Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I declare an interest as a registered social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats come at this from a somewhat different starting point than the official Opposition, in that we supported the Renters’ Rights Act and we strongly supported the introduction of a database of landlords as a source of really important basic information that tenants should be able to have. We have been consistent in supporting the concept of what is in front of us.

The system that has been devised, however, is nothing short of a fiasco and will undermine the whole purpose of the database. As well as being harmful—or challenging, to say the very least—to landlords and damaging to their business operations, it will frustrate tenants if landlords need to spend that amount of time updating the register one property at a time. Let us imagine that someone is an institutional landlord with 4,000 dwellings. If only one can be entered at a time, it will take weeks and months, by which time the database will be completely out of date for tenants looking at it. The problems of the database will affect not only landlords, but tenants.

We desperately need more build-to-rent landlords to build more rented accommodation. There is a debate going on about the Renters’ Rights Act and whether landlords have withdrawn from the market. I do not intend to get into that debate in detail—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation takes a different view and says that there is a certain amount of churn—but one thing is absolutely clear: the Act is challenging the sector to a huge degree and causing a great deal of change and churn. The last thing that it needs right now is a database that, for our biggest landlords, is completely impossible to complete in any economic or efficient way.

I am grateful to Real Estate:UK for its briefing, and I make no apologies for reading out parts of what it has told me. For example, it says that

“a single employee working through a 5,000-home portfolio would need 2,500 hours or around 312.5 working days”

to upload. That has to be done every year. It continues:

“Without any fee discount or integrative information provision process, a BTR landlord with a 5,000-unit portfolio can expect to spend c.£378,000 a year on registering their properties.”

Furthermore, it says:

“To comply both with selective licensing and the Service, a BTR landlord can expect to pay over £4,000,000 across a 5,000-home portfolio.”

As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, pointed out, the costs are above what was expected at the time of Act’s passage.

It is surely not beyond the wit of Government to produce a database where someone can make multiple uploads and does not need to upload one at a time, and a database that is more efficient than the one we have at the moment where someone cannot even copy data across from one property to the next—even if they have 250 properties that are exactly the same, they have to enter each one individually without copying across any of the data. If the official Opposition press the measure to a Division, which they clearly will, we Liberal Democrats will also vote against it. It is bad for the Renters’ Rights Act, bad for tenants, bad for landlords and bad for the build-to-rent sector that we need to support our housing market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will make some progress.

Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the reforms in the Renters’ Rights Act. The funding will support councils, ensuring that they have the staff and skills required to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. Fees will be pro-rated during the initial roll-out, ensuring that landlords in regions required to register early are treated fairly. To go back to my opening remarks, we will roll-out the measure on a regional basis from December. I think I have answered all the points put to me.

[Gideon Amos]

As always, the Minister is being very generous with his time. He has answered a number of the points raised—I will give him that—but if institutional landlords are paying millions of pounds in fees, the least they should expect is to have a database that works. I welcome the Minister saying that he is continuing to look at the issue, but could he go a smidgen further and commit, on the record, that the Government will ensure that bulk uploads can be achieved? That is the huge failure of the system.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. The Government have looked into the practicality of bulk uploads, and we do not think it is, in the terms he has put it to me, a workable solution. As I have tried to make clear at several points, we are looking at how we can integrate the management systems of larger landlords into the database in a way that does not require them to manually input each of their properties, as has been put to me in this debate. We are looking for those efficiencies—why would we not look for those efficiencies?

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about fees, to be clear, it is not the Government’s intention to use the fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector, but some of the fees will go towards local authority enforcement. As we have debated previously, it is incredibly important that local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the Act.

To conclude, the regulations set out the practical steps required to deliver the PRS database, and set the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will follow. In commencing the roll-out of the database, the regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes that they rent. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw Members’ attention to my category 8—miscellaneous—interest.

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

I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interest as a social landlord.

[The Chair]

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; it shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first, and then other Members will be free to indicate, by bobbing, that they wish to speak in the debate. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during the proceedings.

At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or if they seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—this includes grouped clauses—that will be at my discretion.

Clause 1

Qualifying period for right to buy

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Before I speak to clause 1, I would like to put on the record once again my sincere thanks to my ministerial colleague Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for ably shepherding the Bill through its House of Lords stages. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill in the other place. It goes without saying that we did not agree with all the arguments made—we cannot accept the incorporation into the Bill of clause 13, for reasons that I will detail in due course—but overall the expert scrutiny and challenge provided by peers have helped to improve the Bill. A number of Government amendments that we have tabled arise directly from the issues raised and the points made during the debates in the Lords.

The Bill has three core objectives. The first is to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby to incentivise the building of more social rented homes. The second is to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protection for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. The third is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme that are designed to put it on a fair and sustainable footing for the future. They are informed by the feedback that we received in the public consultation, which ran from November 2024 to 2025, and are set out in clauses 1 to 10.

More than 2 million tenants have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980. However, as we all know, many of the homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced, which has depleted social housing stock. There is now an insufficient supply of good-quality social housing to meet demand. More than 1.3 million households are on the social housing waiting list, and almost 180,000 children are living homeless in temporary accommodation. The right-to-buy scheme has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, since new homes can be sold before the council can recover its investment.

Although we respect those who believe that right to buy should be abolished outright, the Government’s position remains that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, as I argued on Second Reading, there is a pressing need to radically reform the right to buy to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to once again build at scale, and to attract broader investment in council housing.

As things stand, to qualify for the right to buy an individual must be a secure tenant and must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant—in other words, their landlord must be a public body, usually a council or a housing association. The three years do not have to have been continuous, and an individual can add together any time they spent as a public sector tenant. They are also able to count any period when their husband, wife or civil partner was a public sector tenant.

Until 2014, the minimum eligibility requirement was five, not three, years. The main rationale given at the time for reducing the qualifying period by two years was explicitly to drive an increase in the take-up of right to buy. The decision was taken in the full knowledge that a tenant occupying a property for three years is extremely unlikely to have paid rent that equates to the available discount.

The Government believe that a more sustainable balance must be struck to support councils to rebuild their stock of homes. Clause 1 therefore amends section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 to increase the minimum eligibility requirement from three to 10 years. As under the existing law, a combination of present and previous tenancies will continue to count towards the qualifying period.

Increasing the minimum eligibility period in that way has received strong support from stakeholders. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of respondents, including 62% of tenants who responded, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.

The Government believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing long-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting much-needed social housing stock. Incidentally, 10 years is also the average length of tenancy for someone buying under the scheme currently. This targeted change will maintain access to the right to buy for long-standing tenants, but in a way that provides for a fairer and more sustainable scheme and better supports the long-term supply of social housing.

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.

I rise to support the clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important and significant clause in the Bill, as it constrains the selling off of council houses. It is concerning that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment that would essentially reverse it. With 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list and 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing that we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. There has been a net loss of 2 million social homes since the introduction of right to buy. If that does not show that we cannot fill the bath with the plug taken out, nothing does. We stand squarely in support of the clause, although we would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend right to buy completely if that is right for their area so that they can rebuild their stock of council housing and social rent homes.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.

This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes.

I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name. On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder.

Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to my own amendment 104, as well as amendment 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I agree with the Opposition that amendment 104 is about seeking clarity from the Government around how a rural area would be designated.

I welcome the Government amendments tabled since the publication of the Bill that hand more power to local authorities to determine the designation. Amendment 104 would provide some certainty regarding what classification could be used in that determination. What decision-making process would the Minister use to arrive at a designation whereby he has the power to make regulations for a rural area?

On amendment 9, as a party we believe that social housing is a crucial element of a settled society and protecting that stock is a must. That is why we support the overall objectives of the Bill, but we seek to go further than what the Government have currently legislated for by ensuring that community-led housing is included in the prohibition on losing stock to the private market. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who represents west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has tabled amendment 9.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to our Liberal Democrat amendments. New clause 2 would provide local authorities with the power to suspend right to buy in an area completely and bring it to an end. Perhaps for the first and last time, I agree 100% with the hon. Member for Orpington, completely and wholeheartedly; he said that local areas are best placed to decide what is right for them on council housing provision and council housing stock. That is why we would give local authorities the ability to say that they have lost enough council housing. Some 2 million council homes were lost to right to buy and 4 million social homes have been lost altogether. Enough is enough. Local communities should have the right to decide whether they want to continue to see the loss of council homes in their area.

[Patrick Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman talks about council houses being lost to right to buy; it would be remiss not to say they are being gained by tenants who own a property—part of a property-owning democracy that we hold dear in this country.

[Gideon Amos]

If we have a system where 4 million homes have been lost and 1.3 million people are on the council waiting list, something has gone radically wrong. We need a different approach.

[Patrick Spencer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gideon Amos]

From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to give way, but I have not yet answered his initial question. Yes, we need to find ways to help people into home ownership. That is vital and fundamental to a thriving society. We need to build more homes. We need to provide more and better shared ownership arrangements, as the current arrangements are not working. We need to help people on to the housing ladder. That does not mean we need to erode and diminish our social housing stock.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gideon Amos]

Let me give way to a Government Member this time.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the research that shows that up to 40% of homes bought under right to buy have actually ended up in the hands of private landlords? In fact, if we are looking to help people into long-term housing, right to buy is not the solution.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member is quite right. Not only that, but local authorities end up paying over the odds for placing families in temporary accommodation, sometimes in homes that were built as council houses to provide for those families in the first place. Now they are being sublet, sometimes multiple times, to provide that housing.

[Gareth Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made a point that has been made by Members today and on Second Reading: right to buy diminishes the social housing stock. I would agree on paper that it does, but that has to be read in the context, as shown by the House of Lords Library, that right to buy applies only to people in long-term tenancies who have been social tenants for a long time. Some 78% of people living in social housing are on lifetime tenancies. Those properties are not available. They could not be given to anybody else because they are lifetime tenancies. Right to buy is actually providing the receipts to build more social homes for people to live in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

Stopping people from getting on the housing ladder does not help one bit, because it does not increase the supply, and that point seems to have been missed completely by the Liberal Democrats and by the Government.

[Gideon Amos]

I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition spokesperson has entered into the realm of social housing supply, given the record of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, we need to increase supply as well as saving the stock that has been built with public funds—taxpayer’s money—for the community, rather than giving over discounts, sometimes to the extent of a £70,000 or £80,000 transfer of cash, from the taxpayer into the hands of individual property owners for no good reason.

We need to increase supply. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a target to build 150,000 social rent homes per year. I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s party’s target for the delivery of social housing—they did not build many when they were in government. We need to give local authorities the power and flexibility to decide for themselves whether it is right to continue with right to buy in their areas. If we believe in local communities and local democracy, we should give them the ability to say that right to buy and the loss of more council housing stock is no longer right for their area. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee and urge all Committee members to vote for it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to clause 8 and amendments 13 to 18, tabled in my name, and then I will turn to various amendments that have been tabled and spoken to.

Clause 8 amends schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 to introduce new and updated exceptions to the right to buy. Under the scheme, exceptions already include homes suitable for occupation by the elderly, sheltered housing and homes due to be demolished. Of respondents to our consultation, 76% agree that the existing exceptions should be retained, and we are doing so. The clause does, however, make a small change to amend outdated terminology in the current exemption for dwellings for persons of pensionable age, to update the reference to resident or non-resident wardens to resident or non-resident managers.

The clause introduces three new exceptions. First, it exempts newly built social homes from the scheme for 35 years, giving councils the confidence to invest in new supply. At present, councils are disincentivised from building because homes can be sold before costs are recovered through rent, undermining housing revenue accounts. A 35-year exemption period reflects the typical pay-back period and ensures that councils are not losing new homes prematurely. Despite what the shadow Minister continues to assert, that is a significant supply-side reform that helps to deliver the Government’s commitment to back councils to build at a scale not seen in decades.

Councils have been clear to the Government that the risk of early sale deters investment. Removing that risk provides greater certainty over stock and income and supports new development. We recognise the frustration of seeing newly built homes sold so quickly before they can meet local need. The Government’s manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the right to buy, and the introducing the exemption was supported by the vast majority of respondents to our consultation on the basis that it will give councils, as I have said, greater confidence to build new homes and provide greater protection than the existing cost floor rules.

Secondly, the clause exempts homes in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas from the right to buy. That recognises the particular pressures on rural housing where land and planning constraints mean that homes are significantly harder to replace once lost from the social sector. In many cases, replacement is not feasible at all, exacerbating already acute shortages in those areas. There was clear recognition of these challenges in the other place, where the difficulty of replacing rural homes and the importance of protecting stock in these areas was highlighted. This measure responds directly to those concerns and will help safeguard rural social housing.

Existing rural designations will continue to have effect for the purpose of this exemption until we implement the new framework for local authorities to self-designate as rural, as set out in Government amendments 13 to 18, which I will come to shortly, as well as clause 8. The covenants attached to homes that have been sold under the right to buy in rural areas, which restricts sale to a local person or a social landlord, will also continue to apply.

Thirdly and finally, council-owned market rent homes will also be excluded, supporting councils to use mixed tenure and cross-subsidy models to deliver more housing. That recognises the important role that market rent homes can play in enabling councils to generate additional income to reinvest in social and affordable homes. These changes are part of the wider package of reforms to ensure that more homes are built than lost.

Government amendments 13 to 18 deliver on commitments made during the Bill’s passage in the other place to put the criteria for rural designation into regulations. That was a call that came from noble peers on the Opposition Benches. The regulations will use the long-established criteria of a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer. That criteria will be applied using census-derived population data, and local authorities will be expected to ensure that the criteria will continue to be met in relevant areas every 10 years, as new census data becomes available.

It was also agreed in the other place that the Government would explore whether the existing process under which local authorities need to apply to the Government for designation could be replaced with a new system under which local authorities will be able to self-designate rural areas where they meet the criteria. I can confirm that we do intend to implement that change, and these amendments will enable that. These changes will provide transparency on the criteria for rural designation. They will also empower local areas and reduce bureaucracy for both local authorities and the Government compared with the current process, which, as I have said, requires local authorities seeking designation to apply to the Secretary of State, and secondary legislation to be made for each individual designation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

Before I begin my remarks on amendment 102, I declare an interest: my wife works for a social housing provider. I apologise to the Committee for not declaring that before my earlier contribution.

Amendment 102 is a simple amendment that would protect larger homes within social housing stock. It refers to designated rural areas, which the Committee covered during earlier consideration, but also to homes with four or more bedrooms. The reason for that is simple: of all our social housing stock, larger homes are the most precious commodity.

We know that the social housing market makes up 48% of properties that are considered overcrowded in the UK. If we look at Merton or Westminster council, for example, there is a 90 to 99-year wait for a three or more bed property; if we go north to Rochdale, about 550 families there were registered for a four-bed home, but only 14 became available in a year; if we go to Bath in the west of the country, an officer there said that, in principle, a family could be on the register for a four-bed for over 200 years, and added that four-beds are popular under right to buy but are also expensive to build. When you add those comments to our ambition to ensure that overcrowding impacts as few people as possible, making four-bed or larger homes exempt means that we protect the homes we really need.

Amendment 101 is similar to a previous amendment, which went into more detail. It would make sure that each community land trust that provided social housing was also given notice of a sale. It would expand the remit of who is notified, so that if providers were willing to take up those social homes when they were being disposed of, we would retain them in some sort of community ownership.

[Gideon Amos]

I will speak to amendments 5, 6, 1 and 8. Amendment 5 would extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing.

Amendment 6 would extend the timescales of notice from four to eight weeks. I note that, since we tabled the amendment, the Government have come up with their own amendment to extend the timescales; they have obviously been reading everything we table closely. I am glad that we are already having an impact on the Bill and I will be happy to press the amendment to a vote if necessary, to ensure that the Government succeed in getting the change in timescale that they clearly want. Otherwise, depending on the order of voting—I still sometimes have a problem following that—I am sure that one or the other will fulfil the same purpose.

Amendment 1 would require the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of the notice. Amendment 8 is effectively a stop-the-clock amendment, whereby, if negotiations are ongoing for the acquisition of a social home by a local authority, the time period would be extended by a further four weeks. I recognise that the amendment refers to the four-week period in the Bill, which may be extended to eight weeks through other amendments. However, the principle of allowing an extension of time when negotiations are ongoing is significant, and something that the Local Government Association would support. Although I will not push amendment 8 to a vote, it would be helpful if the Minister considered whether an extension could be provided where negotiations are ongoing, so that there is a real chance for the purchase of that property to be completed and for the local authority to succeed in that endeavour.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to Government amendment 19 and respond to each of the eight amendments in this rather large group. I have listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and stakeholders over recent weeks and months that a four-week period between a private provider notifying a council or other provider in their area of the sale of a social home and the disposing of that home is not sufficient for local authorities to consider purchasing the property.

I appreciate that local authorities were concerned that a four-week window would not align with their internal timing constraints, such as monthly cabinet or committee meetings. On that basis, the Government have tabled amendment 19 to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property from four to eight weeks. We think the amendment strikes the right balance between maximising opportunities to retain social homes and not causing undue delays to sales. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made about negotiations that are in train.

Amendments 6 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seek to extend the disposal notification period. Amendment 8, as he just argued, would require an extension of the window to eight weeks where a provider could demonstrate they were taking steps towards purchasing the property. The Government’s amendment 19 goes further than that proposal by requiring eight weeks in all cases, so I hope he will support it.

Amendment 6 would require a further extension to 12 weeks in areas designated as rural. We are not persuaded by the case for a longer notification window specifically for rural areas. A statutory minimum of 12 weeks could unnecessarily delay sales and require providers to deal with the additional burden and costs associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods. I should also stress that the notification period is just a minimum. I would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond that period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair point. The particular reasons that individual providers dispose of stock vary wildly across the country. In the case of disposals that are driven by increases in standards, we are seeing some of that, but it is also the case that there are occasions when local authority or other providers are, for their own reasons, based on their own assessment of the stock, able and willing to take those homes on. I do not think that we can specify a general rule. What we are trying to do here is to give local authorities and other providers the maximum possible opportunity to pick up those stocks and to retain them in the social housing sector, if that is possible. To be very clear and honest with the hon. Member, that may not always be possible, and those homes may be disposed of on the open market, but we want to increase the chances of them being able to be retained in the sector, for all the reasons that we have gone into.

Amendments 1 and 5 would add the Regulator of Social Housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring that our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services that their tenants deserve. As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I am not persuaded that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable it to better regulate against the standards that it sets. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals; that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so it has an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

Amendment 101 would, similarly, require community land trusts with social housing in the area to be notified. Of course, community land trusts that are registered with the Regulator of Social Housing would already be notified under the requirements of the clause. I am aware that not all community land trusts are registered with the regulator, and that is their choice, but the focus of the clause is to keep homes in the regulated sector where it is possible to do so. The notification process is therefore focused on notifying providers that are registered with the regulator.

Amendment 99 would require a sales notice provided to the local authority and other registered providers in the local area to be published on the website of the private registered provider intending to dispose of the property. One of the main aims of the clause is to increase transparency around disposals. However, there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of transparency and the burdens and costs to private registered providers. We believe that the amendment would introduce an unhelpful level of bureaucracy around the disposal notification process. While some providers may choose to publish notifications of sale on their websites, requiring publication via legislation is disproportionate.

[Gideon Amos]

If we are after transparency, I have difficulty with the Minister’s basing his argument on the massive cost of putting something on a website. I understand that it is a tradition of this place that the Government resist all amendments that come from all quarters other than their own, but this seems to be taking things to an illogical conclusion.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I certainly do not make it a point of principle to resist all amendments despite how sensible some will be. The hon. Member will see in the list of Government amendments that we will be debating many points that were raised by noble peers and that we have taken on. I will go away and reflect on how much of a burden this would be, but let me make a general point. This is my third Bill Committee as a Minister, and I sat on probably 13 while in opposition. The natural tendency of Oppositions is to call for further requirements, further regulations, further reviews and further assessments, because often they have nothing more to say on the point of principle of the particular clause. There is a cumulative impact of layering all of that on top. We want to ensure that the balance is struck properly, and that the disposals process is proportionate and is streamlined to an extent, but I will go away and reflect on the particular point and review whether requiring private registered providers to do what he suggests would be as burdensome as we think.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 13

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 2

Noes: 8

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: local housing authorities

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), the local housing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.

(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the local housing authority at existing use value for social housing.

(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.

(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”

This amendment gives local housing authorities a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: registered providers

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), any registered provider which received a sale notice under section 171A(2) may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.

(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the registered provider at existing use value for social housing.

(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.

(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”

This amendment gives registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.

Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: local affordable housing providers

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), where a qualifying local affordable housing provider makes an offer to acquire the dwelling, a private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the qualifying local affordable housing provider at existing use value for social housing.

(3) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing.

(4) In this section, a ‘qualifying local affordable housing provider’ means—

(a) a community land trust;

(b) a housing co-operative;

(c) a community benefit society;

(d) a charity whose purposes include the provision of affordable housing; or

(e) such other locally based not-for-profit housing body as may be prescribed by regulations,

which operates, or intends to operate, affordable housing within the local housing authority area in which the dwelling is situated.

(5) Any dispute as to existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”

This amendment seeks to extend the right of first refusal to not-for-profit community-led housing organisations and other non-registered providers capable of retaining homes as affordable housing within the local area, and provides that the disposal must be at existing use value.

[Gideon Amos]

I will be brief. Amendment 2 would give local housing authorities right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing. The acquisition of those properties at existing use value for social housing, rather than at market value or existing use value, is significant, because obviously the existing use value for social housing is lower. It is important that local authorities have the ability to acquire homes that are being disposed of, so that the net reduction in social housing is not increased. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a right of first refusal for the local authority and other registered providers notified via a sale notice during the notice period. That right would be on the condition that the home would remain as social housing and would require the private registered provider to sell the home at the existing use value for social housing. The corresponding amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, would extend the right of first refusal to specific types of bodies that provide affordable housing. Some of those bodies would be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing, and therefore would already be included within amendment 3, but amendment 10 would also extend the right of first refusal to unregistered housing providers.

I have heard clearly, both on Second Reading and today, the desire of hon. Members to protect social homes. I very much share that desire, but that must be balanced with the ability of private providers to operate efficiently and manage their housing assets, including by investing in more new homes or their existing stock. Sometimes that can mean selling a social home out of the sector. I can assure the Committee that I have fought long and hard, and challenged officials—they can verify that with nods—to ensure that we look in a lot of detail at what requirements can be put in place, and what levers we can try to pull, to keep as many social homes in the regulated sector as possible.

A key consideration when thinking through possible interventions is the reality that interfering with private registered providers’ freedom to use and sell their assets as they wish would present a significant risk of reclassifying the sector. Not only would that bring £110 billion of debt on to the public books, but it would bring with it risk and uncertainty that could impact on the investment in the sector that is so needed.

As I have said, I hope the disposals measure in the Bill will ensure greater transparency around disposals and support better dialogue between private registered providers and local authorities. I hope it will also focus minds to ensure that we minimise any negative impact resulting from disposals. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a private registered provider from choosing to sell to another provider at a lower price on the understanding that it remains social housing. I hope that the notification requirement introduced by the Bill will support such discussions. I am very open to ideas about what more can be done to support that dialogue, and I have tasked my officials to work with the sector to identify and promote good practice, as well as to explore what more the Government might do to reinforce it.

Given the issues that I have highlighted, I believe we will get the best results by working together with private registered providers and local authorities to explore what more they can do and where we can support them to keep homes in the regulated sector. For the reasons that I have set out, primarily around reclassification risk, we cannot accept the amendments, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment 2.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. The amendments are genuinely intended to provide councils with the ability to acquire stock rather than see it lost from the social housing sector. This is a particularly important area and, I believe, an important amendment. I understand the risks of reclassification on to the public sector balance sheet. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to publish the advice he has received on that, because the sector will want to understand why first refusal cannot be given to local authorities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the attempt, let us say, to have confidential advice to Ministers published in the round. That is not the usual practice—

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

As we remember the 72 victims of Grenfell and the many who are still waiting for justice, I know the Secretary of State and Members from across the whole House share the same commitment to do right by them, to ensure such a calamity never happens again, and to do better for all the leaseholders and residents living with unsafe cladding through no fault of their own.

We need a Bill that will, once and for all, make people’s homes not just safer but as safe as their residents have a right to expect them to be. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to getting the removal of unsafe cladding urgently and by a statutory deadline, to getting remediation to the right safety standard—the one that building regulations were uprated to post-Grenfell—and to residents not having to pay a penny towards fixing a crisis not of their own making. We will look at the amendments that have just been outlined, and we look forward studying them when they come forward. Sadly, as the Bill stands it does none of those things and, because of that, it is substandard and needs radical improvement.

On the plus side, let me be clear about the positive aspects of the Bill that we support. We support the legal duty for responsible entities to remediate, including the important extension of the duty in relation to buildings of 11 to 18 metres in height. We support the stronger intervention powers for housing authorities and the regulator against the blockers, such as through remediation management orders. We support making it easier to bring claims against cladding manufacturers, and we support requirements to have fire risk assessments of external walls and associated registers.

For those reasons, we have not gone as far as tabling a fatal amendment, despite the very serious flaws, as we see them. It would be wrong to deny support to any leaseholders or residents who without this Bill would get less help, but I call on the Government to consider seriously the degree to which the Bill is lacking. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State or the Bill, the Government need to think harder and bring forward amendments that are urgently needed to strengthen the Bill. In the stages that follow Second Reading, we will be suggesting and proposing changes, and working with the Government as constructively as we can to get the improvements that we believe are necessary.

Where does the Bill fall short? First and foremost, it enshrines into law the discredited publicly available specification 9980—PAS 9980—approach. As shown in clause 44, that will allow cladding of “tolerable” risk of combustion to remain on homes after they have been remediated. One may expect “tolerable” risk to be no more than the level of risk allowed in new buildings under the building regulations, as tightened up after Grenfell, but as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has already alluded to, it is not that standard. In this Bill, remediation will be only to a standard that a fire risk assessor decides is “tolerable”. We are talking about fire risk assessors paid by building owners, who are more likely than not to have commercial interests in doing as few works as possible to their building. While I am sure that most assessors are reliable professionals, given that the Grenfell inquiry report chaired by judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick cited “commercial interests” in this area of work as one of the contributory factors to the fire, is retaining commercial interests in the system of fire risk assessment, assessors and building inspectors a risk worth taking?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman and I have common cause in this respect, and I rely on the expertise of my constituents in this matter. The PAS 9980 approach was not reassuring for insurers. There was a big problem with insurance anyway, but PAS 9980 does not solve it, because it does not give insurers the certainty they need to do the risk assessment. I am not here as an apologist for the insurance industry—in fact, there are many issues that we will be taking up with that industry—but this approach is not the answer. Given his level of deep expertise in this matter before he came to the place, what would the hon. Gentleman propose instead? Is there an amendment to the Bill that he and the Government could coalesce around and reach agreement on?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Member is very kind—I am sure my experience is as great as many other Members of the House. I am coming to what we believe would be a preferable standard. Our approach is that these issues of “commercial interests” should be expunged from the Bill, and that the tolerability approach should be removed. We believe that existing homes and buildings should be remediated to meet the standard of fire safety required in the building regulations that were uprated in 2018, after Grenfell.

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

Although this Bill is specifically about the remediation of cladding, this issue goes further. Building control is typically undertaken or at least instructed by the local planning authority, and is now instructed and employed by the developers. When my constituents Trisha and Ray moved into their new build in Wimborne, they found that the structural issues in their property had not been independently signed off. They have now found that no one has access to the structural drawings of their building other than the inspector, so when they had problems with their roof, the council had no details, they could not access details and they could not check compliance. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the protection of residents, an ethical wall needs to be created between developers and inspectors, with proper enforcement and mandatory Housing Ombudsman Service membership for developers?

[Gideon Amos]

I certainly support my hon. Friend’s plea. I will come to the issue of the independence of building inspectors, which is very important.

Let me return to standards. The building regulations are the standard that the Government have set; they are needed for newly built homes to be safe, so the same standard therefore has to apply to the homes that people already live in. I have visited high-rise apartments in London and elsewhere, and seen them covered in scaffolding and being remediated under the developer scheme, but many of them are being left with so much cladding breaching building regulations and fire safety standards that residents cannot get insurance.

It is the insurance that really gives the game away. If the building really was safe, why would the insurance premiums be so high? We have increases in insurance costs of 56% and higher. For that reason, many owners cannot sell or get a new mortgage, so they sink into negative equity and become mortgage prisoners in their own home.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is making a very important point. Does he agree that the high insurance costs are in no way caused by any action taken by the residents who are forced to pay them? In all honesty, they deserve compensation.

[Gideon Amos]

Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman almost read the next line of my speech—I do not know how he did that from his seat over there.

Leaseholders and residents should not have to pay a penny for defects that were not their fault. Thousands of pounds extra in insurance are being paid by completely innocent homeowners to compensate for a safety standard that, while of course is better than nothing, is quite frankly not the standard that it should be—and that is after remediation to the standard has been carried out through this Bill. Meeting the established building regulations standard would perhaps cost more, but why should residents be condemned to live in buildings remediated to a lesser standard than the one that we consider safe for new homes?

The profit motive needs to be expunged from building inspector services generally, and the Bill fails to do that. We need to remove commercial interests from building inspectors and fire risk assessors by placing them all under a publicly controlled, non-profit making authority. There is still no statutory certification requirement for a competent person to become a fire risk assessor. When will those measures be brought forward, as has been promised in previous legislation?

The second big omission is that this Bill provides no more funding for those in buildings under 11 metres in height now that the funding window has closed. While medium-rise buildings come more firmly into scope, which is welcome, why should any residents be forced to pay to put right bad practice that was not their fault? Leaseholders in Taunton and Wellington and across the country are already paying ground rents that are too high to absentee landlords for nothing in return, as abolishing residential leasehold seems to recede further and further into the future.

The Bill fails to give residents the right to see their building’s fire risk assessment and to give local authorities the resources to deliver the new enforcement duties. It also fails to commit the Government to making manufacturers—those that make unsafe products that cause fire—pay. That leaves the onus on others to pursue them through slow and costly court action. It is our position that, in those ways, the Bill fails to fully implement the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. Finally, there is no deadline in the Bill by which all the defects revealed by Grenfell across the tall buildings estate will be put right.

The fire safety of all homes needs to meet the standard that we require for new homes. Existing residents are no less worthy of that than the residents of future homes, who will benefit from the building regulations standard. The commercial interests that ran rife in building safety inspections in the lead-up to Grenfell need to be rooted out once and for all, and residents and leaseholders must not be expected to pay a penny towards repairing a crisis they are completely innocent of causing. We must make homes fully safe under building regulations revised for that purpose; make oversight and inspection independent, not profit-dependent; hold developers and manufacturers to account by pursuing them for the costs; protect leaseholders, including those in buildings under 11 metres; and put residents at the heart of remediation, so that they can see the assessments of their homes and have a real, statutory deadline. That is the Bill that the House needed to see today, and it is the Bill we will work hard to shape through its remaining stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

I unreservedly welcome the Bill. The story of the cladding crisis arose out of the appalling tragedy at Grenfell on that night over nine years ago, when all those people died in the place they should have felt most safe—their home. They died because of a series of catastrophic failures.

The first and most obvious failure was that cladding was allowed to be put in combinations on the sides of buildings when no one had actually tested what would happen if those combinations caught fire. It is astonishing, when one looks back at it, that architects were able to specify combinations. We now know that when some of those combinations had been put on rigs and set fire to—boom!—they had gone up very quickly.

The second thing—my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke so well—is that we are here, over nine years after the event, and we still have not sorted it out. I am much struck by the example that he quoted from Australia; he is right. Many of my constituents have been affected by the cladding scandal. For most of them, it is fair to say, their homes have now been dealt with, but there are still far too many people whose homes have not been. The reaction of the Government at the time was, “Well, it’s not really our responsibility.” They had to be forced by stages, over the years, to do more and more.

There was also a failure to build the blocks in line with the building regulations at the time. It is one thing to look at the cladding—people said, “Oh, I didn’t know that was a problem”—but as it was pulled off buildings, one after another, what did we find? We found that the fire-stopping measures, the firebreaks, were missing—even though that was a requirement of the building regulations at the time. This is a story of a load of jerry-built buildings that people lived in for many years, as one Member said, with no idea that they were living in a fire trap. I make that point because, on occasion, I have heard Members in this Chamber lambast Britain as an over-regulated society. I mean, give us a break! This story is a monumental failure of regulation. People died as a result, and many other people’s lives have been put on hold, as we have heard.

I join others in paying tribute to the End Our Cladding Scandal group, Leeds Cladding Scandal, and the many constituents who have raised cases with me and who have worked so hard to try to change the circumstances in which they find themselves. Time and again, people have said to me, as they have to all other hon. Members, “I thought I’d bought the home of my dreams, and I find I’m living in a nightmare that I don’t seem able to get out of.” Many Members have referred to people’s lives being put on hold. That is absolutely true: they cannot get on with things, whether having a family or moving to another part of the country where they have been offered a good job, because they cannot sell their flat. There appears to be no escape. The bills go up, the waking watches are costly, insurance is expensive and service charges go up. I remember the first constituent who told me, “I’ve had to move out of my flat.” I said, “You’ve moved out of your flat?” He said, “Yes, I couldn’t afford the bills, so I moved out of my flat; I’m now renting it, so I can pay the bills that I can’t afford in the flat that I thought was the home of my dreams.”

Each block, particularly the ones that have not yet been remediated, is a very complex story—changing ownership, developers disappearing or going bust, the legal pass the parcel, which was mentioned in a previous speech, and mortgage lenders refusing to lend. The hard truth is that no legislation is going to require a mortgage lender to lend on a property it does not want to lend on. The mortgage lenders therefore have to have confidence.

[Gideon Amos]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a typically cogent, sensible speech. Is not the logical conclusion of what he is driving at that buildings should be remediated to a standard such that they can be insured at reasonable levels and will get mortgages, and that that is the building regulation standard we require for new buildings?

[Hilary Benn]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he arguing that a mortgage lender should be required by law—

[Gideon Amos]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

No, the hon. Gentleman is not; I did not think that he was. That is a fundamental problem. It is about confidence in the system and in the property. Too many of my constituents still worry that they could be landed with bills they simply cannot afford. Someone said to me, “Thirty thousand quid? It might as well be 30 million quid, because I can’t afford thirty thousand.”

I want to raise three specific issues. First, I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said in her opening speech about those who have bought non-qualifying flats. As I was reflecting on the question I put to her about making the measure retrospective, I realised that that probably is not an issue here. The sole owner of a flat that was deemed to be non-qualifying will be relieved of the requirement to meet the costs themselves and will be eligible for the support that other leaseholders have.

The second issue relates to blocks below 11 metres. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). There is a development in Leeds called the Chandlers; some of the blocks are over 11 metres and some are below 11 metres. Applications have been made to the new fund that was opened—from memory, the closing day was 17 August. There will be lots of applications, and we do not know who will be successful and who will not. I seek clarity from the Minister. As I understand it, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, a “responsible person” is required to carry out fire risk assessments on all buildings and put in place measures to address fire risks they identify. A House of Commons Library briefing note states:

“Since 2022, this risk assessment duty has included assessing the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding”.

Although the Government generally argue that most buildings under 11 metres do not present a risk, what is the situation in cases where there is a risk in those buildings? For example, a PAS 9980 assessment was done for the Chandlers. The residents were first told that the blocks under 11 metres were a high risk; they were then told that those blocks were a medium risk. But hey—a medium risk is still a risk. Would you want to live in a block that has a medium risk of catching fire, putting your life at risk? I have read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum on this point quite hurriedly, and it appears that these particular powers apply to buildings of over 11 metres. However, since the Government have said, “We are prepared to provide funding for buildings under 11 metres,” can the Minister tell me whether any of the powers in the legislation as it is currently drafted apply to blocks of under 11 metres and the people responsible for them? If not, if such a block has got a PAS 9980 assessment that says, “This is a risk”, then why, logically, would we not extend these powers to ensure the remediation of blocks under 11 metres?

Finally, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) in making a plea about people who really, really, really need to move. Could the Government think creatively about developers buying back flats or, as was said a moment ago, the local authority purchasing them? We want more social housing, and each one would be one more unit. I wonder whether we could see what might be done to help people who really needed to move—for example, if their mother were extremely ill and they needed to move in order to look after her.

Having said that, our constituents who still live in unsafe flats have waited far too long to have them made safe, and I look forward to the Bill making very speedy passage through both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions. As the Secretary of State, the shadow Minister and many hon. and right hon. Members outlined, next June will mark a decade since the Grenfell fire disaster took the lives of 72 people, including 18 children. None of us can imagine the horror that survivors, families and friends suffered that day, and the community will continue to carry that trauma, anguish and suffering throughout their lives.

It is a tragedy that should never have happened, and one that must never happen again, but we must be honest and say that it is unacceptable that far too many people in this country still do not have the safety and security of a safe roof over their heads, nine years after Grenfell. This is not just about building safety; it is about giving everyone the peace of mind that a safe, decent and affordable home brings. We must ask ourselves how we can expect anyone to sleep soundly, and get on in life, if the building they sleep in every night is covered in dangerous and flammable cladding. The building safety crisis must be resolved, homes must be made safe, and residents must be allowed to live their lives.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that made commitments to accelerate remediation, better protect leaseholders and make those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right. Our remediation acceleration plan and this Bill deliver on that pledge. By introducing a register of 11 to 18 metre buildings and a national standard for assessing buildings, the Bill will finally bring certainty on the scale of the problem and the work required to fix it. By creating a new legal duty to remediate, backed up by substantial new penalties for inaction, we will compel those responsible to fix their buildings without delay.

[Gideon Amos]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way during a very serious and measured speech. She referred to the standard of remediation. A number of Members, including myself, raised use of the standard of tolerability instead of building regulations. Are the Government willing to review the standard of remediation so that after remediation, buildings are not left, as they are now, with flammable cladding on the outside?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A number of Members have raised the matter of remediation standards. I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is sitting next to him, also raised it in a recent Westminster Hall debate that I responded to.

Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the Bill will make independent auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls mandatory. We are confident that PAS 9980 has a robust and appropriate methodology for assessing the risk of fire spreading throughout the building. The Bill will also look at the independent auditing and the statutory requirement, ensuring that additional checks on those assessments have been carried out properly. To reassure Members, Homes England will also audit all assessments that recommend mitigation and remediation and will have the power to audit other assessments.

By delivering the remediation backstop, we will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind, even if the person responsible for the building is determined to ignore the risks it presents to residents. By creating stronger avenues for redress against construction product manufacturers, we will ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards the cost of fixing it.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, Baroness Blake, for bringing the Bill forward. I also thank all the Ministers who came before me for the work they did to make this Bill a reality, including the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali).

Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests—I am a social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats support and recognise the work that has been done on Awaab’s law and its passing in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which we supported as a major step forward. We therefore welcome the draft regulations to extend the hazards in the definition. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire, who made a good speech on the efficacy of Awaab’s law. My constituents have also found it useful in securing action on matters such as damp and mould and so forth.

The electrical regulations appear to be a tidying-up exercise. I do not have any further comments, and we are happy to support them. In regard to the social housing regulations, has consideration been given to extending the hazards to encompass overcrowding? I was pleased to campaign over a number of years in different roles to restore minimum space standards in housing; when I trained as an architect many decades ago, those were a requirement, until the Thatcher Government swept them away and we ended up with the second smallest homes in Europe. I was delighted that we campaigned for that cross party and that Liberal Democrat Minister Don Foster brought in nationally prescribed space standards. However, there is not much point in having space standards if the homes themselves are completely overcrowded. We are therefore interested to hear from the Minister whether consideration has been given to including overcrowding in the hazards in these or future regulations. Other than that, we stand in support of the regulations.

Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for bringing to the House an important debate on an issue that affects a lot of our constituencies. I also thank all the Members who contributed today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster)—indeed, I thank him for contributing in this Chamber for the second time today.

The Liberal Democrats want to see more homes built, principally the 150,000 council and social rent homes that the country needs, but the right way to deliver those homes is by working with communities and trusting them, and prioritising brownfield sites, the 700,000 empty homes in the country, and the 500,000 homes that could be provided in empty commercial buildings, according to the London School of Economics.

When it comes to the green belt, few of us, and certainly not the Liberal Democrats, would object to a community deciding, through its democratic local plan, to release formerly green-belt land for its own reasons, and particularly for social homes. But the Government’s grey-belt policy is not that. It is being abused, giving carte blanche to development pretty much anywhere and, as it is currently set out in the national planning policy framework, it has to go. We were told that “grey belt” meant disused car parks and old petrol stations, but the CPRE has found that, in the first year, 88% of homes approved on the grey belt at appeal were on land that had never been built on, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam also pointed out.

In this Chamber in July, the Minister told us:

“The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 466WH.]

There is a definition there, but for me it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It omits to protect two of the green belt’s five purposes—safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and recycling derelict land. Because the purposes that are left do not apply to villages, it has also removed villages from the green-belt protections that they have had for more than a century, so a field on the edge of a green-belt village is very likely to be grey belt. Developers know it and are trying their luck.

On 7 September, the Secretary of State told the House that she is

“strengthening and clarifying the rules around the release of grey belt”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 643.]

If there is no confusion, what is being clarified? The answer so far has been to take the test for protected landscapes out of the definition altogether. That widens the grey belt rather than tightening it. On the same day, the Minister confirmed that the Government do not collect data on how much land councils have identified as grey belt. Will the Minister commit to collecting that? My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) asked for that last October.

The new national planning policy framework requires every green-belt council to plan for grey-belt releases, allocated in its local plan. But since the Government’s grey-belt rules allow any developer to apply for grey-belt development on any site, whether or not it has been allocated as grey belt in the local plan, there can be little point in pretending that the local plan approach is the only one, or that grey-belt development is, in any sense, being plan led.

Developers do not need a grey-belt policy to redevelop an old petrol station in any event. Redeveloping previously developed land in the green belt has been allowed since 2012, if not longer, as long as it does not harm openness more than the development previously there. What grey belt adds is the field next to it, and it is decided at appeal, rather than through the local plan—that is, rather than by the local community. That is another instance where community powers have been stripped away in what the Town and Country Planning Association has called an “unprecedently permissive” planning regime.

This policy comes into play where there is unmet need—in practice, where a council cannot show a five-year land supply. In Somerset, the Government are mandating that another 75,000 homes—a 41% increase—should be found in the next local plan. I have not met anyone who believes that is realistic or achievable. The targets are derived from the Government’s new standard method, which has in one fell swoop thrown much of England under the threat of development, as the majority of councils cannot meet such impossible targets under the new standard method. It would take them the two-year local plan process to escape that threat, and millions of pounds to boot. This could be called a developer’s charter but, unfortunately, many of these sites are not being developed, so it is more of a land speculator’s charter.

Developers, not the community, end up selecting which part of the green belt is up for grabs. Villages are hit hardest, not just because they have lost their green-belt protection but because for many, if not all, the new targets have undermined the one thing that has reliably delivered affordable homes for local people in rural areas: rural exception sites. Last week, I brought to the House an example from an inspector’s decision in Gweek, Cornwall.

The Minister told us in July that the framework makes exception sites easier. In reality, exception sites work where agricultural land that is worth, say, £12,000 an acre cannot be sold for a higher price for commercial housing due to strict planning rules, so it might as well be allowed to be sold for agricultural value, or a little more, for social housing that helps the village. The Government, however, have now told every landowner around villages and elsewhere that their acre could be worth not just £12,000 but anything from £150,000 to £3 million—the price of land with residential permission—because those strict planning policy preventions no longer apply, and because anyone can apply for it to be developed as grey belt anywhere in the green belt.

If a landowner is told that their field might be grey belt, why would they sell it for £12,000 for social housing, when they could get £150,000 or more? It would definitely be more in the home counties and near London. Hope value has always been the enemy of exception sites, and the way that the grey belt has been implemented has created hope value around every village and green belt—so goodbye to social housing on such exception sites. Building the kind of homes that villages lack just got harder.

We do agree on the golden rules, which rightly require more affordable and social housing where green-belt land is released. That is absolutely right, but it does not mean that valuable green spaces should be up for grabs. Ironically, an area with no green belt can be better protected from some of these policies, but that does not mean that our green spaces in Taunton and Wellington are safe.

In Taunton, we have green wedges—countryside running right into the town and doing the job that the green belt does elsewhere—but those spaces have only local policy protection. Earlier this year, consultants recommended releasing Trull green wedge from its green wedge status, ironically because it was the last bit of green remaining in a built-up area. That is something that, in my opinion, made it more valuable not less. An application for 125 homes quickly followed, because the council, like most in England, cannot meet its new five-year land supply. Our councillors rightly refused the application. Fortunately, it was under the 150 homes limit, above which councillors must now ask Whitehall’s permission to refuse a development.

The appeals public inquiry has just begun showing how thin green wedge protection is. The green belt, green wedges and local green spaces can all be weakened by the next rewriting of the framework, without this House having a vote. In the Liberal Democrats’ view, all communities—not just those in the green belt—should have a stronger and longer-lasting way to protect their most precious green spaces.

What should we do instead? First, we should scrap the grey belt and instead release green-belt land through community-led local plans, with the golden rules applying in full and with social homes at their heart. Secondly, we should keep the long-standing exception for previously developed land, and make brownfield-first a legal requirement. Thirdly, we should give communities who review their green belt 20 years’ statutory protection for the green wedges and green belt that they prioritise. That would give them confidence that, instead of a free-for-all, their most precious green spaces will be protected in law for the long term.

If people are to accept the homes that we need—and we do need them—they must have confidence in the protection for the bits of green space that are most precious to them and most dear to those communities, as our amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 set out. We were promised that the grey belt would turn old petrol stations into homes, but what it is actually delivering is the loss of green field after green field, as decided by the Government’s policy issued in Whitehall. It is time to scrap it and put communities back in charge of their green belt and their green spaces.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous and highly effective parliamentarian, whom I have the upmost respect for, and he opened the debate with a characteristically incisive and challenging contribution. I thank him for the opportunity he has given the Chamber to debate this issue, and I will seek in the course of my remarks to respond to each of his specific points.

I also thank the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I appreciate fully that this topic provokes strong views, to put it mildly, but in the time I have available, I hope to provide some further clarity on the Government’s green belt policy, specifically the nuances of national policy relating to grey belt. Hon. Members and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I will be unable to comment in detail on individual local plans, planning applications or how individual local planning authorities may interpret national planning policy.

As the right hon. and learned Member made clear in his opening remarks, the definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the “National Planning Policy Framework”. It is defined, for the purposes of plan making and decision making, as

“land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not…contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d)”,

as set out in NPPF policy GB2. As I make that point, it is also worth making it clear that we have not altered the five purposes of the green belt that we inherited. They remain as they were, and we do not propose to alter the general extent of the green belt either.

I will come on to expand on the role of local planning authorities in the process. It is for individual local planning authorities to undertake the necessary assessments to identify if land is grey belt, either through plan making or through considering specific applications that come forward. Let me take each of those in turn, starting with plan making, and in doing so gently push back on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster).

This is, and is intended to be, a plan-led approach. The NPPF allows for local planning authorities to alter green belt boundaries using the local development plan process in “exceptional circumstances”. That includes situations where a local authority is unable to meet its identified need for development, having examined all other reasonable options for doing so, including making as much use as possible of suitable previously developed land, optimising the density of development and assessing whether sufficient sites can be identified outside the green belt. As set out in NPPF policy GB2, any decision to alter green belt boundaries should be informed by a green belt assessment, which identifies grey-belt land within the green belt.

Following the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, the Government awarded over £9.3 million to 133 local planning authorities to support them with the costs of undertaking such green belt reviews. An assessment of the strategic role of the green belt should also inform the preparation of spatial development strategies, as legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, where these will be setting the strategic context for land release.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is always generous with his time and in responding to interventions, which is appreciated by all of us. If the intention is that this should be a plan-led approach, will he remove the provisions in the NPPF that allow developers to claim that their land is grey belt through an application by reference to the policies that have been put in the NPPF for such grey belt decisions to be made outside of the local plan process through individual planning applications?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey belt, if that is part of the application that is submitted. Where there is disagreement and it goes to appeal, I have set out exactly how planning inspectors need to determine such applications.

It is crucial to note that where grey belt is identified, it does not automatically follow that it should be allocated for development or released from the green belt, or that development proposals be approved in all circumstances. Other considerations in decision making are relevant, as I will expand upon shortly. I also want to stress that any alterations to green belt boundaries must promote sustainable patterns of development by ensuring that any alterations, taken together, do not fundamentally undermine the five green belt purposes of the remaining green belt when considered across the plan area. Considerations also include giving priority to the release of previously developed land in the green belt, then considering low-quality grey-belt land, which will include disused petrol stations and other previously developed land of that kind, although not necessarily be limited to it, and only then exploring other green belt locations.

To respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on whether allocating grey-belt land for development will necessarily lead to the cumulative erosion of the green belt over time, I would point out two things. First, as I have already mentioned, development proposals on grey-belt land must respond to a demonstrable unmet need—I will come to his points about the standard method shortly. Secondly, it is precisely to avoid the situation that we inherited—which was a haphazard and piecemeal approach to green belt land designation and release—that this Government have implemented the approach that we have. Its effective working is predicated on ensuring that designation and release take place in a strategic manner over time through local plans with a 10-year horizon, and in due course—because they are just as important—through spatial development strategies with a 20-year horizon. We want the approach to be plan-led.

Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing today’s important debate and setting out the issue so clearly. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) on all the hard work he is doing to deal with the Halloween horror of panels falling in the town centre.

I pay tribute to the 72 victims of the Grenfell disaster. No debate should pass without recognising how grotesquely they were failed by the systems that were meant to protect them. Let us not forget what the public inquiry panel, chaired by the judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, said in its epic report on the disaster. On building inspectors, it said:

“We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.”

Similarly, it said that the Building Research Establishment

“sacrificed rigorous application of principle to its commercial interests.”

I will return to commercial interests shortly.

The remediation Bill announced in the King’s Speech is expected to make it a legal requirement that every fire risk appraisal of external walls be carried out according to the publicly available specification, or PAS 9980, standard produced by the British Standards Institution. That document decides whether, by law, a leaseholder’s building requires remediation or is considered safe.

The final version of that document has only just been published, but the draft that went out to consultation should worry us and every leaseholder in the country, and we need to know whether its deficiencies have been fixed. First, it says:

“Failure of a building to meet the benchmarks given in building regulations...at the time when the building was built, should not be used as the sole basis for determining the outcome of the FRAEW.”

That means that a building can still pass the PAS 9980 test even if it is proven not to have complied with the building regulations in force when it was built. The fire safety order manages fire safety in occupied buildings on the assumption that they met the building regulations when they were built. The remediation regime should require the same standard that developers should have met when constructing the building, and that others were, and continue to be, required to meet when constructing buildings.

What is remediation for if not to make buildings meet the standards they should always have met? Frankly, what is the point of having building regulations for leaseholders in this position if they are not enforced in such clear circumstances? Can the Minister reassure leaseholders that the newly published standard requires the remediation of failures to comply with the building regulations that were in force at the time of construction? Such questions also point to worrying failures to enforce building regulations more generally, far beyond fire safety, which could lead to an unfolding tide of undiscovered construction failings.

After what we have heard from Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the panel in the Grenfell public inquiry report, any notion that the profit motive has a continuing role in building inspection following those tragic events is unacceptable and cannot be sustained. I am disappointed that the building control independent panel has recommended the continuation of private sector, and therefore profit-seeking, roles in building inspection. That is what got us into this mess; it will not get us out of it. The Liberal Democrats are calling for building control services to be in-house in local or regional authorities, or otherwise not for profit.

As we have heard, the second deficiency in PAS 9980 is the gap between “tolerable” and “low”. Where an appraisal finds a tolerable risk, the draft allows for the work that is needed to bring that risk down to low to be delayed. The commentary on clause 7 suggests

“recommending upgrading the performance of external wall components if/when there is any refurbishment of the external walls in future.”

If and when is not good enough for families who have to live in unsafe homes and with the knowledge that their external walls contain flammable material, sometimes including materials that are more flammable than that used on Grenfell Tower. The leaseholder pays for that wait in insurance premiums, mortgage difficulties and living in a building that is only partially safe. For too many, it also renders useless the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act, as they apply to unsafe cladding, and this cladding is not considered unsafe.

If components are found to pose a tolerable risk, are they unsafe? Why should they not be removed to reduce the risk to low? We have heard about the challenge of getting insurance; if buildings were remediated to the standard to which they should have been built in the first place and all flammable materials were removed, residents would not have any problem in getting insurance. Developers cannot be asked to come back to finish the job under those circumstances, because the developer remediation contract only requires a building to be brought up to the “tolerable” standard. Can the Minister confirm whether the newly published standard requires all the work needed to reach a low-risk outcome to be undertaken at the same time?

These are not technical quibbles. The Department’s own figures, published in August, show that of the 4,600 buildings being monitored, only 1,800 have completed remediation, and over 2,000 of the 4,600 required remediations have not even been started, meaning. That means that in 46% of buildings with unsafe cladding no work has begun—nine years on from Grenfell, as other Members have pointed out—and the Department estimates that somewhere between 1,100 and 2,600 more buildings are in scope but have not yet been identified.

Meanwhile, leaseholders continue to struggle under the cladding crisis, buying properties that they believed met safety standards but that they now realise do not, and are suffering huge increases in premiums and so on. Many developers and building owners have passed on the cost of remediation work to tenants and leaseholders, putting many of them, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. The Liberal Democrats, following the policy passed by our conference last year on the great property rip-off, are therefore calling for the removal of all such flammable cladding, whether above or below 11 metres, as soon as possible and without tenants or leaseholders, including non-qualifying leaseholders, having to pay.

After all, those who bought leases placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down. The fault was not theirs. Solicitors’ searches would have shown that buildings had not met building regulations. Homeowners were misled, and it was not their fault. They should not have to pay a penny towards that work. That is why my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place on Friday, would protect leaseholders in buildings of any height and would put developers, contractors and manufacturers on the hook for the cost.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister six things. Will she set out the changes between the consultation draft and the recent version of PAS 9980, which was published the other day? Will she make it clear that a building that has been found to fail the building regulations that were in force when it was built must be remediated back to the building regulations standard, and that the work needed to reach a low-risk outcome should be done once, not deferred to some future refurbishment? Will leaseholder protections be extended to every leaseholder in every defective building, including the hundreds of thousands excluded from the building safety regime? Will the Government commit to driving profit-making commercial interest out of every part of building control inspections and official product testing certifications, and to making physical inspections the norm once again in every development? What more will the Government do to end delays at the Building Safety Regulator? Finally, will the Government confirm that the remediation Bill will provide for cladding manufacturers to be pursued for their share of the costs of remediation, which they have at least partly caused?

We welcomed the legally enforceable duty to remediate on pain of criminal sanction, and we still do, but a duty to remediate is only as good as the standard against which it is measured. Commercial interest should have no place in policing commercial projects for safety and building regulations. Residents in Taunton and Wellington, in London and across the country deserve nothing less. Above all, the victims of the terrible and avoidable disaster at Grenfell deserve justice.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my experience as a social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a major programme of social housing—150,000 homes per year—so there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and we will support it today. Extending the qualifying period to 10 years and cutting discounts will slow the loss of social homes, as we have been hearing. Protecting a newly built social home from sale for 35 years should give councils more confidence to build again, as will the improved right of first refusal. The protections for tenants fleeing domestic abuse are welcome and overdue, and we support them. So there are important steps in the right direction, but the Bill as a whole is nowhere near the scale of what is needed.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, right to buy was not on its own the biggest issue; it was the complete failure to replace properties, home for home. Thanks to the Conservatives, in Taunton and Wellington, as in the rest of the country, there are thousands fewer council homes than there used to be, all while the need for social housing has grown and grown. There are 4 million fewer council houses in this country than there were in 1980. Even taking into account replacements, social housing and registered social landlords, the number of social homes in this country has dropped by 1.5 million homes.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the majority of what the hon. Gentleman has said so far; he may come on to things that I do not agree with later in his speech, but we will have to wait and see. Will he reflect on the fact that the impact of councils losing their council housing stock has been that they have had to spend more and more money on temporary accommodation? It is a zero-sum game for local councils and the impact on families and young people has been particularly difficult, including in my constituency of Harlow.

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Member for I forget where—he does not mention it very often, but maybe it is Harlow. He is right and I will come to exactly that point about temporary accommodation.

The Resolution Foundation found that only one home was replaced for every five sold. That is a direct failure of Governments of all persuasions to build enough social housing. The Conservatives reversed their policy of allowing councils to spend 100% of receipts soon after they introduced it. In comparison, in 2004, a Labour Government required three quarters of receipts to be sent straight to the Treasury. Homes were sold at around half their value, and what money there was from receipts went elsewhere, not into building new social homes, and building rates plummeted.

I am glad that the new Prime Minister talks a good game on devolution, but even under the measures in this Bill, councils will remain unable to stop the loss of council homes from right to buy. The Liberal Democrats would give councils that power to end right to buy in their areas, if that is right for them and their communities. The Government should trust councils to understand their communities and their own housing markets.

When it comes to the Conservatives, who seem to be chasing their ideological bedfellows in the Reform party, apparently the priority is not building housing; it is finding a minority to blame for the problem—a group to alienate as “the other” when we should be focusing on building for the whole of the UK and everyone who lives here. Their amendment banning people who are not full British citizens from social housing overlooks the fact that people subject to immigration control are already ineligible for social housing—that is the law—but they want to go further.

The nurse on the ward at Musgrove Park hospital, in my constituency, would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment and would not be allowed to have a social home or a council house. The care worker who looked after people during the pandemic would not be welcome under this Conservative amendment. Under a Conservative Government, they would have nowhere to live when it comes to council and social housing. That is ironic for a party that has produced two Prime Ministers born outside Britain. As the Member of Parliament for Taunton and Wellington, I do not know whether I should inform his grace the Duke of Wellington that the first Duke of Wellington would not fully be a British citizen under the Conservative amendment tabled today because he was born outside Britain.

[Gareth Bacon]

That is total rubbish!

[Gideon Amos]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads the Conservative amendment that refers to reserving social housing for British citizens.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Duke of Wellington was British.

[Gideon Amos]

No, the Duke of Wellington was not born in Britain—the hon. Gentleman needs to have a look at his history books—[Interruption.] Regardless of the history of the Duke of Wellington, attempts to use the Bill to pump up divisive culture-war claptrap does not deserve our attention. Rather than pointing the finger of blame at minorities, we should be talking about how to build more social homes, and that is exactly what I will go on to do.

The failure to replace social homes, among other factors, means that more and more people are in temporary accommodation. There are 132,000 households in temporary accommodation, and councils spent £2.8 billion on it last year. The scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation exists for far too many children, and that is why we need a big public housing programme to match the scale of the challenge. If for no other reason, we must do that because it is incumbent on all of us in this House, across parties, to end the tragic loss of children’s lives. The Shared Health Foundation has highlighted that temporary accommodation was found by a coroner to be a contributing factor in the deaths of 104 children in the last five years.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I have almost 180 families in Woking in temporary accommodation, and it is tragic for them. Some 20 of them are located outside the borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure councils can locate people in temporary accommodation locally so that it does not devastate their lives as much as it does at the moment?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. People should be able to stay in their communities, and we need local, affordable housing and social housing at scale to deal with that issue.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Tory idea of capping the local housing allowance would mean that families who cannot afford to stay in their area will have to move out of the area, tear their children out of school and turn their lives upside down?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the local housing allowance and the huge effect that it has on local families and housing markets. It needs to be uprated. I must return to my speech, or you will start giving me looks, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Among other things, we must free up councils to build. My Lib Dem colleagues on Somerset council would build 600 council houses; they are already building council housing in parts of the county for the first time in a generation. The council has sites for another 600 houses and wants to build them, but it does not have the headroom in its housing revenue account. The Government promised to confirm their approach to a discounted borrowing rate for housing revenue accounts in the autumn, so we and councils eagerly await that news. If Ministers will not raise the £3.9 billion per year to the £6 billion per year that we have put in our manifesto for social housing, will they use some additional funds to write off some or all of that housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can get building again, as Shelter and others have called for?

On the scale of the need, the Government have reannounced that 60% of their programme for 300,000 homes will be social housing, which is 18,000 a year. That is welcome, but when that was first announced in July 2025, we said that it was not enough, and reannouncing it this summer does not make it enough. Will the Government raise the target for social homes—if not to our target of 150,000, then to a number higher than 18,000 a year?

In addition, the Bill does very little to address the unique issues of affordable housing in rural areas. In Taunton and Wellington, all that people are seeing is unprecedented plans for private housing, which many cannot afford. The council has been instructed to consent homes for 180,000 people in the next 15 years. The population of Somerset has never grown by 25% in any 15-year period in its history, and it will not do so in the next 15 years, but acres of beautiful countryside will be gobbled up for private housing permissions that many people in my constituency cannot afford.

Proposals to eat up the green belt have a consequence for social housing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has brought to my attention an inspector’s decision in Gweek in Cornwall, following the Minister’s own policies, in which all social housing was removed from a previous consent on appeal, because, under new, mandatory Government housing targets, the new five-year supply could not be met. All private housing must now be allowed, and all social housing must be removed from the scheme. That needs to be addressed.

However, this is not just an issue in Cornwall. Most of England—at least, most of southern England—is covered by councils that, thanks to the new standard method, can no longer achieve the new five-year land supply. With the majority of those councils, we have a planning free-for-all in which social homes are not being safeguarded. The standard method has to go. We should replace it with a return to properly researched household projections that take into account movements between regions and safeguard exception sites for social housing, which are being lost. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has thought about this issue, and he has a Bill that would do exactly that. Permission in principle capped at nine dwellings sits below the affordable housing threshold, so that, too, means that sites are being lost.

The Government’s Bill does protect rural social homes from being sold, which I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome. However, as long as the planning system that runs alongside it closes down the supply of new ones, it will simply not be enough. Overall, this Bill does not go far enough. In contrast, our Liberal Democrat Housing Bill—I had the privilege of presenting it to Madam Deputy Speaker not so long ago—would establish a target of 150,000 new social homes a year, including a new wave of rent to own, allowing young people to get on the housing ladder. It would require the Secretary of State to report on progress on meeting that target and would give local authorities the proper powers over social housing they will need to achieve it, including the right to end the right to buy in their area if it is right for them and their community. That is the Liberal Democrat vision for a revolution in the delivery of social homes, and I commend it to the House.

Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to her place.

I rise to restate the Liberal Democrat commitment that no leaseholder who has found themselves subject to cladding remediation costs for which they were not responsible should shoulder those costs without access to remediation. We support these amendments to improve the 2025 regulations, but there is a bigger question about other buildings.

High-risk buildings need to be addressed first, as the shadow Minister said, but there are none the less residents in buildings under 11 metres tall and in buildings whose standard does not meet PAS 9980:2022, which means that they continue to live in buildings with flammable cladding. Although that cladding would last an hour, so it is safer for them to escape, it is not a standard recognised by insurers, who expect buildings to be built to building regulations. Thousands of leaseholders are potentially in that position, and many of them cannot get insurance—except at very high cost—and cannot sell their properties.

I invite the Minister to comment on how the funding towards the building safety regime can be widened beyond the levy, and to confirm that the Government will bring forward proposals in their remediation Bill to tackle the cladding manufacturers, which have been largely responsible for the crisis since it began.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. I should have said that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impact.

The shadow Minister asked whether the levy could have an impact on our ambitious target—rightly so—of reaching 1.5 million new homes. We continue to work closely with the housing market to look at supply. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that homes continue to be built at pace. This issue comes up in my inbox, as it does for many hon. Members—it is not isolated to London. It is important that we build good-quality homes.

The shadow Minister also highlighted the impact that the measures could have on innocent homeowners, who should not be burdened with the cost. I thank him for agreeing that the cost should not be placed on them. It is right that developers and house builders be responsible for it, in order to protect innocent homeowners.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, highlighted an issue on which many of us have campaigned for many years: ensuring that innocent leaseholders and homeowners are not responsible for paying the levy. Many of them struggle with housing costs and the cost of living crisis on a day-to-day basis. It is important that developers have a way to fund the levy with no additional cost to the taxpayer.

The Lib Dem spokesperson asked about properties that fall out of scope. We will continue to identify those properties and work with the sector to highlight other ways of supporting them, in order to ensure, again, that costs are fairly shared across the market.

[Gideon Amos]

On a point of further clarification, I hope that the Minister agrees that one reason for broadening the scope of funding for the safety regime so that it includes cladding manufacturers is that in constituencies such as mine in Somerset, there are no high-rise buildings at all—indeed, most of Somerset has no high-rise buildings—but all the developers in Somerset will none the less pay for remediation in the big cities. None of us begrudges the importance of paying for that remediation, but I hope that that example illustrates the importance of widening the funding of the regime so that cladding manufacturers are required to contribute.

[Florence Eshalomi]

As I mentioned, we will keep under review the process and, importantly, the rates, and we will report back to the House every three years on those key areas.

The building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The draft amending regulations before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently, in accordance with our initial intention to support redevelopment of brownfield sites. They are intended to correct drafting and improve clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than alter the underlying policy design of the levy.

The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes in this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. That mission must work in parallel with our commitment to remedy the building safety failures of the past. We expect the development industry to contribute to our work making buildings safe for those who live in them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. I look forward to our exchanges, and to working with her and her team.

There are millions fewer council houses than there used to be, yet the need for social housing has only increased, not least given the scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation for too many children. The Shared Health Foundation has found that in the last six years, temporary accommodation has been noted by the coroner as a contributory factor in the deaths of 104 children.

In Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere, all that people see are unprecedented plans for private housing that many will not be able to afford. Councils have been instructed by Whitehall to consent to homes for 180,000 people in Somerset over the next 15 years—a 25% increase in the pace of growth, never seen in the county’s history. What we need instead is a truly ambitious programme of council and social housing—not the Government’s reannouncement that 60% of its 300,000 programme will be social housing and not the 18,000 per year, but the Lib Dem policy of 150,000 social homes a year.

I recognise that the statement confirms around 46,000 social homes over 10 years, with further tranches to come, but will the Housing Secretary and the new Prime Minister, who has said a lot about social housing, raise the target from 18,000 a year or not? Will the Government raise their £3.9 billion funding to our proposed £6 billion? If they will not do that, will they write off some of the councils’ housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can build the 600 council houses that they would build if they could?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is one that the Prime Minister feels incredibly passionate about. He has committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war boom ended in the early 1980s, and although I recognise the challenges, I also want to celebrate the fact that last year, councils built the most council houses since records began in 1991. However, we want to see that ramp up with the money we are investing to help councils, as I outlined earlier.

We have already taken measures, as Members can see from the legislation that is going through at the moment—it has been through the other place—to tighten up the right to buy and make sure that councils keep full receipts. We are supporting that programme, and we should recognise the significance of the £10 billion of investment that was announced last month. This is about making sure that we get that money out the door so that we can build those homes, and the planning reforms we have introduced are about making sure that people have a say about those homes, but also about having clarity, so that the homes and the infrastructure around them are built.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the number of children in temporary accommodation. I still think it is absolutely awful that those children are in those circumstances, and that is why we want to tackle social housing in particular.

National Planning Policy Framework

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and all the hon. Members who have contributed today, including my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), for Horsham (John Milne), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew).

One of the abiding themes of the debate is that water and other infrastructure seem to escape the demanding targets that are applied to the delivery of housing. We need an infrastructure-first approach in which infrastructure is as prioritised as housing. The Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition to deliver more homes, particularly the 150,000 social and council rent homes that the country needs, which we established as a target in our manifesto. But the right way to deliver those homes is by working with local communities and trusting them, not through more centralisation into Whitehall. Housing targets, for us, should be established firmly in a community-led process.

The incoming Prime Minister has talked a lot about devolution and giving power back to local communities, and he is right to do so. Communities know what works for their area, but this proposed framework does the opposite, stripping power away from local decision makers rather than handing it to them.

The proposed framework comes off the back of the recent regulations and direction that mean that decisions, both small and large, are now removed from local councillors, so that they have no power or control over those decisions. It also means that proposed developments such as those at Orchard Portman near Taunton—where 1,100 acres of farms were sold off by the Crown Estate to a house builder without the usual return of payments to the public purse being required in the event of planning permission—could be decided in Whitehall, not by our elected counsellors in Somerset.

For all applications now, the draft NPPF, which was recently out for consultation, is filled with policies that weaken local plans and community involvement. It is a power grab by central Government. Across the proposed new framework document, that centralising instinct repeats itself, starting with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Today, that presumption is a backstop, applying only where the local plan is absent or out of date, or where there is no five-year land supply. That rewards communities for investing in an up to date local plan. That presumption in favour of sustainable development is now to be abolished; instead, policies S3, S4 and S5 would impose a de facto presumption in favour of development in every circumstance for certain kinds of development. That begs the question: will councils continue to invest all their time and effort in local plan preparation?

The same instinct runs through proposals on the weight to be given to different policy considerations, giving the same weight to housing, economic development, and heritage and landscape, leaving Historic England to raise concerns about how those will be balanced. It could mean that the historic setting of the Wellington monument on Oldway Road in my constituency, currently subject to appeal, could be another victim of these proposed policies. That approach could also be in contravention of the well-known wording in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that “special regard” will be paid to preserving heritage.

Nowhere is the centralisation of such decisions in Whitehall’s grasp going further than in the green belt. The Town and Country Planning Association has called the framework “unprecedentedly permissive” for good reason. Three elements combine to have that effect. First, the standard method, where 0.8% of the existing housing stock is applied as a multiplier and then a further multiplier is applied according to areas of high house prices. By definition, green belts constrain supply; that is their purpose. Therefore, they are areas of higher prices. In short, the standard method takes the consequence of protecting a place as a justification for building more on it. That cannot be logical or acceptable.

Rural councils have therefore been subject to much higher housing targets. For example, in Somerset, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills put across very well, the 75,000 new dwellings will come as a surprise in terms of population growth compared with what has ever been achieved in the past. Urban areas where regeneration is needed have seen their targets reduced.

The second element driving development in rural green fields is green belt policy GB7. In short, that means that a developer can secure consent anywhere in the green belt, regardless of what the local plan says, on condition that it is near a town with a railway station. Ironically, an area with no green belt might be better protected because it is not subject to those policies to allow development around railway stations.

The third and final part of the policy that leads to this greenfield development is GB2 for the grey belt. Few of us, and certainly not the Liberal Democrats, would object to local communities deciding that underused green belt land is degraded and could be released for development. But this policy overrides that local plan process, and disapplies protections against encroachment on the countryside, removing villages from the green-belt protections that they have had for decades and generations.

[Andrew George]

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

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He reminds me that, frankly, I struggle with the fact that such a momentous and significant policy instrument is going through Parliament without a vote. It can hardly be right that these major policy changes, which will unleash development all over the country and reverse decades-old planning policies, will not be subject to a vote, considering that we quite rightly spend weeks and months going through Bills.

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

Together, the existing and proposed frameworks begin to look like a greenfield-first approach. The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable and social housing where green belt is released, are absolutely right. But the Government have consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that. I encourage the Minister to say something on whether land should escape the golden rules requiring more social housing just because it has been previously developed. The binning of the garden city principles in the draft is equally damaging. They are the very foundation of what made the new post-war towns, such as Milton Keynes with its famous 22 million trees, some of the best places to live. That is no doubt a bit of drafting by those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

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

Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, policy F5, paragraph 2(b)(ii), would create a new exemption from the sequential test for sites at risk of surface water flooding. As my hon. Friend said, the insurance industry has pointed out that there could be as many as 400,000 mortgage prisoners in the future, unable to afford insurance as a result of these kinds of policies.

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

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