Gideon Amos
MP for Taunton and Wellington · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He reminds me that, frankly, I struggle with the fact that such a momentous and significant policy instrument is going through Parliament without a vote.”
“Together, the existing and proposed frameworks begin to look like a greenfield-first approach. The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable and social housing where green belt is released, are absolutely right. But the Government have consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that.”
“Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills put across very well, the 75,000 new dwellings will come as a surprise in terms of population growth compared with what has ever been achieved in the past. Urban areas where regeneration is needed have seen their targets reduced.”
“The proposed framework comes off the back of the recent regulations and direction that mean that decisions, both small and large, are now removed from local councillors, so that they have no power or control over those decisions.”
“Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, policy F5, paragraph 2(b)(ii), would create a new exemption from the sequential test for sites at risk of surface water flooding. As my hon.”
“The same instinct runs through proposals on the weight to be given to different policy considerations, giving the same weight to housing, economic development, and heritage and landscape, leaving Historic England to raise concerns about how those will be balanced.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Gideon Amos, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [ Interruption. ] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.”
“I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain. Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.”
“On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.”
“Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4. The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities.”
“Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.”
“Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that. I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.”
“We also want the strategic spatial energy plan introduced so that there is a national overview of where data centres are located, with the proviso that under this statutory instrument the Secretary of State will consider, on a case by case basis, whether or not to direct under section 35 that a data centre is a nationally significant infrastructure project. We are content to support this measure, but we urge the Government to move forward with their national policy statement to ensure the provision of free heat from data centres to households and to defend key planning policies that must remain in place, such as protection of the green belt.”
“With an eye to what we all must do—seek ways to drive down bills for householders—it is worth noting that there are 1.4 GW of data centres in the UK; that means 1.4 GW of heat. That heat is often the subject of agreements in which companies are paid to take it away, but it is free heat that could heat over 1 million households. We hope there will be a clear requirement in the national policy statement to ensure, as happens in other countries, that “waste” heat—which is free or has a negative cost, because sometimes a company will pay to have the heat removed from its site—is used in local networks wherever possible. We strongly encourage the Government to go down that route.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats broadly support the statutory instrument, but we have a number of issues to raise. One is that this measure should not mean the overriding of all planning policy. Indeed, green belt policy needs to be protected. Although we welcome the fact that an NPS is being developed, it would have been more helpful to see the draft of it at this stage. We encourage the Government to go further and consider a national policy statement for business and commercial projects generally, because they will have a big impact as nationally significant infrastructure projects. There are significant opportunities with big business and commercial developments of data centres. Such developments enable the meeting of standards that cannot be met with smaller piecemeal development.”
“I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.”
“When I telephoned him this morning, he asked me why I was bothering with phoning— “Doesn’t everybody text these days?”—and he followed that up by sending me a text. With a spirit like that, I can understand how he and the rest of the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe!”
“I was privileged to play a small part in that, as our housing spokesperson in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, to secure the decent homes standard for service family accommodation. I warmly welcome the Government’s £9 billion for military housing, and I hope that the single living accommodation review will follow fast on the heels of the service family accommodation promises that have been made. I also pay tribute to those veterans who continue to live in Taunton and Wellington, who are now perhaps some of the last veterans of the second world war in our communities. I will write to the Minister, because I know she will have a lot to remember for his summing-up speech, but I invite her to wish William Spiller, a former leading aircraftman, a happy 100th birthday for 8 December.”
“As well as to the veterans, I pay tribute to those who have continued to serve their community, such as Lieutenant Colonel Ray Hall MBE, the president of the Taunton Royal British Legion, and Michael Rose, who recently retired as president of the Wellington Royal British Legion. I also pay thanks to the town of Wellington for maintaining the tradition of holding its remembrance service on the Sunday afternoon, so that the Member of Parliament can attend both of those two massively important events in our calendar. On Friday, the parents of two serving officers came to my surgery to talk to me about their housing conditions. I was proud to be able to report—on behalf of the whole House, really—that moves have recently been made on improving military service family accommodation.”
“It is a privilege to be able to stand in today’s debate and pay tribute to those who fought for this country, but that is nothing compared with how humbling it was to stand with veterans this morning and on Sunday in my Taunton and Wellington constituency to consider the massive sacrifices made by veterans and those who died for our country. At the time of VJ Day, I paid tribute to three photographic reconnaissance unit pilots who lost their lives—two of them from Wellington and one from Taunton. Today, I would like to place on record the memory of Corporal Tom Gaden of the Rifles, who tragically lost his life to an IED in 2009 in the Afghanistan campaign mentioned earlier.”
“Where there are genuine problems with antisocial behaviour, waste or parking, councils should use the powers at their disposal. Acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered in 2003, can be effective in that regard. Additional licensing for HMOs for three or more tenants, which many councils have introduced, sets standards for management and gives authorities real teeth against rogue landlords, but the processes should be simplified for that avenue of action, too. A comprehensive approach is needed. That means building far more social housing to meet demand, properly licensing and regulating HMOs, and using article 4 directions as part of a wider housing strategy. We must not lose sight of the fundamental need for more social housing.”
“Will this Government deliver on that issue, which is vital to particular communities around the country? On controlling the proliferation of HMOs, article 4 directions are ultimately a blunt, short-term instrument. They may prevent conversions in one area, but they can shift the problem elsewhere. Vulnerable people must not be pushed into even more precarious housing situations. The only way to genuinely relieve pressure on family homes is to increase the supply of social housing. If sufficient social homes were available, those on the lowest income would not be forced into the private rented sector and HMOs. Family homes would remain available to families and the housing market would function more effectively. That is the fundamental solution.”
“Member for Mansfield that streamlining those processes would be worth while. Will the Minister consider removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve article 4 directions, so that councils can put them through more easily and quickly? After all, local authorities know their areas best, and they should have the tools to manage development in a way that reflects their priorities and concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) so eloquently pointed out, in areas with high levels of second homes and holiday lets, such as Cornwall and the Lake district, councils lack the powers to control housing stock. The last Government promised to legislate to make planning permission a requirement for change of use to holiday lets, as is already the case in Wales.”
“We are deeply concerned that the Government’s target of 20,000 social homes a year is not sufficient and is nowhere near enough. The Liberal Democrats have pledged a target of 150,000 council and social rent homes a year, because a massive public house building programme is exactly what is required to address this crisis. A fundamental lack of social housing to support those on lower incomes is driving people into HMOs in the first place. I am sure that many HMO occupants and residents would far rather be in secure, affordable housing. We support and respect the use of article 4 directions by local communities to require planning permission for HMOs in certain areas, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighbourhoods or to protect a dwindling stock of family housing. We agree with the hon.”
“When properties that once housed families, with the children attending schools and people contributing to the fabric of the community, are converted into transient accommodation, it erodes the stability that makes neighbourhoods thrive. That is why many councils and residents are looking for solutions. The issue is far greater than just HMOs themselves. Often people living in HMOs are those on the lowest incomes, who simply cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do not always choose HMOs as their preferred housing; they are there because they cannot access affordable housing and because the housing market fails them. Statistics on social housing tell the story starkly. There are 1.3 million households—many of them families —on the social housing waiting list who need affordable, stable homes and cannot access them.”
“That is not and should not be regarded as a low-level issue. Whether it is excessive noise, discarded rubbish, parking difficulties from overcrowded properties or more serious issues of intimidation and disorder, these real issues affect people’s daily lives and their sense of safety in and around their own homes. No one should have to live with that. I know the frustration of residents who see neighbourhoods change in ways that make them feel less secure and less able, as other Members have said, to affect the future of their neighbourhoods. The loss of family housing stock is a particular concern for local communities.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate on a matter that clearly resonates, as we can see from the number of Members present. I recognise entirely the concerns that he and other hon. Members raised about the impact of high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation and their effect on local housing and local housing markets. When family homes rapidly convert into houses in multiple occupation, it can fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood and put genuine pressure on affordability for families who want to put down roots in an area. Those concerns are legitimate, and they need to be taken seriously. Antisocial behaviour can also have devastating impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods.”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also look at the police having the power to close illegal shops and stop them trading immediately, rather than having to take lengthy processes through the courts before they can be closed down?”
“T3. I warmly welcome, as do the families of 40 Commando in Taunton, the Government’s adoption of the decent homes standard proposed from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the £9 billion investment. Can the Minister give an indication of the timescale within which all service family accommodation will be brought up to that decent homes standard?”
“Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for: a new property regulator, as recommended in the Best report, establishing a code of practice, minimum qualifications and the licensing of property managers; leaseholders to be enabled to get alternative quotes for maintenance; a power for residents to act in common to take ownership of management companies and common areas; the strengthening of councils’ powers to adopt, with resources from developers or landowners; the urgent abolition of ground rents for existing residential leases; and, crucially, the capping of unreasonable service and estate management charges. Millions of leaseholders and freeholders are waiting. They have waited long enough. It is time for the Government to act and end what has become the great British property rip-off.”
“It has been 116 years since Lloyd George called out these practices. We have had six years since Lord Best’s report laid out a clear path forward. We have had over a year with the new Government in office. The evidence is overwhelming and the solutions are clear.”
“However, in building them we must not create a next generation of fleecehold properties. The practice of developers building estates with shared roadways and public spaces, then retaining ownership through management companies and charging residents for their upkeep while those same residents are paying council tax, has to end. For the vast majority of standard developments, there needs to be a presumption that shared areas must be adopted by the local authority. Crucially, councils need to be given the proper resources to allow that; the ability to recoup the costs of managing those spaces from developers or landowners; and powers to sanction those who fail to complete roads and similar infrastructure to the right standard. We cannot allow developers to profit from management companies, while residents pay twice for the same services.”
“Currently neither leaseholders nor those paying estate management charges have any easy way to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is why we need both the provisions of the 2024 Act to be commenced, and an independent regulator with teeth and the ability to cap unreasonable charges levied on both leaseholders and freeholders. Even the British Property Federation said back in 2023 that “the lack of any provision to introduce competency standards or regulation to our sector is a missed opportunity.” The Property Institute has welcomed proposals for oversight. When even those who would be regulated are asking for it, surely it is time to act. The Government rightly have an ambition to build 300,000 new homes a year, but we Lib Dems would prefer that to include a stretching target of 150,000 social homes. We agree that homes are needed.”
“Companies such as FirstPort have been mentioned, and I assure Members that they are as much of a problem in Taunton and Wellington as they are elsewhere. Freeholders often have even fewer rights to challenge estate management charges than those who have leases. The arrangements operate almost like leaseholds. Such residents pay double—both their council tax and estate management charges—and often receive a far worse service than those who live on estates fully adopted by a local authority, where the only charge is council tax. They have all the financial burdens of leasehold without the legal protections. Another constituent—a freeholder in Taunton—has been awaiting the regulations for years now so that he can take his case to tribunal. Even the rights that exist on paper are worthless without effective enforcement.”
“That is the cost of delay —it is a real cost being borne by constituents of mine and other Members. The constituent said to me that the process was akin to having a full-time job, which is an entirely unreasonable way for the property industry to be working—and what about residents who are less able than my constituent? Some residents may be older or in poor health, or simply ill-equipped for the massive task of navigating that bureaucracy. They may be so busy with work or children that they do not know they have been ripped off until it is too late. Folk should not have to devote that level of time and energy to get redress. The issue of fleecehold, which has been referred to by hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), must not be forgotten.”
“After a huge effort by residents asking to see quotes and invoices, it turns out that the answer was that it was for nothing—or rather for incompetence and, as Lloyd George might have put it, for greed. There were invoices relating to other buildings entirely and gaping differences between maintenance quotes and actual costs. Eventually, through the right to manage, the residents appointed a new managing agent and got their charges back down to around £2,000. That means that over those four years, residents paid approximately £13,000 in service charges. If the charges had remained at the proper level, it would have been £2,000 a year, so they have overpaid by £5,000 each and they will never get that money back. The money went straight into the pockets of unregulated managers.”
“The Labour Government promised that they would implement the rest of the Act, but well over a year later little progress has been made—progress that would give redress to those saddled with charges they cannot contest and marriage values that are wholly unreasonable. These delays are failing the people who are trapped in these properties. Recently, I heard from one constituent about their experience of leasehold service charges. When they purchased their property in 2022, the service charges were £1,700. In 2023 they rose to £2,600, which is a 52% increase. The next year they went up to £3,700, which is a further 43% increase. The following year—2025—they reached £5,010, which is another 34% increase. Overall, the service charges tripled in just three years, and for what?”
“In 2019, the Government commissioned the independent Lord Best to write a report, and he laid out sensible solutions and a clear path ahead: a new property regulator to establish a code of practice, the licensing of property managers and agents, and minimum qualifications for those working in the sector. While I acknowledge the last Government’s work in this area, it took them five years to bring forward legislation, and when they did in the form of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, they completely neglected to regulate property management or spiralling service charges. That is a measure of how leaseholders have been let down despite the overwhelming evidence of the need for action.”
“The scale of the problem is staggering—there are 4.8 million leasehold properties in England, which is more than a fifth of the housing stock—but England, Wales and Australia are the only countries still operating such residential leasehold approaches. Most other countries are perfectly able to ensure building maintenance and safety without relying on such outdated practices. One of the things I hear most often from my constituents is how long it takes to get change in this place, and property service charges are a perfect example. They have been around for decades, but very little seems to have happened.”
“I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing what, given the number of Members taking part, has clearly been an important debate. Liberal Members of this place have been campaigning to end residential leasehold and the charges it entails since Lloyd George, who, at the time his People’s Budget in 1909, said that the practice “is not business, it is blackmail... Ground rent is a part of it—fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without…consent.” His words ring true today. Over a century later, we still have the same feudal system, and charges that trap homeowners in a cycle of uncapped ground rents, exploitative charges and similarly unreasonable estate management fees.”
“It seems clear that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the Truss Budget’s rocketing of inflation and increasing of mortgage rates, which affected everyone in my constituency.”
“The vast majority of first-time buyers would be completely unaffected by the Opposition’s proposals, because they already pay no stamp duty land tax. It seems clear that, by triggering a big increase in house prices, the policy would mostly benefit those who are selling homes at high prices, and probably only those right at the beginning of the chain. More importantly, wiping out tax revenue without wider tax reform or any serious proposals for the resulting massive hole in public finances would be another Liz Truss Budget in the making. Perhaps she planted the magic money tree, but this autumn we are seeing the fruits of it in more mad Conservative tax proposals.”
“Access to home ownership has never been harder. Fewer and fewer people can afford to buy a home of their own, and 12,000 households in my county of Somerset are languishing on the waiting list unable to get a home at a decent rent. We have heard a lot about Mrs Thatcher, but since the sell-off of council houses began, 2.3 million were never replaced. The Conservatives broke that promise over and over again, so although our population has increased by five times that amount, we have had a massive loss of homes for social and council rent; several Conservative Governments never replaced them. By taxing transactions, stamp duty land tax is unfair on buyers. It needs to be reformed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has said, as part of a full review of property taxes.”
“I understand why Conservative Members keep asking us to look forward not backwards: their own Government’s experience with the Truss Budget is one that they do not want to remember and would like to forget, but unfortunately its effects were long, far-reaching and serious for all of our constituents.”
“A decent home should not be for just the most vulnerable and excluded; all working people should be able to have a home with a decent rent. Coupled with that, we need new routes to be available for people to get on to the home ownership ladder and a new generation of rent-to-own homes, where renters can gain ownership over 30 years.”
“There should be less reliance on a few big house builder developers, whose interest, perfectly reasonably, is in increasing profits and the value of their land, rather than in making their products cheaper—why would they?—or in necessarily increasing the amount of housing supply. Less reliance on the big developers and more council and social rent homes delivered by public funding would mean that there would be no need for the Government to cut the affordable housing requirements in London, as they did last week. Our manifesto provided £6 billion a year over five years to begin to achieve not just the 90,000 social rent homes that Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that we need, but our manifesto target of 150,000 homes.”
“Absolutely. They have no recollection of the past, they are blind to the experience of their own Government, and they are only asking, urging and pleading us to look forward, not back at their own record. In Taunton and Wellington, there are countless examples of folk who are unable to afford a home of their own. Rosanna, a qualified solicitor, has been living with her parents for over six years because she is unable to afford a new home. What is needed is a far bigger focus on building the council and social rent homes that are needed by our country. The Liberal Democrats propose to raise the number from the Government’s target of 20,000 per year to 150,000 per year.”
“I would point my constituents to the comments made by Lucian Cook, the head of research at Savills, who has said that the proposed SDLT giveaway would simply pass straight into house prices. It would have very little, if any, effect on people’s ability to buy homes, whether they are downsizing or not.”
“As I say, coupled with that we need a big investment in rent-to-own housing. Since 2015—this is the big point, which would be unaffected by the Conservative proposal— the multiple of income needed to get a mortgage, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has risen from four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half times their income. Without more genuinely affordable homes in significant numbers and wider tax reform, this cut is unfunded. It will leave first-time buyers with nothing new and transfer funds to the wealthiest. That is simply not enough to help my constituents. We need a much more ambitious renaissance in the building of council and social rent homes, and we need new measures to help people to get on to the housing ladder.”
“The right hon. Member, for whom I usually have respect, was clearly not listening to what I said. It is possible for there to be several features to a change in tax policy. Our argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans pointed out, is that we need a comprehensive review of property taxes. The effect of the stamp duty holiday was to increase house prices. It may, none the less, be a valuable policy, because it may free up transactions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) argued. My observation is that these are not the policies that will help people who are struggling to afford a home to rent and to get on the housing ladder in the first place. They may be valuable for other reasons, but they will not address that problem.”
“My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of his constituency in Wales and has experienced the effects of the reduction in and dwindling of council and social rent homes around the country in Wales, as in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency. We used to have 30,000 council homes available, but we now have only 6,000, and that number is going down every year. This is not about the broken promise not to allow people to buy their homes; it is about the broken promise of not replacing those council and social rent homes. That has to be addressed, and it was never addressed by multiple Conservative Governments. Without those changes and wider tax reform and investment in social and council rent homes, this policy on its own would do nothing to help my constituents, and I am unable to support it.”
“Four thousand people in Somerset, many of them with disabilities, are being transitioned from employment and support allowance to universal credit. They were assured that they would not lose out, but one constituent waited three months with no income at all, until an intervention by me and the Department. Somerset was not warned about this transition, which is causing it huge difficulties with assessing the implications for council tax benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that, just as people were told, they will not lose out in the transition to universal credit?”
“Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it. Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.”
“We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector.”