Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Simply because—I was coming on to make this point—this order is enabling in nature. It does not require any payment to be made to the Secretary of State, nor does it prescribe how any payment amounts would be determined. Those matters would be determined through future scheme arrangements established via procurement and contractual processes. I have said it before, and I will say it again for reassurance: the Department will publish information about any amounts received, the programmes funded and any metrics demonstrating the value delivered, so there will be full transparency on the use of funds.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Could he provide us with some examples of what MHCLG could use this money for to support renters? He has not listed any yet, and obviously there are none in the SI. I am a bit concerned about where this money is going to be used.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Forgive me, I think I did give an example in my opening remarks, but I do not want to stand here and speculate on the precise programmes that might be funded through those interest payments, if we make a decision to take a portion of them in future. I am being very clear that they would be directed to support private rented sector tenants; they could not be siphoned off for other Government activities. Any payments made to MHCLG would be subject to future agreement via contractual and procurement processes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

To residents across the country, a standard family home being converted into an HMO for a large number of adults is a material change. It changes the character of an area, and it places pressure on parking and local services. Too many HMOs are being used to house people who come to this country illegally, and we know for a fact that many of these men are dangerous. However, the current rules do not reflect the negative impact an HMO can have, with landlords not needing to apply for planning permission if it is for less than five occupants, and the article 4 direction does not go far enough. What work is the Minister doing to investigate changing the rules so that all HMOs, regardless of size, require planning permission so that local people’s voices can be heard?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I feel for the shadow Minister in the sense that that question was clearly drafted before the set of answers I have just given. We have acted to strengthen national planning policy in this area. I have made it clear how important it is to have up-to-date local plans in place and to get strong policies. If he has any particular instances of where the existing powers do not go far enough, I am more than happy to hear from him.

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Bacon]

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

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

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak in support of new clause 34, which is about prioritising brownfield for development. We always hear from the Government that they want to protect the green belt. I often laugh when they say that, because there is nothing in legislation: they never want to put anything on the face of the Bill or issue anything to protect the green belt.

Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has found that 1.4 million brownfield sites have been left unbuilt since 2007. As I said on Second Reading, that number is rather close to the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, which they have all but admitted they will not meet.

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

I am slightly worried to say that I agree with an Opposition Member, but I share the hon. Member’s frustration at the fact that there are many homes, often on brownfield sites, that have permission but have not been built. I see that in my constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, from my experience of speaking to landowners and developers, the reason why those homes have not been built is that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the financial models of those schemes, and that the Building Safety Regulator and the roll-out of new regulations, including second staircase rules, under the last Government stymied and slowed down development and changed the viability.

Fundamentally, in the hon. Member’s patch and mine, Conservative councils are taking far too long to approve development on brownfield sites, if they ever do. Again, that is pushing against viability. This Government have taken measures on all the things I mentioned. Does the hon. Member not agree that it is slightly rich for the Opposition to claim that this Government are somehow responsible for those homes not being built out more quickly?

[Lewis Cocking]

I am slightly bewildered. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who invited me in a debate in the Chamber to visit a pub in his constituency. I did not take him up on the offer, but maybe I should have, because I could have corrected him on a lot of the things he has just said. I am slightly bewildered by the nonsense that has just been spoken.

I was a council leader. The planning system is not why these houses do not get built. When I speak to developers in my constituency, lots of them say that it is now difficult to employ people because of the day-one employment rights that this Government have brought in. Lots of businesses speak to me about the increase in national insurance contributions. The Opposition have a plan to take £50,000 off the cost of building a new home, which will include social homes and increase the supply. This Government have done nothing to increase supply; all they have done is attack local councils for giving out planning permission. Local councils get punished when they do not have a five-year land supply, which is something that they have very little control over. The Government need to do much more to develop brownfield sites.

[John Slinger]

I very much like and respect the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that education and health resources, for example, in towns—where brownfield sites invariably are—are often relatively busy or full up, and face real challenges and pressures? Other conurbations such as villages, which admittedly do not have all the transport links that make town brownfield sites the most prominent in the planning system—let us not forget that they are prioritised by this Government—also need additional housing and social housing. Quite often, when I talk to people in those villages, their pubs and schools are struggling because they do not have enough people who want to use them.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words; I have great respect for him too. He makes an interesting point, but it is a wider issue than that. It is about appropriate development in the right place, followed up by infrastructure.

I agree that brownfield sites are usually in the centre of towns. As I said on Second Reading, we are all fed up with driving past sites with all the hoarding up. The sites have planning permission: either they have gone through the planning committee, and the local council has said, “Yes, we will give permission based on these circumstances,” or unfortunately it has not, but permission has been won on appeal. It creates a certain feel in a town centre when someone goes down and sees all the hoarding up on the brownfield sites.

In the heart of my constituency, in Cheshunt, we have a care home waiting to be built. It is a long-overdue facility in the local community that we really want to see built, but it has been left empty for years and years, and we just see the hoarding up. It creates a real sense of loss of pride in a place when someone goes down to the town centre and sees site after site like that. We have sites in Hoddesdon that got planning permission in 2014 and have only just started moving through this process.

Lots of things affect house build-out rates, but this Government could do much more to give powers to local councils to get these brownfield sites off the ground, because there are thousands of sites across the country that have planning permission but remain unbuilt.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?

[Lewis Cocking]

I know that the Minister has a lot of expertise in this area. One example is that when standard planning permission is issued, a developer might get three years to build. As we have seen in my local area, that does not necessarily mean that something gets built; it just means that they have started on site. That could be digging a hole or building the first wall; nothing is actually produced at the end of it. I would like councils to have a “use it or lose it” power, which would mean that someone cannot necessarily finish building just because they have started digging on site.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?

[Lewis Cocking]

I think we have to explore all options. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. We all have brownfield sites in our constituency that we want used to meet the social housing targets and bring down waiting lists.

Unfortunately, the Bill talks about stopping the right to buy. I just want to put it on the record that if we do that, the people who bought those houses will still be in them. Those people, and the waiting lists, will not magically disappear if we get rid of the right to buy.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, as always. I welcome the Conservatives’ move towards “use it or lose it” permissions. I assume that they agree that “lose it” should mean the compulsory acquisition of sites that have not been built out within a reasonable period, as the Liberal Democrats argued during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Otherwise, what does “lose it” mean? How does it have effect?

[Lewis Cocking]

As I say, we need to explore all options, and I want brownfield sites to be built out first. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. That means looking at how to use areas that have planning permission and have already gone through the planning process—areas in our town centres that residents drive past all the time. The Government need to look at those sites, because there are loads of unbuilt planning applications; we have all had consultations and spoken to our residents about them. All options must be on the table.

We see this in our constituencies all the time. People come to see me at my local surgery to ask why a site has not been built out. We desperately want a care home built on a brownfield site in the middle of Cheshunt town centre. It would be good if the Government gave local councils tools to enable those sites to get built out quicker.

[Patrick Spencer]

I think it would be appropriate to remind the Committee that the purpose of new clause 34 is to force the Government to bring forward a strategy for utilising brownfield sites. It is not about bouncing Opposition parties into make policy on the hoof; it is for the Government to come up with ideas. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that his point is that the Government should bring forward a strategy to indicate their intent?

[Lewis Cocking]

Absolutely. New clause 34 says that the Government must bring forward a strategy for brownfield sites, which could include a multitude of options. When they do so, the Opposition will look at the benefits of all the items in the strategy, which could include a “use it or lose it” power. That is one example that the Government could review to see what could happen.

The new clause is about using brownfield sites first. I do not think that anyone disagrees with that, so it would be good if the Government accepted it. If they do, the Bill might actually be about building more social housing. At the moment, it does nothing of the sort.

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

I rise to speak in support of new clause 34, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ exchanges, and I have to say that I do not see what is particularly contentious about my hon. Friend’s proposal. It is not unreasonable to focus on the development of brownfield land first, as the previous Government did. We should therefore have a strategy to draw the strands together as we look towards the future. However many more years of this Government we have, the power is in their hands to do this. I do not see what is contentious about doing what my hon. Friend’s new clause proposes.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rugby, but I have a counterpoint to his point about development on brownfield sites. My constituency has a couple of towns in it and is right on the edge of Leicester, but it goes way up into rural north-east Leicestershire. The reality is that the developments on the edges of the towns or nearer the city often work most effectively, because there are bus routes and there is access to more schools, shops, businesses and employment opportunities.

The challenge that we face locally is that in Leicester city, which has a Labour mayor and which I go through on my way from the station to my constituency, there are undeveloped, unmodernised and un-utilised brownfield sites or commercial sites that have fallen into disuse. Nevertheless, the mayor says that he cannot meet his housing targets and has therefore farmed them out to the rural areas in the county. That means a significant amount of development on the edges of villages—often with no bus route or only a sparse service, a full village primary school and a GP practice serving a whole range of rural communities—that are unable to meet the needs of the additional development. The pressure on local services is a real challenge. I have been pushing for a long time to see whether, when these applications are brought forward, there is a way of having “i” before “e”—infrastructure before expansion—so that at least we know the services are there.

There is one big challenge that previous Governments I served in did not solve, and which I suspect this Government will struggle to solve, because it comes down to the viability of development. We can, and local authorities do, ask developers for capital contributions for those services, but often the problem is the ongoing revenue cost of running them. That means that we can get an extra room in a surgery, but will the local NHS integrated care board be willing to fund the salary costs and commission extra GP practice services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

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

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

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Does he believe that the Regulator of Social Housing has enough powers to deal with the issues that he describes? That is just me, in a good spirit, asking a genuine question about how he thinks it is operating.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour.

Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed.

On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards.

The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

I will speak briefly to the challenges of shared ownership, building on what the Minister has outlined in the Government response and the written ministerial statement. This issue was raised in the main Chamber when the Bill was discussed recently. Many of us passed on our constituents’ stories of shared ownership, the hopes of a first step on the ladder quickly turning into a nightmare—trapped, unable to staircase and facing all the responsibilities of ownerships, but none of the rights to decide about major works. They have to shoulder all the costs of major works, with mortgage increases and rent increases. They feel lost and unable to have a voice.

With much of the Government’s agenda on reforming leasehold or improving the rights of tenants, many shared owners feel that they fall between the gaps with their specific and unique form of tenure. That is why when the Bill was first discussed, many colleagues were interested in the potential for review as a means to address some of those concerns and issues. I have been heartened by the Minister’s response and the written ministerial statement, which I think specifically commits to review those areas of concern.

I have heard from my constituents about the challenges of buy-backs or when major repairs are needed. In particular on the Union Park development in my constituency, many shared owners are trapped at the moment with Home Group as their landlord, unable to get buy-backs unless they are in extreme financial distress and unable to sell, because the market value is now not there, with millions of pounds of repairs to cladding and heating systems due. Their lives change, as all our lives change, but when the need to move happens, they are unable to do so.

I welcome the commitment to a comprehensive review of buy-backs and consideration of the challenges of staircasing. We would all envisage that shared ownership is initially a stake that we hope grows in future, but many find that that is not the lived reality of shared ownership. It becomes difficult to staircase and difficult to sell out of it. The written ministerial statement commits to hearing the voice of shared owners in the phase 2 review; will the Minister in his summing up elaborate a bit on how exactly he envisages shared owners will be involved in sharing their experience to shape its work? If he could outline the timeline for phase 2 a bit more, that would be very welcome.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I have lived in a shared ownership home, so I thought it only right to support this part of the Bill. Usually on Bill Committees, I speak against and ask the Government to take something out of a Bill, rather than keep it in.

This is important. The Minister, on opening, summed up the issues that lots of constituents with shared ownership face right across the country. If the Government are already doing part of the review anyway, and if they are committed to that review, I do not see why it cannot stay part of the Bill. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason why the Government want to remove it from the Bill is so that they can change their mind and not actually do that review of shared ownership, which has been a long-standing feature of the housing market for a number of years. It is high time that we do a review.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip spoke eloquently about the issues that his constituents face in some of the developments in his constituency. That is not too dissimilar from developments in my constituency. Staircasing has major issues, particularly if ownership is shared with a large social housing provider, such as one of those that operate all across the south-east and London. Residents who buy those shared-ownership homes feel that the social housing provider is unaccountable. They lack transparency on their fees, and I have heard some horrific stories about people buying into shared ownership and wanting to use that as a stepping stone to buy a house on the open market, but having to buy selling packs off the social housing provider at extortionate costs, or the provider not getting back to them and the sale of their property falling through.

New clauses 41 and 45 are trying to solve a number of issues in the Bill. If the Government are doing some of the work already and think that this review is needed, I urge them to keep it in the Bill. As I said, the cynic in me thinks that the Government want to leave it out so that a few months down the line they can say, “We’ve changed our mind. We’re not doing a review.” Do the Government really want a review of shared ownership and to listen to shared owners? The Minister outlined quite eloquently some of the issues that affect shared owners, such as leasehold and commonhold—we look forward to that Bill coming forward—but shared ownership does tend to fall through the cracks.

We have not spent enough time speaking about the issues that shared ownership tenants face, so I really urge the Government to change their mind. I was left with the impression on Second Reading that clause 13 would remain part of the Bill and that the Government would accept the amendments tabled in the other place. I hope that the Government can reflect and keep this clause as part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I said this in my opening remarks, but let me reinforce it: we absolutely appreciate that shared owners across the country face issues, but I do think that there is a regional element to this. From the feedback I receive, it seems to me that the experience of shared owners in London and other parts of the south are far more problematic than shared ownership in parts of the north, where it is quite a successful product and does not have the issues that are often confronted. Serious affordability, transparency, management, staircasing, and resale challenges are being experienced. I know that from my own postbag; I have lots of shared owners in my constituency.

I speak as someone who grew up with a single parent myself, but lots of shared owners are often single women who got a mortgage on the basis of an affordability calculation and have seen, within two or three years, service charges and other costs increase to the point that their home is no longer affordable and would not be counted as such on that affordability check. They are under real pressure. We recognise those pressures and I understand that any shared owners watching will see this clause as a sort of lifeline.

Notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about the frequency with which Ministers in previous Conservative Administrations were cycled through, I think I am right in saying that if I make it to Thursday I will be the longest serving Housing Minister since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

In some ways, it is pure semantics. We have a comprehensive improvement programme under way. If the right hon. Member looks at my written ministerial statement from yesterday, he will see the work that we have already undertaken: material changes, including to the social and affordable homes programme, where we are setting firmer expectations for providers that receive grant funding. A lot of work is already under way. Whether the right hon. Member calls it a review or an improvement programme, shared owners across the country will rightly focus not on what we term the work that is under way, but on the benefits they see coming out of that work. They can already see some of those in the expectations that we have set, but there will be more to follow.

[Lewis Cocking]

To draw out the point a little further, will the Minister commit to making an oral statement on the Floor of the House in the near future so that Members from across the House can ask questions and he can update us on what he is doing about shared ownership and improvements to shared ownership?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My Whip whispers in my ear that that is a matter for Mr Speaker. The hon. Member and any other Member of the Opposition can secure a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate on this subject. I am more than willing to debate shared ownership or any other housing matter.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister make a statement?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made a written ministerial statement that sets out the Government’s work in this area.

Taken together, the existing framework of model leases and guidance, alongside the substantive programme of improvements that is already under way, address the issues at the heart of both new clauses. We continue to have constructive engagement with Lord Young and others in the other place who have concerns about this issue, but we do not believe that a further statutory model agreement or a separate statutory strategy is necessary. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to press new clauses 41 and 45.

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

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

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

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

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time, and I think he is a very competent and diligent Minister in the Department. Can he provide the evidence base for what he has just said? I was the leader of a local authority, and I never once met a housing provider that told me they cannot build any more social housing because of the right to buy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not my experience from discussing the matter with councils, and it does not reflect the feedback that we received in the consultation. Councils up and down the country tell us that they could build more if they had certainty that their stock would not be lost in the proportion that it is—and certainly not after a minimum qualifying period of three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the concern. I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is just a matter of fact that there will be different challenges in different areas. What we have tried to get to with the increase in the notification period from four to eight weeks is a period in which we think it is reasonable for all local authorities to consider these matters. What I have not had is compelling evidence—if he has any, I would like to see it—to suggest that local authorities would not be able to deal with these matters in an eight-week period. I stress again that the notification period is just a minimum. We would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond this period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector. I hope that reassures him.

Amendments 102 and 103, tabled by the hon. Members for Newbury and for Taunton and Wellington, would require written consent from the local authority for the sale of a social home in a rural area or one with four or more bedrooms. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. I and the Government want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to protect much needed social housing stock. I would expect private registered providers to think particularly carefully before selling homes that meet acute housing needs in local areas. However, housing associations remain independent organisations responsible for their own asset management, and the Government cannot support an approach that would prevent landlords from making legitimate business decisions about how to manage their stock without the agreement of the local authority. I am happy to go into the reclassification risks that arise in this area with the hon. Members. I have debated those points at length with a number of Members on both sides of the House.

I should also point out that the previous restrictions that required approval by the Regulator of Social Housing for disposals of homes had to be removed in 2017—the hon. Member for Newbury, with his experience in the sector, will remember this—to reclassify the housing association sector back to private. I fear that introducing a requirement for local authority approval would represent a significant classification risk. It is not the only classification risk—these things are considered by the Office for National Statistics in the round—but nevertheless it is a material risk from our point of view.

[Lewis Cocking]

I ask genuinely about disposals, in a nice and polite way, so I wonder what the Minister’s comments will be. When housing associations or councils dispose of properties, they generally do so for a reason—for example, not being able to spend the money to get it up to a certain EPC grade that the Government have set for them. What evidence does he have that, where one company cannot do something for a social home, such as spending the money to increase the EPC rating, and therefore is selling it, another social housing provider will be able to do it? I want to understand where we are going with these amendments and this part of the Bill. When properties are disposed of, it is usually done for a reason. What makes him think that where someone cannot do it, someone else in the industry could?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair point. The particular reasons that individual providers dispose of stock vary wildly across the country. In the case of disposals that are driven by increases in standards, we are seeing some of that, but it is also the case that there are occasions when local authority or other providers are, for their own reasons, based on their own assessment of the stock, able and willing to take those homes on. I do not think that we can specify a general rule. What we are trying to do here is to give local authorities and other providers the maximum possible opportunity to pick up those stocks and to retain them in the social housing sector, if that is possible. To be very clear and honest with the hon. Member, that may not always be possible, and those homes may be disposed of on the open market, but we want to increase the chances of them being able to be retained in the sector, for all the reasons that we have gone into.

Amendments 1 and 5 would add the Regulator of Social Housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring that our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services that their tenants deserve. As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I am not persuaded that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable it to better regulate against the standards that it sets. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals; that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so it has an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

Amendment 101 would, similarly, require community land trusts with social housing in the area to be notified. Of course, community land trusts that are registered with the Regulator of Social Housing would already be notified under the requirements of the clause. I am aware that not all community land trusts are registered with the regulator, and that is their choice, but the focus of the clause is to keep homes in the regulated sector where it is possible to do so. The notification process is therefore focused on notifying providers that are registered with the regulator.

Amendment 99 would require a sales notice provided to the local authority and other registered providers in the local area to be published on the website of the private registered provider intending to dispose of the property. One of the main aims of the clause is to increase transparency around disposals. However, there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of transparency and the burdens and costs to private registered providers. We believe that the amendment would introduce an unhelpful level of bureaucracy around the disposal notification process. While some providers may choose to publish notifications of sale on their websites, requiring publication via legislation is disproportionate.

Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.

Over the weekend, we heard yet another policy announcement made through the media, with the Prime Minister taking time out of his very busy reality TV schedule to brief the press that he will apparently end rough sleeping by Christmas. That is a laudable aim, which I think will be shared across the House by parties of all colours—I am sure everyone in this country wants to see rough sleeping fixed as an issue once and for all—but the pledge reminds me of a similar one, made almost a decade ago, in 2017, by the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, to end rough sleeping in that city region by 2020. Again, it was a nice idea, sold in a nice, upbeat way, but sadly it did not reflect the reality. Rough sleeping still exists in Greater Manchester; in fact, the numbers have risen from 2021, and the rate even doubled in 2025-26.

The Prime Minister may be in his new job—and perhaps he took inspiration from another reality TV programme, “The Traitors”, to kick out his predecessor with the help of his new Chancellor—but the Labour party is not new in government. It has been in charge now for well over two years, exactly the same period during which rough sleeping has continued to rise in Greater Manchester. The Prime Minister asked us to judge him on his record as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, so that is precisely what we are doing.

Failure in Manchester is one thing, but on a national scale the numbers are even bigger. So far, the Prime Minister has said that he will put another £432 million of taxpayers’ cash towards this approach, bringing the total commitment to £874 million. The Government themselves estimate that there are around 4,000 rough sleepers on an average night, which means the policy will cost in the region of £200,000 per rough sleeper. Will the Minister confirm that and tell us where all the money will go?

At the same time, the Prime Minister refuses to rule out tax rises or to upset his left-wing Back Benchers by cutting benefits, so the Government need to be honest about where all this money will come from. He has talked about bringing hope, he talks about positivity, and we all know his fondness for “good vibes”, but what really matters is the delivery and the detail. In the past, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on this issue precisely. He talked a good talk, he made the grand promises, but he could not keep them on rough sleeping. We see this time and again from Labour Members, because they believe they can solve a problem just by throwing more money at it, as if money grows on a magic money tree. They need to accept that it is not their money; it is taxpayers’ money—taxpayers who are increasingly being squeezed for all that they have; taxpayers who deserve to know where their hard-earned cash is being spent and that it is being spent wisely.

I am sorry, but taxpayers are being completely let down by this Labour Government. The deficit is out of control, and rather than making the necessary cuts, they are coming back with even more spending commitments. We have a Budget later this week, and the Conservative party has been clear that the Chancellor must use it as an opportunity to properly deliver for working people across the United Kingdom. The benefits bill has to be cut, the tax burden needs to be eased on businesses and workers, and the net zero nonsense that makes our electricity and heating more expensive has to go.

Of course, all of us on this side of the House want to see rough sleeping ended, but that will only be achieved through action, not through empty promises made by a Prime Minister with a track record of failure on this issue. We need to see delivery.

When this Labour Government pledge to deliver, they fail to deliver. Perhaps the Minister can remind me how they are getting on with building the 1.5 million new homes they promised to build, as housing supply and rough sleeping are clearly linked. Why should anyone believe that they can deliver when the Prime Minister has repeatedly failed on this precise issue?

When the Labour party fails—as it always does, every time it is in government—it is always someone else’s fault. It is always someone else’s money. Labour Members can come out with all the pledges and promises they want, but at the end of the day it is the British people who have to pay for their repeated failures.

[Florence Eshalomi]

It is always good to see the hon. Member in his place.

We have to look at the facts of what we are dealing with. This Government inherited a homelessness and rough sleeping crisis; both rough sleeping and homelessness in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. I mentioned that I have just come from a summit earlier this morning in Downing Street, where the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I convened a range of organisations, charities, faith leaders, civic societies and groups, and council leaders working on this important issue.

To understand the challenges of rough sleeping, we have to recognise that it is not about just putting a roof over people’s heads. For many people sleeping rough, it is about the wraparound support. It is about the long-term interventions on substance misuse. It is about support to help them manage their finances. This is what, crucially, that funding will go to. It is not about handing out £200,000 per person; it is about the many organisations who fundraise on an annual basis to address this issue. We on this side of the House are proud that this Government are committed to that, given that, to our shame, we are seeing people still sleeping rough in England in 2026.

The shadow Minister outlined the figures and statistics from Manchester. What he failed to realise and mention is the fact that the then Mayor of Greater Manchester inherited that crisis from the then Government, and that there was not enough funding to support some of the key initiatives. So the then Mayor of Greater Manchester took on that initiative, working with many charities to bring forward a programme which we are now looking to replicate in order to be able to meet this commitment.

When looking at investment and intensive support for people sleeping rough, we must listen to their lived experience—the lived experience that was shared with us this afternoon and at that summit—to ensure this is an issue not just for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to solve, but working across Departments, across Cabinet, showing that there is real commitment. Now we have a Prime Minister, Secretary of State and Minister who are really focused on looking at how we can end rough sleeping, I hope the Opposition will get on board.

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

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. The original draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 July. Following the identification of omitted text affecting the calculation of two fee categories, they were withdrawn, corrected and re-laid on 1 September.

Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the Government appreciate fully that, to do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local authority planning departments across the country have wrestled with significant financial pressures that have constrained their ability to recruit and retain skilled planners, invest in modern systems and make timely, high-quality planning decisions.

For that reason, the Government have invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. At the 2024 autumn Budget, the then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November last year, she announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period. Of that funding, £28.8 million has been allocated to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s planning capacity and capability programme, equating to an additional £9.6 million per year for the next three years. That allocation will supplement existing budgets.

In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-Government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately 1,400 planners. That new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme.

For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally and are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, which means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That is why the Government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from 1 April last year, and why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model.

The draft regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. Their objective is twofold: first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments, which they will achieve by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services; and secondly, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the new planning fees be ringfenced so that councils have to spend them on their planning departments?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will address that more fully in my closing remarks, but we do expect the fees to be ringfenced. The hon. Gentleman may recall that we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to ensure that that is the case.

The draft regulations will establish that baseline by providing for a national default fee that will continue to apply unless a local planning authority chooses to set a different fee to reflect its costs.

Earlier this year, we carried out a consultation on fees for planning applications, seeking views on a proposed national default fee schedule, including in respect of the appropriate level of fees, whether structural changes should be made to specific fee categories, and the wider framework for local fee setting. The feedback indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance.

The Government are clear that the additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use the additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service to applicants. We will of course continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime.

In general terms, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment. Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring that authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that.

Let me briefly set out the main changes made by the regulations. First, they introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type. The increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category operates below cost recovery.

Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule because the cost of processing applications varies significantly among authorities. A uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over-recovery in some areas.

Secondly, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories. This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium-sized development category introduced through the national planning policy framework, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural, minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate.

Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior-approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior-approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it is right that applicants contribute towards the costs. As part of this third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations. The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior-approval requirement was laid before Parliament on 30 September and comes into force on 21 October.

Finally, the regulations correct omissions in existing indexation provisions. This will ensure that mixed-use outline application fees and the new standard prior-approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force on 8 December 2026.

To conclude, the regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the Government’s wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee-setting powers. In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system—a better resourced planning system that is better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate on the building safety remediation of residential buildings. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate and for eloquently setting out lots of issues in the sector.

This is a vital issue. As right hon. and hon. Members have rightly said, no one should be forced to live in an unsafe home. A great deal of progress has been made to improve our housing in recent years, and the share of unsafe homes has declined in the past decade, but we must go further. The need to press ahead is as great now as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 72 people.

The last Conservative Government began the remediation work straight after Grenfell. It included the introduction of financial protections for leaseholders from the costs relating to remediation of unsafe cladding systems put in place by the developer remediation contract. That has ensured that major developers pledge to remediate life-critical fire safety issues in buildings over 11 metres that they have played a role in developing or refurbishing over the past 30 years in England, although some developers should be taken to task for not acting quickly enough and for leaving constituents to fend for themselves.

The last Government were also responsible for putting in place £5.1 billion through the building safety fund and the cladding safety scheme to recover cladding costs for repairs of buildings over 11 metres where no responsible developer could be identified. The Opposition welcome the continued progress by the current Government to implement the Grenfell tower fire inquiry’s recommendations, especially regarding remediation. Residents expect to see the inquiry’s recommendation implemented in full and to see remediation work completed swiftly and safely. For far too long, that has not been the case.

The Building Safety Regulator, established through the Building Safety Act 2022, was set up with good intentions for stronger regulatory oversight. Although it has done much to oversee remediation, it has worked at an unsustainably slow pace. I know that the Minister will be keen to point out that gateway 2 decisions, namely approvals, are coming in at a faster rate, but this is after years of delay. The regulator made just 118 decisions on remediation applications in the 12-week period to 31 August 2026, with a median of 33 weeks for a determination to be made in some older cases. At the end of July 2025, remediation works had been completed in just 39% of identified buildings, with barely half seeing remediation works to unsafe cladding start or finish. That means that, of the estimated 250,000 dwellings of a height of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding in the private and social sector, 104,000 have not even started remediation.

In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have seen what happens when fire safety issues in flats are not addressed. Earlier this year, at a six-storey block in Waltham Cross, with known cladding issues and no working alarm, residents were told on the day before the Easter weekend that they would have to evacuate their homes that evening, because the management company had stopped funding the waking watch, where someone is paid to patrol the building to look out for fires. Local authorities were forced to intervene and to extend the waking watch, and fortunately residents were able to stay. Weeks later, Homes England and the Department supported the installation of a suitable alarm and detection system.

I am relieved that there were no fires in that block and that residents did not have to evacuate in the end. However, leaseholders ended up paying thousands of pounds for the waking watch and were left worrying about the risks of fire to their homes or being removed from their homes at the last minute. That could all have been prevented if the remediation works had been carried out when fire safety concerns were first raised. I hope that the Minister will outline how the Government plan to ensure that all buildings with fire safety issues are made safe before the situation gets so serious.

I conclude by reiterating the Opposition’s firm and unwavering commitment to safe and decent housing, especially through the remediation efforts started after the tragedy of the Grenfell fire. We will continue to support the Government and work across the House to increase the pace of remediation work, improve the Building Safety Regulator and remove dangerous cladding and other materials from homes across the country.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak opposite the new Minister, with whom I very much enjoyed working on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Now that she is on the Government Front Bench, I suppose it is left to me to ask the tough questions.

The Government have said that the Bill has been designed to encourage social housing providers to invest in the building of new socially rented homes. They want to encourage councils to build by restricting right to buy. That is the wrong approach. Yes, waiting lists for councils homes are far too high, but making it harder for tenants to get on in life and escape the clutches of the public sector is not the right solution. Instead, Ministers should look at what their policies are doing. Despite their promises, Labour is going backwards on house building.

As our reasoned amendment states, last year there were

“12,810 fewer net additional dwellings delivered in England compared to the previous year”.

Why are the Government not pledging to take on the developers, who are sitting on thousands of unbuilt planning applications? The Institute for Public Policy Research—Labour’s favourite think-tank—has found that 1.4 million homes have been left unbuilt since 2007, despite planning permission being granted. The figure of 1.4 million homes sounds rather close to the Government’s challenging target of 1.5 million new homes.

People are fed up with the eyesores in their neighbourhood—levelled ground left abandoned, surrounded by hoardings. I can show the Minister many examples in my Broxbourne constituency, and I am sure that hon. Members from right across the House can do the same. Taking on the land-banking developers would have widespread public support, but this Government only seem interested in making it easier to build on the green belt. We are still waiting for them to reveal what action they are taking to speed up building following the consultations held more than 12 months ago, so there is clearly no urgency.

The Government should also consider who should be eligible for the help of a social home. People who come to this country and wish to live here should not rely on the generosity of taxpayers. Making Britain your home should be earned by working hard and integrating; it should not come with a free ride on the benefits system. That is why the Conservative party will end social housing tenancies for foreign nationals. Ensuring that only UK nationals can access social housing would free up 230,000 homes for British families. That change would make an immediate and significant difference to those stuck on council house waiting lists, but the Government would prefer that they sit around waiting for the Bill.

Sadly, this Government, and especially their Back Benchers, are blinded by their ideological dislike of right to buy. It is clearly—[Interruption.] A number of Members have asked where Conservative Members were today. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, Members of Parliament have a lot to deal with. When we do surgeries in our constituencies and people say, “When I turn on the TV, I see hardly anyone in the Chamber,” we all explain why that is. I suspect there will be times when all hon. Members cannot make it to important debates that their constituents want them to attend.

It is clearly the view of Labour Members that if we had no right to buy, social housing waiting lists would disappear, but where do they think the 2 million families that have utilised the scheme would be without it? Well, I can tell them: they would probably be in the same home, but it would be subsidised by the taxpayer rather than privately owned. Abolishing right to buy is not the silver bullet that they think it is.

The Government are placing huge burdens on social housing providers to help Ministers meet their own net zero targets. The cost of complying with new energy regulations is causing significant pressure, and getting 713,000 homes up to minimum energy efficiency standards is estimated to cost £4.5 billion. The Chartered Institute of Housing told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that housing associations do not want to buy properties with gas boilers because they know that it will cost them more money to strip them out and make properties energy efficient. That is pushing up council house waiting lists.

The National Housing Federation is clear about what that means: spending billions to comply with net zero regulations will make it harder to build new homes. Ministers already know this, as they reduced energy efficiency targets for social housing in January on the basis that providers could not build new homes because of the financial burden of upgrading their existing stock. If Ministers want councils to be incentivised to build, entirely getting rid of those expensive regulations would be a good place to start.

What is positive in the Bill is the review of the shared ownership scheme, and I hope the Minister, when she gets to her feet, can confirm that the Government intend to keep that review in the Bill. This obligation was added by the Government only due to the diligent work of the Conservative team in the other place. I have lived in a shared ownership property, and I know that—as for other forms of ownership, such as leasehold—reforms are desperately needed to fix the many problems residents face. The Opposition agree that the provisions to protect victims of domestic violence are needed, but a separate legislative measure would have been the right way to bring those forward.

I gently say to the many hon. Members who have made impassioned speeches that, when I was a council leader, I had a number of meetings with housing providers and housing associations, and not once in the hundreds of hours of meetings I had with social housing providers did they say to me that they could not build new social homes in Broxbourne, or in fact across the country, because of the right to buy. It was never mentioned as a reason why housing associations are not building social homes.

[Luke Murphy]

Providers did, however, when the Conservatives were in government, point to the 60% cut in the affordable housing budget, which nearly led to the abolition of social rent under the Conservative Government. There was a 97% reduction in builds between 2010 and 2016; that is the record that the hon. Member’s party stands on.

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Member has intervened on me quite a lot, and we have had quite a ding-dong in this Chamber. I say gently to him that when I speak to housing providers, they tell me that one of the reasons why they cannot build new social homes is the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions, which means that they spend more money on taxes, rather than on building new social homes.

In summary, this Bill is the wrong approach, and it is fundamentally built on the wrong beliefs. It will not build a single new social home, but it will deny many families the opportunity of ever owning a home of their own. The Conservative party will always be on the side of aspiration and opportunity, and that is why we will vote for our reasoned amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents and people across this country are fed up with more and more housing being built without the proper infrastructure in place first. There is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 about forcing developers to put schools and GP surgeries in place at the same time as new developments. Will the Minister look again and commit to listening to existing residents about bringing changes in legislation, to ensure that there is infrastructure first?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the shadow Minister to the Front Bench on a well-deserved promotion.

The previous Government had 14 years to resolve this problem; they did not do so. I say to the shadow Minister honestly—he knows this full well as a former local councillor—that there is no single, simple answer to the problem of getting the necessary infrastructure in place. As I said, we have strengthened national planning policy to ensure that community facilities and public service infrastructure are brought forward. Again, we are strengthening developer contributions. We directly finance land and infrastructure. There is more to be done, and we will do it.

[Lewis Cocking]

Well, the Government have had two years—that will not wash with my constituents, who have seen thousands of new homes built with no new infrastructure. Healthcare services are of particular concern: when there is new housing, that makes it much harder for everyone to see their GP. This Government are taking on more political control of the NHS, so can the Minister tell me what discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care about ensuring that new healthcare facilities are in place when there is new housing?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister raises a justified point, in that in some cases securing the necessary public service infrastructure is about ensuring that the buildings are brought forward through the relevant developer contributions and other infrastructure funding streams. In some cases, there are other issues, such as workforce challenges in particular. We regularly speak to colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that we get that infrastructure up front and alongside development.