Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds]

As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we would not start from here—we would not have made the mistakes this Government have made, which have led to the crash in house building that I outlined.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it?

[David Simmonds]

We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos.

[Gideon Amos]

The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.

That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.

I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.

In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.

Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

rose—

[Gideon Amos]

Ah, over there.

[Edward Morello]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that West Dorset is home to a number of our rare and precious chalk streams, including the Frome and the Wraxall brook. Does he agree with me that a system similar to the Blue Flag status that we have for beaches would be a relatively cheap and easy way for the Government to provide environmental protections for our chalk streams?

[Gideon Amos]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.

I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.

Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.

Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.

The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature.

As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments.

The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 General Committees

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats broadly support the statutory instrument, but we have a number of issues to raise. One is that this measure should not mean the overriding of all planning policy. Indeed, green belt policy needs to be protected. Although we welcome the fact that an NPS is being developed, it would have been more helpful to see the draft of it at this stage. We encourage the Government to go further and consider a national policy statement for business and commercial projects generally, because they will have a big impact as nationally significant infrastructure projects.

There are significant opportunities with big business and commercial developments of data centres. Such developments enable the meeting of standards that cannot be met with smaller piecemeal development. With an eye to what we all must do—seek ways to drive down bills for householders—it is worth noting that there are 1.4 GW of data centres in the UK; that means 1.4 GW of heat. That heat is often the subject of agreements in which companies are paid to take it away, but it is free heat that could heat over 1 million households. We hope there will be a clear requirement in the national policy statement to ensure, as happens in other countries, that “waste” heat—which is free or has a negative cost, because sometimes a company will pay to have the heat removed from its site—is used in local networks wherever possible. We strongly encourage the Government to go down that route.

We also want the strategic spatial energy plan introduced so that there is a national overview of where data centres are located, with the proviso that under this statutory instrument the Secretary of State will consider, on a case by case basis, whether or not to direct under section 35 that a data centre is a nationally significant infrastructure project. We are content to support this measure, but we urge the Government to move forward with their national policy statement to ensure the provision of free heat from data centres to households and to defend key planning policies that must remain in place, such as protection of the green belt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.

In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.

Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.

Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.

[Gideon Amos]

I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the point is well made that, as part of the NPS process and more widely, we are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether the Government should be making further interventions that are necessary and proportionate to encourage the take-up of such solutions.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate on a matter that clearly resonates, as we can see from the number of Members present. I recognise entirely the concerns that he and other hon. Members raised about the impact of high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation and their effect on local housing and local housing markets. When family homes rapidly convert into houses in multiple occupation, it can fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood and put genuine pressure on affordability for families who want to put down roots in an area. Those concerns are legitimate, and they need to be taken seriously.

Antisocial behaviour can also have devastating impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods. That is not and should not be regarded as a low-level issue. Whether it is excessive noise, discarded rubbish, parking difficulties from overcrowded properties or more serious issues of intimidation and disorder, these real issues affect people’s daily lives and their sense of safety in and around their own homes. No one should have to live with that. I know the frustration of residents who see neighbourhoods change in ways that make them feel less secure and less able, as other Members have said, to affect the future of their neighbourhoods.

The loss of family housing stock is a particular concern for local communities. When properties that once housed families, with the children attending schools and people contributing to the fabric of the community, are converted into transient accommodation, it erodes the stability that makes neighbourhoods thrive. That is why many councils and residents are looking for solutions.

The issue is far greater than just HMOs themselves. Often people living in HMOs are those on the lowest incomes, who simply cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do not always choose HMOs as their preferred housing; they are there because they cannot access affordable housing and because the housing market fails them. Statistics on social housing tell the story starkly. There are 1.3 million households—many of them families —on the social housing waiting list who need affordable, stable homes and cannot access them.

We are deeply concerned that the Government’s target of 20,000 social homes a year is not sufficient and is nowhere near enough. The Liberal Democrats have pledged a target of 150,000 council and social rent homes a year, because a massive public house building programme is exactly what is required to address this crisis. A fundamental lack of social housing to support those on lower incomes is driving people into HMOs in the first place. I am sure that many HMO occupants and residents would far rather be in secure, affordable housing.

We support and respect the use of article 4 directions by local communities to require planning permission for HMOs in certain areas, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighbourhoods or to protect a dwindling stock of family housing. We agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield that streamlining those processes would be worth while. Will the Minister consider removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve article 4 directions, so that councils can put them through more easily and quickly? After all, local authorities know their areas best, and they should have the tools to manage development in a way that reflects their priorities and concerns.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) so eloquently pointed out, in areas with high levels of second homes and holiday lets, such as Cornwall and the Lake district, councils lack the powers to control housing stock. The last Government promised to legislate to make planning permission a requirement for change of use to holiday lets, as is already the case in Wales. Will this Government deliver on that issue, which is vital to particular communities around the country?

On controlling the proliferation of HMOs, article 4 directions are ultimately a blunt, short-term instrument. They may prevent conversions in one area, but they can shift the problem elsewhere. Vulnerable people must not be pushed into even more precarious housing situations. The only way to genuinely relieve pressure on family homes is to increase the supply of social housing. If sufficient social homes were available, those on the lowest income would not be forced into the private rented sector and HMOs. Family homes would remain available to families and the housing market would function more effectively. That is the fundamental solution.

Where there are genuine problems with antisocial behaviour, waste or parking, councils should use the powers at their disposal. Acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered in 2003, can be effective in that regard. Additional licensing for HMOs for three or more tenants, which many councils have introduced, sets standards for management and gives authorities real teeth against rogue landlords, but the processes should be simplified for that avenue of action, too.

A comprehensive approach is needed. That means building far more social housing to meet demand, properly licensing and regulating HMOs, and using article 4 directions as part of a wider housing strategy. We must not lose sight of the fundamental need for more social housing.

Supporting High Streets

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Like people around the country, my constituents are tired of watching their high streets decline. They are tired of seeing good, local businesses close, replaced by dodgy barbers, vape shops, betting shops, or worse: nothing at all, with the shop left to rot. The decline in our high streets is a political choice that was made knowingly by the Conservative party over 14 years. The Conservatives stripped our local councils of power, defunded them and prevented them from intervening on their own high streets. The Conservatives have brought forward an Opposition day debate on an issue that they themselves powerfully undermined for more than a decade.

I am proud that this Government are taking a different approach. Through the pride in place funding, residents of Cotmanhay in my constituency are receiving £20 million to invest in their community over 10 years. When I met Cotmanhay residents at a community meeting the weekend before last, I was struck by their enthusiasm and general desire to improve our community. Many people in Cotmanhay are brimming with ideas of how to revitalise the area and, for the first time, they are being listened to and given the power to make the changes that they want to see in their area.

I am also pleased that councils will finally be given greater power to say no to fake barbers, vape shops and bookies, which we all know are covers for the drugs industry. Councils will be able to seize boarded-up shops, save derelict pubs and create space for genuine, innovative businesses that will revive our high streets. Strong local government and community empowerment are the best ways that we can revitalise our high streets. Residents ultimately know best what their towns need.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also look at the police having the power to close illegal shops and stop them trading immediately, rather than having to take lengthy processes through the courts before they can be closed down?

[Adam Thompson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very reasonable point, although I think it is probably more a question for the ministerial team than for me.

I am extremely proud to work with Labour-controlled Erewash borough council, which has been taking a lot of firm action recently on our declining high street. Since taking control of the council just two and a half years ago, the Labour council has been tackling absentee landlords and negligent property owners, including those responsible for the decaying Wigfalls building on Bath Street in Ilkeston, which has been decrepit for more than 20 years. The owners have been given a clear choice: invest in their properties, with council support, and show pride in our town centres, or face enforcement through a section 215 clean-up order.

My colleagues on the council have also massively expanded the council’s shop signage grant, offering local businesses up to £2,000 for new signage. The scheme has been extended beyond our immediate local centres—beyond the hubs in Ilkeston and Long Eaton—including Cotmanhay, Kirk Hallam and Sawley. It will help us to brighten our towns and villages and to support small, independent businesses across the borough with direct intervention.

The measures this Government are taking to empower local councils and finally end the scandal of underfunding in councils across the north and the midlands will strengthen the hand of dedicated local authorities such as Erewash and communities such as Cotmanhay in the fight against empty town centres. It is time for us to focus on innovation over stagnation, on the grassroots over national diktat and on pride over neglect. I am deeply proud that this is the Labour Government’s approach.

Property Service Charges

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing what, given the number of Members taking part, has clearly been an important debate.

Liberal Members of this place have been campaigning to end residential leasehold and the charges it entails since Lloyd George, who, at the time his People’s Budget in 1909, said that the practice

“is not business, it is blackmail... Ground rent is a part of it—fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without…consent.”

His words ring true today. Over a century later, we still have the same feudal system, and charges that trap homeowners in a cycle of uncapped ground rents, exploitative charges and similarly unreasonable estate management fees.

The scale of the problem is staggering—there are 4.8 million leasehold properties in England, which is more than a fifth of the housing stock—but England, Wales and Australia are the only countries still operating such residential leasehold approaches. Most other countries are perfectly able to ensure building maintenance and safety without relying on such outdated practices. One of the things I hear most often from my constituents is how long it takes to get change in this place, and property service charges are a perfect example. They have been around for decades, but very little seems to have happened.

In 2019, the Government commissioned the independent Lord Best to write a report, and he laid out sensible solutions and a clear path ahead: a new property regulator to establish a code of practice, the licensing of property managers and agents, and minimum qualifications for those working in the sector.

While I acknowledge the last Government’s work in this area, it took them five years to bring forward legislation, and when they did in the form of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, they completely neglected to regulate property management or spiralling service charges. That is a measure of how leaseholders have been let down despite the overwhelming evidence of the need for action. The Labour Government promised that they would implement the rest of the Act, but well over a year later little progress has been made—progress that would give redress to those saddled with charges they cannot contest and marriage values that are wholly unreasonable. These delays are failing the people who are trapped in these properties.

Recently, I heard from one constituent about their experience of leasehold service charges. When they purchased their property in 2022, the service charges were £1,700. In 2023 they rose to £2,600, which is a 52% increase. The next year they went up to £3,700, which is a further 43% increase. The following year—2025—they reached £5,010, which is another 34% increase. Overall, the service charges tripled in just three years, and for what? After a huge effort by residents asking to see quotes and invoices, it turns out that the answer was that it was for nothing—or rather for incompetence and, as Lloyd George might have put it, for greed. There were invoices relating to other buildings entirely and gaping differences between maintenance quotes and actual costs.

Eventually, through the right to manage, the residents appointed a new managing agent and got their charges back down to around £2,000. That means that over those four years, residents paid approximately £13,000 in service charges. If the charges had remained at the proper level, it would have been £2,000 a year, so they have overpaid by £5,000 each and they will never get that money back. The money went straight into the pockets of unregulated managers. That is the cost of delay —it is a real cost being borne by constituents of mine and other Members.

The constituent said to me that the process was akin to having a full-time job, which is an entirely unreasonable way for the property industry to be working—and what about residents who are less able than my constituent? Some residents may be older or in poor health, or simply ill-equipped for the massive task of navigating that bureaucracy. They may be so busy with work or children that they do not know they have been ripped off until it is too late. Folk should not have to devote that level of time and energy to get redress.

The issue of fleecehold, which has been referred to by hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), must not be forgotten. Companies such as FirstPort have been mentioned, and I assure Members that they are as much of a problem in Taunton and Wellington as they are elsewhere. Freeholders often have even fewer rights to challenge estate management charges than those who have leases. The arrangements operate almost like leaseholds. Such residents pay double—both their council tax and estate management charges—and often receive a far worse service than those who live on estates fully adopted by a local authority, where the only charge is council tax. They have all the financial burdens of leasehold without the legal protections. Another constituent—a freeholder in Taunton—has been awaiting the regulations for years now so that he can take his case to tribunal.

Even the rights that exist on paper are worthless without effective enforcement. Currently neither leaseholders nor those paying estate management charges have any easy way to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is why we need both the provisions of the 2024 Act to be commenced, and an independent regulator with teeth and the ability to cap unreasonable charges levied on both leaseholders and freeholders. Even the British Property Federation said back in 2023 that

“the lack of any provision to introduce competency standards or regulation to our sector is a missed opportunity.”

The Property Institute has welcomed proposals for oversight. When even those who would be regulated are asking for it, surely it is time to act.

The Government rightly have an ambition to build 300,000 new homes a year, but we Lib Dems would prefer that to include a stretching target of 150,000 social homes. We agree that homes are needed. However, in building them we must not create a next generation of fleecehold properties. The practice of developers building estates with shared roadways and public spaces, then retaining ownership through management companies and charging residents for their upkeep while those same residents are paying council tax, has to end. For the vast majority of standard developments, there needs to be a presumption that shared areas must be adopted by the local authority. Crucially, councils need to be given the proper resources to allow that; the ability to recoup the costs of managing those spaces from developers or landowners; and powers to sanction those who fail to complete roads and similar infrastructure to the right standard. We cannot allow developers to profit from management companies, while residents pay twice for the same services.

It has been 116 years since Lloyd George called out these practices. We have had six years since Lord Best’s report laid out a clear path forward. We have had over a year with the new Government in office. The evidence is overwhelming and the solutions are clear. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for: a new property regulator, as recommended in the Best report, establishing a code of practice, minimum qualifications and the licensing of property managers; leaseholders to be enabled to get alternative quotes for maintenance; a power for residents to act in common to take ownership of management companies and common areas; the strengthening of councils’ powers to adopt, with resources from developers or landowners; the urgent abolition of ground rents for existing residential leases; and, crucially, the capping of unreasonable service and estate management charges.

Millions of leaseholders and freeholders are waiting. They have waited long enough. It is time for the Government to act and end what has become the great British property rip-off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families.

I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family.

This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it.

Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it.

Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let us be clear: the Bill is the biggest uplift to renters’ rights in a generation. It will make a huge difference for so many people in my constituency. Before I come to the amendments, I place on the record my thanks to the Minister stewarding the Bill through Parliament, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her remarks as a champion of renters and social housing in this country.

I also place on the record my anger that the Bill has taken so long to pass through Parliament. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been slowed down—bogged down in amendments—by the other place, which has delayed these vital rights reaching my constituents. Opposition parties tabled 450 amendments, so our colleagues in the other place had to sit for a very long time to get the Bill through. In that time, my constituents have been stuck in damp and mouldy housing and subject to section 21 evictions, and many children have been growing up in temporary accommodation, because of the delays to the legislation in the other place. Opposition parties whose Lords placed so many amendments should be ashamed for slowing down the legislation.

Ending Homelessness

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate and on all the work he has clearly be done in this area—of course, the fact that he is Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has absolutely nothing to do with the compliments I am giving him. This is an important debate, because homelessness touches every part of the United Kingdom, in every local community, and everyone who believes, as the Liberal William Beveridge did then, and we do today, that homelessness and poor housing are part of the giant of squalor and need to be defeated. Unless people have the shelter of a decent home, they cannot be truly free to lead the fulfilling lives they wish to lead.

The level of homelessness today has rightly been termed a crisis by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it is one that demands our attention and our action. Across England, over 117,000 households were living in temporary accommodation at the end of March 2024, including more than 151,000 children. That is a fail of national proportions. While the issue might be most visible in urban areas, rural homelessness has risen by 40% over the past five years, leaving many without access to services or support. In my county of Somerset, over 12,000 households languish on the waiting list and are unlikely to get the homes they need, after decades in which we have lost millions of council houses, which were never replaced—4.3 million sold off since the 1980s, part of a net loss of 2.2 million social rent homes in this country.

But statistics, of course, do not tell the whole story. Take Ed, who is in his 50s, came to my surgery. He is living in his car, trying to hold down a good job as a lorry driver, but not one good enough to be able to afford a home near his family in Taunton. Take Mary, who is sharing her bed with her teenage daughter, while her younger daughter shares the only other bedroom with her grandmother; or the young mum and baby who had all their belongings put on the pavement outside their hotel on a Saturday morning, when they were turned out with nowhere to go. These are the real casualties, and far too many of them are children.

Councils struggling with the rising costs of the care crisis and special educational needs system are often unable to devote the resources to homeless people that are needed. That is why the Liberal Democrats have, among other things, called first and foremost for a cross-Whitehall plan to end all forms of homelessness—an approach that co-ordinates action across Departments, ensuring that solutions are integrated, effective and comprehensive. The interministerial group recommended by the Select Committee would therefore need to take forward a homelessness strategy, which we urge the Government to deliver as soon as possible.

Secondly, a cornerstone of our approach must be a “somewhere safe to stay” legal duty, to ensure that anyone at risk of sleeping rough can have shelter. That would provide a realistic basis for restoring stability, rebuilding trust and giving people the support they need to move forward with their lives. That is something that the nearly 4,000 veterans found to be homeless in England particularly deserve, in addition to the decent homes standard for forces’ families, which we are delighted to be helping to bring into legislation in the Renters’ Rights Bill this week.

Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats would abolish the two-child benefit cap—something brought in by the Conservatives in 2017, once the coalition was no longer there to moderate their instincts. No child should bear the consequences of such an arbitrary financial restriction. Fourthly, those experiencing homelessness should be exempt the indignity of only being allowed the shared accommodation rate, because forcing vulnerable people into unsuitable sharing only exacerbates the risk of them returning to rough sleeping and undermines their security. Fifthly, councils must be empowered and properly funded to provide safe accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse, to ensure that escaping violence never has to mean making oneself homeless.

The housing support system is also failing those in need. The housing support allowance has not kept up with inflation and has not been increased for some years, leaving many unable to meet rent costs and at higher risk of homelessness. The Liberal Democrats would restore it to the 30th percentile of local rents and ensure that it was automatically uprated against that benchmark every year in future, so the support keeps pace with the reality of the housing market. That is a simple but vital reform, preventing families from slipping through the cracks simply because a policy has failed to keep up with rising costs.

Recent Government funding announcements have, of course, been welcome in principle, but they must be judged by their impact. The previous rough sleeping initiative was replaced by the rough sleeping prevention recovery grant, yet in Somerset this amounted to a 0% increase on 2024-25 levels, or a real-terms cut. That must not happen again. More fundamentally, local authorities must be equipped to deliver permanent accommodation, to integrate medical, social and emotional support, and to provide a permanent pathway out of homelessness, not merely a temporary respite, not least to escape the rip-off of hotels and private B&B landlords draining public funds from hard-working taxpayers.

Housing supply therefore remains crucial to this whole challenge. In Somerset, we urgently need more accommodation suitable for homeless people and more follow-on accommodation. That needs to be tackled by unlocking more council sites and speeding up delivery. Ultimately, it does need more funding. In parts of Somerset, such as Minehead, my Lib Dem colleagues are building the first new council houses there for a generation and have just announced another £40 million for more council houses. However, local young families deserve genuinely affordable council and social rent homes in far greater numbers. Liberal Democrats would therefore build 150,000 new social homes a year, and in our manifesto we included a £6 billion a year investment to get up to that level of delivery. For the generation locked out of home ownership, we want to see a generation of rent-to-own houses, where renters gain ownership after 30 years or can port their equity if they move sooner.

We have long called for a statutory target of 150,000 new social homes a year, so it is disappointing the Government propose only 20,000 social homes a year and are relying far too heavily on private developers to fix a crisis that is not in their remit. Liberal Democrats also propose an £8 million a year emergency upgrade programme to ensure that homes are safe, warm and energy efficient, tackling fuel poverty by cutting energy bills. Only by addressing housing and energy insecurity together can we prevent homelessness before it begins and support those already at risk.

Homelessness is preventable. It is a product of policy changes, neglect and underfunding. Councils like Somerset have just committed to an ambition to achieve 1,000 affordable homes a year, but what it and other councils need from the Government is support that is meaningful, sustained and accountable. Last year the Shared Health Foundation found that between 2019 and 2024, in just one Parliament, 74 children died in temporary accommodation. Not only that, but temporary accommodation was officially cited as a contributory factor in those deaths. I am sorry to say that 58 of those children who died were babies under the age of one. Let us ensure that this stops and that next winter does not see the tragic ending of the life of even one more rough sleeper, or one more family deprived of safety and stability. Liberal Democrats will fight to ensure that homelessness and poor housing are no longer a crisis but are consigned to the past, a chapter in Britain’s history, as William Beveridge intended.

Pride in Place

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to invest in high streets and communities—making our local centres thrive is a cause that all of us across this House share. However, despite the strategy talking about empowerment and the Government previously announcing that they would simplify the system and consolidate grants, this strategy does the opposite by creating a patchwork of small ringfenced grants for certain areas with strict rules on how local authorities can spend their funding.

However, what goes unsaid in the strategy is perhaps as important. The importance of community assets such as libraries and swimming pools is acknowledged in the strategy, as is the lamenting of their loss, but the strategy neglects to mention the deeper causes of those sell-offs. Local authorities face ever-growing crises in funding statutory services that they have to fund according to Government rules, particularly social care and provision for special educational needs and disabilities, and are forced to sell assets to keep those services going. In this year alone £1.3 billion of public assets have been sold off, nearly three times the amount of the annual funding announced today. In my constituency, and in Somerset as a whole, more than two thirds of council tax payments go towards the funding of care for children and adults. Last year the county succeeded in plugging a £55 million shortfall, but that feat will become harder to achieve each year.

Pride in place will struggle to succeed unless the Government fix the care crisis. Council tax payers should not be bailing out the Government when it comes to their duty to provide a care and SEND system that works. Investment in the high streets is welcome, but is no substitute for giving local authorities the means to protect their services and assets into the future. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to relieve the care funding crisis at local level, so that communities can keep and maintain the services and assets that they value most?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will take each of those points in turn. This is about empowerment. We are driving through what we believe is the biggest boost to devolution in a generation, and there are three strands to that.

First, we are putting communities at the heart of the strategy. We have designed it in a way that does not just mean that local authorities are in the driving seat, because we consider it critical to put community leaders at the heart of it. This is an opportunity for us to galvanise our communities, to get people from diverse backgrounds round the table and, crucially, to build momentum to drive the change that they want to see. We do not resile from that, because we think it is absolutely the right approach.

Alongside it, however, we are giving more power to local authorities, whether that means multi-year funding or consolidating the local government finance system so that authorities have more flexibility. We see them as a key partner in the driving of change on the ground.

Thirdly, as we create strategic authorities there will be the biggest tranche of devolution to our city region and county region mayors that we have seen so far. Taken together, those three strands are about fundamentally shifting and transferring power from the centre to places, so that we can deliver the change that people want.

There has been a huge sell-off of assets. That is the legacy of the last 14 years, and it is a tragedy for our communities. We have introduced the community right to buy so that communities are able to identify assets of community value and to buy them, and support from pride in place gives them an opportunity to put investment behind that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the critical issue of local government funding. Labour Members entirely understand the pressure that local government is under. There have been 14 years of austerity, driven by the Conservatives, and local authorities are having to deal with a very difficult context. That is why we have moved towards a multi-year funding settlement, and why we gave a huge boost to local government financing last year. Over the course of the spending review, there will be a real-terms increase in local government spending power. It is tight, but we are doing our part as a Government to ensure that local government can deliver for our communities. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are driving through critical reforms that will address some of the pressures that we know exist in our social care system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

In 2007, Ming Campbell launched the Liberal Democrats’ campaign for not just affordable but decent homes for our military. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his position. Will he join me in congratulating the forces families who backed my amendment to provide them with a decent homes standard, and will he agree that they deserve nothing less?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that the changes that have been made—we have managed to come to a consensus on this—are very important and will make a big difference to forces families and veterans, which we all want to see. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman on working cross party to ensure an outcome that will be satisfactory to everybody who is concerned about this issue, as he is.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, as indeed he presented their position on the 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. I only regret that, in doing so, he rejected all 92 of them. I was going to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but he has escaped just in time. I will come to our amendments—the other place took a different view on some of them—but I will first declare my interest in a registered provider of social housing.

A generation have been cut off from the dream of home ownership. After half a century of flogging off council houses—over 4.5 million have been sold off since 1980 by successive Conservative Governments—there are now, in effect, none left for the thousands of families who now need them. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a vision to restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home by building our target of 150,000 social and council rent homes per year, backed up with a commitment of an extra £6 billion on top of the affordable housing programme budget, funded by fairly reforming capital gains tax so that more people benefit from relief but those who make bigger gains pay more. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats want a new generation of rent-to-own homes so that people can get on to the ownership ladder. It is the biggest and most ambitious programme since council housing was invented by Lloyd George and Addison back at the beginning of the 20th century.

We have also long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and for longer and more stable tenancies for tenants. The Government have put both those key measures in the Bill, and that is why we support it and want to see it enacted. Tenants have lived for far too long with insecurity and the fear that, if they speak up, they might lose their home.

Some of the Lords amendments before us would improve the Bill, while others would weaken it. Lords amendment 11 would require tenants to pay pet deposits, which would pile on new financial burdens, putting the right to own pets out of reach for those already struggling. It is not in the spirit of the Bill, so we cannot support it.

Similarly, Lords amendment 18 would cut the prohibition on re-letting unsold properties from 12 months to six. That might sound like a neat compromise, but in practice it would give cover to any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. A six-month ban would be far too short to give tenants the protection from abuse that they deserve. Lords amendment 26 seeks to raise the bar for enforcement by moving the burden of proof from civil to criminal.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In Torbay, we have almost 50% more people who rent in the private sector than the national average. While the vast majority of landlords are good landlords, sadly there are some rotten apples out there. Pushing against Lords amendment 26 is essential, because we need to ensure that local authorities have the powers to hold these landlords to account. I hope my hon. Friend agrees.

[Gideon Amos]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.

That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.

Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.

On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.

Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.

Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic.

[Gideon Amos]

Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says nothing has changed, yet again, but does he not welcome—as I do, as a constituency MP with a significant amount of military housing around RAF Northolt—the significant £1 billion-plus investment into military housing and the insourcing back into public ownership of thousands of MOD homes, after the previous Government’s botched privatisation deal, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of public money?

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:

“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]

That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be.

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.

The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.

This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.

We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.

A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering longer and more stable tenancies.

In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.

The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.

We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.

Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.

Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.

I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.

Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.

To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.