Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Andrew George Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right: we absolutely need to give local councils flexibility. We have already helped councils to build their capacity. We have, as I will mention later, allowed them to keep 100% of right to buy receipts. We are considering everything we need to do to move the dial when it comes to house building, to build on the steps that we have already taken.

The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. Let me provide further detail on each objective in turn, starting with the measures designed to better protect existing social housing stock and incentivise the building of more social homes.

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. In addressing them, I emphasise that we are not abolishing the right to buy—I know and respect the fact that some right hon. and hon. Members object to that decision on principle—but the Government remain firmly of the view that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, we need to radically reform the right to buy in order to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to build, and to attract broader investment in council housing.

As hon. Members will know, we have already acted to reduce maximum right to buy cash discounts, to increase the cost floor protection period, to ensure—as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain)—that councils keep 100% of right to buy receipts, and to allow council to combine those receipts with developer contributions and grant funding. The Bill delivers the broader set of reforms necessary to put in place a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme for the future, informed by the feedback we received in the public consultation that ran from November 2024 to January 2025.

Key measures in the Bill include increasing the right to buy eligibility requirement from three to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum cash discounts so that long-standing tenants benefit from the largest reductions, and exempting newly built social homes from sale under right to buy for 30 years. The Bill also exempts homes from sale under right to buy in areas designated as rural, given that homes in those areas are extremely difficult and expensive to replace. In the other place, peers sought to persuade the Government to set criteria for rural designation in regulations, and we have committed to amending the Bill to enable that.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister will know that clause 12 includes provision restricting housing associations from disposing of stock, including, for example, housing for which it is expensive to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of C. My area is haemorrhaging larger numbers of social homes because of that rather than because of right to buy. Will he ensure that rural communities, where there is a scarcity of social housing, are protected and supported in retaining those properties?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sure that we will have ongoing discussions about that and other issues. The hon. Gentleman may wish to hone his private Member’s Bill—the Homes and Planning Bill—so that it focuses on this issue among others. As I said at oral questions on Monday, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on disposals. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector.

The new disposal notification requirements in the Bill, which I will address later, will maximise opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes, but housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. Yes, we are looking at what more we can do to protect much-needed social housing stock, but there are limits to the extent to which we can go. Further to that point, we are also taking equally important steps to ensure that councils are in a better position to buy any disposals—by raising the gap on grant funding for acquisitions, for example.

Taken together, those measures will fundamentally alter the trajectory of social housing supply. Between April 2012 and March 2024, there were over 124,000 council right to buy sales, with fewer than 48,000 homes replaced in the same period. Under the previous, pre-reform baseline, we could have expected to see an approximate net loss of another 26,000 council homes between 2026 and 2036. Following the implementation of this Government’s right to buy reform package, including the measures in the Bill, we instead expect to realise a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same 10-year period. To put it more simply, instead of vainly watching the loss of precious social homes massively outpace their building, we will, for the first time in decades, build considerably more than we are losing thanks to this Labour Government and this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is disappointing to hear that my hon. Friend’s local authority is not interested in any way in trying to bring those homes back under local authority control. As I said, there are limits to what we can do. Housing associations remain independent organisations. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the risks concerned with the steps the Government might take on reclassification, but we are exploring what more can be done to protect much needed social housing stock. As I said, it is just as important that we ensure that those councils and other providers that do want to buy—there are plenty of them—are in a position to do so.

On the issue of disposals, having listened carefully to the debate in the other place on this matter, we have committed to introducing an amendment to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property to give councils and other providers more time to consider whether homes can be purchased and retained in the social housing sector, which we want to see.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister also consider extending the option to consult community groups, community land trusts and housing co-ops? They could take on these properties, rather than their leaking out into the private sector. In areas like mine, if properties leak into the private sector, they will most likely become second homes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Indeed. That is precisely why we are introducing the notification window: we want to give local authorities and other providers the maximum opportunity to bring those homes back under their control. It is just as important that they are able to do so in practice. There are other issues affecting local authorities. A number of my hon. Friends in oral questions at the start of the week spoke about pressures on housing revenue accounts. All those issues are bearing down on the ability of councils to buy homes. We are looking at reforms to this area, not least the cap on acquisitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I support the Bill. It is the beginning of what the Government should be doing, but they can and should go a great deal further, both to address the need for significant growth in the scale of social housing being built and to support particularly vulnerable groups, including, as the Bill rightly says, victims of domestic violence.

I am surprised that the protections from right to buy have not been extended by preventing sales of the homes held by community land trusts, housing co-ops and not-for-profit housing providers, which have very small stocks that really do need to be protected. I am also surprised that the Government have not brought forward measures to stop the bedroom tax, which Labour campaigned against during the coalition Government. At that time, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Affordable Homes Bill, which Labour supported, but the Government have not included its provisions in this Bill.

I do hope that the Minister will take a second look at the issue of disposals and clause 12, on which I intervened on him earlier. At present, stock is haemorrhaging out into the private sector as a result of understandable requirements from the Government to achieve higher energy performance certificate levels and the decent homes standard. Where it becomes too expensive for housing associations to deliver on those requirements, there should be a presumption in favour of disposal to democratic bodies such as community land trusts at a value consistent with affordable housing. The problem is that housing associations sell those homes at open market value, when in fact they could be taken on by local charitable bodies and still be provided to local people in housing need.

The Minister referred to my private Member’s Bill. There are a number of provisions in it that I hope that he will consider that I do not need to propose myself. We need to strengthen the protection for areas that immediately adjoin communities, and to protect the rural exceptions policies, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). We need to work out how we can deliver more social housing when hope value is being fuelled by counterproductive housing targets. That is undermining so many measures that should be available to communities to help them to deliver what is desperately needed.

National Planning Policy Framework

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing the debate, and all other Members for their excellent contributions, which I strongly endorse. I particularly wish to highlight the contribution of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which I hope was a bid to catapult him into becoming Secretary of State under the new regime—I would certainly strongly support the approach he is taking.

A lot of people have referred to the inequity and inappropriateness of the way in which the Government have introduced national targets and the manner in which they have imposed them, through the national planning policy framework. It certainly reinforces the weakness of the whole system, because it is based on a delusion that private developers will collude with the Government in driving down the price of their finished product.

During my nine-year sabbatical from this place, I was chief executive of a registered social landlord—a community land trust—and tried to deliver in those circumstances, so I am certainly aware of the difficulties in trying to meet the need for affordable homes. My primary point is that the national planning policy framework has fundamentally weakened the rural exception policy, which was introduced in the early ’90s under planning policy guidance 3. That was the first time that planning had switched in principle from “planning use” to “user”, and took the user into account so it was meeting local housing need. That has been productive in a number of areas, especially in Cornwall, where it has for many years been the primary source for the delivery of affordable homes within the duchy.

The problem is that because of the way in which the framework has been brought in and because local authorities can no longer demonstrate that they can meet their five-year land supply, all areas that previously could be designated as rural exception sites to meet affordable housing needs can no longer be designated as such. A lot of them have been converted to open-market housing developments. I think that impact was unintended by the Minister, but it is entirely counterproductive, because in many rural areas, the primary means by which affordable housing could be delivered is now not being used. The planning system is fuelled by greed rather than need, and as long as we have weaknesses like that in the system, we cannot meet housing need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

As my hon. Friend is aware, I am very fortunate to have secured a place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, and my Bill will be on affordable homes. The details have not been written, so there is an opportunity to work on that with him, and indeed with the Secretary of State. I am very keen to do so and to adapt a number of those policies so that it provides a framework within which the Government can work with Parliament to improve and adjust planning policy to achieve the desirable aims.

[Gideon Amos]

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. It can hardly be right that these major policy changes, which will unleash development all over the country and reverse decades-old planning policies, will not be subject to a vote, considering that we quite rightly spend weeks and months going through Bills.

I am very grateful that my hon. Friend has chosen to prioritise these issues and is bringing them forward in his private Member’s Bill. I wish him well. I know that the Minister always works constructively across the House, and his work is appreciated for that. I know the Minister will work with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives on his private Member’s Bill, as of course will I.

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. I encourage the Minister to say something on whether land should escape the golden rules requiring more social housing just because it has been previously developed. The binning of the garden city principles in the draft is equally damaging. They are the very foundation of what made the new post-war towns, such as Milton Keynes with its famous 22 million trees, some of the best places to live. That is no doubt a bit of drafting by those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Similar centralising is proposed on nature and climate. National development management policies, along with constraints on local standard setting, will stop councils exceeding the statutory 10% of biodiversity net gain. Again, proposed policy PM13 will prevent councils from setting more ambitious energy targets. We saw the folly of that under the previous Government, who refused to continue with the zero-carbon homes programme. If they had continued that, and we had had solar panels on every house built since then, we could have avoided the need for an entire 900 MW power station—perhaps a small nuclear reactor or a gas-fired power station.

Finally, as my hon. 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. Friend said, the insurance industry has pointed out that there could be as many as 400,000 mortgage prisoners in the future, unable to afford insurance as a result of these kinds of policies.

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to delivering the housing that we and our communities need, but placing all the emphasis on increasing permissions for private sector homes that few can afford is not the answer. We know that that will not reduce—and has not reduced—prices to make homes affordable. New homes are only 5% of the market, after all. With 13,000 homes with planning permission unbuilt in Somerset and 359,000 empty homes in the country, we should be redoubling our efforts to deliver on both of those fronts first.

What a community-led approach really means—and this framework lacks almost anything about community involvement—is homes that people can afford: council and social rent homes, alongside rent-to-own to help people get on to the housing ladder. The environment, our people and our communities are not the blockers of development; they are—or at least should be—the reason for development, and we can enhance the life chances of both if we get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for their contributions. The degree of praise that I received from Opposition Members is slightly damning of my chances in any upcoming reshuffle, but I thank them for their kind words.

Members raised a wide range of concerns and asked many questions. In the time available to me, I will respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those relating to the national planning policy framework. Issues such as the national scheme of delegation of planning functions—our modernisation of planning committees—are outside the framework, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and others about them.

The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As hon. Members know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

The Government’s manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we consulted on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in the initial revision of the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets—the Conservatives abolished them when they were in government, which contributed to the low number of net additional completions in our first year in office— a new standard method for assessing housing need, which is aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release; and support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.

As hon. Members know, in December 2025, we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago.

The new NPPF that we consulted on is wholly restructured. It maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December 2024. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors. As hon. Members have noted, it incorporates new, clear, rules-based national policies for plan and decision making. The proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike.

The new decision-making policies in the framework published in 2025 are designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and do not need that degree of local variation any longer; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans as they are being prepared. To ensure that those changes made an immediate difference, the Government proposed that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one.

As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.

[Andrew George]

The Minister says that the purpose of the policy is, among other things, to drive the desperate need for affordable homes. Does he accept that, in rural areas, he is also driving affordable homes off rural exception sites and making them unaffordable? The setting of targets means that local plans are no longer viable and appropriate, and therefore developers can come in and simply insist that their developments should be permitted because they are delivering the housing numbers.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation.

We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course.

The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear. The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.

Coastal Communities: Government Support

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point of geographic inequalities, as my constituency is in west Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, it is impossible to call on emergency services from the north, the west or the south. The consequence of that geographical reality is that it is much more expensive and challenging to provide those services in such circumstances, a problem that many coastal areas face. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these things need to be factored into the funding formula, rather than being ignored, as they are at present?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s point. As I mentioned earlier, the current funding formula is inadequate for communities such as ours. I should also just say that if anybody else wants to intervene, I have two more paragraphs to go.

Finally, I want to turn to hospitality, which is a key driver of many coastal towns’ economies. Hospitality is suffering. In Poole, 486 hospitality businesses generate £239 million in annual revenue and employ 5,738 local people, but the lowering of the national insurance threshold and the removal of business rates relief, alongside new revaluations on premises, are forcing many of them to consider whether they can carry on at all.

My town needs places where tourists can buy an ice cream, have a meal or enjoy a drink. What we do not want are hollowed-out high streets that offer vape shops and little else. We need a vibrant campaign for people to holiday in Britain and the necessary support for hospitality that brings the high street to life. There are suggestions that the Government are looking at a “nice pub tax”, which would hit landlords whose premises are on the waterfront and would kill off towns like Poole. I urge the Treasury to think again about such a proposal.

Coastal communities may not grab headlines the way that cities with a proud industrial heritage do, but there are over 5 million residents living in 169 coastal towns across England and Wales, and they all deserve a voice and a future. They deserve a Labour Government who recognise the challenges that they face and whose policies will ensure a rising tide that lifts all the boats, not just the super-yachts.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government amendment to include a competence covering coastal communities, in addition to the existing Lords amendments on rural areas. As many Members have already mentioned, coastal communities have lagged behind the rest of the country when it comes to economic growth since the great financial crash. Our constituents have more physical and mental health needs, lower life expectancy and higher rates of major diseases, and they are generally older. On average, they have lower educational attainment and higher rates of school absences, and once they enter the workforce, they are paid less. Our coastal towns are also more likely than non-coastal towns to suffer from high levels of deprivation. Coastal towns face unique economic pressures, including seasonal economies, struggling industries such as fishing and hospitality, and acute housing crises caused by the spread of short-term holiday lets and a lack of social housing.

Connectivity is also a major issue for our constituents. Along with a lack of quality public transport and less broadband availability, our constituents are at the forefront of the impact of the climate crisis and the sewage scandal. Renewing our coastal towns and their local economies will be crucial to ensuring that all parts of the country share in the national renewal that the Government are aiming to bring. That is why this amendment is so important. I hope that the Government will be clear in their expectations of what metro mayors with responsibility for coastal communities should do. There needs to be a strong economic focus, with an understanding of how public services and infrastructure underpin the ability for a community to prosper. Can the Minister confirm that one of the commissioners will have to have responsibility for coastal communities, if a metro mayoral area has a coast?

Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will discuss with colleagues on the Treasury Bench how an economic strategy for the coast might be developed through the designation of a coastal economic area. That would complement the new competences outlined in this Bill to ensure not only that our national strategic priorities for growth reach the communities that could benefit from that investment, but that we can contribute to the economic health of the nation.

Will my hon. Friend consider some of the perhaps unintended consequences of the local government reorganisation planned for the coming years? I am very much in favour of unitarisation, not only for efficiency, but for the ability for places like mine to come together to develop a strategic vision for the wider economy and society of east Kent. However, research I have commissioned suggests that there may be unintended consequences for coastal towns from the local government reorganisation as planned. There are 33 coastal towns and cities with a council’s main office, town hall or headquarters within their boundaries. Some 24 of those are going through the local government reorganisation process, and 22 have a proposal or multiple proposals that could result in their being dissolved in their current structure and merged with other councils into a larger unitary that covers a bigger area. If that happens, the new unitary will need to decide where they have their headquarters.

Town halls in coastal towns or cities are at a particularly high risk of relocation because of their often peripheral location, their relative lack of proximity to the new, larger constituent population, their weaker transport links and other issues such as flood risk. Those relocations would have a detrimental impact on local economies, at a time when many of those 22 coastal towns and cities are already struggling. They would also lead to the those places being more cut off from public leadership, increasing that left-behind feeling. I remind the House that some of those high-risk areas include Clacton-on-Sea, Sittingbourne, Margate, Blackpool, Cromer, Grimsby, Southend-on-Sea and Eastbourne. It ends up being a list of exactly the kind of places that we should be helping, so mitigations should be put in place for precisely that.

I will also refer to the parish and town council amendments as outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said that there was a commitment to

“hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 250.]

into the new governance proposals. It is a shame, however, that parish and town councils are designated only to be important local partners, rather than there being a legal requirement for them to be consulted. I say that because the town councils in Broadstairs and Ramsgate are highly valued and complementary to the existing local authority structures of Kent county council and Thanet district council. We notice the difference between what we see happen in Ramsgate and Broadstairs, which have town councils, and in Margate, which does not.

The reality is that Margate is about to secure its own town council thanks to fantastic, strong community campaigning by some of my good friends and allies in Thanet Labour party, and that will help to correct a democratic deficit that would otherwise occur. Indeed, Margate has always been short of democratic governance, and it will be needed all the more because of unitarisation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me and colleagues that town and parish councils really will be fully incorporated into the new settlement, and that, as outlined in the new Government amendments, existing town and parish councils will have a role to play? Can she also reassure us that those without existing town and parish councils will have the opportunity for strong neighbourhood governance?

In summary, we need to ensure: that the commissioners who will be part of the metro mayoral settlement have an economic focus if they are responsible for coastal communities; that every metro mayor who has the power to appoint a commissioner and has responsibility for the coast ensures that one commissioner has that focus; that local government reorganisation factors in appropriate mitigations for when there are risks of reduction of local government presence in coastal towns; and, finally, that parish and town councils continue to be a vital part of the local government settlement.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and in particular her points about parish and town councils. In Cornwall, where we are completely parished and towned in that sense, they are an important vehicle for communication up from the community. They enable communities to articulate their views. Indeed, one might even argue that parish and town councils are the highest tier of local authority in the sense that they are closest to the people and to the pulse of local opinion, and are able to articulate that in the process.

I would like to make remarks on two other amendments. On the proposals regarding brownfield first, which I strongly support, I am disappointed by the Government’s response. The Government’s policy, in particular with regard to rewriting the NPPF, will result in a goldrush to the greenfield edges of our towns and communities. In December 2024, they set a new housing target which effectively means that local authorities can no longer defend the edges of their towns if they are unable to demonstrate that they have a five-year land supply. At present, therefore, policy is going in exactly the wrong direction. It also fundamentally undermines local authorities and local communities that are seeking to advance rural exceptions policy. All those rural exceptions opportunities are now effectively lost as a result of local authorities no longer having five-year land supplies. That is to the detriment of communities that are desperately seeking to meet local housing need, hence the importance of ensuring that local authorities are under a stronger obligation to bring forward brownfield first.

The other amendment I welcome the opportunity to speak to—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) will echo these concerns—relates to the Secretary of State’s powers regarding combined authorities without local consent. That is the critical matter. The only way in which the Government can demonstrate that they have the backing of local communities is to ensure that they consult them throughout.

The Isles of Scilly are keen to work with Cornwall to ensure we achieve the maximum level of devolution, and it is really important that the Government look at the very special case of Cornwall. We have a number of cultural and language designations that mean that the integrity of Cornwall becomes ever more important when navigating one’s way through the extremely sensitive process of devolving power. It is easy to undermine the great strengths of places such as Cornwall if those matters are not properly considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am aware that Members wish to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right now. Let us keep the debate in scope of the amendments in front of us.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are simply giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products should the Government not reject the opportunity for local authorities to be properly consulted, which is what is on the amendment paper this evening. That is the most important thing this evening: to ensure that local authorities are consulted. We are seeking to make this an effective vehicle for achieving what is very much desired throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and by local Members. I accept your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but fundamentally, be it Cornwall or any other local authority that is seeking to ensure that its local and wider communities are properly consulted, it is not a question of our seeking a process of isolation, as I think the Government recognise.

The point that we make perpetually in relation to Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be co-operating with Cornwall as a combined authority—is that it is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity across the United Kingdom. I hope that, in that spirit, Ministers will respond constructively and, in spite of the passing of the Bill, we will have a vehicle to achieve the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The role that we will play is to work with our local authorities. Ultimately, the common thread is that we are working in service of and on behalf of communities, and it is for both national Government and local leaders to make decisions on the geography that makes sense for local economies and that works for their community. We will always advocate for the community in those conversations to ensure that we get the right partnership that can deliver for places.

[Andrew George]

The Government are promising that they will not impose things without local consent. The other side of that argument is that local authorities in areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly want to press on with devolution much faster than the Government seem willing to allow. Will the Minister account for that in the way in which the Government proceed on this matter?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I was just coming to the hon. Member’s earlier contributions. We absolutely want to move at the pace at which our most ambitious and fastest-moving places want to move. We recognise the unique circumstances in Cornwall. I have spent a lot of time with hon. Friends from across Cornwall, who have been very passionate, effective and robust advocates for their place. I had the pleasure of visiting Cornwall and seeing some of the issues, as well as the huge amount of work and innovation. We have invested £28.6 million in the current industrial growth fund—creating 300 jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in the supply chain—because we understand and recognise the economic potential of the area. We are committed to working with the council and with Cornwall MPs to take that further. We have set out the framework for a devolution deal, we have set out the progress that we are making to recognise minority status, and we are committed to moving further in the days and weeks to come.

The Government’s approach to local authority governance arrangements has been pragmatic. We are ultimately trying to reach solutions that we believe will bite and work in places. I remind Members across the House that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the cabinet and leader model, and it is an effective model that allows strong decision making for communities. In areas that already have a democratic mandate for an alternative—whether committee or mayor—we have created the space for those structures to continue. But we are very clear that we are having to fix the mess of the last Government, which did absolutely nothing for local government and allowed a decade in which local government was denuded—I come back to that. Our job now is to ensure that we build strong local authority institutions, because we are localists: we believe in devolution, but we need strong institutions to do that. That means both having structures that work for the communities they represent and in which, critically, decisions can be made to improve the lot of their place.

We believe that the cabinet and leader model works. We think that we have found the right balance. I implore Members across the House, particularly given that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the model that we are talking about, that we are keen to make progress and allow our local authorities to move forward.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No one is more pleased about that than me. In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions and the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill. I hope that they see that we are a Government who are absolutely committed to pushing power into our places and our communities. It is beholden on all of us to make sure that this Bill does get Royal Assent, because this is the first step towards fundamentally changing the settlement between this place—between Government—and our communities, who do not feel that they have power and agency, and who do not feel that change is being driven in the way that they want. We have to rebalance that. This is the first step, and I implore Members across the House to support the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

After Clause 37

Brownfield land priority

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Housing Needs: Young People

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on her opening remarks.

Other speakers have referred to the issues and difficulties that young people today are experiencing. They are not facing a storm but enduring a prolonged storm, and I fear that unless there are further changes to Government policy, they will have to continue to endure that storm.

I declare an interest as a former chief executive of a registered provider of housing—a housing association, or at least a community land trust—and I now sit as a volunteer on the board of Cornwall Community Land Trust. That organisation, along with many others, is also facing a perfect storm. In part, that is the result of the so-called “benefits of Brexit”, in that we have taken back control of the colour of our passports but lost control of construction inflation in this country—in part, thanks to Brexit. As a result, a large number of homes are shovel-ready, but work is unable to start on site as a result of the simple fact of Brexit.

One of the biggest pressures being faced by young people in our area is a planning system that was changed on 12 December last year through changes to the national planning policy framework. That resulted in the introduction of new standard housing methods, which the Minister is clearly well aware of. I agree with the values that the Labour Government are trying to advance: to try to address the desperate housing needs across this country. I am of course professionally and politically very committed to achieving that aim. However, the changes have actually proven to be counterproductive.

In Cornwall, we now have to deliver 4,421 homes every year instead of the previous target of 2,600, and we must show that we have a five-year land supply. However, it is simply impossible to do that overnight, as local authorities around the country are well aware. Consequently, we are no longer able to defend the exception sites that we had wanted to deliver around the edges of all of our communities in Cornwall. Indeed, there have been appeals on permissions previously granted for affordable homes that are now being converted to allow for smaller numbers, and for unaffordable homes. There, the changes have been proven to be counter- productive.

The Minister knows full well that in Cornwall we are not nimbys. Our housing stock has grown faster than that of almost anywhere else in the country; we have almost tripled our housing stock in the last 60 years. Yet, the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. We need to look much more widely at the way in which the planning system works.

As far as rural exception sites are concerned, the rural exception should not be an exception; it should be the rural norm. Our whole approach to delivering homes on the edges of our communities means that applicants must demonstrate that they will meet need rather than greed. The whole planning system is tipped entirely in a direction that is opposite to the one that I think we in this Chamber today would like policy to go.

Young people have to compete in a market in which—the Minister knows this because I have raised it several times—the tax system is tipped heavily in favour of second residences. A person with a second home can flip their property from council tax to business rates, apply for small business rate relief and then pay nothing at all. That has to be subsidised by the rest of us through the tax system. In the last 10 years in Cornwall alone, in excess of half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of wealthy second-home owners. We should put that money into first homes for young people. The situation is inequitable and I am surprised that a Labour Government are not prepared to challenge and change that simple fact in order to properly address the issue.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

We have.

[Andrew George]

The Minister objects. I am sorry but the small business rate relief is still available. The tax loopholes available are still there. Perhaps the Minister can put me right on that, if he wishes.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right that we need rent controls as well as the Renters’ Rights Act. As well as the stick for private landlords, we should offer them a carrot: tax incentives should be available to landlords who provide decent homes and lower rents. There is a lot that we can do. Young people need to see that we set housing targets based on need rather than greed, that we are able to turn exception sites into the rural norm, and that we enable the intermediate market with, yes, rent to buy but also rent to discount sale. We have established that model in Cornwall and it could be used much more widely to help young people.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate. Young people face challenges with housing in every part of the country, and in rural communities such as Derbyshire Dales there are compounding pressures of exorbitant prices, high rents and a lack of access to jobs and public services. I have heard from many constituents, whether parents or young people, who fear being priced out of the communities that they grew up in.

As in all areas of the country, house prices in Derbyshire Dales have risen significantly in recent years, far outstripping local wages and leaving many young people unable to buy—and increasingly unable to rent in the few available properties. The challenge of affordability is exacerbated by the supply challenge we face, especially in the national park. There is a clear and ongoing need for affordable housing, especially homes for social rent, but it has to be in the communities that need it, not just where big developers will make the most money.

Some villages in the national park are crying out for housing, most clearly where ageing populations see declining numbers enrol at local primary schools. Without affordable housing and additional investment in transport links and connectivity, there are few pull factors for young families or professionals. In many areas we also see the impact of high numbers of second homes and holiday lets: they make up a quarter of all residential properties in some villages in my constituency, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. It is therefore a struggle for the number of new builds to outstrip the number lost to second homes and holiday lets.

In the parts of the constituency that sit outside the national park—and I am sure this applies right across the country—we regularly see developers try to wriggle out of their obligations to build affordable and social housing. We end up with yet more four-bed and five-bed properties because that is presumably where the big bucks lie, but that does little to help our young people get on to the housing ladder. We need a mix of housing but it has to include starter homes, affordable homes and social housing. It is clear that young families are being squeezed out. Time will tell whether more action on second homes will be required, beyond the doubling of council tax and the increase in stamp duty. We need action on empty properties. We need to increase the housing supply, of affordable housing, in the communities that need it most and we need to invest in the services and connectivity that are needed.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of second homes. He is well aware that the Liberal Democrats have proposed a change in the use class system to introduce a new use class for non-permanent occupancy. The introduction of such a thing would allow local communities to limit the number of second homes. It could be used as a tool to control expansion of the number of second homes and holiday lets.

[John Whitby]

I would be more than happy with local authorities having the capacity to limit holiday lets and so on—that is not a bad idea at all.

It should not be too much to ask that a young person can live in the community that they grew up in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated for their thoughtful contributions.

It has been a very wide-ranging debate, as I assumed it would be from the title. It has covered a range of issues including—from memory—empty homes, short-term lets, building materials costs, rural exemption sites, care leavers, housing allocations, social housing and housing association regulation. I will not be able to cover all of those points, but I will try my best to cover as many as possible. I am more than happy to follow up with individual Members on specific points, as well as to meet the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and wider team, which I enjoy doing on occasion as their spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, will know.

As the House is acutely aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. Over a number of decades, the combination of a sharp reduction in the nation’s social housing stock and rapid house price inflation, partly driven by increased demand for housing as an investment product, have squeezed both social renting and home ownership. For many years, an expanding private rented sector absorbed some of the resulting pressure, but post-2015 changes in tax treatment have seen the rate of rental sector growth slow. The result is a crisis of housing availability, affordability and quality that is blighting the lives of people of all ages. However, the youngest are among the hardest hit.

House prices have more than doubled since 1997 compared with incomes, locking an entire generation out of home ownership. We have traded a number of statistics, but the one that stands out to me is that first-time buyer numbers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, and that those under 30 are now less than half as likely to own a home as they were in 1990. That gap has created a stark divide between those who can draw on family support and those who cannot, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire mentioned in her opening remarks. That has concentrated housing wealth in ever fewer hands, entrenched social division and disadvantage and seen too many young people delaying life choices, including growing a family. It has also led to them paying more for less security. At the same time, increasing numbers of young people are spending longer in the private rented sector and facing high costs, insecurity and inconsistent standards because alternatives are out of reach.

England’s housing crisis has many causes. We have debated them over many months in this House as the Government have taken forward a number of our reforms. Chief among them is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. For years, housing supply lagged well behind the needs of our population as well as comparative European countries. That is why we have placed so much emphasis over the past 21 months on making the necessary reforms to ensure that we have high and sustainable rates of house building over the coming years. We will get those high and sustainable rates of house building.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for detailing the consequences of the decisions that the previous Government took, not least to abolish housing targets. We are seeing them feed through, but there are green shoots. Housing starts are up 24% on the comparable quarter last year in the latest statistical release.

With a view to ensuring that housing need is met in full, our reforms include the biggest overhaul of the planning system in decades, as well as the largest boost in social and affordable housing investment in a generation through our 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Of that, 60% will be allocated towards social rented homes, reflecting the Government’s prioritisation of that form of tenure.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman often calls for 150,000 homes a year. I would love to see his grant-rate calculations to back up the claim that he can get that for £6 billion a year. That is a wild underestimation. Perhaps he will share those calculations with me on some future occasion when we meet to discuss this issue.

Alongside increasing supply, we are taking action to support young people who aspire to home ownership. We have acted to widen access to mortgages. Following the Prime Minister’s call to action last year, the Financial Conduct Authority clarified its rules on affordability testing. As a result, most lenders now allow borrowers to borrow about 10% more than they could have at the start of last year. On top of that, the Bank of England has eased its loan-to-income rules, enabling tens of thousands of additional first-time buyers to get on the ladder.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also delivered on our manifesto commitment to launch a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, supporting the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages for buyers with deposits as small as 5%. That is an important backstop, particularly when there is volatility in the mortgage market, as we are currently seeing in response to the conflict in the middle east, which I will address more fully in a moment.

We have also taken steps—this is why I slightly took issue with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—to rebalance the market in favour of first-time buyers, including through higher stamp duty rates on additional dwellings, council tax premiums on second homes, reforms to the taxation of property income and, as he knows, the abolition of the furnished holiday lets tax regime, which has removed tax incentives that previously existed for owners of short-term lets over long-term landlords. I know that he has—

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way, because we are continuing a very long exchange that we have had over many months. I know he has other proposals on taxation that he would like to see happen, but I am just making the point that it is slightly unfair to say that the Government have taken no action in this regard and have not gripped that issue. We have made serious reforms to rebalance that.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way none the less?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Go on, then.

[Andrew George]

I am not saying that the Government have done nothing, but the changes to furnished holiday lets and double council tax, for example, were actually introduced by the previous Government. The Minister has simply implemented them, which is welcome. I was simply talking about the massive, gaping tax loophole involving industrial levels of flipping second homes to take advantage of the opportunity to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. That is simply favouring thousands of very wealthy people on their second properties. Surely a Labour Government have to close that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raises. To respond to his wider point about oversight, like all affordable providers of social housing, housing associations are held to the standards overseen by the regulator following the very welcome introduction of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government. The regulator has the powers necessary to ensure that individual providers, such as the ones he mentions, are held to those regulatory standards. If he wants to follow up with some of the specific constituency cases he has mentioned, I am more than happy to respond.

This debate underlines a point that the Government accept without qualification and that I have heard from lots of hon. Members outside this Chamber: that the housing market has to work better for young people. That means: increasing supply, especially of social and affordable housing; supporting first-time buyers; fixing a home buying process that is too slow and uncertain; transforming the private rented sector so that it provides security and decency; and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end by making commonhold the default tenure and improving the leasehold model so that existing leaseholders can more cheaply and easily enfranchise and convert to commonhold—which I hope they will do in very large numbers.

[Andrew George]

I believe the Minister has until 10 past 3 if he wishes. He has not addressed the issue I raised regarding the counterproductive impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework, particularly for edge-of-community rural exception sites. A wholesale change of planning is happening. Those sites were originally going to be affordable-led, and now developers can put in planning applications to ensure that those sites are entirely unaffordable because of the Government’s policy on five-year land supply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks, and I encourage him and his constituents to engage with proposals in the consultation on a revised national planning policy framework that seek further to strengthen support for brownfield development and ensure that appropriate infrastructure provision comes forward alongside that development.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T2. Ministers know full well that a planning application submitted today for affordable homes will not contribute to the Government’s welcome intention to meet affordable housing need by the end of this Parliament—

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Andrew George]

The Minister is shaking his head, but it simply is not possible through the pre-development process. Although I have met the Secretary of State to discuss how we can move forward shovel-ready projects that are held back at the moment, will Ministers meet Members of Parliament who are concerned about the thousands of homes that could be delivered and start on site right now, so that we can get Britain building and meet the desperate need for affordable homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of development that can come forward and be funded through our new social and affordable homes programme. We are ensuring that that programme has the necessary flexibility to fund provision across the country, whether it is community-led housing or rural housing. Our new homes accelerator is doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman says, by going in and unblocking problems site by site to get stalled development going.

Local Government Finance

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Places such as Medway deserve a lot better, and through her championing of her constituency in the House, my hon. Friend is ensuring that they will get it. We want to see councils invest in high streets, and we want to see those high streets thrive, along with other services. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see for myself what we can do to improve it.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister constantly says that she does not recognise the figures when presented with what are expected to be the settlements for certain local authorities. That is possibly because we are fumbling in the dark today, as the figures simply are not available. I had to go to the Vote Office, and I have some of the papers here. The fact is that in my own area, the Government have proposed a bespoke arrangement for the Council of the Isles of Scilly, but there is no clarity about what it will mean in the forthcoming years, and in respect of the indices of deprivation, there is no clarity on what it means for Cornwall. Will the Minister meet me, and other local Members, to discuss these issues?

[Alison McGovern]

I will.

Planning Reform

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are real challenges with housing delivery. I refer the hon. Lady to the proposals on build-out generally that we have outlined and sought feedback on. She is absolutely right in the thrust of her question: we are overly reliant as a country on a handful of volume developers. That is precisely why we are encouraging other providers to get in the game through the package we have announced today for small and medium-sized house builders, so that we can have the diversified house building market that we need to bring forward delivery in the volumes the country requires.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Minister must accept that house building targets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. House building targets are based on a naive delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their final product, which surely cannot be the case. Cornwall is not a nimby location; we have grown faster than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Despite almost trebling our housing stock in the past 60 years, the housing need of local communities is greater now. Will the Minister therefore consider that some local authorities, where simply setting targets is not the answer, should be given the tools to meet need rather than developers’ greed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion, or variants of it, many times. We have a slight difference of opinion over the role of housing targets; I think they are necessary and play an important role. However, we are giving local planning authorities the tools they need—specific to the hon. Gentleman’s area, that includes changes in the draft framework on rural, social and affordable housing and the wider grant funding support that we are bringing forward through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.

Electoral Resilience

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right that it is a cornerstone of Russia’s international strategy to threaten the national security and integrity of democracies, including the UK and our partners overseas. We know that but we are seeking to check that our safeguards against that evolving threat are sufficiently robust to keep our democracy safe. Our approach will be supported by Departments right across Government. The Minister for Security is leading the defending democracy taskforce and he has already published the counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which calls on Ministers across Government to collaborate and work together to ensure that we are making sufficiently robust the safeguards called for by my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Although it may seem a little tangential, will the scope of the investigation include the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who have worked in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years and who have paid their taxes are unable to influence the outcome of elections because they have an EU passport, yet hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who have not set foot in this country for decades still have an influence? Unscrupulous parties could hoover up those ex-pats and direct them towards marginal seats, thus influencing the outcome of elections. Will the Secretary of State address this issue, either through the review or the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly and eloquently, but he is right that it is somewhat tangential to the review that Philip Rycroft will be leading. The review will be looking at malign foreign financial interference, but he should be reassured that no stone will be left unturned in seeking to protect our democracy, which is one of the most precious things that we have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is absolutely right. Local development plans should address infrastructure needs and opportunities. When preparing a local plan, local planning authorities are under a duty to bring forward infrastructure funding statements. However, we realise that there is more to be done to ensure that we get the right infrastructure built in the right time as a development proceeds.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T4. Cornwall is not a nimby location. It has almost trebled its housing stock in the last 60 years, and it is one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom. Yet despite all that, the housing problems of local people have got worse. As the Government impose housing targets on local authorities, what will they do to ensure that the local authority in Cornwall has the power to deliver the homes that we need, rather than delivering for developers’ greed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is topical in that I recently met officials from Cornwall council and Members, including hon. Friends, banging the drum for new homes in Cornwall, in particular social and affordable homes. There is ongoing work, including conversations taking place with Homes England, on how we can better support Cornwall to bring forward the homes it needs.