Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is, I know, an outstanding advocate for his constituents. We will deliver our reforms in three phases. On 1 May next year, we will implement reforms to reshape the tenancy system and remove barriers to renting, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, limiting rent increases to just one a year, and outlawing bidding wars. The implementation dates for Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard are subject to consultation. The 11 million renters in England, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency whom he mentioned, will not forget that the Conservatives and Reform UK voted against these important changes that will benefit renters throughout the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recognise what the Secretary of State has said about protection for those who rent houses, but desperation is the issue for many people who rent their accommodation, and who find themselves in financial difficulties while living—as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock)—in a small, one-bedroom flat. Will the Secretary of State please speak to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, who I think would be the Minister for Communities, about what the Government here are doing, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can be a focus of attention?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. The answer is, of course, to build more social and affordable housing, and to increase the supply of housing more generally. I am, in fact, due to meet the relevant Northern Ireland Minister to discuss these matters, and I look forward to that.

Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else.

I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire.

Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do.

Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire.

Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses.

I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wish to be helpful, as I always try to be. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the debate. We had a local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, reducing councils from 26 to 11. The idea was to save money and make the system more accountable. It did not save any money and became more bureaucratic, and the people were the ultimate sufferers. If reorganisation is not done right at this stage, problems will occur down the line later.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.

Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.

Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.

It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.

The option D business case states:

“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”

That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.

Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.

Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:

“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.

Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!

Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.

Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.

Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and then the Minister to respond.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am probably not the only Member who has noticed that this Chamber seems as cold as a butcher’s fridge. It was the same yesterday. Have you had any indication when the heating might be turned on?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much for that point. I am sure we will be able to take it up with the House authorities.

I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend has been working closely with me on seeking the upgrades that I will be talking about, so I appreciate his intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady and understand exactly her frustration in relation to having infrastructure in place. In my constituency we have been pursuing the Ballynahinch bypass for over 35 years—15 of which I have been pursuing it as an MP. We now finally have a date, but such situations hold back development and housing potential, and affect businesses in the short term. Does the hon. Lady agree that such things need to move much more quickly, otherwise they will be the death knell for the towns that we all represent?

[Emma Foody]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The infrastructure in my constituency that I am talking about—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) highlighted—is the Moor Farm roundabout; hon. Members will be aware that barely a day goes by when I do not talk about it. I have also met Transport Ministers and I continue to lobby for the much-needed upgrades to be progressed through the road investment strategy.

As has been mentioned already, however, this issue goes far beyond the road network and beyond my area; it affects the entire north-east region. That is why I have called for this debate with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as the answering Department, because it is about housing, local plans and devolution. It is also critical to several councils in the north-east.

I will set out the context of the existing infrastructure at Moor Farm. This roundabout is a major strategic six-armed roundabout. It links the A19, A1 and A189. Sitting at the south of Northumberland on the border with North Tyneside, it is heavily congested and well used. It is a key gateway for the region and the link between Newcastle International airport and the ports of Blyth and Tyne. It is the key growth corridor for south-east Northumberland.

There is significant congestion at Moor Farm roundabout, which causes misery to local residents. We frequently see substantial delays, especially as a result of accidents on or near it. In recent weeks, we have seen delays of hours due to incidents that are far too frequent. The Department for Transport’s own statistics show that between 2021 and 2024, there was an 85% increase in delays through the northbound A19 section of Moor Farm and 36% increase in delays southwards. The north-east local transport plan states that Moor Farm generates congestion, worsens air quality and results in unreliable journey times. However, this is not a debate on the transport elements of Moor Farm—hon. Members can go back to my previous Westminster Hall debate for that.

In this debate, I want to talk about how the situation at Moor Farm is impacting growth and development across the region in the short and long term. Moor Farm is a blocker to growth and a blocker to opportunity. It is preventing business expansion, causing investment to be delayed or withdrawn, costing jobs and hampering growth. It is putting at risk not only existing development sites for employment and housing in Northumberland and North Tyneside, but the ability for those councils to update their local plans and meet the housing need.

Since being elected, I have met National Highways on several occasions. In the last few weeks, I have written again to the chief executive. Last week, I met regional representatives in Parliament, and I have met the North East Mayor and the roads Minister. The aim of this debate is to discuss the impact that National Highways and the situation at Moor Farm are now having on the ability to determine planning applications—whether for businesses to grow or for housing—across my constituency and beyond.

The Minister will know that as a statutory consultee, National Highways can issue holding recommendations on planning applications, in effect preventing them from moving forward. In response to my written question, it has been confirmed that there are at least four holding objections on applications for housing and business development as a direct result of the Moor Farm roundabout. Not only that, but applicants are delaying or redirecting their investment because they have been told that National Highways would apply a holding objection, so there is a far greater lost opportunity cost. I know from speaking to developers, businesses and the community that investment has not been brought forward because of concerns that planning will be refused or held back as a result of holding objections or unrealistic mitigations.

I will give some examples. The Port of Blyth sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington. He and I recently met representatives of the port who informed us that their key near-port site for inward investment is at West Hartford in my constituency, the largest remaining strategic employment site in the whole of Northumberland. It is 10 minutes from the Port of Blyth’s main terminals and there is a firm interest in developing the site.

This is a key regional stakeholder seeking to invest nearly 2,000 jobs and £400 million in my community, but National Highways has indicated that it would object because of Moor Farm, despite traffic impact assessment modelling indicating that the proposal would add one queuing vehicle during the morning peak rush hour and three in the afternoon. National Highways’ objection is simply not reasonable or proportionate, but should it apply a holding objection, there is little that could be done locally due to its role. The Port of Blyth has rightly called for a more pragmatic cost-benefit approach.

That is just one example. The North East combined authority estimates that within a 5-mile radius of Moor Farm there is commercial development with the potential to support more than 11,000 jobs at risk of being held back due the constraints of the roundabout. Another local developer has spoken of sites—one of £500 million in gross development value and one of £1 billion in gross development value—that are in current adopted local plans but are being held up because of the roundabout. I have been told that this has meant 18 months to two and a half years of additional modelling and surveys, but still they have not been able to proceed. One developer described this as a

“near endless loop of present information, National Highways’ consultants review, then respond, rinse and repeat”.

That has real-world impacts. A separate developer on an existing site warned that they may have to remove apprentice roles and other jobs if the issue is not resolved, depriving the community of local opportunities and impacting the local supply chain. That development is already baked into the housing delivery numbers but cannot move forward. Another developer explained that they might not suggest future viable sites as a direct result of expected objections from National Highways, reducing their work and footprint in the area.

House Building: London

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr French]

Since May 2022, Bexley council has built 1,836 homes. Of those, 619 are affordable, making up 33% of all new housing, so I do not agree with the statement the hon. Gentleman just made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he is absolutely right to underline this issue. Older couples whose families have flown the nest want to downsize but cannot find an affordable house in a suitable area, and that problem is replicated throughout the United Kingdom. Does he agree that that is a critical factor in sorting out affordable housing provision in London or, indeed, anywhere?

[Mr French]

I absolutely agree, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making one of his well-respected interventions in this important debate. We have to make sure that across the country, we are building the homes that people want to live in and that people can afford, including people in older age.

Demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable has made house building in London unviable. The higher 50% target for industrial land also applies to public land, which, again, has effectively blocked development in the capital. This policy may seem like a good way to get London building more social housing, but it has hugely backfired. The policy is effectively a tax on house building. It makes some development unviable and deters investment. It ultimately means fewer homes and higher costs. If a developer cannot afford the target, they face six burdensome checks on the project’s viability before, during and after construction.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered planning consent for houses in multiple occupation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I speak today about an issue that is deeply personal for people across my constituency: the rapid spread of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, and the growing frustration local communities feel at being powerless to manage their impact.

Let me be clear at the outset that HMOs have a place. They can provide flexible, affordable housing for students, young workers and those getting started in the housing market. For example, a constituent recently told me that, after moving out of her parents’ home, she found an affordable room in a well-kept, clean and safe HMO, which enabled her to save a deposit to buy her own property. It is important to recognise that HMOs have a place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. In September, it was alleged that more than 20 HMOs in Northern Ireland did not have appropriate consent. Does he agree that, whether the HMOs are student accommodation, private housing or Home Office housing, there must be planning consent, and planning enforcement must be swift to act on any breach, even if the party breaching planning rules is a Government body? Planning regulations apply to us all equally, without favour.

[Steve Yemm]

I agree that whoever falls foul of planning regulations should be held to account.

Although HMOs have a place, in Mansfield, as in so many proud towns across the country, we have seen what happens when the balance tips too far—when too many family homes are converted too quickly without proper local control or consideration. My constituents know the streets I am talking about in Mansfield Woodhouse, Forest Town, Warsop and parts of my town centre, where once-stable family homes are being turned into short-term lets or high-density HMOs almost overnight. The result is more noise, parking pressures, more rubbish and fly-tipping, higher turnover of residents, less community cohesion, and a growing feeling among residents that they have lost their say on what happens on their own street.

I have spoken to lifelong residents—people like myself who have raised their children and grandchildren in Mansfield—who remember when every family on their street knew every other family by name. In some areas, they now see bins overflowing, cars blocking their pavements and transient visitors who stay for a short while and are not invested in the area.

Supporting High Streets

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I enjoy a full English as much as I suspect my colleague does. It is not just breakfast that is under threat; it is also lunch, supper, tea, dinner and the great British pub.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this debate forward, and I welcome it. I am always constructive and encouraging, so let me say that Ards and North Down borough council, my local council back home, has a scheme for a new, thriving high street. A council grant enables shop owners to repaint their premises, provide new signage and address the blight of vacant shops. Online shopping without investment means that the high street cannot survive. Does he agree that the Government should extend the initiative that we have back home in Northern Ireland, in my council area, to councils here, to help with jobs and rebuilding the high street?

Property Service Charges

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered property service charges.

It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs. When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell.

Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges.

Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers, such as doctors and nurses, due to its proximity to East Surrey hospital. Like many new estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion, so FirstPort was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means that residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to FirstPort, on top of their mortgage and on top of their council tax, for pretty basic services. Those service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some homeowners to the absolute brink.

I first became aware of the issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year—a meeting I will never forget. She told me how she had purchased a one-bedroom flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her, in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life.

Then there is Alfie, who purchased a two-bedroom flat in 2018. He was

“thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment.”

His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600—a 70% increase. For that, he says

“they basically cut the grass and insure the building”.

When heating is included it gets even worse, due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes £3,400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum—a 135% increase. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you that he is paying council tax and a mortgage on top.

Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at a tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success he would need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. However, to do that there needed to be a recognised tenants’ association, and to set that up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found that to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties and so are not easily traced. With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years—even for £50,000 less than he bought it for just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says:

“Understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The ‘we buy any property’ companies won’t touch it and even the auction sites which run a ‘no sale no fee’ policy don’t want to take it on”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this important debate—the fact that so many Members are present is an indication of its importance. In my constituency I have seen an increase in the number of people who bought their house or flat many years ago and are now facing difficulties with the level of charges, unexpected cost increases, and poor communication and service quality. Does she agree that a service charge can never be seen as a blank cheque for the owners, and that what those charges are spent on must be itemised and made clear?

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree.

To add insult to injury, Alfie told me that FirstPort charges an £80 administration fee if payment is not made within 30 days of demand. In 2023 he received his fee on Christmas day while in discussions about a payment plan to settle outstanding fees. FirstPort refused to remove the charge despite his financial struggles. Alfie has now left the UK and is renting his flat out at a loss, because that is the only option available to him.

Building Safety Regulator

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for introducing the debate. It is always great to be here to give a local perspective from Northern Ireland.

I commend the Government and the Minister in particular for their commitment to the 1.5 million homes. I hope they can achieve that, but some things have to be in place for it to happen. One of those relates to the Building Safety Regulator. Northern Ireland does not have a building safety regulator equivalent to the one in England, but we are strengthening building safety regulations, which are enforced by local councils across Northern Ireland.

Building regulations in my constituency of Strangford are carried out by Ards and North Down borough council and, to a lesser degree, by Lisburn and Castlereagh city council and by Newry, Mourne and Down district council. My relationship with them has always been positive and helpful. When we bring something to their attention, they do their best to contact the office right away. Local building control enforces health, fire safety, energy and safe accessibility—all the things that I hope the Building Safety Regulator here would do as well.

The safety of derelict buildings is an issue I have mentioned before. Some of the ones in my constituency raise deep concern, and there is a call for building safety officers to step in and do their bit. For example, in the past few years young people have been breaking into a number of derelict two-storey homes and businesses in Court Street in Newtownards, the main town in Strangford. They were using them for under-age drinking and antisocial behaviour—drug smoking and other things. The antisocial behaviour is one thing, but it has been noted that the buildings may not have been safe for people to be in, even prior to their dereliction. In such instances, there is a real need for further consideration to be given to having a building safety regulator, which could support what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North and others have put forward as the key issue here on the mainland.

The safety of housing has been a key theme in this debate, and I wholeheartedly agree with what has been said, especially as we instinctively think of the likes of Grenfell. The devastation that that caused for so many people is imprinted on our minds forever.

We have a housing crisis across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have homes that are not deemed safe or habitable for our constituents. Work can be completed through the Building Safety Regulator to enforce the maintenance of homes so that they are safe for people and their families, and in Northern Ireland the local building control will do the same.

Ever mindful of your request to be pithy, Sir Desmond, as you always are, I will conclude. We reflect on lessons learned from past tragedies, including Grenfell. Building safety is our moral responsibility. Everyone should have the right to feel safe and sleep soundly at night, knowing that the homes they are in, as well as their places of work, are safe. While England is the Minister’s jurisdiction, I respectfully request that she looks to commit to ensuring that Northern Ireland follows with similar rules and that building legislation be looked at and, more importantly, improved for everyone.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 8 September, although the Government were not prepared to accept amendments that would undermine the core principles of the Bill, we were more than willing to make sensible changes in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The changes we are proposing today are firmly within the spirt of that commitment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and Lord Young of Cookham, and I thank all the noble Lords involved for their willingness to work collaboratively to strengthen the Bill.

Let me briefly set out the purpose and effect of the amendments in question, beginning with those that relate to shared owners. Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D exempt shared owners from the 12-month “no re-let” period in respect of new mandatory possession ground 1A, which allows a landlord to evict a tenant because they intend to sell their property. The exemption is subject to meeting set criteria, to ensure that shared owners have made a genuine attempt to sell their property. The amendments in question also include a delegated power to remove the exemption in the future—for example, once the building safety programme has been completed.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome what the Minister has proposed. More and more of these issues have come to my attention in my constituency. Tenants then have to find alternative and affordable accommodation that is close to their work and close to their children’s education. I know this legislation applies to England and Wales only—I understand that. But the Minister is a good Minister, and he always shares information on the legislation that is put forward with the regional assemblies—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will he do me and this House the favour of sharing the legislation with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the good things in the Bill can become good things for us in Northern Ireland as well?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.

I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.

The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.

First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.

Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.

Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.

Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.

Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard.

Ending Homelessness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for setting the scene so well, and I wish the Minister well in her new role. I will ask her for one thing at the beginning. This morning I met representatives from Centrepoint, which looks after homeless young people, and I understand that they have written to the Minister, as part of the youth chapter collective, to ensure that youth homelessness is a central part of what the Government are doing. Will the Minister agree to a meeting on that?

In the short time available, let me give a quick perspective on Northern Ireland, the stats for which are incredibly worrying. Some 7,600 households presented as homeless in 2024-25. Of those, 67% were accepted as statutory homeless, with 5,200 living in temporary accommodation. Here is the big thing: the cost of temporary accommodation, according to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, is some £39 million. For us in Northern Ireland, it is a massive issue. In my office, housing issues and affordable housing make up most of the issues we deal with. I think of those living in accommodation, but then the landlord decides to sell the property and makes them homeless, and when they go for private accommodation they find that the price is absolutely out of reach.

One of the solutions would be for uninhabitable homes to become habitable. In Northern Ireland we have almost 1,600 or 1,700 of them. A nationwide campaign on that could turn around accessible housing very quickly. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we need to be able to offer first-time buyers affordable homes. That would take some of the pressure off. Those are my quick requests; in two minutes that is all I can say.