Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will not have to wait long for a package of build-out transparency measures, which will include the right for local authorities to refuse permission in instances where particular developers repeatedly get planning consent but do not build out the sites.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister said that there were “encouraging signs of progress”, but the truth is that the housing industry faces a bleaker and bleaker future under this Government: housing completions are at their lowest for more than a decade; planning permissions are down 31%; output is down 6%; London is at a standstill; and the Government are just 29% of the way through their target in nearly half the time allotted for it. Does the Minister agree that this broken record of failure needs urgent repair?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The increase in starts is welcome, but the Government’s package of reforms was designed to increase consents. The most recent quarterly figures show that although consent applications are down, the rate of granted consents remains high at 88%—that figure is over 90% when councillors are involved in making the planning decisions. Does that not show that taking away powers to make decisions on major applications—those of over 150 homes—from councillors through the NPPF has made no difference whatsoever to the number of consents? Will the Government give those powers back to councillors, who support over 90% of applications when they come to committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that the Prime Minister is always right.

I will take no lectures from Reform on standards and conduct in local government. We hear repeated complaints about the conduct of Reform-led councils across the country—about the way in which they treat their staff, the way in which they treat each other, and the way in which, quite often, the toxicity that we see online is brought into council chambers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The first of the Nolan principles is selflessness—acting solely in the public interest—but, according to feedback from councillors throughout the country, during the botched local government reorganisation process they felt that they were under pressure to put political considerations first: pressure that came from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed). The new Secretary of State told the House recently that she could not say whether his decision making was even lawful. Can she now tell the House whether the pressure that was put on those councillors to submit to his reorganisation agenda left them at risk of breaching the Nolan principles as well as the law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. All HMOs are obviously subject to management regulations, and local authorities must license HMOs in certain cases. An article 4 direction is often the way for local planning authorities to get control, but by the sound of it, that should have come a lot earlier in his local area.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Many communities, including those in my constituency, are concerned about the concentration of HMOs. There is a perception that local authorities do not have the powers to be able to tackle this. I want to be very clear that I am not against HMOs in principle; this is about how they are abused. I know the Government have carried out a consultation, but do they feel that local authorities are able to strike the right balance between meeting housing needs and maintaining community cohesion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will congratulate the hon. Member’s local authority. As I say, it is through up-to-date local plans and strong policies on HMOs that local authorities can ensure that they are properly regulated. After all, development plans are the basis on which decision makers, irrespective of whether they are officers or committees, will make their decisions. There is good practice out there in the country—including in my own local authority area, as I have said—and I encourage any local planning authority with concerns to familiarise itself with that good practice.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Last month, it was reported that money from the Department’s community recovery fund had been funnelled to explicitly partisan groups, and had been used to train activists in how to influence the public to make them pro-migration and against the Conservative party, which was named in training materials. Can the Secretary of State please explain how on earth taxpayer money was spent on this kind of partisan political activity?