Gareth Bacon
MP for Orpington · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Since the Minister has asked me so nicely, and as it is his birthday, I will agree to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said a moment ago, the point of the new clauses is prioritisation: how we prioritise the use of British taxpayers’ funding. We believe that making Britain your home should be earned by working, paying tax and integrating.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not remotely. By the Government’s own analysis and admission, they would oversee a housing system in which 4,000 fewer new social homes would be funded every year. How does that help with the social housing waiting list, which all Committee members would like to be lower? How does building fewer new social homes remotely help?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government response to a written parliamentary question revealed that every year around 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a UK national.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such applications, including on disclosure requirements, the verification of overseas assets and the position of anyone subject to UK sanctions. Local authorities would be required to have regard to it, and Parliament would see it laid before it takes effect.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,123 held · 712 searchable for Gareth Bacon. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Moreover, in the places—few and far between—where the Government have tried to get Britain building, that has nearly always come at the cost of green belt protections, despite the fact that research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could swiftly be met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my new clause 34. I regret that my pointing out that the Bill will not create a single new social home appeared to get under the Minister’s skin on Tuesday, but the fact is that the Bill does not create any extra housing. That is not a surprise, as it comes from a Government who have built just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of their time in office. None the less, it is simply not good enough.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers. The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The document goes on to show that if the Bill passes, as I am sure it will, and the legacy impacts wind down in the period from 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales will fall to about 1,100 a year, with about 1,450 replacement homes.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I join the rest of the Committee in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday. One of the most common accusations against right to buy is also one of the most mistaken. We have heard it many times in this Committee: it is the idea that right to buy is a contributor to the shortage of homes in this country. That defeatist attitude masks a lazy analysis. As I laid out on Second Reading, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that weakening right to buy will mean fewer new social homes. The impact assessment shows that if the pre-November 2024 baseline remained, there would be 8,050 right to buy sales and 5,450 replacement homes in 2026-27.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the opposite of the Government’s stated aim and is completely incongruent with the pressing need for more social homes. The idea that the right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy for another reason. The only people who qualify for the right to buy are long-term tenants. Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that, in more than three quarters of cases, the social homes are unlikely ever to be available to prospective tenants who need them. All those points clearly demonstrate that right to buy is not the issue, but part of the solution. I therefore urge the Committee to support new clause 25. My new clause 26 would require the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the social housing replaced once sold.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not remotely. By the Government’s own analysis and admission, they would oversee a housing system in which 4,000 fewer new social homes would be funded every year. How does that help with the social housing waiting list, which all Committee members would like to be lower? How does building fewer new social homes remotely help? Of course it does not. As I showed on Second Reading, the Government’s data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting the right to buy. The Government have argued that, under the Bill, around 3,000 additional homes will be retained each year, but research by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available for new tenancies each year. That means that about 90 additional homes, instead of 5,000, will be available each year.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No. Our new clauses would require the Government to conduct a review 12 months after the Act is passed, so that we know the figures for certain, and would require the Secretary of State to determine on the basis of that review whether to compel local authorities to do like-for-like replacements. That is the whole point of the new clauses. Rather than just letting things take their course, the Government should take control and make a decision about what local government should do. The data is expected to make sorry reading if the figures in the Government’s impact statement prove correct. We will press new clause 25 and new clause 26 to a Division.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have nothing to add. We respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation not to press our new clauses. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Regeneration also plays an important role in taking pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, towards which the Government have done little but pay lip service since 2024. Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by the Government, the Opposition believe in building where homes are wanted and needed and where they can be supported by existing and necessary infrastructure, such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly, so I encourage colleagues to support the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Regenerating existing social housing is a vital pathway towards providing better, safer and more social homes. As I have mentioned before, nothing in this Bill goes anywhere towards delivering more social housing. That is why I tabled the new clause. According to the London Councils estate regeneration report in November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply but overflowing with demand. That is true not just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members across the Committee have noted today. Estate regeneration on its own is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since the Minister has asked me so nicely, and as it is his birthday, I will agree to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 28 Supported housing and stock management strategy “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the provision of supported housing within the social housing system. (2) The strategy must consider— (a) barriers to the delivery of additional supported housing dwellings within the social housing system; (b) integration of supported housing within social housing stock management; and (c) long-term demand projections.”— (Gareth Bacon.) This new clause would require a strategy on supported housing as part of social housing stock management. Brought up, and read the First time .”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Minister believes in delivering for vulnerable residents, he should have no reason to refuse.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill claims to be about social housing, and yet it says almost nothing about the people who rely on it most. Supported housing services some of the most vulnerable residents in the sector: the elderly, people with disabilities and people who have faced incredible hardship. New clause 28 would ensure that there is a strategy to support those groups through effective stock management, rather than leaving them without representation in the Bill. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy within 12 months and lay it before Parliament. It would examine the barriers to delivery, how supported housing fits within wider stock management, and long-term demand. That is not a monumental task, but it can produce effective outcomes.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will press new clause 28 to a Division, but I will let the cat out of the bag now and say that we agree with the Minister on the other new clauses. When the time comes, we will not press them. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Through their service, our servicemen and servicewomen often find themselves posted far from home, sometimes in unsafe and unstable places, to protect Britain, British values and those in need internationally. We have a responsibility to protect them when they return home. I believe that service personnel should not lose their local connection because of their service, and that is why I tabled new clause 31.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Social housing exists to serve communities, yet too many families who have lived, worked and raised children in an area find themselves overlooked when homes are allocated. That is wrong and unjust, which is why my new clause 31 would require allocation schemes in England and Wales to give additional preference to people with a local connection. Local authorities would consider current residents’ employment and family ties. There is nothing exclusionary about supporting local people who contribute to, live in and work in their community. New clause 31 would also give armed forces personnel the respect and priority that they deserve.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have heard the Minister. There was much in what he said, but I respectfully decline his offer. We will press new clause 31 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Social housing is not abundant in this country, as we all know. It is a limited resource, and it is funded by the British taxpayer. The Opposition laid out in our alternative King’s Speech the stark and unfair reality of the British social housing system’s priorities. Too many struggling British families are far down the 1.34 million-strong waiting list for social housing. However, 72% of those who identify as Somalian in England and Wales live in social housing.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not about race; it is about legal status.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government response to a written parliamentary question revealed that every year around 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a UK national. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes—money that comes from British taxpayers. This means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme budget is going to house non-nationals, and British taxpayers are footing the bill. New clause 32 is about creating a fairer system for British citizens and British taxpayers. It is not about exclusion, but about prioritisation, ensuring that British citizens are at the front of the queue for social housing in the country of which they are a citizen.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I come back to a point that I made earlier: if social housing were in abundant supply, there would be no need for this new clause, but it is not, nor will it be any time soon. The question is how British taxpayers’ money should be prioritised. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. As I was saying, 72% of Somalis, 41% of Jamaicans and 34% of Bangladeshis live in social housing. Until recently, the First Lady of Sierra Leone was also living in a British-funded council house. We believe that those who are not British citizens should not be able to access social housing while British citizens sit on the waiting list.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 43 would require the publication of estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration, because with that data the Government and local authorities would be better informed when making decisions regarding the allocation of stock, and there would be better determined decisions around housing those in need. It is vital that we do not ignore an issue simply because some people find it uncomfortable to discuss. New clause 43 does not alienate anybody, nor does it take away anyone’s rights to a social home. It is a simple, straightforward requirement that would leave decision makers better informed about the greatest pressures on an already strained system.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said a moment ago, every year about 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a British citizen—the source for that is a written answer from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the same time, the Government are spending £4 billion a year on the affordable homes programme to build 30,000 new social homes. That means that the equivalent of the entire affordable homes programme is going to house non-British nationals, and British taxpayers are paying for that. It is clearly necessary to look into exactly how that pressure is suppressing the efficiency of the social housing system, and inhibiting its ability to help British families in need.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such applications, including on disclosure requirements, the verification of overseas assets and the position of anyone subject to UK sanctions. Local authorities would be required to have regard to it, and Parliament would see it laid before it takes effect. New clause 37 would give councils the vital tools to protect public trust, ensure that homes go to those in genuine need, and make the system fair. I turn to new clause 43. One of the greatest pressures on the social housing system is the waiting list, with 1.34 million vulnerable people and families facing a seemingly immovable backlog ahead of them. It is essential that all social, economic and physical pressures on the system are identified and addressed, and one of those is net migration.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said a moment ago, the point of the new clauses is prioritisation: how we prioritise the use of British taxpayers’ funding. We believe that making Britain your home should be earned by working, paying tax and integrating. New clause 32 emphasises these points without making them exclusive to one race, religion or creed. That was quite deliberate. I urge colleagues to support the new clause. Turning to new clause 37, confidence in an already strained system is never helped when people with significant overseas wealth or status slip through the system unchecked. Current rules do not give sufficient support to local authorities to assist in dealing with applicants who hold senior public office abroad or who are closely related to those who do. The new clause is proportionate and practical.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new clause is clearly written. It is not about where somebody was born, and we are very precise in what we have said on that. There is no reference to where someone is born in the new clause, for a clear reason. It is about who is or is not a British citizen, and therefore who should or should not benefit from British taxpayers’ contributions. That is precisely what the new clause is about. I said in my speech that it has nothing to do with race, religion, place of birth or creed; it is about who is or is not a British citizen. That is the point of the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We had a bit of a spat about this on Second Reading. The first Duke of Wellington was a British citizen, so the new clause would not exclude him. The hon. Gentleman is making a completely nonsensical argument. Go back and read some history.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Responsible tenants should not suffer because the system looks the other way. I encourage colleagues to support new clause 33.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Antisocial behaviour blights lives. I am sure that we all find our inboxes filled with examples of it. Behind every statistic is a family afraid to use its own stairwell, an elderly resident who stops going out after dark or a child who cannot sleep because of the noise next door. Conservative Members believe that when a community protection notice has been issued against a social tenant or someone living in or regularly visiting a social home, the landlord should be required to carry out a tenancy review. That is what new clause 33 would ensure. This is a measured proposal; it does not dictate an outcome. However, it would ensure that landlords looked at the problem and acted. Guidance would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do feel somewhat reassured, but we are still going to press new clause 33 to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would force the Government to confront the reality of these barriers, and work to identify the conditions preventing a renewed upspringing of social home sites.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under this Government’s watch, house builders have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements such as nutrient mitigation requirements. We all heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement yesterday, but that was about no new building regulations, not looking at those that have exacerbated the problem. The cumulative impact of policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that, for many companies, it no longer makes economic sense to do so, not least when it comes to costlier and less profitable social housing. That is why I have tabled new clause 35, which would require a review of the regulatory requirements on social housing delivery.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. House building in this country is paralysed by the layering and complexity of a range of cumbersome regulations and taxes. According to the Home Builders Federation, at present house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes, and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face over £23,000 in regulatory costs, including £7,780 from building regulations, £5,700 from biodiversity net gain, and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes and buildings standards. That is not the end.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is right that we have had extended debates on the issue. He is tempting me to reveal our manifesto pledges before the election, but we are not going to do that. He is right that we will be making some recommendations about which regulations we think need to be refined or thought about again. I will decline his invitation, and we will press new clause 35 to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not good enough to impose something that everyone knows is not going to work just so that the Government can claim that they are taking action. The regulations represent the very worst of a Government hellbent on regulating first and worrying about the consequences later. Empty promises of continuing improvements do not cut the mustard. The sector, already saddled by over-regulation and tax hikes, needs efficiencies, not even more constraints. I implore the Minister to pause the impending roll-out of the regulations, which are due for implementation in just a couple of weeks’ time, scrap the current proposals and produce new ones after proper consultation with industry. I say that more in hope than expectation, so the Opposition will seek to divide and vote against the measures.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The decisions being made now about its underlying architecture risk embedding unnecessary bureaucracy and practical problems from the outset. This is concerning when significant fees are being imposed and non-compliance carries substantial and lasting penalties.” The significant additional costs and administrative burdens imposed by this approach are likely to have damaging repercussions. Voices in the build-to-rent sector, a sector vital to assisting in the delivery of new homes, have said “This will inevitably deter much-needed investment in new homes…particularly at this time of ‘viability crisis.’” These are just a few of the significant issues shared with me by industry. The database, as proposed by the Government, is not fit for purpose.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many of those who I have spoken to thought that the Government had heard their concerns and were making adjustments, only to discover later that they had been ignored entirely. How do the Government expect to earn or maintain the trust of the whole sector when they ignore its concerns and blindside it with extra financial and labour costs? The Large Agents Representation Group has summed up the Government’s proposals: “Instead of making best use of data already held across Government and other established systems…the proposed approach required landlords and agents to manually and repeatedly input and maintain information that in most cases is already available elsewhere…creating unnecessary duplication, administrative burden and risk of inaccuracy for all stakeholders.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the 80% of landlords in the market who care for more than one property, that represents a significant and unplanned recurring cost, and no one in the sector knows where the £65 figure came from nor how it can be justified. Perhaps the Minister can provide a clear explanation in his closing remarks of how that £65 has been calculated. Although the providers in the private rented sector are in broad agreement with the concept of a database, they are also united in viewing the approach of this Government as a total disaster. None of the concerns that I have outlined should come as news to the Government, because they have all been raised directly with Government officials by industry representatives.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Because of the system favoured by the Government, landlords have no ability to verify and validate data on a portfolio basis. They have no access controls nor an audit trail for data uploads, changes or deletions. The consequence of that is obvious: a heightened risk of exposure to administrative errors, consequent fines, which can range from £7,000 to £40,000, and a host of compliance and audit risks. Then we come to the subject of cost. The Renters’ Rights Act included in its impact assessment an estimated data registration fee of £28.85 per property every three years. Now the Government have confirmed a fee of £65 per property every single year, as the regulations require entries to be renewed every 12 months.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On that point, larger providers disagree with the Government’s estimate of the time it will take to upload data, so the associated costs of uploading per property could be even higher. Assuming that it takes 30 minutes per property and there are seven productive working hours in a day, that amounts to 214 working days for a 3,000 property portfolio and 714 days for a 10,000 property portfolio. That is a long way from being the only problem with the proposed database. The regulations stipulate that landlords must start and end the registration themselves, and agents can supply only certain information. That directly contradicts the Government’s impact assessment, which assumed that agents would register on the landlord’s behalf. Then there is the lack of an audit trail.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The regulations as they stand make no provision for bulk uploads, forcing landlords to upload properties one by one—Noah processed more animals on to the ark at a time than that. Each property requires around 70 data points, so that is an awful lot of admin with huge time implications, and much of the information required is already submitted to councils through existing licensing schemes. The Large Agents Representation Group, which represents some of the largest portfolios in the country through clients such as Chestertons, Hamptons, Knight Frank, Savills and Foxtons, calculates that if it takes 10 minutes to register an individual property, as the Government’s estimate apparently shows, that means over 1,600 staff hours for a 10,000 property portfolio—or about 3,300 hours for the 20 minutes it actually expects it to take.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The idea of a national register is not in itself disagreeable, but the proposed implementation and structure of this database is alien to any common-sense approach. First, and most strikingly, the Government have designed the database with barely a fifth of the providers in mind. Landlords with a single property are responsible for just 21% of tenancies in England, according to the 2024 English private landlord survey. The other roughly four fifths of tenancies are managed by landlords with more than one property, including some with thousands. Indeed, around one in five landlords hold nearly half of all tenancies. It is 2026. Advanced technology is available, yet the Government’s proposals envisage the manual uploading of each individual property.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The National Residential Landlords Association said, “If designed well, the Database should make it easy for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their obligations…whilst empowering tenants to distinguish between the responsible majority and the rogue and criminal minority of landlords.” The Large Agents Representation Group said: “With the correct design, it would make compliance easier to demonstrate for landlords and their agents…give tenants greater confidence about the homes they rent and provide local authorities with better information to target enforcement against those who fail to meet the required standards.” However, the NRLA has described these regulations as “a costly mess”.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart—in this case, I think it is my first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this debate. I also welcome this opportunity to address the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. A fair, honest and accountable private rented sector is important for landlords, agents and tenants alike—I think there is no dispute on that. Indeed, any system concerning people’s homes and property must be transparent. From what I have heard, providers in the private rented sector are broadly united in agreement on that point.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗