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 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”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 4 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.
“Given that 96% of all applications are already decided outside planning committees, and given the high number of planning permissions granted, why is curtailing democratic participation necessary? Removing local councillors’ ability to have their say is one thing, but doing so in exchange for a national scheme of delegation written and imposed top-down from Whitehall is a further insult to the town hall. I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the scheme includes the same local knowledge and understanding that local, democratically elected councillors provide at present?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know this is not the first time the Opposition have put this question to the Government, but it is of too great an importance not to be considered at every stage of this march towards a national scheme of delegation. Secondly, any attempt to suggest that the 4% represents either a great blockage or an insignificant hill on which to plant one’s flag is very far from the truth. In the period from January to March, 91% of major planning applications were decided within 13 weeks of the agreed time, up from 89% towards the end of 2024. That is the same system that delivered consent for 1 million homes in England between 2019 and 2024, and 2.5 million between 2010 and 2024.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister said in his opening remarks, just 4% of all planning applications are decided by a planning committee rather than by a planning officer. However, it is that 4% in which local voices—democratically elected local voices—are so critical. That is because at present, local councillors can call in planning applications for democratic determination, but the Government seem determined to remove that ability by mandating which applications must go to committee and which cannot. Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention? If so, how does he plan to ensure that planning officers are held to account under a national scheme of delegation?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In that Committee I raised some of the Opposition’s important and long-held concerns about local democracy. This SI may be about the planning system on paper, but the core of the changes it seeks to make strike at the heart of future local democratic voices and their ability to scrutinise planning applications. As I did two weeks ago, I am keen to make plain once again the Opposition’s firm view that we must get Britain building. There is broad consensus among the Government and the Opposition that this must happen, albeit with differences as to how it should happen. Still, that is better than the purely nimby sentiments expressed by some minor opposition parties. Where the Government and the Opposition most notably differ is over the issue of local democratic oversight and scrutiny, and the uncertain future of planning committees.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to address the statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and I thank the Minister for his detailed opening remarks. At the outset I state that it is our intention to divide the Committee on the SI. Notwithstanding that, I am aware of the political balance of the Committee and the Government are likely to carry the day, so I have some comments and questions for the Minister. As I said in a Delegated Legislation Committee two weeks ago, “The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking” —[ Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 June 2026; c. 4.] . It is therefore no surprise to be back again debating regulations relating to the Act.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a strong corelation between the hon. Gentleman’s argument and our position. I agree with much of what he has said, but I cannot get away from the ratio that both the Minister and I have outlined in our speeches: 96% of planning applications are already decided by officers under delegated powers. Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that democracy is the inhibitor here? Is democracy introducing uncertainty into the system? If that is the case, he should say so.”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree that that is the reason for the existence of the Planning Inspectorate? If planning applications are refused for reasons that are not in accordance with planning policy, will they not be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I understand his point that the 4% of applications contain a significant number of units, but does he have a figure for that? How many extra units will be granted planning permission as a result of this change?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What assessment has the Minister made of the potential for the statutory inquiries that he has just referred to, authorised under regulation 2, to increase the amount of time necessary to get the planning system moving, rather than enlivening and quickening the process? Those important questions drive into the heart of the purpose of the very Act that the regulations seek to enforce. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will address those points and provide the assurances necessary to make the system workable.”
House of Commons17 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How will he ensure that the spatial development strategies do not give a new and undemocratic weight to greenbelt developments by overriding any elements of local plans that currently prioritise brownfield development? The Government have spoken before about their reluctance to enshrine a genuine brownfield approach into law, but the Opposition believe it is far better that we deal with the issues now, rather than sandwich them in at a later and perhaps overdue date. Finally, we were told that a primary aim of the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to streamline and speed up the planning process.”
House of Commons17 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In an area as huge and varied as Greater London, the “one size fits all” approach to the London plan is often in conflict with boroughs’ local plans. Given that spatial development strategies produce a mandatory framework, what recourse of action is available to local councils and local people who find it hard to reconcile the local plan of their local area with the determination of the overriding strategy? How will their voices continue to be heard? Secondly, and most importantly, I must press the Minister again to adopt a genuinely brownfield approach. This is not the first time we have conversed, debated and potentially sparred over this issue; there is widespread concern. Will the Minister make it clear how he intends to ensure that any long-term strategies encourage a “brownfield first” approach?”
House of Commons17 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The spatial development strategies are plans that look ahead a minimum of two decades and set the framework for local plans. For democratically elected local authorities, that means 20 years of subordinating the democratically accountable local plan to the “high-level documents”. However, it is not hard to see how that inevitably leads to institutional conflict. I take London as the example. In London, the spatial development plan is known as the London plan and is produced by the Mayor of London. Far from being a high-level strategic document, it is a 526-page tome containing more than 100 separate policies—often of a very granular and sometimes conflicting nature, which makes navigating the system excessively complex.”
House of Commons17 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For too long it has been too expensive, too cumbersome and too controversial to see major housing and infrastructure projects through to complete realisation. That is why the overarching ambition to streamline the planning process is welcome and is something that we in the Opposition are sympathetic to. Although the regulations are, according to the civil servants who wrote the accompanying explanatory notes, “consequential and/or minor and technical in nature”, they continue a worrying trend of centralisation that I hope the Minister will comment on in a moment. Through the regulations, the Government will make England-wide the system of spatial development strategies: a form of sub-regional mandatory strategic planning.”
House of Commons17 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, for the first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I appreciate the remarks that he has made—and to address this draft statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking and has in many ways transformed how our planning system operates. In this House and in the other place, one of the key areas of concern for the Opposition when the Bill was being debated was local consent, democracy and control. The Opposition keenly recognise the importance of getting Britain building—we share that desire with the Government—be it more homes, more transport links or more new infrastructure. However, we acknowledge that that requires change in how the issues are addressed.”
House of Commons17 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government have previously stated that Hamas must voluntarily disarm in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, but that is clearly not happening. What is the Government’s practical strategy to ensure that Hamas is compelled to give up its weapons, cannot rebuild its military capabilities, and does not divert humanitarian aid?”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T7. In the last three years, the number of Metropolitan police officers has fallen by 3,000, and it is now at a lower level than it was in May 2016, when Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Overall crime in London has increased by 26% and knife crime is up by 27%. It is true that policing in London is partially devolved, but over 70% of the funding to the Metropolitan police comes from the Home Office, and that makes the Home Secretary a key player. What is she doing to reverse the dismal decline that we have seen in Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure?”
House of Commons8 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.” I do not doubt his sincerity. The Government must address those points and do so quickly. Perhaps the Minister could commit today to finding much needed time in the next parliamentary session to solve this crisis, back homeowners and undo this regulatory mess. Would he be prepared to put a timeframe on that today? It is vital that more is done to help homeowners facing these bills and to ensure that funds find their way into the beneficial causes in our local communities, and for the Government to ensure that these outcomes are realised quickly.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is clear that our systems for supporting infrastructure in our local communities are failing private homeowners on two counts: first, and most shockingly, they are landing frighteningly large Bills on the doorsteps of unsuspecting homeowners who are seeking only to improve the homes that they have worked hard to buy, sustain and improve; and secondly, the benefits of the payments are not being felt by the local community. The Minister is a decent man, and I know he shares my concerns about this issue. He has said before that he “recognises that procedural requirements relating to exemptions for housebuilder applications under the 2010 CIL regulations have had financial consequences for some homeowners.” He further stated that “a series of households across the country have been very badly hit by this.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Based on another piece of research from the HBF, across England more than £1.5 billion of section 106 contributions are made each year towards funding, facilities and services. However, according to the Urban Mobility Partnership, £5.3 billion of those annual contributions remain unspent in the accounts of local authorities in England and Wales. Even when they are spent, the HBF has shown that last summer local authorities reported a 20% rise in section 106 negotiation timelines, with 35% of all section 106 agreements taking more than 12 months to finalise and more than a third of councils having an average timeframe of more than 500 days.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Even beyond the heinous examples shared today, residents who are exempt from CIL but live in an area where it is being levied are not seeing its benefits. According to research carried out by the Home Builders Federation, that is because local authorities in England and Wales are currently sitting on an accumulative total of around £2 billion in unspent CIL money. These deposits are earning the local authorities in question millions of pounds of interest, which they are using to support their revenue budgets. The closest alternative, section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, is not much better. It allows local authorities to secure investment in central infrastructure arising from development, similar to but not exactly the same as CIL.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This has led to people handing over their life savings or even their pensions, funding their debt through huge amounts borrowed from friends, family or sometimes unscrupulous lenders, remortgaging their homes or, in some of the most shocking cases, selling their homes to pay off the local authority, and finding themselves with nowhere to live and nowhere to go. Let me be clear: the Opposition are not saying the original intention was wrong, nor are we saying that this situation has come about by deliberate design, because it is important that local infrastructure is not only protected from the strain of increasing housing stock, but, vitally, upgraded to match new levels of demand. However, in too many cases, CIL is simply not working that way.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friends here today: the details of the homeowners often improving their greatest and proudest assets—their homes—and finding themselves with a bill for life-changing amounts of money that they were never told they were at risk of incurring. That is a deeply troubling scenario to play out in our local areas, and it is made worse when we consider that in some cases the residents in question found themselves not only facing financial ruin but doing so with no right of appeal against the charge.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Others, however, demonstrably do not, and have followed the legislation to the letter without any regard for its overriding intention. That prompts the question: if some councils can adopt the regulations more flexibly, why cannot others? The Sunday Times has reported cases involving large sums of money being charged to residents in Surrey, Sevenoaks, London, Shropshire, Horsham, Bracknell Forest, Basingstoke, Chester and East Sussex. The Government have not issued any official guidance to local planning authorities on the enforcement decisions on CIL charges that have previously been levied on householder developers. We have heard powerful and devastating examples from my hon. and right hon.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many people are caught out, having filled out the forms incorrectly or late. In many cases, homeowners were not even aware of the existence of CIL until it was too late. Even in the case of an entirely innocent mistake where council determines an application to be retrospective, the householder will become liable for CIL. The CIL Regulations 2010, which were created under the Planning Act 2008, fail to adequately safeguard those exemptions and have therefore not properly protected homeowners from exorbitant bills from local authorities failing to properly discharge the collection of the levy. It is important to note that this is not happening everywhere. Around 200 councils operate CIL. As has been acknowledged in earlier speeches, some take a pragmatic, common sense and humane approach to its application.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Primarily, it was meant to be the case that only new developments that create net additional floor space of 100 square metres or more, or create a new dwelling, are potentially liable for the levy. That should have meant that most residential annexes and extensions, house or flats built by self-builders, local authority or housing association-provided affordable housing and charity developments are exempt. Most importantly in the context of this morning’s debate, if a householder development is over 100 square metres, an exemption can still be secured if it is applied for, but that is not a straightforward process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash said in his opening speech, it is a rather onerous and complicated process of submitting myriad forms against tight deadlines before any building work can start.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What should be, and was introduced as, a sensible alternative or addition to section 106 payments has become, for many homeowners, a financial burden far beyond their wildest nightmares. CIL was specifically designed to be a levy on developers in mitigation of the impact of new developments to ensure that they contribute to local infrastructure. It was designed with safeguards, such as the fact that the levy can apply only in areas where a local authority has consulted on and approved a charging schedule that sets out the levy rates, and published that on its website. The rates were to be decided by the local authority to ensure an added democratic oversight to the whole process. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, CIL was established with sensible exemptions—at least on paper.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate about the impact of the community infrastructure levy on private homeowners. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for securing the debate; he has campaigned on this topic diligently and relentlessly alongside his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I am sure those in the Chamber will agree that both of them have made powerful and persuasive speeches this morning. The community infrastructure levy—more commonly abbreviated to CIL—is clearly not being enforced reliably, consistently or appropriately enough.”
House of Commons29 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without that, efforts to build a transparent and competitive market, which are essential to the success of the housing market, could end up being lost in the shadow of prevailing economic downturn, be it global or national. The previous Government pursued this policy in 2024 to increase competition and transparency, and the potential of the intended consequences is why the Opposition will not divide the Committee today. However, the Minister must ensure that the regulations help to get Britain building and do not hinder British building, and must work with the industry to see that they work as intended.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For landowners especially, the Government must work with the sector to ensure that the public visibility of agreements does not foster an environment in which less land is brought forward for development. Without tackling those issues, the Government may only exacerbate the situation we increasingly find ourselves in—a situation in which the land, especially brownfield land, is preponderant, but where the high costs of construction and development preclude the laying of bricks or concrete. I finish with a simple but essential ask: will the Minister commit to a regular review of the potential trends and ensure that the regulations work as intended?”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, how does the Minister plan to ensure that that is exactly the impact of the regulations? The regulations come with a real risk of unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns about how the instrument will impact land values, landowners’ and developers’ behaviour, and community engagement. For landowners and developers, it is vital that the Government monitor the market to ensure that the regulations do not encourage the tying up of capital and shrinking of the land stock available for development by encouraging a wholesale shift to outright land purchases to avoid the regulatory requirements introduced by this instrument.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ultimately, I highlight all this because, for SMEs, this instrument produces new costs that are predicted to be about £4.2 million per annum. When that is added to the higher up-front capital costs, supply chain delays, increased taxation and the regulatory burden, it is vital that this important step to create better market transparency does not become overshadowed by the costs that come with it. The instrument is right to promote a fairer and more open land market. Indeed, it is right that almost any market must be open to competition to allow SMEs to compete alongside major players. That is the foundation, of course, of any capitalist system, and I welcome regulation that provides more choice for consumers as well as fairness for small and medium-sized businesses.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In addition to that are rising staffing costs, driven by increases to the minimum wage and employers’ national insurance contributions, and only compounded by the shortage of skilled workers available to the industry. All that is alongside the regulatory and fiscal environment, which the industry tells us is stifling house building and development. Well-intentioned regulation is performing an important but far from perfect role in balancing the vital priorities of any Government to deliver a sustainable housing stock and ensure that homes are safe. That issue is much larger than the scope of this statutory instrument, but I know the Minister takes it very seriously and I look forward to further parliamentary time being spent on it.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the construction and development industry, the impact on input costs, supply chains, material and, in particular, fuel could be severe. The data release shows that fuel inflation increased by 8.7% month on month—the highest rate since the beginning of Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine. Even before the data release, the Building Cost Information Service had forecast that building costs will increase by 14% over the next five years to 2031. That will hit SMEs especially hard and make it harder for them to compete as the major house builders dominate the more expensive land acquisitions, which data from the BCIS showed to happen in 2025.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The previous Government hosted targeted engagement sessions before and during the consultation period to ensure that those who were going to be impacted by the regulations were fully aware and given adequate opportunity to put forward their thoughts and views on the matter. Times are, however, a little different now, and there is an important context for this debate. Small and medium-sized businesses such as developers, land promoters and conveyancers face increasingly higher costs and difficult market conditions. Not the least of their concerns is this morning’s data release regarding the inflation rate, which showed an increase to 3.3% in the year to March and forecasts of a potential high in excess of 4% this year—double the rate the Government are aiming for.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The process began with a call for evidence, which was followed by an eight-week consultation in which respondents demonstrated broad support for the increased transparency of contractual arrangements, including for key stakeholders such as developers and local authorities. However, respondents also made it clear that they had some reservations regarding unintended consequences in respect of things such as commercial sensitivity and the potential burdens on small and medium-sized businesses. On that latter point, it is vital that the Government fully and meaningfully engage with small and medium-sized businesses in the sector ahead of implementation, to ensure that this statutory instrument leaves no one concerned about additional costs and red tape to a detrimental effect.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think it is the first time, Ms Vaz, that I have had the pleasure of serving with you in the Chair; I very much look forward to it. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he just made. As the Minister said, in 2020 the previous Government began the process of looking into policies to provide a more transparent picture of the control of land through the creation of a freely accessible dataset. This came out of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which provided the framework for greater transparency on contractual control agreements in England and Wales such as—as the Minister also pointed out—option agreements used to control the land short of outright ownership.”
House of Commons22 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a bad tax, and one that needs to be abolished on primary residences to get the housing market moving and to give young people a better chance of getting on to the property ladder. I call on the Minister to get behind that plan, to reverse his Department’s recent failures, to get Britain building, and to get young people to obtain a real stake in their community, their society and their own lives through affordable and targeted housing.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure we all agree that no one should enter adulthood without the stability of a permanent and safe home, but under this Government, rough sleeping has hit its highest level since records began. More young people were staying in temporary accommodation, and for longer periods, in 2024-25, and 123,934 young people faced or were at risk of homelessness between April 2024 and March 2025—a 6% increase in just a year. I doubt that the Government have done that on purpose, but young people deserve better. They deserve safe and affordable homes with demand-side support to make the dream of home ownership a reality. That is why the Conservative party has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For young people in social housing, the picture is no brighter. In the same report, Centrepoint highlighted that there are approximately 130,000 young households on housing registers. That means that if social housing were allocated at its current rate, with no new social housing applications from young households filed, it would still take more than six years to clear existing housing registers. To say the least, that is not a positive state of affairs. I hope the Minister will set out a clear path to addressing it in a couple of minutes’ time. There is also a need to tackle the frightening rates of youth homelessness and young people staying in temporary accommodation.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, it is important to consider not just those who are fortunate enough to consider buying their first home, but those who are renting, in social housing or in no house at all. On renting, a recent and very informative report by Centrepoint found that one third of young people in the private rental sector reported discrimination by landlords or agents, with the biggest issue being employment status. As unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds hits 16% as a direct result of the Government’s economic policies—a higher rate than during the pandemic—on the current trajectory, this issue will only worsen for young people, not improve. On top of that, young people face the prospect of a reduced supply of rental housing and, correspondingly, higher rents, which we are beginning to see on the back of the Government’s rental reforms.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has in fact moved one of life’s primary assets—the ability to purchase one’s own home—further out of the reach of young people. Young people already face huge challenges in buying a home. For example, the average age of a first-time buyer in England has climbed to 34, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire. New research shows the growing difficulty of getting on to the housing ladder, with the average deposit worth around a 10th more than a person’s yearly salary. Research also shows that the average age is rapidly being pushed up by the collapse of the portion of first-time buyers aged under 25. They now make up just 6%, despite having made up one quarter of those buying their first home in the 1990s. To compound the misery, more than half of first-time buyers now need two incomes to make a purchase.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It means it is becoming only more difficult to buy a home, not easier, and that young people are being failed by the Government. It is not just in housing supply that Whitehall currently presents more hinderances than help for young people. Demand for homes is far from insignificant in this country, not least among young people, but the Government are doing almost nothing to help that demand yield results. By November 2024, having been in office for just four months, they had taken an axe to the previous Government’s measures to get people on the housing ladder by cutting right to buy, first-time buyer stamp duty relief and the affordable homes to purchase programme. That has done nothing to help an already unaffordable housing market.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those figures come alongside a release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last November, which showed that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was 208,600 in the Government’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 during the Conservative Government’s final year in office. Some 190,600 new homes were built, which was a fall of 8,000, or 4%, from 2023-24, once again suggesting that the Government are on course to fall well short of their 1.5 million homes pledge. If they fail to increase the rate of house building, there will be fewer than 1 million new homes completed by 2029, which is well short of their target. What does that mean for young people trying to get on the housing ladder?”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“During this Government’s first 15 months in office, just 175,290 homes were completed in England—a far cry from the lofty target of 300,000 needed to meet their manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament in 2029. That crash is not showing signs of improvement either, with the three months to September 2025 seeing the number of dwellings drop to 30,880—the weakest quarter since the pandemic. Based on the pace recorded in the first three quarters of 2025, England is set for the lowest number of annual completions for over a decade, totalling just a measly 130,000.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the core issues behind the housing problem facing young people is a lack of supply, and the axing of measures that were designed to bolster demand. The dream of home ownership should be a reality for every hard-working person in this country, on which I think there is collective agreement in this room, but that is not the case. The Government have not yet done enough to make that dream a reality. For example, recent ONS figures show that the Government’s record in house building is not just a sorry sight; in fact, it is significantly worsening. The statistics show that house building in England is on track to fall to its lowest level in more than a decade.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is the first time I have served with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to do so, and to take part in this debate about the housing needs of young people. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for raising this important topic. The housing needs of young people are multifaceted, with experiences ranging from those in temporary accommodation to those in the private rented sector, those who own their home and those who, for whatever reason, unfortunately find themselves sleeping rough. However, what is clear is that the Government are overseeing a growing problem, and forecasts for the rest of this Parliament predict further misery for young people, whether they are seeking their first home or merely a stable home.”
House of Commons16 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed? It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have said that “the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.” —[ Official Report , 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.] In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to “provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.” That pledge was made in July 2025.”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions. As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding.”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗