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 Most other countries are perfectly able to ensure building maintenance and safety without relying on such outdated practices.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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

May I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), to his place on the Front Bench. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Transferring powers closer to communities through devolution is critical to getting service delivery right and developing trust. The public consistently say that they have more faith in local government than in national Government, and the Bill was meant to deliver on that promise. As the Secretary of State noted, the Prime Minister said in his first weeks in office that he wanted to give power to those with skin in the game and pledged to help citizens to take back control. The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that desire.

However, what we see here is a Bill that centralises decision making, limits community influence and, because it leaves areas unsure of their future, risks deepening inequalities between regions. The White Paper promised mayors for all regions and community-led reorganisation, but the Bill provides powers to merge councils from Westminster and fails to strengthen the councils closest to people—our towns and parishes. It even allows councils that have directly rejected a combined authority to be forced into one with their neighbours.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have some nerve talking about top-down reorganisation when, against people’s wishes—as expressed in a poll—they imposed an unwanted and unpopular unitary council on the whole of Somerset? Does she also agree that the Bill should introduce fair votes, in this place and in councils across the country, to restore faith in democracy and politics?

[Vikki Slade]

A similar thing happened in Dorset. In fact, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) voted against a merger in our area but failed, even under his own Government. I will come to the issue of proportional representation.

Strategic mayors have the potential to be our regional champions. The Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits that they have brought to many cities, including London and Manchester. However, the Bill fails to standardise their role or to put all regions on an equal footing. Some areas have been selected for early adoption and funding, while others—Kent, Medway and my own area of Wessex—are left behind with no timeline or support.

Birmingham Bin Strikes

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Birmingham wants its refuse and recycling service back as quickly as possible to end the risks to public health and the environment, especially in the most densely populated parts of the city. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the volunteers and emergency services, who were out there cleaning up the city by dealing with refuse, waste pile-ups and fly-tipping while the council and unions could not agree and continued clashing hammer and tongs.

For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less, and that has borne fruit in Birmingham and many other places. The Government must now grasp the nettle and tackle that funding crisis, particularly in social care and local government generally, so that what is happening in Birmingham does not spread across the country. Given that one-off clean-ups have cost the council £3.9 million already, is it not time for the Government to fund a complete clean-up of the remaining refuse so that residents do not have to foot the bill and spend the rest of the summer living alongside disgusting rubbish. Will any clean-up ensure that waste is properly dealt with and recycled where possible, given that the city is already ranked third from bottom in waste recycling?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes fair observations about the funding crisis in local government, but it would be remiss of me not to take him back to the coalition years, which started austerity in local government. The Liberal Democrats were not just casual observers of the demise of local government but active participants in it. In those very first years, when the cuts really bit for local authorities, they aided and abetted.

Our job, after 14 years of the impacts of those decisions, is to find a way through, and we are getting on with that. We are rebuilding the foundations of local government. We have announced a consultation on the fair funding review, which will see a redistribution of funding across the country towards the areas of high deprivation that need it most. We are taking into account all the different service pressures. We are grasping the nettle on the structural changes needed in devolution and reorganisation to ensure that the sector is fit, legal and decent at the end of the process, and we are repairing the broken audit market alongside that. We are getting on with repairing the foundations of local government, but we need to be clear that this is a localised dispute, and of course we do not want to see it impact on local people.

I say to the House—because I have heard this a number of times and should have called out the first example—that there are not tens of thousands of tonnes of waste accumulating on the streets of Birmingham. That was the case, and it was dealt with efficiently. In most cases, collections are taking place for most households at most times, and there is not the accumulation of the type we saw earlier. Clearly, the situation is fragile and we do not want it to return to how it was, which is why we remain in regular contact with the council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I find that absolutely astonishing when the Conservatives failed to meet their housing targets year after year. The Mayor of London has welcomed the money through the affordable homes programme. There is the amount of money we have given, and we are permitted to increase rents by CPI plus 1%. We are consulting on rent conversion, when the Conservatives prevented social landlords from being able to raise the money to provide the social housing that we desperately need. We are making the changes to get social housing where they failed miserably.

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

16. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of allowing local authorities to end the right to buy in their areas.

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

The Government do not intend to abolish the right to buy, either nationally or by giving local areas discretion to do so. We want to ensure that council tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for many years can retain the opportunity to own their home. We are, however, progressing fundamental reform of the scheme to better protect much-needed social housing stock, boost council capacity and ensure that more social homes are built than lost.

[Gideon Amos]

My Somerset councillor colleagues have for decades steadfastly protected and managed our stock of council houses, which has declined through right to buy from tens of thousands a number of years ago to only 6,000 now. While I welcome the recent attention to this issue by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, is it not time that communities decide for themselves whether to sell off council houses at all?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Although I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views, we have a principled difference of opinion on this matter. As I have made clear, the Government’s considered view is that long-standing council tenants should be able to buy the homes that they have lived in for many years. I hope, however, that the right-to-buy reforms that we have made and announced today—reduced maximum cash discounts, allowing councils to retain 100% of receipts and exempting newly built social homes from the right to buy for 35 years—will create a fairer and more sustainable scheme.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.

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

Will the shadow Minister explain why the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created vast new powers for development corporations, if he believes that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities?

[Paul Holmes]

I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.

We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—

[Gideon Amos]

Shocking.

[Paul Holmes]

I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.

What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.

If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.

As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.

I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos]

I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.

On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.

Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.

I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.

However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.

On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.

As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that

“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.

Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that?

[Gideon Amos]

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.

We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.

I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.

The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.

These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Once more unto the breach. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 68 in my name, and I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the Government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis, and that is what even stronger reform of CPOs would deliver.

We have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago, yet over that time, house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878%. The Minister for Housing and Planning was right to argue that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. There have been 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households in England since 2015, so the Deputy Prime Minister was right to argue that there is plenty of housing already, but not enough for the people who desperately need it. The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the developer-led model, which Shelter estimates is on track to deliver just 5,190 social rented homes per year, despite those being the very properties that we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation.

The housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from reliance on the vested interests of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended to ensure just that. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, which amounts to more than 60% of the UK’s net worth. The amendment would build on Government proposals to give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so would do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers’ money into wealthy landowners’ pockets. That would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation’s housing crisis.

If we coupled strengthened compulsory purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but achieve genuinely sustainable development, and would no longer be beholden to whatever ill-suited proposals developers chose to bring forward.

The failings of our developer-led planning system are writ large across my constituency. In the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion of housing supply—3,973 and 7,948 net additional dwellings respectively. What happened to local authority housing waiting lists over the same period? They rose from 1,612 to 2,449 in North Hertfordshire and from 2,005 to 2,201 in East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough new homes in my area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered by a profit-driven model. A further fact stands out: over that decade, during which housing supply and waiting lists grew simultaneously in North and East Hertfordshire, not a single council house was built in either authority.

It is time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the Government to look closely at the amendment, and to push onwards to create a planning system that once again puts people before profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need?

[Robbie Moore]

Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.

I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.

That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.

However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the pleasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in Committee and at all stages of the Bill. I thank my staff team for their work and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their spirited amendments across all topics; in fact, we put forward 78 amendments in Committee, which I can only imagine was an absolute joy for the Minister and his officials to respond to.

I pay tribute to Members across the House for their work on this Bill. It has stimulated amendments from all corners of the House, as well as great debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) working with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on their amendment on rural housing exception sites, to give just one example of the cross-party approach from different corners of the House towards improving the Bill.

On Second Reading, where the Liberal Democrats were the only party—except Plaid Cymru—to vote against the Bill because of our principled concerns about it, we set out to address our concerns about people’s rights, communities and fairness, and the effects the Bill will have on nature. We sought to address all those topics with our amendments.

First, on rights for people and individuals, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), pointed out yesterday, what greater right could there be than the right to a decent, affordable home to bring up one’s family? We championed our proposal for 150,000 social homes a year to be built as a key target for this Government, and continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place, to move towards a target for building social homes, rather than simply a target for building millions of homes; without that, the target will be led by private market housing, which, on its own, is no solution to the problems we face.

We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that the Government will grant themselves, and all future Governments, to interfere in the running of councils and to give decisions to employees and planning consultants over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them, and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions. For the first time, decisions could be made by council officers and consultants, and, though every single elected councillor of that authority may disagree, those decisions will stand in their name, and councillors will not have the power to do anything to change them. That cannot be right.

It will undermine communities’ trust in politics and our planning system—a system in which people engage more at a local level than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more people see the centralisation of planning powers, the standard method and guidance written by Whitehall, the appeals process dominated by Whitehall, and now even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will damage communities’ trust in politics and their belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy, which is so important to our country. That is the principal reason that we object so strongly to the removal of powers from councillors in the Bill.

We support a number of the measures in the Bill; there are many good measures. In passing, I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning, on which he has worked for a number of years. However, we are gravely concerned about its effect on nature. The National Trust has called the Bill a “licence to kill nature”. It is right, of course, to bring in a system for phosphates, for instance, which could be mitigated at a strategic level through environmental delivery plans, but it is wrong to completely remove from that process the principle of “first do no harm” on the site on which we are developing. We should enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in this new system in the Bill, so that, first, we seek to avoid harm to the site, then to mitigate it and, finally, to offset it, but only where that is absolutely necessary. Our new clause 1 would have put that protection of nature into this new system.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure my hon. Friend knows his legislation very well, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 stated that Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes such as national landscapes. Does he think that we have missed an opportunity in this Bill by not giving national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like, for instance, Chichester harbour in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has done so much work to champion national landscapes and the need for them to have a seat at the planning table. In my own national landscape, the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills of Somerset also deserve a seat at the planning table. We do not believe that cutting out consultees, consultation and voices such as Sport England from the planning process is the way to deliver more homes or better communities. We need to bring in voices such as those who support our national landscapes, and we would dearly like to put forward amendments to achieve that.

On the rights of people to genuinely affordable homes, the rights of communities to fairness in the process, and rights to nature, we do not believe that the Government have gone far enough and we cannot support the Bill as it stands.