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 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”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 2 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.
“On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder. Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes. I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up on to the property ladder and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through right to buy.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation, and yet the Government’s answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe that that approach is fundamentally wrong, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55. On new clause 57, clause 1 in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard-working residents from owning their own homes but prevents current tenants from doing so. The Opposition are completely against that retrospective change. The Government have shown time and again that they have no regard for the property rights of individuals. The Government’s socialistic focus has targeted landlords, freeholders and renters, now they turn their gaze towards residents in social homes.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It rather depends on the detail, but if the income caps that we hear about in the press are even remotely accurate, we can rule out the whole of Greater London and the south-east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. That would be yet another example of the Government pretending to do something without actually doing it, but we await the detail on that. Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is it an exercise in capitalistic greed. It is a hand up on to the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property. New clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it is critical that more is done to help young people to buy their first home.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but she does not say how the Government will increase home building. There is no increase in home building. The point of the new clause is to raise awareness of right to buy among 16 to 25-year-olds. The point of the new clause is about aspiration—something this Government have absolutely no idea about. Aspiration turned into opportunity by the Conservative party in the 1980s is being arbitrarily and retrospectively axed by a Bill that offers no other route into the housing market, builds no more social housing and effectively excludes 5 million people from the fundamental right to property ownership.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ever since Margaret Thatcher gave millions of people the chance to own their own home, rather than rent it from the state, local authority or a registered provider, Labour MPs have for generations sought to crush that right and the aspiration that it exists to serve.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not give way. I need to make some progress. That is the least that can be done to support families aspiring to own their own home, whether they find themselves on the cusp of reaching their three-year qualifying period or on day one of the road towards making their home ownership dream a reality. On amendments 84 and 85, the Bill opens with a statement claiming that its purpose is to make provision about social housing, but clause 1 makes no effort to increase the supply, build-out rates or funding for social housing. Instead, an ideological aversion to property ownership—a fundamental right—takes the top spot at the very beginning of the Bill.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home. Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 8, leave out from line 2 to end of line 18. This amendment removes the restriction on those living in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and areas designated as being exempt from Right to Buy.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to speak to amendment 90, which stands in my name. Since 2024, when the Government have raised rural issues, they have often found themselves in trouble. The Opposition were therefore surprised to see the elements of clause 7 giving the Secretary of State the power to decide what is classed as rural housing and to restrict the rights of those deemed to live in rural areas.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made a point that has been made by Members today and on Second Reading: right to buy diminishes the social housing stock. I would agree on paper that it does, but that has to be read in the context, as shown by the House of Lords Library, that right to buy applies only to people in long-term tenancies who have been social tenants for a long time. Some 78% of people living in social housing are on lifetime tenancies. Those properties are not available. They could not be given to anybody else because they are lifetime tenancies. Right to buy is actually providing the receipts to build more social homes for people to live in.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Stopping people from getting on the housing ladder does not help one bit, because it does not increase the supply, and that point seems to have been missed completely by the Liberal Democrats and by the Government.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I will not. I am just summing up. We will press for a Division on amendment 83, because we think that 10 years is more appropriate than 35. On amendment 91, we also disagree with the Government. We think that there should be an affirmative rather than negative procedure for this, so we will also be pressing that to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”. This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the Government’s disastrously unfair funding review. I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92 to 98 and ensure that power stays local.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister may believe that bringing such decisions in-house comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street’s corridors rather than in town halls means local authorities will be left with uncertainty, which will not speed up the building of social homes, but slow it down. Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being siphoned away. Under clause 10, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out. It is never going to be popular with councils when they find that, after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is an essential change to the Bill, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it. As it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilises already fragile funding requirements. The amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance, with amendment 95 specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on that by also requiring consultation with local authorities.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendments concern the Bill’s proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State would gain new powers to make significant determinations, including scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively. Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of “rural”, this is not about firming up an already over-rigid system, but about ensuring that the Bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall. It is only right that Parliament, not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. That is why we have tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has said that his intent is to improve efficiency and, as always, I respect his sincerity and what he said. It is simply a point of difference between us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made a compelling case about the democratic accountability and transparency of the affirmative procedure as opposed to the negative procedure. The point that we have made in the amendments is about the process not the outcome, and our contention is that the process should be as democratically accountable and transparent as possible. We will therefore press all the amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert— “(7) In exercising functions under this section and section 171A, the Secretary of State must have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers.”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the independence of housing associations when exercising powers under new sections 171A and 171B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must ensure that even well-intentioned regulatory oversight does not compromise the financial viability and building capacity of some of the most important businesses in our housing industry. We will seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will be relatively brief. I tabled amendment 82 to introduce a vital legal safeguard to protect the structural integrity of the UK housing association sector. Private registered providers are independent, non-profit businesses. They work hard to run a fair and efficient sector providing social housing and to see much-needed homes built. The amendment would protect registered providers from overreaching state interventions that could have serious, if inadvertent, financial consequences. Housing associations can rely on private debt to fund development, and any perception that central Government can arbitrarily dictate their financial operations is a threat, both to business independence and to the positive outcomes that they effect.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause. New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government. My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need. That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion. Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled. Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource. Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not. New clause 58 is not an eviction notice.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so. We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000. Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability. Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases. The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the explanatory notes and in the other place, the Government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point. It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, under this Government’s watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements, such as nutrition mitigation requirements. Taken together, the cumulative impact of the 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. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London: “Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”. She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry. According to the Home Builders Federation, 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 more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 for biodiversity net gain and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes standard—and that is not the end.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins. As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater. It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement. For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗