Gareth Bacon

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 205

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

   It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, whom I have seen more often in the past few days than my own wife. I appreciate the remarks that he has made, and I welcome the opportunity on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to address this measure, but I must be frank: we do not like the draft order very much, because it appears to be little more than an act of state-sponsored thievery. In this Halloween season, lurking in the shadows is not a vampire or a monster, but the larcenous light fingers of Marsham Street. The draft order seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to hive off a portion of the interest accrued on someone else’s money and pocket it on behalf of the Government. As a Conservative—as a believer in private property—I am astounded to find the Government pushing through yet another stealth tax just days after the Budget. I know I should not be—after all, it is not the first, and I doubt it will be the last stealth tax we see in this Parliament—but the brazen lack of respect for other people’s money beggars belief. That is why the Opposition will seek to divide the Committee and will vote against the draft order today.<span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span> As the Deposit Protection Service has stated, at present interest goes towards the effective running of the scheme, back to tenants or landlords, or in some cases to charity. In siphoning off funds to pay for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s litany of costly policies, the Government’s action raises a number of questions—some of which, to be fair, the Minister may have just answered. For example, will the draft order leave the deposit protection schemes financially exposed? What assessment has been made of the funding needed to keep these schemes running so that tenants and landlords are protected with certainty, along with the jobs that these companies provide? The draft instrument has no clear purpose, outlines no formula and sets no clear cap. We are being asked to approve a power without knowing how much money the Government are seeking to take, nor what limit the Secretary of State will impose on herself in a scheme that lets the Government profit from other people’s money. I also want to raise concerns about the relationship between this policy and the planned abolition of insured tenancy deposit schemes. Taken together, hiving off the interest on deposits for the Government’s benefit and moving all deposits into the custodial schemes will create a perverse incentive. If the Government take income from the same custodial deposits that they are forcing the whole market towards, how can they demonstrate that profiting from interest on other people’s money has played no part in their decision-making process? That is a very serious concern and it deserves far greater parliamentary scrutiny than hon. Members have been afforded today. We believe that there is a convincing argument that these changes should be made not through a statutory instrument, but in primary legislation. We can make no amendments today, we have little time to probe the details and we are being asked to approve a new tax outside the place best suited constitutionally to scrutinise financial legislation. The draft order lets the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, take a share of the interest earned on tenants’ deposits. It does not say how much, it does not say what the money is for, and it sets no cap and no formula. The Government are asking the House for a blank cheque to draw down on other people’s money. That money does not belong to the Government. By changing the system a week after a tax hike on landlords, the Government are creating another stealth tax. That comes on top of a new database fee and a rewritten tenancy system, in a sector in which landlords are already considering the viability of their portfolios. Every cost eventually lands on renters. The Opposition’s tests are simple. Is this a stealth tax? Yes, it is. Is it the Government’s money? No, it is not. Does it deliver for renters? Clearly not. For all those reasons, we will divide the Committee and vote against this instrument.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

   If that is so, why not simply put that into this statutory instrument? I share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—he and I seem to be agreeing a lot these days, which I am sure makes us both feel uncomfortable. The Minister has used this phrase again, “the Government expect”, which we have heard so many times over the years. An expectation is not the same thing as something actually happening. It needs to be put into the law. Why not simply put it into the SI?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   House Building

   In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister said that there were “encouraging signs of progress”, but the truth is that the housing industry faces a bleaker and bleaker future under this Government: housing completions are at their lowest for more than a decade; planning permissions are down 31%; output is down 6%; London is at a standstill; and the Government are just 29% of the way through their target in nearly half the time allotted for it. Does the Minister agree that this broken record of failure needs urgent repair?

   Hansard source
4. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   House Building

   The Minister wants to talk about the OBR, so let us do that. Last week, the OBR was damning in its assessment of the viability of house building in England. It highlighted how regulatory and fiscal burdens are crushing viability. The Chancellor promised no new building regulations, but that is not enough. The Minister knows that viability—or, rather, the lack of it—is killing the house building sector. The existing environmental and net zero regulations and taxes are causing the viability crisis, so will the Minister join me in supporting the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with her plan to cut £50,000 of regulation and taxes from the cost of building new homes to make sites viable again?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I join the rest of the Committee in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday. One of the most common accusations against right to buy is also one of the most mistaken. We have heard it many times in this Committee: it is the idea that right to buy is a contributor to the shortage of homes in this country. That defeatist attitude masks a lazy analysis. As I laid out on Second Reading, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that weakening right to buy will mean fewer new social homes. The impact assessment shows that if the pre-November 2024 baseline remained, there would be 8,050 right to buy sales and 5,450 replacement homes in 2026-27. The document goes on to show that if the Bill passes, as I am sure it will, and the legacy impacts wind down in the period from 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales will fall to about 1,100 a year, with about 1,450 replacement homes.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Not remotely. By the Government’s own analysis and admission, they would oversee a housing system in which 4,000 fewer new social homes would be funded every year. How does that help with the social housing waiting list, which all Committee members would like to be lower? How does building fewer new social homes remotely help? Of course it does not. As I showed on Second Reading, the Government’s data is not the only data available that disproves the justification for restricting the right to buy. The Government have argued that, under the Bill, around 3,000 additional homes will be retained each year, but research by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available for new tenancies each year. That means that about 90 additional homes, instead of 5,000, will be available each year. That is the opposite <span id="147" class="column-number" data-column-number="147"></span>of the Government’s stated aim and is completely incongruent with the pressing need for more social homes. The idea that the right to buy is taking homes away is a fallacy for another reason. The only people who qualify for the right to buy are long-term tenants. Government data has shown that 78% of new lettings remain lifetime tenancies. That means that, in more than three quarters of cases, the social homes are unlikely ever to be available to prospective tenants who need them. All those points clearly demonstrate that right to buy is not the issue, but part of the solution. I therefore urge the Committee to support new clause 25. My new clause 26 would require the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the social housing replaced once sold.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   No. Our new clauses would require the Government to conduct a review 12 months after the Act is passed, so that we know the figures for certain, and would require the Secretary of State to determine on the basis of that review whether to compel local authorities to do like-for-like replacements. That is the whole point of the new clauses. Rather than just letting things take their course, the Government should take control and make a decision about what local government should do. The data is expected to make sorry reading if the figures in the Government’s impact statement prove correct. We will press new clause 25 and new clause 26 to a Division.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I have nothing to add. We respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation not to press our new clauses. <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Regenerating existing social housing is a vital pathway towards providing better, safer and more social homes. As I have mentioned before, nothing in this Bill goes anywhere towards delivering more social housing. That is why I tabled the new clause.<span id="152" class="column-number" data-column-number="152"></span> According to the London Councils estate regeneration report in November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply but overflowing with demand. That is true not just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members across the Committee have noted today. Estate regeneration on its own is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution. Regeneration also plays an important role in taking pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, towards which the Government have done little but pay lip service since 2024. Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by the Government, the Opposition believe in building where homes are wanted and needed and where they can be supported by existing and necessary infrastructure, such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly, so I encourage colleagues to support the new clause.

    Hansard source