell community. The avoidable national tragedy that was the Grenfell Tower fire must also be an unavoidable memory in this place. It is important that policymakers keep in mind the duty that we have to protect British citizens from failure, negligence and unsafe practices.

As has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, we must not forget to remind ourselves of the raw emotion that comes with the creation of this memorial space. Since the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), understandably announced the decision to dismantle Grenfell Tower just over a year ago in February 2025, we have heard of the distress that this news brought to some members of the Grenfell community. It is vital that, as the Government move closer to fully dismantling the Grenfell site, they continue to engage with the bereaved and all those affected to ensure that their voices are not just present but listened to and that their concerns, memories and experiences are understood.

I have also raised the importance of this funding being protected. It is imperative that as the process to build and maintain the Grenfell Tower fire memorial progresses, the funding that has been promised and the means by which it can be preserved is also safeguarded. While our greatest duty is to build on the lessons of the failures that led to the catastrophic fires, it is also our sincere duty to uphold the promises made to the whole Grenfell community since that night. For that reason, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservative party will not seek to divide the House. If a Division is required, although that seems unlikely, we will vote to pass the Bill into law to ensure that the memorial is built.

This memorial is not part of the technical and regulatory changes that had to come as a result of the fire, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, the cladding safety scheme and all the effort undertaken by the Government with specific regard to the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings. It is not possible, of course, to put right the disastrous wrong that occurred on 14 June 2017, but the memorial can help to appropriately commemorate it. We will, therefore, support the Bill.