partytracker.uk

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{18CB41F5-0953-469A-8099-6BCCAC8D40BA}"> </QNum> Matt, I think you have already answered my first couple of questions: the legal requirement on climate was set in 2022 in the original direct consent order, and the requirement to use alternative fuels to diesel is not a significant cost driver in a scheme of this scale. However, reflecting on a conversation that you and I have had previously, I was wondering about the cost impact, and the impact on the project generally, of delays caused by uncertainty of finance. Would a Bill like this enable future schemes to have certainty of financing arrangements, and therefore get on site and be delivered more quickly? Is that a fair assumption? Matt Palmer: I think all of us recognise that annualised costs on major projects, especially mega-projects, are very difficult to deal with. They drive perverse cost behaviours, where you are trying to fit into a 12-month window, and the Government are currently moving, with the mega-projects piece, towards more of an envelope-type conversation. This is just another extension of that. You end up with a cost envelope that you are working within, with a driven timeframe that you have to deliver to, which then allows the flexibility to execute at the right time—depending on the weather and so on. It is that flex that you need in order to execute efficiently. If you are constraining yourself on cost to a budget every year, which is common, it does drive cost. This model gives you the flex that allows you to drive an efficient construction project.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{CB9BB7BA-9DAA-4399-AFAE-FCB237356C37}"> </QNum> For those who are concerned that the capital cost of this scheme continues to rise, and it has risen since I was first involved in it many years ago, what mechanisms have you put in place specifically with your contractors to drive down cost in delivery? Matt Palmer: The base cost of the scheme—the cost without inflation—has been fixed since 2020. The great thing about a development consent order is that the scope is fixed. We are still building 52 bridges, 22 km of road and 4.3 km of tunnel. The cost difference between now and previously is essentially driven by inflation. You have got great cost control sat there inside the direct consent order. Our contracts with our contractors then drive to that same scope and control, and there is a pain/gain share: they get into pain if they exceed and they get incentivised to deliver below, which is normal with any project of this scale.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{4A197DC1-B23C-48DE-8D14-7A8A419AE9B1}"> </QNum> Will, I do not know whether you heard the earlier evidence and the thoughts about how the ORR needs to scale up and strengthen to deliver this. Do you have any reflections and what have you fed back to the Government about what the ORR needs to be able to do its role effectively on this project? Will Godfrey: I hope my earlier answers go to some of that. If your question is specifically about the scope of what you were just asking Matt, it is important for us that the arrangements around what will be LTC Co. and its relationship with its contractors, and in turn what it is allowed to charge to end customers, is not a simple pass-through-type arrangement. That is really important. You need to make sure that there are the right liability caps in relation to the pain/gain sharing. Are those at the right level? Has LTC Co. or any company licensed under these arrangements—let us concentrate on the LTC example—got the right incentives to be able to control the relationship with the contractors? Through the licence and the price control arrangements we need to create arrangements in which there remains that discipline to control those costs, so it is not a set of arrangements in which, beyond a certain threshold, end users are ultimately on the hook for cost pass-through. The importance that the Bill places on efficiency in the economy and that being at the heart of our duties is something that we would take really seriously and very much welcome. It gives us the authority to be able to act on getting to those kind of price control licence arrangements. Of course, as I said earlier, the first price control arrangement would be set by the Department through that first competition for the first licence. In terms of how we operate on it thereafter, we would look to make sure there is not just a simple mechanistic pass-through in the event that costs overrun, whether for inflation or other cost shocks.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{ED20CB35-6C8A-49D8-BDC2-261E53E2B574}"> </QNum> Minister, we have heard evidence that there is not a massive amount of competition for major schemes in Europe, yet competition is important to drive down the cost of capital. Do you think that the RAB model will help us to secure the best possible deal on the capital for building the lower Thames crossing? Justin Madders: I think it will. Obviously the Treasury decision on how this is going to be funded is driving us in a direction where we have to secure private investment. I think the model gives us the opportunity to give the investor certainty over a long period. Clearly, guardrails in there will protect users as well, but as I say, the indications I have had so far are that the long-term nature of the project and the way in which it has been de-risked make it an attractive proposition.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{93795708-4AF2-4CDF-B4AC-10C9F32DDA0B}"> </QNum> In the passage of the Bill, do we have to be careful to separate what it is about—a financing regime and addressing some of the legacy challenges of tolling in the UK—and the construction decisions made by National Highways on the type of fuel it might use, which is probably the equivalent of less than 1% of the overall construction cost? Justin Madders: As I probably made clear, the Bill is scheme agnostic, so an amendment to require a certain type of fuel would not really help us at all. Look, we have had quite a lot of evidence and, as a Committee, we should take confidence in the measures that are in place to ensure that the costs are kept under control.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{2EE56CA7-8C35-4484-B282-C2DD1BE6F389}"> </QNum> We heard some evidence about 343 projects, which I think Sam from Britain Remade referred to, which included a whole range of projects delivered around the world. I did a very similar study in 2020, with a similar number of projects—I need to look at whether a bit of plagiarism is going on there in that work! We are actually very good at delivering major road projects in the UK—the A14, the Silvertown tunnel and various others. We are very good at delivering major infrastructure projects on time in the highways space in the UK. I think people need to have a bit more optimism about the delivery of this project. Justin Madders: I suppose, to pick up from one of the witnesses, I will reference the fact that the road investment strategy—which was started by the previous Government —has set us up with a very sustainable model to develop these large projects over a longer term, giving confidence to the supply chain to keep control of costs and to deliver on time and within scope. I think that National Highways is now very well skilled at doing that, which should give us all confidence.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{8AAA0CE2-5F89-4BFE-B32E-F9A71409B067}"> </QNum> The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that you would set out the process for setting tolls, which may address some of the concerns about what toll levels might be. Is that still the case? When will we see that during the passage of the Bill? Justin Madders: The tolls will ultimately be part of part of the licence, which is covered by the Bill—
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{F6C33FC6-814A-474E-87B6-F6B0E40D49B0}"> </QNum> But the process for setting the tolls—will we see how they are to be set, with the key principles and how that is to be done, as the Bill progresses? Justin Madders: That will be part of the licence conditions, and probably a little too specific for the Bill. Obviously, there are safeguards in the Bill about the things that will need to be considered by the operator.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Mike Reader
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{A005F41C-C0C3-42B3-B89B-1F60DA17BB65}"> </QNum> As the licensing conditions are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, will you set out the core principles of what those licensing principles will be as the Bill progresses through Parliament? Justin Madders: Yes, we are happy to do that.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
How much does the hon. Member think that undertaking an annual cost-benefit analysis would cost, given that we are outside the EU, and who would bear that cost?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
There is a serious point here, but I also recall the hon. Member schooling all of us in this Committee on the importance of interrogating line by line, rather than giving grand, broad political speeches. I am simply asking how much he thinks his proposal would cost. He has brought it to the Committee for us to consider, and that is a reasonable question.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I take the hon. Member’s point about other clauses in the Bill. Has he at any point queried or questioned the Government about the costs, given that he is part of the Opposition?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Will the Minister give way?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I am sorry for interrupting the Minister’s flow. Does she recognise that we have managed various agreements with the EU without signing up to various pacts?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I think there was a little bit of irony there!
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Melanie Onn
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{481DB010-FC1D-428C-8F4B-988CECFA3FFF}">T10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3DC85BEF-E92A-4071-9230-F1102DD4385D}"></QuestionText>The extension of the fuel duty cut to July 2027 will be welcomed by my Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituents, many of whom rely on their cars for work purposes. What more are the Government doing to help reduce the cost of motoring for those who use their vehicles for work purposes?</Question>
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Maureen Burke
Business of the House
My constituent recently contacted me after his three-year-old daughter was involved in a terrifying near-miss with a recklessly ridden e-bike. The unsafe use of these vehicles is a growing threat to public safety. In Scotland, enforcement is devolved and regulation is reserved. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on how the Scottish and UK Governments can work together to protect our communities from dangerous e-bikes?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today. Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp. Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so. I turn to new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised. We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building. In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic. A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support. I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area. I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence. In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove. I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward. On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy. On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim. On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary. In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight. In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour. Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed. On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards. The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections. For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively. We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life. New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance. Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households. Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year. With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause. The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need. In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas. Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent. Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes. In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents. Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation regardless of their tenure type. The accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met. The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold. Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate. As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause. New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues. The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027. It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit. That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit. The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end. The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites. At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward. We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units. It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states: “Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.” Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received. The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House. As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites. I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment. Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward. If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions. Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73. Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing. The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes. We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes. However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling. It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery. I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank you and the hon. Gentleman for the birthday wishes. What better way to spend a birthday than with the fine body of hon. Members on this Committee? We understand the intention behind new clause 11: to improve transparency about right-to-buy sales and changes in social housing stock. Robust and accessible information about sales and housing delivery is, of course, important. However, in our view, a new statutory reporting framework is not necessary. Incidentally, a similar amendment was proposed in the other place and resisted because the Department already publishes statistics on right-to-buy sales and replacements, alongside wider information on social housing delivery. A separate register for every local housing authority would duplicate information already collected and published, while creating additional administrative requirements. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery via our existing published statistics to ensure that we are consistently delivering more social rent homes than we are losing. The numbers are considerable; I refer the Committee to the Government estimates in the impact assessment of the net gain in social rented homes as a result of the Bill. For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
New clause 15 and new clause 68, which has not been spoken to, explore the merits of additional funding and support for councils and other registered providers when it comes to acquiring homes. New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, focuses on keeping as social housing homes that would otherwise be disposed of outside the regulated sector. Although the Government continue to promote new build land-led development as a way to increase overall housing supply, we are supportive of acquisitions because they increase housing stock more quickly than new build and therefore represent an efficient way to rapidly meet local housing need. As a result, we have taken numerous steps to provide councils with investment opportunities to acquire additional homes. For example, we have lifted the acquisitions cap on the use of right-to-buy receipts. That removes previous restrictions on the number of homes that could be acquired using that source of capital funding and offers councils greater flexibility to meet local housing need. We have also made grant funding for acquisitions available through the social and affordable homes programme. We have confirmed that we will look to raise its existing cap, so that councils can purchase more homes from the private sector while they increase their capacity and capability to deliver homes directly. In addition, the local authority housing fund can be used by local authorities to purchase from private registered providers homes that would otherwise be lost from the social housing sector. All homes acquired through the fund become part of the local authority’s stock of housing, providing a lasting asset for local communities. I reassure Committee members that receipts from the sale of social homes are not lost but retained in the sector. Receipts from disposals will also often contain an element of recycled grant. In those circumstances, Homes England already sets a series of conditions on how recycled capital grant may be used. Those include the expectation that providers deploy recycled grant in support of identified priorities and housing need, in line with investment priorities set out in local plans. There is a strong incentive for timely reinvestment: if recycled grant is not used within three years, it must be returned to Homes England or the GLA, along with the interest it has accumulated. We need to recognise, however, that registered providers sometimes have tough decisions to make. We also need to ensure that we use Government money as effectively as possible. I am therefore not able to commit to further funding that would ensure that homes that are uneconomic or unsuitable to invest in remain in the social housing sector. However, I hope that the Committee is reassured by the funds available, which I have already outlined. On new clause 68, we record and publish statistics on acquisitions. That enables us to assess what role they are playing in social and affordable housing supply. It is not clear what an additional report would add to that assessment.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to the new clause, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for St Ives. As Committee members know, there are already several routes for social housing tenants to access home ownership, including the recently announced Your First Home scheme. But those routes must be balanced with the need to protect social housing stock and to stop homes from being sold at an unsustainable rate. Although the new clause includes provisions intended to ensure that homes remain within an affordable housing system, it would nevertheless, in our view, create a new route for social housing to move from rented tenure into owner occupation. The Government’s priority, as I have stated numerous times throughout our proceedings, is to protect and increase the supply of social and affordable rented homes for those in housing need. That is why the Bill is reforming the right-to-buy and right-to-acquire schemes—both to retain a route to home ownership and, as I have said, to avoid unsustainable rates of sale and outflow from the system. We do not believe that it would be right to introduce an additional route for social housing tenants to purchase their homes. As I have said, such a route would risk reducing the supply of rented social housing available to future tenants and duplicate existing routes to home ownership. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not push the new clause to a vote.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking to the new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, and for highlighting the housing pressures experienced in a number of tourist areas. It is worth saying that those pressures affect not only coastal and rural areas, but urban areas in London, York and other places around the country. The Government recognise that high concentrations of holiday lets can affect the availability and affordability of housing for local people and can contribute to wider pressures on local communities. However, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary. The Government already support the delivery of social and affordable housing through established funding programmes, many of which we have discussed throughout the Committee’s proceedings. The new clause is premised on the idea that revenues associated with holiday lets should be earmarked for social housing projects and related purposes. That is not the Government’s approach. Business rates revenues are not ringfenced for specific spending programmes; they are available to support local priorities. Likewise, the overnight visitor levy is intended to support local economic growth and strengthen local areas by giving strategic authorities greater control over how locally raised revenues are invested across a range of local priorities. Ringfencing those revenues for a particular purpose would cut across the Government’s approach to fiscal devolution and local decision making. The Government are already taking action in this area. Parliament legislated for a national registration scheme for short-term lets in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, and we remain committed to implementing that scheme as soon as is practicable. The Government have also abolished the furnished holiday lettings tax regime and are continuing to consider whether further measures may be needed to help local authorities to respond to local housing pressures related to excessive concentrations of short-term lets. In the light of that ongoing work, and given the Government’s established approach to fiscal devolution and local decision making, we cannot support the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the shadow Minister for his well wishes and for speaking to new clauses 25 and 26. As he says, new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the replacement of social housing stock and to consider the merits of introducing a statutory one-for-one replacement requirement. The core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to prevent social homes being sold off without being replaced. Reforming the right to buy is central to that objective. If the shadow Minister reads the impact assessment, he will see clearly that it sets out the move from the existing baseline, before the changes the Government are making both in this Bill and outside it, to where we want to get to, which is a net gain of 18,000 social rented homes, over the 10-year period from 2026 to 2036.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
I am struggling to understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It will vary in each instance, will it not? There is a well-understood measurement for the loss of social homes from the sector; the shadow Minister cited statistics on that. The Government and the impact assessment are clear that, as a result of the Bill and the other measures we are taking over a 10-year period, we will go from a net loss of 26,000 social homes to a net gain of 18,000. That is the difference that the Bill will make. We have also taken significant steps to support local authorities to replace homes sold, such as by allowing them to keep 100% of their right-to-buy receipts and giving them greater flexibility as to how to spend them. Our changes to discounts further ensure that councils keep a larger share of the receipts. Our priority is therefore to implement these reforms rather than commission a further statutory review.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is worth saying that previous Conservative Governments advocated for one-for-one replacement and did not achieve it, precisely because the finances do not add up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster says, on average it takes the sale of three homes to replace one; it certainly does in my own London borough. Our proposition is very simple: we do not want these homes leaving the sector at the current rate. Yes, they may be secure tenancies in many cases, but they will be made available for future tenants in due course, and we will build more at the same time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
Then why compel councils to do that?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLabour Matthew Pennycook
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
As the shadow Minister has outlined, new clause 27 would require the Government to produce proposals within 12 months of the passing of the Act to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates. Let me make it very clear that we recognise the role that regeneration can play in the development of new or improved social homes that best fit the needs of their communities. I can think of many estate regeneration projects across London that are both very effective and hugely well supported, having been taken forward to resident ballots; the Brookhill estate regeneration in Woolwich, in my constituency, is a good example. That is why the social and affordable homes programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in social housing, and why the programme will last for 10 years, allowing for the longer timeline that regeneration typically requires. We are also committed to improving existing social homes. As members of the Committee will be aware, we have published an updated decent homes standard, which providers must meet by 2035, and new minimum energy efficiency standards, which they must meet by 2030. For those reasons, we do not think this new clause is required, and I ask the shadow Minister kindly to withdraw it.
Hansard source

partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

All parties, latest first

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Topical Questions

Business of the House

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)