Homes and Planning Bill

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Friday 13th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to assist Chantelle to pursue all the potential routes by which her housing need can be met. I often hold a casework surgery in my constituency on a Friday morning—I seem to be holding one now in the Chamber. Perhaps I should invite others to bring forward their cases, although I do not wish to make light of the seriousness of the issue.

As I said, the Labour party in my constituency supports the Bill. Indeed, my constituent Cornelius Olivier, whom I mentioned earlier, has travelled all the way to London, and we delivered his petition, with nearly 2,000 signatures, to Downing Street, and indeed to Parliament, last night.

I also note that the Conservatives support the proposals in the Bill. Only a few years ago, in February 2024, the now Lord Gove announced that the Conservatives intended to bring in a change of the use-class order to require those wishing to convert a permanently occupied home to a holiday let to apply for planning permission.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I am just trying to imagine a situation where two identical properties are next door to each other and one is currently being used as a second home. In those circumstances, under this Bill, would that property automatically have rights to be a second home with planning permission? What impact would that have on the value of the two homes in comparison with each other?

[Andrew George]

Markets find their own equilibrium. If the hon. Member is indicating his objection, his question should presumably be directed to his colleagues in Wales, who have already implemented this policy. There would certainly be a presumption that properties currently used as second or holiday lets, which would then need to be registered, would form part of that register. But the purpose here is to assist in communities where there is a risk of a proliferation of the properties that are desperately needed for permanent occupancy ebbing away from the local community and going into non-permanent use.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I wonder whether he recognises that some people are advocating instead for a licensing-based scheme, which moves away from a planning system that is arguably insufficiently funded and does not give planning authorities the means to carry out enforcement at later dates. A licensing scheme, in contrast, would give them income; importantly, it would also not be permanent, and would give the people issuing the licences the ability to remove them if they have been given to inappropriate landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

Yes, absolutely. The registration scheme is welcome—it will be a helpful side issue as far as actually addressing and getting to the nub of the problem.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

rose—

[Andrew George]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, could he explain whether he supports what the Labour party has done in Wales?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am ambiguous about what Labour has done in Wales on planning. I was genuinely asking what the impact has been on the prices of properties. What is important to me, though, is that we have not yet proposed a licensing scheme in this country. The hon. Member made the point about giving communities the power to put a cap on numbers, and such a scheme could be used with a cap. Does he agree that if a licensing scheme came with the power for communities to cap numbers, it could be a more powerful tool than planning, which gives planning permission in perpetuity?

[Andrew George]

First of all—

--- Later in debate ---

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

My hon. Friend made the point that the registration scheme moves us forward some way, but for an area such as mine in the Lake district, it achieves very little other than the ability to count short-term lets. If I want to count them, I will look at the small business rates relief system, which already counts about 90% of them. Does she recognise that until we have a system that allows us to cap them, as a licensing scheme would, a registration scheme will do very little?

[Samantha Dixon]

Again, I acknowledge the hon. Member’s point. I am sure that the Minister of State is keen to respond later in the debate to those particular issues.

Let me be clear. The hon. Member for St Ives and other Members supporting this Bill are not wrong to demand a stronger and more affordable housing market that provides local authorities with greater power over their community planning, but, in putting this Bill forward, the excellent cause that it champions risks being lost in an already very busy and active policy landscape and leading to an unnecessary doubling of work. Our focus and the Government’s focus is on working hard to ensure that Government policy in this area is robust and delivered at pace to bring about real progress for residents in our constituencies and across the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am very pleased to be in the Chamber to speak in support of this Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on bringing it forward. He has deep expertise in this area, having spent many years dealing with the tragedy that is homelessness in Cornwall.

My constituency of South Devon, just up the road from Cornwall, is one of the most beautiful parts of the country—possibly more beautiful than Cornwall, I would argue, but we will not get into that. It has a stunning coastline, rolling farmland and villages that look like they belong on a postcard, but a postcard is exactly what some of those villages are in danger of becoming, because behind the beautiful views lies a housing crisis that is literally hollowing out our communities. In 1997, the average home in Devon cost about £60,000; today, it costs around £300,000, and wages have nowhere near kept up. In the South Hams, the gap between house prices and local earnings has widened by 159% since 1997. A home now costs more than 13 times what a local person can earn in a year, yet affordable homes make up just 9% of Devon’s housing stock, half the national average.

Devon also faces pressures that many other parts of the country do not: second homes, holiday lets and serious levels of inward migration, particularly of people who have sold up elsewhere and retired to the coast. I make that last point with no resentment—who could blame anyone for wanting to retire to Devon? However, the effect is that local people end up bidding against buyers who have decades of equity behind them. Devon already has an average age of 50, and it is local young people and key workers who are left with nowhere to go. It is becoming impossible to recruit for lower-paid jobs, including seriously needed community jobs such as teachers, nurses and healthcare workers, because there is literally nowhere that they can afford to live. None of this is driven by the politics of envy; it is about basic social justice, and whether the people who keep our communities running can afford to live in them.

The Bill that we are debating does two things, both of which are absolutely vital to South Devon. First, it extends the community right to buy, so that parish and town councils, community land trusts and other community-led organisations can designate redundant buildings and land on the edge of a community. They would have first refusal for an option period of up to five years to use that land for genuinely affordable homes, held in perpetuity for local people.

The Bill builds on the provisions already set out in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 and gives communities the tools to overcome ransom strips and access problems and to use compulsory purchase powers where necessary.

The answer to the housing crisis—I have said this many times in the House and will keep doing so—is small sites on the edge of every village and rural exception sites. Every village needs a few new homes to survive: not 50, 100 or 200-plus identikit houses plonked on a field by the side of a town 30, 40 or 50 miles away, but 10, 12 or 20 houses in the right place for the people who need them.

I recently met Paula, who has lived in a local village for 20-plus years. She is the kind of person every village needs. She walks the dogs. When someone comes out of hospital, she brings food to their home. She looks after homes that are second homes. She does a bit of cleaning. She does all those things for people in the village—everybody could do with a pair of helping hands at some point. Paula’s landlord is trying to evict her. There is nowhere else she can live that is in or near the village, so not only will she lose her home, but she will lose her livelihood and her income. She will be forced to move 10 or 20 miles away to find a social or affordable home elsewhere in Devon, which will be like finding hen’s teeth. She will lose her entire network—her social network and her livelihood—because there are no social or affordable homes in her village.

We need homes that let young people who grew up in communities stay there if they want. We do not want all young people to have to leave Devon because there is nowhere for them to live. We need homes that let older residents downsize and free up family houses. We need homes that keep the schools open and the bus running, but it is not happening.

I recently met a local housing developer. He told me that with a small site it takes just as much preparation, red tape and admin to get spades into the ground as with a large site. The cost of getting there is the same, but for a fraction of the return, so for many developers it is simply not worth building a few homes on the edge of a village. That is why it does not happen: instead, developers choose to build huge sites on the edge of towns, miles away from where homes are needed.

This is where I take issue with the policy of “Let’s build loads of homes” or “Let’s build a million and a half homes”. They are being built at scale in the wrong place. For someone who lives in a large rural community, it does not work. Not everybody can go to Plymouth or Exeter and buy a house in a huge development like Sherford. People want to stay in their local community. That is where community-led delivery comes in, which is why this element of the Bill is needed.

In Salcombe, a community land trust was ready to deliver homes that would have met virtually the entire social housing need of the people in that community on the list; I think there were 18 households on the list. After years and years of effort and commitment from some incredibly committed local volunteers, the community land trust has been stopped in its tracks because the landlord decided at the eleventh hour that he did not want to sell the field. This Bill could have changed that. It could have led to homes for local families who have no other possibility of staying in their local community.

Then there is Clay Park in Dartington, with 39 energy-efficient homes, all for social rent for people with local connections. It is exactly what rural areas need, but it took 16 years to get from the first community meeting to the building work, which started last year. That is the reality of trying to build differently. Community groups give up. They get worn down by the red tape. In the time it takes to put a spade in the ground, children become adults. The people who need the homes have to move away or buy elsewhere because they cannot wait any longer. Villages cave in and let a developer put 50 homes on a field. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) says, affordable homes end up as market-value homes because the permissions are changed. People cannot get more imaginative proposals through the hoops.

That has to change. We have to make it easier to build differently. This Bill would do exactly that, so I cannot understand why Labour Members are so adamant about opposing it. No, it will not fix the housing problem in the UK, and no, it is not radical enough—we all know that we need radical solutions—but it would address part of the problem. In communities like ours, that is vital.

Secondly, the Bill would give communities the power to limit the number of second homes and holiday lets in their area if they want to. A new C5 use class would require planning permission for the conversion of a permanently occupied home into a second home or holiday let. Local plans and neighbourhood plans could set limits on the proportion of such homes, and the power would be available only to those places that chose to use it. It would not necessarily need to be used in places without a second home issue. It would be used in places where there is a tipping point at which the loss of more permanent residents threatens the very viability of a community. Any C5 permission would revert to C3 when the property changed hands, to avoid perverse incentives. It would not last into perpetuity.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I note that there is a mechanism in the Bill by which, at the point of disposal, the C5 use comes to an end, but C6 does not. Why is C6 excluded?

[Caroline Voaden]

I believe the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Let us look at what the Bill would mean for South Devon. Well over half the homes in Hope Cove are second homes. A constituent I spoke to grew up there and moved away as a young adult. She came back to raise her own family, but ended up leaving again because there were literally no children left in the village for her kids to play with. She was broken-hearted that her children would not have the same experience as she had growing up by the sea. Not far away, the primary school in Kingswear has closed. There are not enough families left to make it viable.

We have over 4,000 second homes in South Hams, which is more than the number of social homes in the whole district and makes for one of the highest concentrations in England. We have 1,600 people on a housing waiting list. Imagine if some of those second homes could go back into the residential market. All across South Devon, homes that once housed local families, nurses, teachers and fishing families have been converted into tourist accommodation, and the private rented sector has shrunk as a result.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Voaden]

I will make some progress.

When a social rented home becomes available, the competition is extraordinary. There were 119 bids for one home in Marlborough, 113 for one in Salcombe, and 190 bids for one house in Brixham.

The measures in the Bill are not fringe ideas. The Devon Housing Commission recommended both more social and affordable homes through rural exception sites and tighter controls on second homes and holiday lets. The Devon and Torbay combined county authority has built those recommendations into its local housing plan, and they are the considered view of the people who know Devon best.

I urge the Government to take the Bill seriously. I am deeply disappointed that they have chosen not to back it today. Perhaps it is the politics of it being a private Member’s Bill from someone on the Opposition Benches, or maybe it is because they really do not understand what is going on in large, dispersed rural communities. Whatever the reason, it is really poor that the Government cannot get behind a Bill introduced by someone with the years of experience that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has in dealing with the tragedy of homelessness in Cornwall. If anyone is really interested in understanding what it looks like down there, I cannot recommend highly enough reading “Homesick” by Catrina Davis, a heart-wrenching book about what the housing crisis in Cornwall really means.

I want to see the Government back a stronger community right to buy, so that a community land trust like the one in Salcombe has a realistic chance of finding the space it needs to transform people’s lives. Everybody needs a home, and this Bill is one way to make that happen. I hope the Government will give communities in places such as Hope Cove, Salcombe and Kingswear the power to protect homes for permanent residents, and I hope they will look hard at the economics of small sites, so that building 10 homes in a village is not 10 times less attractive than building 100 far away.

Without homes for local people, my local schools will keep closing, the shops and pubs will shut their doors, and the buses will stop running—if we had them; we do not have enough buses, but that is another matter. It is already happening across South Devon. My hon. Friend has introduced a Bill that would give communities the power to stop this. I implore the Government to listen and to give our towns and villages the chance they need to stay alive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? He has expertise in this area, but I think it is slightly rich of him to say that the expertise available to Government, including legal expertise, is wrong on this point. The Welsh Government do have a particular approach, as I have heard mentioned several times today; that does not need to contend with the 90-night short-term let limit in London, which creates additional legislative complexity in England. We are engaging with the Welsh Government, who are due to publish their final impact evaluation on a series of measures, including on planning use classes. As I have said many times in this House, we continue to give serious consideration to what further powers local authorities need in order to bear down on excessive concentrations of second homes and short-term lets.

As I was saying, the clause does not propose that C6 short-term uses would revert to C3 at the point of sale, nor does it propose an alternative method to facilitate the return of existing short-term lets for use as primary dwelling houses. There is therefore an asymmetry in the proposed clause. This could most negatively impact the place most in need of properties reverting from a short-term use to a sole or main residence use.

It is also not clear how the proposed new C3 dwellinghouses definition would interact with existing C3(b) and (c) use classes, which include up to six residents living together as a single household where care may or may not be provided to residents.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to give way. I can feel your glare, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel it in every debate, but I can feel it more intensely now. I can see that you wish me to make progress.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister consider whether that really was a glare? [Laughter.]

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The Minister is spelling out quite clearly how the use of planning to control the number of short-term holiday lets is complicated and difficult. I view using the planning system on these sorts of issues as a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Will the Minister confirm whether, as the Government consider ways of controlling the number of holiday lets, they will consider a licensing system, and whether a cap could be applied to such a system?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Look at what is being done across the rest of the world under different regimes: some use licensing alone, some use planning alone, and some use both planning and licensing. We are reviewing what further powers local authorities might need and considering all options. As I have said, I am more than happy to continue to engage with hon. Members across the House on this point.

We share the ambition of improving access to housing for local people, but changes to the use class system must be judged by whether they would achieve that objective in practice. We are not persuaded that the approach proposed in clause 5 would work.

Recognising the underlying pressures, the Government have taken action, including abolishing the furnished holiday lettings tax regime, legislating for a national registration scheme for short-term lets, and preventing landlords from evicting tenants simply to convert a home into a holiday let. Any further planning changes will require careful consideration alongside those measures.

I will turn briefly to clause 6. It is right that communities should be able to respond to the effects of second homes and short-term lets through the plan-making system. However, the clause largely restates powers that are already available to local planning authorities and qualifying bodies. Neighbourhood plans can already include policies relating to second homes and short-term holiday lets, and local plans can also introduce principal residence or principal occupancy policies. Indeed, clause 6(4) explicitly recognises those existing powers.

The clause therefore largely sets out an approach that the existing planning system already enables. For that reason, we do not believe that the case for further statutory provision has been made, and nor are we persuaded that prescribing matters that plan-making bodies must take into account when preparing such policies via a separate statutory provision would improve the operation of existing plan-making powers.

I thank the hon. Member for St Ives once again for bringing forward the Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. There have been some great speeches from my hon. Friend the Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). A number of issues have been raised that are well beyond the scope of this particular Bill, including the housing revenue account, rough sleeping, and fleecehold leasehold. I am more than happy to sit down with hon. Members from across the House to discuss those matters.

Train Services: Extreme Weather

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic train crash in Toledo, Spain, on 28 October and to all those affected. I know that the UK rail accident investigation branch was quick to offer its expertise and support to its counterparts in Spain in the aftermath of the tragedy. I also want to acknowledge the recent derailments at Lewes and Wickford and the collision at Bedford over the summer. My thoughts are with everyone affected by those incidents. I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services and all those involved in the responses.

Those incidents are a reminder of our responsibility to remain vigilant, learn from what has happened and maintain an unwavering focus on safety. As the relevant independent authorities continue their investigations, it is important that we avoid speculation and allow their work to conclude before drawing any conclusions about causes.

I am pleased to speak about the impact of extreme weather on train services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate, and I thank all other Members for their contributions. If I do not manage to address specific points, I assure Members that the Rail Minister will have heard them, and they can always follow up in writing.

The effects of extreme weather on the railways are felt not as abstract statistics, as my by-election twin, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), said. This is about not just statistics but missed connections, disrupted working days, uncertainty for passengers and freight, and the impacts on local economies and customers. Communities need a railway that is safe and reliable and able to recover quickly when conditions deteriorate.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

In Cumbria, we fully appreciate how disruptive bad weather can be, and we have quite a lot of experience of it, but we do not appreciate why bad weather in Scotland can mean that trains heading north on the west coast main line terminate in Preston, which is nearly an hour away from Penrith and even further away from Carlisle. Will the Minister commit to writing to Avanti and Network Rail to determine why that is and consider solutions that might get my constituents home a bit quicker?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend raises a really interesting question. I do not know the answer, but I will make sure I speak to the Rail Minister and see what answers we can get for my hon. Friend.

This summer brought the challenges we are discussing into sharp focus. The UK experienced five widespread heatwaves between May and August. In June, the Met Office issued a rare red extreme heat warning. During the most severe conditions, on 24 and 25 June, passengers were advised to make only essential journeys in affected areas, including the west midlands. Services continued to run, but safety required reduced speeds and amended timetables. That meant longer journeys and a greater risk of delays, cancellations and late changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is right to highlight the experience in his constituency. This summer, heat reduced Chase line services, while intense rainfall flooded the railway between Hednesford and Rugeley and forced trains to terminate at Hednesford. Further storms disrupted services in October. These events reinforce the need for better preparations, including drainage, targeted investment in resilience and strong local partnership working. Network Rail has produced a weather resilience and climate change adaptation plan for each of our regions, and those plans indicate where investment may be needed during hot weather and how issues can be addressed.

The first duty of the railway is, of course, to keep passengers and staff safe. Speed restrictions, targeted inspections and temporary closures can be really frustrating, but they are needed to ensure a safe railway. The task is to make those decisions earlier and more precisely, communicate them clearly and restore the service as quickly as conditions allow.

The industry has drawn practical lessons from summer 2026, including preparing earlier, focusing on the greatest risks, planning for prolonged heat, and making decisions sooner. Operationally, that means acting as one railway, using restrictions in a targeted way, building recovery into the response and adapting quickly as evidence changes. The Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways, which will integrate operations and infrastructure in regional routes to ensure that they act as one railway. In the meantime, the rail industry has established a climate change programme co-chaired by Network Rail and Department for Transport Operator Limited to provide strategic direction, align the industry and monitor delivery.

Preparation is not confined to summer, nor are climate risks confined to heat and the consequential moisture and soil deficit in many areas. The developing El Niño is expected to increase the chances of wetter, stormy conditions across the UK this autumn and in early winter, with stronger winds and increased risks of heavy rainfall and flooding. Colder spells are also possible. The railway is therefore preparing for a range of conditions using drones, specialist treatment trains and autumn forecasts, while managing vulnerable trees, planning contingency timetables, monitoring conditions in real time and deploying winter equipment to keep passengers moving safely.

As well as operational preparedness, we need to look to the future. Summers such as the one we experienced this year will become increasingly common. As was said, extreme weather has become the weather. The changing climate means that resilience cannot simply be something that we consider after extreme weather strikes. It needs to be built into the everyday decisions we make about how the transport system is maintained, operated and funded. That is why the Department for Transport launched its climate adaptation strategy for transport in December 2025, setting out our vision for a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient to a changing climate.

Importantly, the strategy is about turning that ambition into practical change, supporting the transport system to prepare for the impacts of climate change by setting the strategic direction, strengthening the evidence base and embedding adaptation into planning and decision making. That approach is already being put into practice on the railway. Network Rail is pioneering work on adaptation planning through its adaptation pathways so that investment can be prioritised and staged as risks change.

Publicly owned train operators have for the first time also developed weather resilience and climate adaptation plans looking at climate risks across the railway, not only in respect of infrastructure, but to staff and customer welfare too. For example, working air con is equally important. Just yesterday, the Department for Transport published the first transport resilience strategy to provide strategic direction to improve the resilience of the transport sector and ensure that resilience principles are embedded in decision making and planning. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will be pleased to know that as part of that work, we are setting up a four nations transport resilience group.

Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029. That has been invested in activity but also technology to improve resilience to extreme weather and climate change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

In rural Cumbria, those without a car struggle to access education and jobs, which is why families on the lowest incomes prioritise car ownership. However, our councils lost out on significant financial support because funding formulas used car ownership as a determinant of income. Will the Secretary of State carry out a review of this approach, and perhaps ask whether civil servants who are privileged enough to travel to work on one of the world’s finest public transport systems are giving us duff advice?

[Jim McMahon]

The fair funding review deliberately took into account the different types of local authorities that were funded through the settlement, from London authorities and urban authorities to authorities for coastal or rural communities. For the first time we made sure that deprivation was picked up in the funding formula, and the level at which we did that was in the hundreds of households, not the thousands or tens of thousands of households. The idea behind that is to enable us to really home in on where deprivation exists across the country.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am more than happy to make sure that my hon. Friend gets an appropriate meeting. I also belatedly wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 amended the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that, in addition to already needing to be on the electoral register, a donor would need to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. However, section 10 required a statutory instrument to activate it, but no such statutory instrument was ever laid before this House. Will the Secretary of State look at belatedly activating this measure to ensure that only those that live and pay tax in the UK can influence our democracy with their money?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and of course I am more than happy to look at that.

Pride in Place

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for this fantastic funding announcement. I know that my constituents in Maryport and Broughton Moor will make good use of this £20 million investment. Thinking back to the last Government’s approach to levelling up, I recall that the Public Accounts Committee criticised the lack of transparency in how levelling-up money was allocated. As pork barrel politics and levelling up are two very different things, will the Minister reassure us that lessons have been learned and this Government will be transparent?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The pork barrel politics we saw under the last Government were shocking. At a time when our communities were under huge pressure and we saw such deprivation, it was pretty egregious and unforgivable. This Labour Government would not do that. We are clear and transparent about the metrics that we have used; it is all published and it is there. Critically, we are trying to reach the communities that need the greatest help.

Political Donations

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate.

The Labour manifesto pledged to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”

I am pleased that these important proposals are being developed. Both today’s debate and the 2021 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life focus on foreign money entering the UK via companies and unincorporated associations, but I urge the Government, when they develop their proposals, to go further than that.

In 2009, Lord Campbell-Savours of Allerdale, who also happens to be my father, was involved in the tortuous debates in the other place before the passing of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. He and other Members worked to secure an amendment to the Government’s proposals. That amendment meant that individuals giving or loaning more than £7,500 to a political party must be resident or ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the tax year in which the relevant donation or loan is made.

The Bill and the amendment were later given Royal Assent, but that clause, as with many other provisions of primary legislation, was subject to the development of commencement regulations. At the time, the Minister of State envisaged that secondary legislation would be completed not long after the summer of 2010. A general election interrupted that process. However, primary legislation is still in place, ready to be enacted—a quick win, one might say.

As has been said, the Conservatives enormously expanded the number of foreign residents eligible to donate to political parties in our country by removing the 15-year limit on British citizens overseas being able to vote and donate to a political party. Now, up to 3.5 million overseas residents can influence elections.

I am going to take on the baton handed to me by my father and his colleagues in the other place, some of whom are no longer with us, and urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission to take on the task of drafting the secondary legislation required to ensure that overseas residents who do not pay tax in this country are no longer allowed to influence the outcomes of elections with their money.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member may not be aware that nearly $20,000 was donated from the United States to Sinn Féin’s 2017 Assembly election campaign—representing nearly one third of Sinn Féin’s spending in that election. Those who have been so exercised by political donations here have often done nothing to close the loophole that allows huge amounts of foreign money to influence politics in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the world would it happen that someone would be paying the bills of a foreign political party, yet that is what seems to happen with Sinn Féin. Does he agree that this loophole must be closed very quickly?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The hon. Member is quite right: I was unaware of that.

Under the rules set out the amendment, and made into law, these people would still be able to vote, and could even stand for election—arguably, that would be legitimate participation—but they could not spend money to disproportionately influence the outcome of elections in a country where they do not pay tax. Who runs this place should be a matter decided by those who live and pay their way here; it is they who live with the consequences of those electoral outcomes.

Employment Rights Bill

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A lot of people are in a holding pattern for business decisions on investment and employment.

All the Bill will do is leave our businesses at the mercy of the trade unions and take us back to the 1970s. It will merely align us with the growth-gobbling guidelines set by bureaucrats in Brussels and hold our businesses back. It is not just me who thinks this; I am going by the Government’s impact assessment. The CBI claims that employers expect Britain to become the worst place to invest and do business over the next five years—a damning indictment of the Government.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not.

What businesses want is less government, less regulation and more freedom. When making employment decisions, they require certainty and flexibility so that they can hire more people, but the Bill threatens to undermine the agility of businesses in ensuring that their workers maximise productivity. It does not encourage businesses to take risk, hire a budding new employee and reap the rewards; in fact, it does the complete opposite. The Federation of Small Businesses calls this legislation “clumsy and chaotic” and suggests that it will “increase economic inactivity.”

Let us be clear: the Bill is not really about employment rights or better conditions. Its focus is on repealing the 10-year ballot requirement on political funds, removing the opt-in default for trade union political funds, removing the need for proper consent to form a trade union, and so on. It is not the Employment Rights Bill; it is the trade union appeasement Bill. The Government are not prepared to stand up to the unions. We have seen them cave in to train drivers and give sweetheart deals without any savings for the taxpayer.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

That question is nonsense. My point is that tenants will not be able to find properties to rent in the first place. From that intervention, it seems that Labour still does not understand these concepts.

We worry that the higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off. Demand is rising in England, but availability is not keeping up. Forty-seven per cent. of landlords have either attempted to sell a property in 2023 or are thinking of doing so, with the biggest reason being to their fear of new laws.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Penrith and Solway contains the Lake District national park and other tourist areas. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the previous Government’s failure to introduce their promised reforms to section 21 has led to many private landlords moving from the private rented sector into the holiday let market? Her reasoned amendment says the Bill will

“reduce the supply of housing”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We need a lot more council and social rented homes. I will return to that issue.

In the spirit of ensuring that a plentiful supply of rented housing comes forward, we urge the Government to retain the option for landlords and renters to agree between them fixed-term tenancies of three years, rather than periodic tenancies being the only product on the shelf, so to speak. We are worried that investors will be unlikely to invest ahead if they cannot see security of tenure coming from their investments. There could just be an increase in short-term holiday lets as a result, because there would be no difference between tenures.

If both renters and landlords are to have any faith in the courts when it comes to resolving disputes over evictions, the courts must have the investment to do the job. Put simply, and as was said earlier, there are not enough judges or bailiffs and the system simply will not work until there are. In the same way, local authorities must be funded properly to take on the new responsibilities in the Bill. In Taunton and Wellington, the local Somerset council has more than 10,000 people on the council housing waiting list and was brought the brink of bankruptcy by the Conservative Government’s cuts to proposed funding for social care—a crisis across the country that the outgoing Conservative leader of Somerset called a “ticking timebomb”, which was handed to the new administration.

In those circumstances, it is not surprising that Somerset and local authorities across the country are unable to enforce the standards of housing that we would want. The House of Commons Library found

“evidence of low and inconsistent levels of enforcement”

when it comes to addressing poor property standards. No amount of words in the Bill will make up for the need for resources; I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention funding for local authorities to discharge those duties. That is vital. The Bill also rightly makes separate provision for student housing, but it does not extend to one or more student renters renting together. If that does not happen, there could be a significant withdrawal of student housing from the market. We would be concerned to see that.

I turn to other provisions in the Bill. We welcome the protections for renters on benefits, who of course should not be discriminated against. We will also be seeking an assurance that the 12-month prohibition on re-letting following an eviction will also apply to re-letting furnished holiday lets, such as on Airbnb. We are pleased to see that, following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and of the Minister of Housing and Planning, who both worked on the Bill in the previous Session, no new, punitive definition of antisocial behaviour is being introduced. We thoroughly welcome that element of the Renters’ Rights Bill.

To support our serving military personnel and help address the recruitment challenge in these uncertain times, I also support the bid of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, also in the last Session, to ensure that MOD housing is also subject to the decent homes standard proposed in the Bill. It is curious that the Government often like to legislate for others; I want reassurance that they will legislate for their own MOD housing at the same time. Service personnel deserve decent homes just as much as anyone else. That decent homes standard surely must extend to better insulation and energy efficiency—to EPC level C, as was mentioned earlier.

I ask the Minister to meet the concerns of my constituents in Taunton and Wellington and across the country by agreeing guidance with landlords and the sector on what would constitute reasonable grounds for refusing permission to have a pet—a subject close to the heart of the Secretary of State, I know—and ensure that tenants are allowed to keep their pet once that has been agreed.

Above all, the Bill is about bringing an end to the shameful delays of successive Conservative Governments when it comes to protecting renters from unfair evictions. I heard the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) say that she wanted to help the Bill— but she has also tabled an amendment to kill it. If that is helping, I would hate to see her definition of attacking something.

The change really cannot come soon enough. One of my constituents, Mike Godleman, came to me some time ago. He had been served with a section 21 eviction notice while recovering from major surgery. He had loved his home of over nine years. A couple of months ago, his councillor and I visited him to try to help him. We met a kind, gentle and creative man who taught sign language, loved dance and was a talented teacher and photographer. His charming sons Perez and Zakkai meant the absolute world to him, and he had become more of a friend to us than a constituent. His sons were a complete credit to him when we met them. Sadly, some 10 days ago Mike was found in his flat. He had passed away as a result of a pulmonary embolism—clearly not caused by his eviction notice, but surely people in Mike’s position should not have to suffer being made homeless as a result of a notice that inherently, and on the face of it, shows that there was no fault on his part.

Conservative Administrations since 1988 have ushered in a system in which the tenure that has grown most is the one that gives the least assurance to tenants; assured shorthold tenancies are now the most common form of tenancy. Their approach seemed designed to maximise disadvantage to renters—40% of renters now say that, as a result, their last home move was forced on them, adding turmoil to insecurity of tenure. In fact by repeatedly announcing that they would legislate but then failing to deliver on that legislation, the last Government prompted a massive 30% growth in Airbnb short-term lets, taking away more security of tenure from other tenants.

It is hardly surprising that Ministry of Justice reports show that standard procedure claims for possession and eviction massively increased under the last Conservative Government, while accelerated procedure claims doubled from 4,000 to 8,000. The Conservatives’ inaction was a shocking abandonment of thousands of tenants to increasing eviction rates, as landlords sought to pre-empt the often promised, but never delivered, end to no-fault evictions.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Does the hon. Member agree that, as I think the shadow Minister alluded to in her speech, there have been attempts to use no-fault eviction as a way to deal with people who are at fault, and that the failure of that system has now become an excuse for not reforming this injustice?

[Mr Amos]

I agree with the hon. Member. We must make sure that the courts are properly resourced so that the grounds that are in the Bill to provide for eviction, where it is justified, can work effectively. That is surely the way forward, rather than some back-door approach in which no-fault evictions are used for a multitude of reasons, many of them not justified.

While it is right to legislate to end no-fault evictions—measures that Liberal MPs such as the former Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Simon Hughes, vehemently opposed from these Benches back in 1988 —we surely cannot think that the private sector alone is the answer to solving our nation’s housing crisis. The Government must be more ambitious, immediately banning no-fault evictions, building 150,000 council and social rent homes per year, a comprehensive programme to insulate all housing, a planning use class to control second homes and allowing councils to halt the right to buy, so that when we build council houses we are not trying to fill the bath with the plug taken out.

Those are the priorities that the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for and working to see on the face of this Bill. I urge the Minister and the Government to take on as many of our suggestions as they possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on his maiden speech. He may be the first triplet I have ever met, so he can add that to his list of firsts.

I speak recognising that we want, understandably, to keep tenants safe and to ensure that those in the private rented sector have the security that we believe they deserve. However, I do worry that the Government’s good intentions in what they are seeking to achieve will actually leave us with no homes left to rent, or at least a significant reduction. Having worked in a homelessness team 20 years ago, I have seen at first hand the impact on those who are evicted. More recently, as the cabinet member for homes and communities, I had responsibility for homelessness, building safety, disabled facilities grants and the cross-party plan for homes that Plymouth city council has proudly worked through over the years.

I speak for tenants and landlords. No one can be responsible for homelessness and not want to ensure that people in vulnerable situations have the best opportunities. However, I also speak for the many excellent landlords in the city that I represent part of, not least those who are members of the South West Landlords Association, whose training I participated in while I was a cabinet member. They provide the vital rented homes that the city and the surrounding areas need, the loss of which will have an impact on the very tenants we are hoping to support.

None of this Bill will be relevant if there are no homes left to rent. Rightmove is currently claiming that there are 50 inquiries for every rental property in Plymouth. We also have 365 households in temporary accommodation, with 162 of those households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I am sad to say that those numbers have not really moved much in the last couple of years, because of the lack of private rented property. With this Bill, we may therefore be ignoring the dangers of the impacts on those tenants in temporary accommodation.

We need to ensure that the private rented market in cities such as Plymouth and the surrounding rural areas is fit for purpose, and at the moment it is completely broken. The fact that the homes are not necessarily always fit to in live is almost the least of the problems, because again, as I have said, if there are no homes to live in, people do not have anywhere to be.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

This issue of landlords removing themselves from the sector was also brought up in the speech of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). What does the hon. Member think happens to properties when landlords remove themselves from the sector?

[Rebecca Smith]

The hon. Member makes a very good point, and that brings me on nicely to the next section of my speech. One of my constituents has recently written to me to say that he is very sadly, having been a landlord for the same tenants for 25 years, selling his entire portfolio of 89 properties. Sometimes, we do actually see—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member allow me to finish? Thank you.

We sometimes see some really constructive solutions to these problems. For example, while I was a cabinet member on a Conservative council under the Conservative Government, Plymouth city council, Plymouth Community Homes and Homes England were able to work together to purchase 86 three-bedroom properties from Annington Homes, which is the supplier for the MOD. So the hon. Member is correct that there are some options. However, although my constituent has approached the council, there has currently been no movement. The point I want to make in this section of my speech is about what more Homes England could do to ensure that when landlords leave the market as an unintended consequence of this Bill, their properties are bought by local councils, although they may need the grants that Homes England has so generously provided in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I congratulate hon. Members on their excellent maiden speeches this afternoon and declare an interest as someone who has been involved in the commercial and residential property sector for over 35 years.

The thing is, there are many good and noble intentions in the Bill. The Secretary of State outlined them and I think the whole House endorses them. She spoke about the need to balance rights between tenants and landlords. That is a matter of judgment, and I fully respect that the Government are making a series of judgments and decisions. The reality is, though, that in the last five years, the quantity of private sector properties available to rent in the United Kingdom has reduced by about 50%. As more restrictions and regulations are imposed, the quantity is going down. I think that is particularly so in Scotland, where there have been even tighter restrictions and the availability of properties for rent has reduced.

Of course, what we all want is the opposite—a greater supply of rental properties—but that requires additional capital for additional new homes to be built. That is a key objective of the Government that I think all of us support, but to ensure sufficient reward and attraction for that capital, landlords need to know that the balance of risks and rewards is appropriate and that vacant possession can be secured.

I am old enough, ladies and gentleman, to remember the ’70s and ’80s—[Hon. Members: “Surely not.”] I know. A two-tier market emerged between what were called assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies, for which vacant possession could be secured. Properties with assured tenancies were worth approximately only 80% of those with assured shorthold tenancies. I say to the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, that the risk here is that if the Government get this wrong, the capital will disappear, the quantity of properties to rent will reduce and the quantity of supply to be built for the private rented sector will reduce.

I urge the Government to keep these measures under close review as the Bill passes through the House. If they get the balance wrong and it is made too difficult to secure vacant possession—particularly of properties with tenants involved in antisocial behaviour or not paying their rent—the supply will reduce dramatically.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I asked this question before and did not get a successful answer. Perhaps the hon. Member can tell us what will happen to those properties when landlords pull out of the market.

[Richard Tice]

It is a really good question, and I am happy to answer it. If the landlord pulls a property available to rent out of the market, it will go into the ownership sector and that property will not be available to rent.

We know that there is significant demand to rent, and I say to the Government that we want to increase the supply of properties available to rent. I therefore repeat the point that it is about risk and reward. The Government must make these judgments. I just say to the Minister that he should keep this closely under review. If the Government get the balance wrong, the market will reduce while demand will continue to rise, so rents will rise as the supply reduces. That is my concern. If the Bill passes—it is likely to—perhaps the Minister should review it in a year by looking at the data and seeing what is happening to rents, what is happening to supply and whether further tweaks and adjustments are needed.

Short-term Lets: Regulation

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

My constituency includes parts of the Lake District national park and I have been a councillor for the town of Keswick for a number of years, so this has been a big issue for me. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talk about the number of holiday lets in her constituency, which I think she said was 2,000. The CA12 postcode, which comprises Keswick and the surrounding villages, has 1,000 holiday lets. The impact on a micro level is part of the issue. There will be people in some councils around the country who will listen to this debate and think, “What are they talking about?”, but others will know exactly what we are talking about and recognise the problems that it is causing for our people.

I have followed this debate for a few years, and I appreciate the toolkit approach, but my worry is that that is throwing everything at it. We have to remember that some of our tourism economies are now quite reliant on this accommodation. We have even seen some traditional holiday accommodation, such as bed and breakfasts and guest houses, move away because people prefer self-catering options. For me, the question is how we remove the bubble, which is causing so much harm, without destroying our tourism economy. We need to look at the range of options and evaluate them by asking what we would really gain from them and what damage they would cause.

I want to start with tax, which is a funny one. Some people have the idea—I have never bought into it—that if we throw taxes at people, eventually there will be a new equilibrium and all of a sudden we will hit a sweet spot where we have the right number of holiday lets and everyone is happy. Even if we were to achieve that in the Cities of London and Westminster or in Cornwall, it might not work in my area. I do not believe the tax system is designed in a way that will allow us to manage this problem. I appreciate the arguments about fairness and what is just, and whether it is right that, every time a property turns from a residential property to a holiday let property, the tax burden of the parish precept has to be put on the neighbours, because of the way that calculation is done. I get that parts of the tax system are unfair, but I still do not think it is the answer to our problem.

There is also the registration system. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall. I used to be a Labour activist in her constituency and I remember it being talked about on the doorstep, but Westminster has a key thing that some other areas do not: the 90-day rule. It also has many people living in leasehold properties who are forbidden by their leases from offering short-term lets. The real issue in Westminster is the cat-and-mouse game whereby the leasehold block management companies chase people to try to prove that photographs on Airbnb are of the inside of their flat. Neighbours make complaints, but often enforcement is not possible. I can see the power of a registration scheme for enforcement by those companies and by councils. We have seen this problem on the Churchill Gardens estate, with chocolates on the pillows —the works.

I can see why a registration system would work in London, but there is a big flaw in it. In my area, it would only allow us to do one thing: count how many short-term lets there are. I do not need to count them to know the damage they are causing. What we really need is caps. Some people say, “Well, use the planning option,” but that would see permission given in perpetuity under permitted development rights. It would be a disaster for my community if the 1,000 holiday lets were made permanent in that way.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central suggested a licensing scheme, and I think that is the way forward. That would allow us to build in caps. Importantly, whereas the planning system is under-resourced, does not have the funds and is front-loaded because people only pay for planning applications at the beginning, under a licensing scheme, owners would have to pay on an annual basis.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). It is good to see her following in the footsteps of her predecessor, who secured a number of debates and made many contributions on the impact this issue has on that constituency and others. May I also commend the work that London councils have done on behalf of local authorities in the capital to highlight the impact of this issue and bring forward constructive policy suggestions?

There is a high degree of commitment to cross-party working on this issue. As we have heard, it has an impact on constituencies across the country, not just here in the capital, and it was much debated in the last Parliament, particularly during the era of the covid pandemic. We saw many of our constituents who wished to go on holiday or needed to travel for work unable to use hotels, and they therefore made the best possible use of providers such as Airbnb to secure accommodation that met the covid regulations in place at the time.

Many of us worked on the assumption that post-covid there would be a return to the market as we had seen it before, which clearly has not been the case. At the same time, longer-term changes, driven partly by Government but also by wider issues in the market, have seen reducing profit margins for those in the buy-to-let market and people facing higher costs for the standards of the buildings that they maintain. They have also seen the introduction of significantly increased checks on tenants as a result of the need to crack down on unlawful lettings and market changes more generally, as the big players such as Airbnb and Booking.com have sought to create a greater supply of this type of accommodation for commercial reasons.

Clearly, the regulations introduced in 2015—particularly in the capital, with the 90-day limit and the requirement that somebody had to be paying residential council tax on accommodation for it to be let, as well as ensuring that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) would not be able to let out his parliamentary office should he wish to do so—are examples of measures taken by Government with a view to ensuring that this market played a positive role in local communities. However, as has been highlighted by many Members, significant issues clearly remain despite those measures and that high degree of cross-party consensus.

As with many things, I put it to the Minister that there will be an opportunity in the Government’s review of the planning system to consider points about the use classes that would apply to property, in particular to introduce requirements around planning consent being sought for those properties that could create a nuisance because of their proximity to other types of residential development, and to ensure that powers that may be enforced are available to local authorities through the planning system.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning authorities can barely wash their own faces, let alone take over the enforcement of thousands of holiday lets? Does he not think that that could be a huge challenge, which could perhaps be better funded through taking money directly from the holiday let operators?

[David Simmonds]

I started my political career as the chairman of a planning committee in London, and I am very aware of the challenges faced by planning authorities—not just in the capital, but elsewhere.

The design of the system around enforcement is clearly intended to ensure that it is financially self-sustaining; we have seen some examples of that with local authorities, including those that have entered into contracts with the private sector specifically to ensure higher levels of enforcement funded by fines and charges levied against those abusing the system. Not all local authorities have reached the stage where they are prepared to undertake that work, but clearly both the available market in providers and the powers and freedoms that local authorities have enable them to do that if they feel that it is an appropriate and proportionate solution to the level of challenges and concerns that they face in their local community.

We know that the current situation reflects a long-standing determination on the part of Governments of all parties to ensure that there is an increase in the accommodation available. Measures such as Rent a Room tax relief, which was introduced many years ago, were intended to ensure that there was a greater supply of flexible accommodation, so we need to ensure that we strike the right balance in this market.

I finish with some observations about the context of the housing market in which this debate is taking place. The UK has the most intensively used housing stock of any major developed country in the world. We have very few derelict or empty properties, so given the level of demand in comparison with other major economies, it is clearly important that we ensure as far as possible that accommodation is available to those who need it.

An element of that will be short-term lets, which play an important role in the economy, but with many people looking to secure longer-term and permanent housing that clearly needs to be a high priority. In taking forward their planning reforms, I urge the Government to consider the fact that there are already an additional 1.4 million new homes in England with planning consent already granted by our local authorities. Priority should be given to ensuring that those consents are fulfilled and those homes are built, rather than prioritising, for example, the deregulation of the green belt.

I also want to bring something else to the attention of those present. In some respects the previous Government’s record deserves criticism, but on measures for net additional dwellings and new homes per calendar year—both major measures on housebuilding—development under the previous Government hit record levels; in fact, in recent years it hit the long-term record for as long as the statistics have been gathered. Indeed, during the last Parliament, a net additional 1 million new homes were built in England alone, in fulfilment of the manifesto commitment.

Many hon. Members have highlighted lots of issues that need to be dealt with effectively. I would encourage the Government to consider how, through their review of the planning system, those issues can effectively be brought forward. They should also consider how existing measures that have been highlighted, such as enforcement powers and the means of recouping costs, which are already available and used widely by some local authorities, could be put into action more swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. This is why this debate is so important: we must make sure that we address the issues and challenges being raised. The new Government are taking stock and considering a full suite of options for the regulation of short-term lets before we make policy decisions, but I have heard clearly from hon. Members about the issues and challenges they face in their constituencies. We need to ensure that the response is proportionate and appropriate, reflects the different kinds of issues affecting different constituencies, and avoids unintended consequences. The actions we take must properly address those issues.

In England, the average house price is more than eight times annual earnings, and affordability issues are even more acute in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The average monthly private rent in London increased by 9.7% last year, and is more than one and a half times higher than the average monthly rent in England. Although it is true that London remains one of the country’s least affordable areas, we are in the middle of a housing crisis right across the country. Years of low house building across all tenures, combined with rising interest rates, have resulted in too few genuinely affordable homes. The issue has been exacerbated in London, coastal towns in places such as Cornwall and areas such as the Lake district by the proliferation of short-term lets and second homes, as hon. Members have highlighted. That is why we want to go further by giving local authorities tools to tackle short-term lets where they are an issue.

The lack of robust data about short-term lets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, means that local areas often struggle to define the true extent of the problem and are unable to effectively manage the impacts. Although this data is not perfect, in 2022 a call for evidence suggested that there are about 257,000 short-term lets in England, about 43,400 of which are in London. I know my hon. Friend is keen to have better data about short-term lets in her constituency, and I am happy to hear that she and a number of other hon. Members support the short-term lets regulation scheme. We are committed to introducing the register, which will be an essential tool in enabling local authorities and central Government to access relevant data on short-term lets.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the issues with the registration scheme, which the previous Government described in their consultation as “light touch”? It will not meet the needs of areas such as mine, where we do not have the additional legal powers available in places such as London.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that we look at what can be done as part of that exercise. He will appreciate the point I made about the new Government needing to take stock of what is working, where the good examples are and what we can draw on. The register is part of that, and I look forward to ensuring that colleagues’ insights and contributions are taken into account.

Building Safety and Resilience

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I congratulate everyone on their maiden speeches. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), and the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson).

I represent the new constituency of Penrith and Solway, which takes in parts of the old Carlisle, Copeland, Workington, and Penrith and The Border constituencies. I therefore follow some truly great parliamentarians: Willie Whitelaw, a pillar of strength behind the Thatcher Government; David Maclean, Lord Blencathra, who now excels in the tradition of likeable nuisances in the other place; Baroness Sue Hayman, a champion of farming and rural affairs whose skills will be put to good use on the Labour Benches; Sir Tony Cunningham, a family friend; my father, a fine mentor; Rory Stewart, who now entertains Members, at least on the Labour Benches; Dr Neil Hudson, who has been re-elected as the Member for Epping Forest; and Mark Jenkinson, who represented Workington from 2019 to 2024—I may have profoundly disagreed with him, but I must confess that he worked hard for his constituents. I find myself slightly in awe at those Members whose predecessors have disappeared into the sunset. I will be seeing mine on a regular basis, but I promise to take any advice from them with grace.

Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), I have the privilege of representing a constituency in which I grew up. My grandfather brought my family to Cumbria in the 1950s, and his work as an engineer saw him on the platform for the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first full-scale commercial nuclear power station. My family’s love of Cumbria and the Lake district has endured ever since.

I have had the pleasure of representing my home of Keswick on town and district councils and, more recently, on the new Cumberland unitary authority. I stepped down from that council knowing that my former colleagues will do their best to ensure that a challenging local government reorganisation is a success.

As I begin my time in this place, I leave behind my work in the electrical contracting industry and my career as a contracts manager—a role that saw me work with many people in leasehold block management. It therefore seems apt that I make my maiden speech in this important debate. As a former electrician, it is not lost on me that the tragic events that unfolded at Grenfell Tower were triggered by an electrical fault. It is now imperative that the sequence of events that followed set the ground for long-lasting reform that ensures these things can never happen again. I commend the decision to create the Building Safety Regulator, with its focus on high-risk buildings. While many Members rightly push for reform of the leasehold system and extending the right to manage, I hope the new regulator acts as a defence against those whose only concern is keeping building management costs down.

Winston Churchill once said:

“If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.”

When it comes to the interpretation of British standards affecting electrical safety and fire safety, my view is that if you put two electricians in a room, you will get two opinions, but if you put the bill payer in the room with them, you will only get one. The regulator should ensure that any new rules are unambiguous and can be applied consistently.

I have heard a number of maiden speeches and do not wish to get into the unwinnable debate about whose constituency is the most beautiful. I will just take it as given that my constituency that takes in the Solway Coast national landscape, part of the North Pennines national landscape and, not least, the north Lake district, including the Borrowdale valley, for which I have a deep love, is undoubtedly in the top 10.

However, the real beauty of my constituency is not in its architecture, coastline, lakes or hills; it is in the people. When I was first elected as a councillor, I was taken aside by an experienced and recently retired parish clerk, who had a message for me: “It isn’t politicians who run things around here—it is the community.” She was right. I am in constant awe of the tireless efforts that volunteers show in my community every day: the mountain rescue teams, who keep us safe on the fells; the Maryport Rescue volunteers, who run the independent lifeboat service on the Solway coast; the flood action groups, who hold our flood authorities to account; our community-led housing trusts, who excel in delivering homes in rural communities, where larger housing associations fail; the community groups in Ireby, Hesket Newmarket and Nenthead, fundraising to save vital community facilities at the heart of their villages; our food hub volunteers; Churches Together, the Lions, the Rotarians and all the other groups that give so much. They inspire me, and this politician’s job must surely be to help them flourish.

I head back to my constituency for the conference recess knowing that I have many issues to tackle. The Old Court House in Cockermouth, already half collapsed into the River Cocker, lies empty, with little progress being made by its owner and other authorities to make it safe. Residents of Penrith have been plagued for many years by a revolting odour from a local meat rendering plant. The infamous “Penrith pong” has been particularly strong over the summer months.

Rural homes, many lacking modern home insulation, are in desperate need of Government investment to help permanently bring down energy bills. Farmers are in despair, as trade deals have failed to deliver and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs struggles to implement its new payment schemes. The local health service is struggling to recruit the vital staff my community needs to thrive. I am here in their service and to rebuild broken Britain, just as we promised we would during the election.