Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

Although oversight of registered providers is important, it is my view that it would be disproportionate to require a senior officer of a registered provider to attend a local authority’s overview and scrutiny committee meeting. We are bringing forward an enhanced scrutiny regime through schedules 4 and 5 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which makes provision for local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities. Those will have the power to require a key person to attend meetings or provide information where required. A “key person” can mean the mayor, deputy mayor, mayoral commissioners, officers of the authority and members of the authority with policy responsibilities, as well as others who will be specified in regulations.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. What provision is he putting in place to replicate those arrangements where there is no mayoral authority?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.

New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.

All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.

I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Cocking]

Absolutely. New clause 34 says that the Government must bring forward a strategy for brownfield sites, which could include a multitude of options. When they do so, the Opposition will look at the benefits of all the items in the strategy, which could include a “use it or lose it” power. That is one example that the Government could review to see what could happen.

The new clause is about using brownfield sites first. I do not think that anyone disagrees with that, so it would be good if the Government accepted it. If they do, the Bill might actually be about building more social housing. At the moment, it does nothing of the sort.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 34, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ exchanges, and I have to say that I do not see what is particularly contentious about my hon. Friend’s proposal. It is not unreasonable to focus on the development of brownfield land first, as the previous Government did. We should therefore have a strategy to draw the strands together as we look towards the future. However many more years of this Government we have, the power is in their hands to do this. I do not see what is contentious about doing what my hon. Friend’s new clause proposes.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rugby, but I have a counterpoint to his point about development on brownfield sites. My constituency has a couple of towns in it and is right on the edge of Leicester, but it goes way up into rural north-east Leicestershire. The reality is that the developments on the edges of the towns or nearer the city often work most effectively, because there are bus routes and there is access to more schools, shops, businesses and employment opportunities.

The challenge that we face locally is that in Leicester city, which has a Labour mayor and which I go through on my way from the station to my constituency, there are undeveloped, unmodernised and un-utilised brownfield sites or commercial sites that have fallen into disuse. Nevertheless, the mayor says that he cannot meet his housing targets and has therefore farmed them out to the rural areas in the county. That means a significant amount of development on the edges of villages—often with no bus route or only a sparse service, a full village primary school and a GP practice serving a whole range of rural communities—that are unable to meet the needs of the additional development. The pressure on local services is a real challenge. I have been pushing for a long time to see whether, when these applications are brought forward, there is a way of having “i” before “e”—infrastructure before expansion—so that at least we know the services are there.

There is one big challenge that previous Governments I served in did not solve, and which I suspect this Government will struggle to solve, because it comes down to the viability of development. We can, and local authorities do, ask developers for capital contributions for those services, but often the problem is the ongoing revenue cost of running them. That means that we can get an extra room in a surgery, but will the local NHS integrated care board be willing to fund the salary costs and commission extra GP practice services?

[Danny Beales]

Perhaps I am going to get in trouble, but once again I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Member says. It is frustrating that the future benefits of infrastructure have not often been realised because of the funding models in place. Local leaders and local mayors have said, “The case is clear for this infrastructure: it will unleash housing and growth,” but to get that capital they have to go to the Treasury to make a business case, with begging bowl in hand. It takes too long.

This Government are changing that. The Budget yesterday gave significant new powers to mayors: in London and around my patch, they include the tax increment financing scheme for Euston, the Bakerloo extension and a number of other projects. The Government are looking to give mayors a greater share of business rates and taxation to invest up front in infrastructure and the benefits of growth to come. Are the Government not doing exactly what the right hon. Member is saying should happen?

[Edward Argar]

I hesitate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time, but no, they are not doing that, certainly not in my constituency. There is a Mayor of Leicester, but there is no mayor of Leicestershire, so we do not get any of the benefits. The Minister’s colleague—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—will make a statement in the Chamber in about 20 minutes, so he may be about to change the position, but currently we do not have those benefits.

A lot of the challenges around service provision are not addressed by what the Chancellor set out yesterday. Take the NHS funding model, for example: in my area, the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care board is having to make in-year savings to live within its financial envelope. We have GP practices that are full—one practice in Melton Mowbray has 37,000 patients on its books—and yet the ICB says it sees no reason to expand to meet the need. The development has not happened yet in Melton, so it will not expand until the need is demonstrably there, by which time a whole range of people will have moved into the new development but will not be able to get on the list for the surgery, or will be waiting a very long time. I am not saying that this is a challenge that suddenly appeared in July 2024. Governments of all political complexions have grappled with it. I have a lot of time for the Minister; I hope this issue is on his radar.

On brownfield sites, the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington should not be contentious; it is a sensible approach to draw together all the different strands of work that the previous Government did to push the development of brownfield sites. Let me give a few examples. The national policy planning framework had a clear focus on the issue. We required local authorities to publish reports and registers of available brownfield sites for development. We reviewed permitted development rights and changes in use class rules to make it easier for commercial sites to be repurposed for development into housing. Alongside that, we put £4.3 billion into the housing infrastructure fund and £550 million into the brownfield housing fund. That is tangible investment to persuade and support local authorities to prioritise brownfield first.

The problem in my patch is that the Labour Mayor of Leicester simply did not do it. We can see the brownfield sites everywhere, and we can see the development being pushed out into the county because the city has failed to do what it needs to do.

My hon. Friend’s modest amendment would compel the Government to draw together all the strands of work that the previous Government did, and that this Government are also doing, into a clear and coherent strategy that would prioritise brownfield sites much, much more and would give local authorities and others the means, the support and the policy back-up to make this work a genuine reality on the ground. I will finish by simply emphasising my support for my hon. Friend.

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Bacon]

The amendments concern the Bill’s proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State would gain new powers to make significant determinations, including scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively.

Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of “rural”, this is not about firming up an already over-rigid system, but about ensuring that the Bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall. It is only right that Parliament, not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. That is why we have tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities. This is an essential change to the Bill, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it.

As it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilises already fragile funding requirements. The amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance, with amendment 95 specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on that by also requiring consultation with local authorities.

The Minister may believe that bringing such decisions in-house comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street’s corridors rather than in town halls means local authorities will be left with uncertainty, which will not speed up the building of social homes, but slow it down. Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being siphoned away.

Under clause 10, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out. It is never going to be popular with councils when they find that, after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council. It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the Government’s disastrously unfair funding review. I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92 to 98 and ensure that power stays local.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. They involve a perfectly reasonable and proportionate request for this House to have a role in scrutinising what is put forward by the Government and recommended by the Secretary of State.

I spent six years as a Minister. I took countless statutory instruments through Delegated Legislation Committees. By and large, it is not a complex process; it requires a bit of time on the part of officials to get the drafting right, but the process in this House is not complicated. It ensures that a Minister is directly accountable: they have to be on their brief, and they have to be able to clearly articulate the rationale behind what they are doing and, quite rightly, to be challenged by right hon. and hon. Members. That is so important in maintaining or even in creating trust from our communities—the transparency that that democratic accountability brings to what, as my hon. Friend clearly set out, will on occasion undoubtedly be relatively, if not significantly, contentious decisions relating to significant sums of money.

My hon. Friend set out the case for amendment 95 very clearly. The powers in clause 10, when exercised, may well see some local authorities feeling that they are losing out, to the benefit of other local authorities. Without getting into what those decisions may be or where the money may go, in terms of process and democratic accountability, it is not unreasonable that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the powers in clause 10.

[Rachel Blake]

I am listening with interest to the right hon. Member’s remarks, and I have some professional experience in this area. Amendments 95 and 98 seem more about delaying a reasonable approach to the Government administering right-to-buy receipts. I am interested to know what the Opposition think would be the alternative to any kind of movement of right-to-buy receipts between local authorities. Would it be entirely acceptable for right-to-buy receipts not to be reinvested in council homes?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady appears to be making a point that I was not actually making in my remarks. My point is about the process. As I said before she intervened, I am not making a judgment on the decisions the Secretary of State may or may not make about those capital receipts; I am making a point about democratic accountability and transparency.

Going back to the earlier group of amendments praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the procedure that is used when legislation comes before Delegated Legislation Committees in this House is not complex. It does not engender lengthy delay; it just ensures that our constituents can see that we are considering that legislation, that we are debating it and that the Minister can answer the questions put to him. I have no doubt, in the case of this Minister, that he will be able to answer them; sadly, it has not always been the case that every Minister, on both sides of the House, has been capable of doing that. However, I am sure this Minister would have no challenges in coming before a Delegated Legislation Committee and answering the questions put to him.

Amendment 98, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, would require consultation before determinations were made on capital receipts. Again, consultations do not have to be overly complex or lengthy. If Members go on gov.uk, they will see that there are myriad Government consultations out there at any one time on very significant issues, down to issues such as, for example, the methodology used for reporting land use statistics in the country. The Government routinely consult on a whole range of things, whether that be a significant, detailed and lengthy consultation on something complex or, often, a very short and sharp consultation. They give people the opportunity to have their say, and those who genuinely have something in the way of expert knowledge to contribute.

[Mr Dillon]

On amendment 98 and the consultation, have the right hon. Member and the Opposition considered whether, if a local authority felt it had not been consulted, that would open up a legal route to delay the allocation of capital financing and therefore slow down the growth of house building?

[Edward Argar]

Over many years, I have found that consultation done properly leaves very limited legal risk. Where Governments get it wrong—I do not want to overly speculate on what has happened with the Government’s consultations and process around local government reorganisation—the hon. Member is right that there is a potential for JRs, although I would highlight that a judicial review can focus only on process, not on whether the decision should be relitigated.

If consultation is done well—I would have thought that consultation on this issue should be fairly simple—I believe it can enhance the transparency that is important in bringing our constituents with us and in ensuring that the Government are directly accountable to hon. and right hon. Members in this House. When the legislation is introduced, under our amendments as a regulation, that consultation is there to be drawn on. I genuinely believe—I have seen it for myself—that when a Government are willing to listen to a consultation response, they can, if they do things openly, often come up with a slightly better or tweaked outcome.

[Danny Beales]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. My experience is that local councils that are seeking to deliver new council homes have been calling for right-to-buy receipt reform for a long time. The previous Government had an overly restrictive approach to right-to-buy receipts. Councils were only allowed to keep a third of them for three years, and if they could not spend them within that time, they had to return them to the Treasury with interest. As a result, many decided not to take their receipts at all.

It therefore seems quite sensible not to tie up councils that are trying to build new homes, which is quite a complicated and time-consuming process, in consultations and discussions, but to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to work with local authorities, to give them more receipts, to increase the period within which receipts can be used or to reallocate them to schemes and councils that can build within an acceptable period. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, but he makes the same point, in a sense, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and it is not what I am speaking about, which is the process. I do not believe that a consultation would tie councils up in knots or delay things inordinately, or indeed that introducing these changes through regulations rather than by diktat of the Secretary of State would cause unnecessary delays.

This process is about transparency and accountability. We have done it before in Government; indeed, this Government have done it with regulations. I have sat on a number of DLs; maybe I have upset the Whips at some point, because I sit on a DL almost every week, when I am not sitting in a Bill Committee—such is the fate of a former Cabinet Minister on the Back Benches. However, the point I am making is that this Government and other Governments have used the delegated legislation system to get things through quickly but none the less with democratic accountability to this House. That is the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington in these amendments. It is about giving our constituents the confidence to trust that this House has debated what the Secretary of State recommends. Knowing the majority in the House at the moment, I have no doubt that the Minister would easily win any votes in a DL on matters such as this.

[Rachel Blake]

I will have a go at delving into the process point; I do think that these are simply delaying amendments from the Opposition, but I will nevertheless engage on the principle of the process point. What is it about a determination, which would be open to written or oral questions, that the Opposition do not think is transparent and democratically accountable?

[Edward Argar]

The very simple fact that there would be no vote on it by Members of this House, regardless of whether that was in a Committee, which is of course a subset of the House where we can debate and raise issues. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady. I spent almost 10 years sitting on her local council before I was elected to this place, and I still closely follow Westminster politics. Consequently, I know that she is a hard-working and diligent Member who engages with all these issues particularly closely. However, the simple answer to her question is that Members would not have a vote on the Secretary of State’s determination.

With that, I will conclude by again reiterating my support for the intent behind the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has tabled.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me say to hon. Members that I have never found the process in Delegated Legislation Committees particularly fast in any instance, but I recognise the reasonable concerns that have been put. I think they are unfounded, and for the reasons I will set out, I hope to reassure hon. Members.

Clause 10 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Its intent is to improve administrative efficiency and to provide flexibility. To understand our purpose behind the clause, it is important to have an accurate view of the current arrangements. As things stand, every stock-holding authority has an agreement with the Secretary of State, allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided that it spends those receipts on replacement social housing.

In practice, this is hugely administratively burdensome. There are over 160 stock-holding local authorities, all of which must be issued with identical section 11(6) retention agreements whenever the rules change. That requires issuing, tracking and chasing agreements for signature across every one of those authorities, creating unnecessary bureaucracy for both councils and central Government.

Clause 10 replaces that with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to disapply or modify the requirements on the use of receipts set out in regulations by determination, which will then apply consistently across all local authorities. That removes the need to replicate the same agreement process many times over.

Concerns were raised in the other place that we may be seeking to use the clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. Let me reassure the Committee that that is absolutely not the case. We fought hard to ensure that local authorities could retain 100% of their receipts. Hon. Members may recall that the previous Government temporarily made that change, but reversed it before the last election.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Bacon]

I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government.

My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause.

New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well.

I therefore think that clause 13 is important. I do not in any way want to gainsay the important work that the Minister is doing. As I said this morning, I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is extremely able and I know that he will be pursuing this work with vigour. However, I believe that a statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this issue in the round, and actions such as those that the Minister has outlined can sit under such a review perfectly reasonably.

The two things are not in contradiction. A statutory review would not stop the Minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions that he has already set out. It just provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership to assess whether it is working well. Where there are things that the Government or the Minister may have missed—as diligent as I know him to be— it gives that extra opportunity.

I know that the Minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing shared ownership, as he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. However, I have to say that this Minister, in whom I have a lot of confidence, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this issue as him. Therefore, I think that a statutory review as set out in clause 13 offers the opportunity to publish something that has been considered carefully, which Members of this House and future Ministers can then refer back to when considering the way forward. I do not think that it trammels the Minister’s freedom in deciding what to announce or his discretion in any way; it would just be a very important addition.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister has shown that he is willing to take action on the shared ownership eligibility cap, which I think has been frozen since 2019, and on which the previous Conservative Government took no action? He has already announced that he is raising the cap from £80,000 and £90,000 to £90,000 and £110,000 in London and outside London respectively. That shows the vigour with which he is progressing reforms to the shared ownership system.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady amplifies what I have already said about the Minister. Before I do his political career too much harm by being too nice about him in front of his Whip, I have been very clear in my respect for the Minister and the work he is doing. However, as we have seen in previous Governments—not only Conservative but Labour Governments since 2024—Ministers come and go with an alarming rapidity.

When something is as important as this is to so many people, there must be something underpinning it. Whether Ministers move—in this Minister’s case, I hope he ascends—or whether they leave Government, it is important that whoever succeeds that office and its responsibilities has something on which they can hang their hat and plan their strategy. That is why I think that a review would not be a hindrance to any Minister or Government. Actually, it could be of great help, not least in potentially giving the opportunity to objectively consider some of the issues that the hon. Lady has just raised further.

[Mr Dillon]

Clause 13 relates to the review of shared ownership and staircasing, which the Liberal Democrats support. However, new clause 41 refers to

“a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme”.

It seems to me that it would be logical to carry out the review of shared ownership first, before committing to increasing shared ownership opportunities.

[Edward Argar]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am seeking to make the point that this review has the potential to underpin a much longer-term approach to this important sector. That is why the clause is important. I do not see the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington as in contradiction to that, but rather as complementary to it. There may be a question about phasing and how it works, but I do not believe that that is a reason not to retain the clause for what it seeks to do. The Minister is always a reflective man, so I hope that he will reflect on that carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Edward Argar]

Don’t tempt fate!

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have better form on permanence of our policy and our ministerial certainty and stability. Notwithstanding the right hon. Member’s attempts to beguile and flatter me, I cannot accept the new clauses, for two reasons. I will take them in turn, but essentially I do not think that either is proportionate or necessary.

New clause 45 would require the Secretary of State to publish a model shared ownership agreement, but model shared ownership leases are already available, and they contain the fundamental clauses governing how shared ownership operates—including many of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Providers delivering grant-funded shared ownership are required to use leases containing these clauses and comply with wider grant funding requirements.

To give Members a sense that we are thinking about these things, part of the reason that I made the written ministerial statement on Monday was because we have done a huge amount of work in this area, but we have never brought it together into one place in the context of a wider improvement programme. The fault for that is on me and I throw my hands up, but a lot of work has already been done, and a lot of work is to come.

Tackling specific issues, we know that shared owners who want to staircase can face barriers such as transaction costs, a lack of information, rising property values and wider affordability pressures. HomeOwners Alliance estimates typical transaction costs of around £2,000—that was two years ago, in 2024. In the WMS, we have committed to considering measures to reduce existing barriers to staircasing, such as those up-front and ongoing transaction costs.

The issue of buy-backs arose in the context of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, again from Lord Young pressing the case for shared owners. I am absolutely and acutely aware that buy-backs can be a lifeline for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable either to afford to remain in their home or to sell it, whether due to building safety defects, high service charges or lease-related restrictions. Again, we have committed and made clear in the WMS that we are intent on undertaking a comprehensive review of the functioning of buy-backs, to better understand practical barriers and solutions, and to look at specific issues such as the current use of recycled capital funding grants. That work is under way.

It is also worth saying that lots of the problems that affect shared owners go beyond them to affect other leaseholders. The actions we are taking in several areas will benefit shared owners along with other long residential leaseholders.

A good case is the standardisation and transparency measures that we are introducing in respect of service charges using powers in the previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We will lay those statutory instruments in the very near future, so hon. Members can look forward to that. Shared owners who are experiencing those high and rising service charges will benefit from those provisions.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston got to the point of the substantive matter at hand, which he framed as an “extra opportunity”. If he can put his ministerial hat on from when he stood here for many years, I gently ask him whether it is reasonable and proportionate to require, through a Social Housing Bill, a statutory review of shared ownership, given all that the Government are doing. Is it really proportionate to require a statutory review just to give that extra opportunity?

We already consult the Shared Owners’ Network and other representative groups. If hon. Members are telling me that we can do more, I am happy to work with them to get shared owners and their experiences into the Government’s thinking so that they are better reflected. If there is more that we can do to improve the improvement programme that is already under way, I am more than happy to hear about that, but it is a little stretching to say that it is absolutely essential just for, to quote the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, that “little extra opportunity” to cover those issues. We are looking at issues in the round. We are considering the comprehensive set of challenges that shared owners face.

[Edward Argar]

On that basis, is the Minister prepared to commit—whether explicitly in the Bill or not—to the Government’s launching a formal review of this?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In some ways, it is pure semantics. We have a comprehensive improvement programme under way. If the right hon. Member looks at my written ministerial statement from yesterday, he will see the work that we have already undertaken: material changes, including to the social and affordable homes programme, where we are setting firmer expectations for providers that receive grant funding. A lot of work is already under way. Whether the right hon. Member calls it a review or an improvement programme, shared owners across the country will rightly focus not on what we term the work that is under way, but on the benefits they see coming out of that work. They can already see some of those in the expectations that we have set, but there will be more to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need.

That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims. If the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.

[Edward Argar]

I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury, the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I never know whether I am pronouncing that entirely correctly—

[Edward Argar]

The Minister pronounces it immaculately.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the cross-party support for the intent behind these provisions and their effect. In some ways, I would go so far as to say that they are groundbreaking in what we have tried to achieve. As I said, there has also been very effective cross-departmental working.

On the specific point that the hon. Member for Newbury raised, there are mandatory grounds for possession in the Bill, but they apply only when a breach of a relevant order has taken place. The changes we have made to the discretionary possession grounds are to allow for the existence of an order to be relevant grounds for the court, rather than a breach having to take place. However, there are mandatory grounds in place. I am happy to set that out in more detail for the hon. Member, in writing, if he is interested. I know that he takes a keen interest in these matters.

I will turn to the two non-Government amendments that have been tabled, starting with amendment 12. This issue, and a version of the amendment, was raised in the other place by Baroness Neate. I would like to give the Committee the same reassurances that we gave the noble Baroness, and that she accepted, in debates in the other place.

First, the Government agree, as I think we all would, with the principle that survivors of domestic abuse should not face unfair barriers to social housing because of debt arising from that abuse. That is why, in the national plan to end homelessness, we committed to addressing the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing through our update to the statutory guidance on social housing allocations.

We continue to believe that primary legislation is not the right approach in this area. There are sensitive and inherently complex cases at play here, and the amendment would introduce a rigid rule that would not allow local authorities to take proper account of individual circumstances. Updated statutory guidance will allow us to set clear national expectations while preserving the flexibility needed to reach fair and sustainable decisions in individual cases. Work is already under way to review the guidance, and we will consult on the updated guidance early next year.

We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, as I made clear on Second Reading—I think my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed me on that. I am happy to reiterate that if guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation. The Government’s position has not changed. We support the objective of removing unfair barriers for survivors, but believe that updated statutory guidance, backed by existing regulation-making powers, if necessary, is the more proportionate and effective route.

Local Government Reorganisation

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I have had the great pleasure of visiting Peterborough with my hon. Friend on many occasions. He is always very powerful in putting forward the case for the city and the people who live there, and that includes, as he has just shown, his determination to ensure that Peterborough continues to grow in a way that will bring in jobs and investment and put more money in the pockets of his constituents. He is quite right to point to fair funding, because that has corrected unfair funding settlements for Peterborough over a very long time. The final decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will be brought to this House as early as possible after the summer recess. It is important that we get the decision right rather than rush it now, but I will ensure that he is fully involved in those conversations as we move forward.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I live in my patch and I know that there will be genuine local fury at the contempt this Government have shown for my constituents in approving a Leicester city land grab, which has cross-party opposition locally. I have been clear throughout, as have my local councillors and my residents, in our opposition to a Leicester city land grab that will take county communities such as Syston, Thurmaston, Queniborough, Barkby and Beeby into the city and see local residents paying more tax for almost certainly less in the way of services. I continue to oppose what the Secretary of State has announced today, so I have a simple question for him: what makes him think that the views of the Labour Leicester city mayor are worth more than the views of thousands of my constituents?

[Steve Reed]

As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard during the statement, there are reasonable people who support and oppose various decisions that we are taking today, but it is important that we move forward. In the case of Leicester and Leicestershire, the option that we have selected is the one that will best allow economic growth in that county. That is how we bring in the jobs and the opportunities that will put more money in the pockets of his constituents. I hope that, in time, he will come to welcome that.

Local Government Reform

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on his success in securing this important debate. He has set out how this is the answer to a question that no one asked. Whatever anyone thinks about local government reform, the Government have made it clear that they will impose it, and if we and councils do not engage with it, it will simply be done to us.

I was very clear from the outset that if the Government were fixed on local government reorganisation and reform, there were certain conditions that, at a very minimum, had to be met. I made it very clear that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or local accountability, and that as part of the process there should be a genuine listening exercise not just with upper-tier and lower-tier authorities, but with parish councils and, most importantly, local representatives and residents of affected areas.

Similar to my hon. Friend, there are very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen. I have a few questions for the Minister. I know her of old, and she is extremely diligent. I know she will do her best to answer the questions, in anticipation of which I am grateful.

Will the Minister confirm that when she, or the Secretary of State on her advice, makes a decision, it will be based on the proposals that have been presented, not on a proposal that was never presented or on a merging of proposals by civil servants in her Department? There are three different proposals before her, from the borough and district councils, from the county council and from the mayor and city of Leicester. The mayor’s proposal does not, at this stage, take in all the areas of my patch that are very worried about it. There are very real concerns in places like Syston, Thurmaston and the villages. Notwithstanding that, the Minister’s officials could still recommend that a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester to take in those villages and towns.

Councillors Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, Braker and Lowe have been campaigning very hard to make sure that local voices are heard. My constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to a land grab by the mayor that would take into the city areas that are, historically and in every sense of their identity, communities and economy, very much of the county.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out their concerns very clearly. They know they would end up paying more if they were absorbed into the city. They worry that reform is simply a reason to enable the mayor to build on greenfield sites outside the city boundaries that do not want that extra burden. They are already taking an awful lot more housing, and the communities I have just mentioned have taken an incredible amount of development in recent years. The communities worry about their sense of identity. The Minister knows that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared with the next village, let alone of being a county village as opposed to being part of the city.

My worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city no longer stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that the city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing to meet its unmet housing targets is already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts, which are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. That is already being addressed.

Secondly, the mayor has previously argued that the city’s finances need to be more sustainable and that it can come only from an expansion of the city boundaries, which he bases on the city’s previous financial position. We saw quite a generous local government finance settlement for the city of Leicester, and I am sure those in the city will be very grateful to the Minister. It was a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire, but the city now has its finances in a more sustainable place. I would argue that the city needs to do a lot more to spend that money wisely and efficiently, but the Minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for it, too. I worry that the arguments no longer hold water. I also worry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out so ably, that the ideology of “bigger is better” sadly does not reflect the reality of service delivery.

I have known the Minister a very long time, and I know she is very diligent and genuinely cares both about her brief and about communities up and down this country. Will she please listen to the people who have responded to the consultation, and to Members of Parliament today? Do not impose what people do not want by endorsing a city land grab of our counties, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game midway through by adopting a proposal that was not consulted on and was not included in the initial consultation, and please instead focus on what works and delivers for local people to improve local services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned £0.5 billion of debt write-off for his community. The words he was looking for were, “Thank you”. He is perfectly at liberty to quote me selectively, as is any Member of the House, but selectively quoting a Minister is not an argument—it is not a case to be made. This Government put £5.6 billion of grant funding into local government at the spending review. We have committed £4 billion to SEND as part of the White Paper. We are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation.

As I did yesterday, let me repeat what I have said before to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): although the Department’s analysis of the finances of this change is important, given the high and spiking costs that local government currently faces, the priority must be to deal with those cases. I challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost-benefit analysis in this environment. That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it again for clarification.

That said, I will do as a number of colleagues have asked by setting out why we are ending the two-tier system of local government. In two-tier areas, services and functions are split across county and district councils. That slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services, meaning that it is unclear who does what and who is responsible. In Leicestershire, the area of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support.

The Government are committed to local government reorganisation, for clarity and other reasons that I will set out, and to the timetable that we have set out. We want stronger local councils, equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities, for the purposes of economic growth, improved public services and empowered communities. That is the point of reorganisation: councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map 50 years ago.

I might not have been alive in 1974, but I was born in 1980 into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, it was part of the county of Merseyside. We subsequently became part of the Liverpool city region. Of course, administrative boundaries change, as Members know, but the identity of the place I am from—the village of Bebington, where I was born in hospital, and the village of Bromborough—is still as strong as it ever was, and we take part in the Liverpool city region with all the benefits that it brings.

[Edward Argar]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I am short of time, but I will give way.

[Edward Argar]

Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?

[Alison McGovern]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I cannot respond directly on Leicestershire because the decision has not yet been taken. To clarify, the Secretary of State can modify submissions or reject them entirely, and he can invite proposals for councils, which is what we have done, but he does not have the power to draw up completely new proposals from scratch. I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman to make that absolutely clear, but that is the position.

Local government can help councils to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and ensuring that everywhere and everyone is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment. It also has social and public services benefits. Most of the Government’s key objectives, whether to get more young people into work or lift children out of poverty, rely on co-operation and integration between our public services. I have heard from hon. Members about how the split in the two-tier system is preventing their councils from working together on homelessness, for example. That is why we want to bring services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof, with one council able to see the full picture and spot problems early—for example, supporting a family in need of housing and then supporting the children to stay in school.

I am pleased with our progress so far. Decisions on councils for five areas have been announced and elections have been held for the new councils in Surrey. On the Leicestershire council areas of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess in July. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028, as planned. That applies to all areas awaiting an announcement.

I listened to the debate with interest, as I always do. Members have put their views on local government reorganisation in their areas on the record, and I will try to answer their questions, but I am conscious that I have little time, so I ask them to bear with me.

The shadow Minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. We do that. Members should consider this debate to be part of the consultation process; I will ensure that the Department is aware of their concerns. The shadow Minister also asked about considering the interests of the whole country. He will know that the previous Conservative Administration introduced the Office for Budget Responsibility for the purposes of transparency on related matters. We take decisions based on the evidence in front of us. He will also know how advice given to Ministers in that way is treated by all Governments for the purposes of FOI and other things.

Hon. Members were keen to ensure that their constituents have the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I reassure them that decisions on the appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, having regard to the criteria and the statutory guidance.

Some hon. Members made a point about bigger being better. There are good councils of various sizes, and the evidence we have is that the primary factors in council failure are governance, leadership and culture. It is not the case that bigger is always better; councils of various sizes can perform well or less well.

We are confident that the decisions we announced before the Easter recess will enable strong, sustainable local government that is connected to the community it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions; I also recognise the work that is now required to ensure that the transition to new councils is done safely, especially in those key social care services on which some of our constituents rely. I reassure hon. Members that the Department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils, to ensure that the transition goes well.

I will have to leave it there, but I know that hon. Members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.

Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I look forward to welcoming him to my constituency later this week. I agree with much of what he said, particularly about flooding.

This is one debate in which I can argue from the Back Bench, without fear of contradiction, that the east midlands is the best region in the entire country—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] This may be the only time I get such consensus on both sides of the House. As the hon. Member set out, we have all the core ingredients. We have a central location; we have good transport links, although they need to be better; we have great universities; we have great skills. Most importantly, we have great businesses and we have great people with ambition.

The potential is clear but, as the hon. Member said, our region all too often appears to lose out. Perhaps that is because we are not demonstrative and we do not always shout about things. When it comes to funding for infrastructure or for our local authorities, the facts are clear. My local authority in Leicestershire has the lowest per-head funding in the country. Previous council leaders and councillors such as Deborah Taylor and Nick Rushton have fought hard to address that. We need fairer funding for our county.

Network North was due to bring more money to Leicestershire. Among other things, that would potentially have helped to fund the completion of the Melton Mowbray distributor road. Sadly, when the Government announced the new funding, that was taken away. One challenge we face is that when the Government direct funding to our area, they all too often favour those areas with mayoral authorities, rather than counties without one, such as Leicestershire.

Melton and Syston has a limited number of big businesses, but a lot of small and rural businesses. They are the bedrock of our local economy, but they face barriers to growing, including issues with public transport, with attracting people to work and with the ability to travel. The impact of national insurance increases and business rates in town centres, particularly for rural businesses and shops, makes it challenging for them to expand as they would wish to. A key challenge, as the hon. Member set out clearly, is in working together not only to deliver on our ambitions, but to break down the barriers to securing the additional investment bid for the A52, the A46 or even local roads and transport. We also need to break down the regulatory and taxation barriers that stop so many fantastic businesses growing and expanding.

There is huge potential in our region, in my county of Leicestershire and in my Melton and Syston constituency. We need those barriers broken down and investment put in to ensure that that potential is unleashed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

When creating new unitary councils, it is important that we take communities with us, and community identity is really important. I have raised concerns about this whole devolution and unitarisation process and how we take all the communities within the shire councils across the country with us.

On Surrey in particular, will the Minister, in her summing up, reflect on a comment made in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)? He called for the new proposed unitary authority covering his constituency to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex, rather than simply West Surrey, to ensure that we get that historical county representation and take communities with us.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the campaign of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne for the new council to be named West Surrey and South Middlesex. As I understand it, that name is also championed by—this shows my age—popular household name Russell Grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that alongside the questions we are debating about the financial sustainability of the new unitary authorities, their governance and the services they provide, it is absolutely vital that we ensure they have an identity that those who live in those areas can relate to?

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree. I do not think the Government have spent much time considering that fundamental flaw and how we take communities with us by getting that identity right.

The people of Spelthorne feel strongly about their historical ties to Middlesex, and I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns. Creating big new super-unitary councils by shoving multiple areas together does not make people feel included, because no one wants to end up like Birmingham. It is really important that we take communities with us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

What commitment can the Minister give to my constituents in Thurmaston, Syston, Queniborough and nearby villages who wish to remain in the county of Leicestershire and have services provided in Leicestershire that they will not against their wishes be absorbed into the city of Leicester, as advocated by Labour’s city mayor in the context of local government reorganisation?

Council Housing

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

The Minister is rightly highlighting, as all speakers have done, the importance of council housing, and he is also emphasising the strong support the Government are giving to councils in that respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) made clear, however, a range of models and types of housing are important in the provision of social and affordable housing. Does the Minister agree that the forthcoming social housing Green Paper is a good opportunity to look at that mix and how we deliver social housing in the round?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not dogmatic about the vehicle or the form. The nature of the demand will be different from area to area, depending on the demographics and geographic locality, and we need the flexibility to provide the right housing at scale to meet the individual needs of local communities.

Under the reinvigoration of right to buy in 2012, local authorities were allowed, for the first time, to keep the receipts from additional sales to fund new affordable housing. The hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Stroud both made that point. Overall, councils have risen to the challenge and used their receipts to deliver new homes. Warwick District Council, for example, has demonstrated a commitment to building replacement homes and is working hard to ensure that delivery is on time. In fact, I prised out the local data for the council because I knew the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington would wish to applaud it: 33 of its 110 additional sales needed to have been replaced by now, under the three-year deadline, but it has started or required 87 replacements, so is more than meeting the one-for-one commitment locally. I know that he will want to applaud the council for taking a lead in that regard.