Park Home Owners

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate. We have discussed these issues multiple times on the all-party parliamentary group on park homes, of which he is also a member.

Park home residents are often the forgotten home owners in our housing system. In this place we rightly discuss leaseholders, renters and first-time buyers, but we almost never talk about the 160,000 people who own park homes in England, four in five of whom are over 65. The quiet injustice that they have faced for many years is overwhelming. These people are overwhelmingly older residents, and most of the time are on fixed incomes. They choose this way of life, in park homes, because it is settled, affordable and within reach, when so much of the rest of the housing market is not. They pay their site fees and maintenance charges, and keep their homes in good order, often for decades.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the issues with the agreements— eight months or 12 months—when people buy their homes. One reason for those issues is that when people buy their park homes, they are often told, “Don’t worry about conveyancing or solicitors. You don’t need that. It’s not important.” They would never have been told that if they bought another property, but that is okay when it comes to park homes. That is where quite a lot of the issues, including those faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, come from.

When people come to sell their park home, the law steps in and takes 10% of the sale price—not the gain or profit, but the price. That is handed straight over to the site owner. That is not for services rendered at the point of sale, for an obligation that has been discharged, or for anything that we as Members can quantify and put our fingers on—or that the industry itself can explain—but just because they are selling their park home. For most park home owners, selling is not a choice, but a last resort: they are downsizing and moving closer to relatives, or, in quite a lot of cases, they are going to pay for care costs that age has made unavoidable.

At the precise moment when every single penny matters most, the system reaches into their pockets and takes a 10% slice. On a £300,000 park home, that is £30,000, but many park homes in my Maidenhead constituency go for upwards of £500,000, £550,000 or £600,000. That is a massive amount of money. It could pay for a lot of years of social care, but it is being taken out of the system—being paid for now by our local authorities—because of that 10%. That can determine whether someone dies in dignity or experiences difficulty at a time that should be secure.

I have at various times called the 10% commission unfair and illogical, and I stand by that. It singles out one group of home owners for a deduction. No leaseholder, freeholder or shared owner would ever tolerate that.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about sales commission charges. Given that we had a consultation into park home sales commission charges in 2022, which concluded that there was no good justification for them, does he agree that what we now need from the Government is not another a consultation, but a fixed timeline so that we can understand when real action will be taken on behalf of our constituents in park homes?

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Park home residents have had consultation after consultation over many years. Site owners will respond to the current Government consultation, because they have lawyers to back them up and support them in putting in their thoughts, but the park home owners I have spoken to worry that there is no point in submitting responses to yet another consultation when, as they see it, nothing is going to happen. I worry that far fewer park home owners will respond to this consultation, and we will therefore end up with a one-sided consultation.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. As he knows, there are many park homes across Bracknell Forest, which we both represent. I understand the scepticism that some have expressed about the call for evidence, but as he has identified, the Government need to put forward something that can stand up to those with very expensive lawyers behind them. Will he therefore take this opportunity to urge everyone who lives in a park home, whether in Bracknell Forest or elsewhere across the country, to contribute to that call for evidence, so that the evidence base can be as robust as it needs to be and we can abolish the 10% charge?

[Mr Reynolds]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that point. It is incredibly important that everybody responds to the consultation, so we must encourage more people to do so.

The financial cost of the 10% commission is only part of the story. We have heard time and again about unscrupulous site owners who have used intimidation to drive residents off their pitches. There are fewer bad actors who own sites than there were a number of years ago, but some still know that if they intimidate residents and force a sale, they will get a 10% commission. We see that time and again. In my constituency, one owner bought a site for £200,000. They then intimidated countless park home residents, who sold their properties, and made that £200,000 back within less than 12 months. That is the business model of unscrupulous site owners. We need to think about where the 10% commission came from. It has not always been 10%: it was 15% a number of years ago, so it is an arbitrary number.

I pay tribute to Sonia McColl OBE and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Over decades, she and the campaign have done what many in this place only wish we had been able to do. They secured two legislative changes: ending sale blocking, and shifting pitch fees from RPI to CPI, which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) spoke about. Sonia and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign have driven lots of the work that is happening here. Another petition is going to Downing Street later today. I was lucky to be able to present one to Downing Street last year, and I know that many of us are willing to submit them in future.

We need to be honest about what we are going to do. There is a consultation on the table, but lots of residents have been consulted before. I ask the Minister for a clear timeline for when we will see action, when we will have a conclusion with published responses, and when the 160,000 residents will get the fair deal that has been promised for so long but postponed for much longer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. I thank all other hon. Members who have participated, and like many of them I welcome the strong cross-party nature and tone of the debate. I have valued the opportunity to hear the individual stories hon. Members have shared, including some really egregious examples of harassment and intimidation, such as the case of Dennis, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).

One challenge in considering law and policy in respect of park homes is the huge variation in arrangements across the approximately 1,832 sites in England. The more real case studies that can be brought to the Government’s attention, the greater rigour we can bring to policy development.

Despite representing less than 1% of housing stock, the park home sector is an important part of the housing market. Mobiles homes, as has been mentioned, provide housing for around 160,000 people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, park home sites are often advertised on the basis that they offer a luxurious, secure and supportive lifestyle, particularly for older people. In many cases, that is true, and it is important that several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), mentioned that there are some great park home sites. Unfortunately, as the debate has powerfully reinforced, the experience of many park home owners is far removed from that idyllic vision.

I am unlikely to be able to cover all the points raised in this wide-ranging debate in the time available, but let me ensure that I at least cover the two main issues raised: site licensing and enforcement, and the commission payment. On licensing and enforcement, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 provides the foundational legislative underpinning for the site licensing regime operated by local authorities. The primary purpose of that regime is to ensure that sites are set up in the right places, which is why site owners are required to obtain planning permission to operate land as a caravan site. Unless a given site is exempt from having one, it will require a licence after planning permission has been granted, with relevant conditions attached by the local authority. The requirement for a licence is designed to ensure that sites and the amenities on them are properly maintained and kept safe for residents and other users.

The wide-ranging Mobile Homes Act 2013, introduced changes to the procedures and penalties for enforcement of site licence conditions on residential parks. The new site licensing system, subsequently brought into force in 2014, gave local authorities substantial enforcement powers, including the ability to issue compliance notices and the discretion to refuse to grant or transfer applications. It also provided local authorities with powers to charge annual fees, to provide the resources they need to carry out their functions.

Since 2021, there have been additional requirements for all site owners to be assessed by the local authority and placed on a local register of fit and proper persons. I commend Peter Aldous, a very valued former Member of this House, for the private Member’s Bill he took forward on that issue. A person can be included on the register, with or without conditions, for up to five years, and local authorities can charge fees to cover their functions in respect of the fit and proper person test. Taken together, those measures provide a robust range of powers for local authorities to draw on, and the Government expect them to be used effectively to ensure that sites are well managed by competent persons.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the commendable work done by individual local authorities over the years, as well as the notable successes some have had in ensuring that sites are well maintained and in successfully prosecuting non-compliant site owners. However, my Department is aware that some local authorities do not apply or enforce existing legislation as effectively as they could and should. There are a variety of reasons for that, including cost and, on occasion, lack of expertise, but in some cases local authorities might simply decide not to take appropriate enforcement action. I therefore encourage residents who have concerns about health and safety on their site to raise them initially with the local authority if the site owner fails to address the problem. They can then consider escalating the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if their local authority does not deal effectively with their complaint.

Turning to the commission payment, the 10% commission fee charged on the sale of park homes has been the subject of intense debate over many years, as we all know. Park home residents see it as an unfair and unjustified charge that has a negative impact on their finances and mobility. Site operators argue that the commission is a vital part of their income and that a substantial reduction in the commission rate would reduce total income without reducing expenditure, thus threatening the financial viability of parks. That important point was raised by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); there are many elements of this complex problem.

I fully understand hon. Members’ desire to secure change in this matter, and I assure those present that I share their impatience. Unfortunately—this is where I have to take issue slightly with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan)—research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive on either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report, published in 2022, recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices. In 2023, the then Government sought feedback from stakeholder representative bodies on the report’s recommendations. The feedback reinforced the view that there was no clarity or consensus in the sector on the rationale for the commission.

We are not consulting for consultation’s sake. There is a reason the Government published a call for evidence on 5 March this year concerning the rationale for the commission payment. Through that call for evidence, we are seeking to understand the following: the reasons for charging a commission before it became a statutory requirement in 1975, and whether those reasons have changed; what goods and services are paid for by the commission; how the commission rate is calculated to be a percentage of the future sale price of a park home; how the commission payment relates to other charges in the sector; and how receiving commission in the future enables site owners to meet their obligations effectively and efficiently.

To date, we have had 400 responses from park home residents. I encourage residents and site owners across the country to engage with that call for evidence before it closes on 29 May. I encourage all hon. Members here to tell their constituents about it so that we can get the maximum amount of evidence submitted. Then we can properly consider what, if any, changes are needed to the payment of a commission, what the options are and how they would impact on the sector.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Many park home residents in Maidenhead have told me that complete swathes of the consultation are not relevant to residents but are to site owners. Can the Minister clarify which questions he expects residents to be able to respond to, because many feel that those questions are just not relevant to them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear that feedback. We will take into account any feedback that park home residents wish to submit—even in general terms and outside the strict questions they have responded to—when we are making policy decisions. I emphasise once again that I want the widest possible response from across the country that grapples with the complexity and the particular arrangements in place on specific sites so that we can make informed choices.

I want to come on to the timeline, because several hon. Members have pressed me on it. Following an assessment of the responses received, we will publish a summary of them in the summer. I intend to outline our final position at the very latest by the end of this year. To respond to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), it is one of many priorities—but a very real priority—for the Government to bring the clarity that both park home residents and site owners require and have been calling for now for some years. I will strain every sinew to ensure that that happens as early as possible, but I give the commitment that we will have clarity on the position by the end of the year.

Hon. Members raised a series of other matters, including written agreements, contractual rights, conveyancing, the adequacy of existing redress mechanisms in respect of pitch fees, overcharging in relation to utilities, and harassment by site owners. I assure them that the Government either have taken action or are exploring action in a number of those areas. That might take a range of forms, such as raising awareness about the protections and enforcement mechanisms that already exist or providing further guidance. We are taking some very real steps, not least in respect of utilities, which I want to speak to briefly.

Chinese Embassy

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply do not accept that characterisation of the Government’s approach to China. We have to take a consistent and pragmatic approach, but we recognise that China poses a series of threats. As I have said, no decision has yet been made on this case, and all material planning considerations will be taken into account when one is made.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I have raised multiple times with the Government the harassment of a constituent of mine, Carmen Lau, by the Chinese authorities. This has included bounty letters, deepfake pornography and her family being interrogated by national security agents in Hong Kong. Every time I am told that the safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to the Government. Given that, does the Minister accept that to approve this application while China is still committing transnational repression would be a kick in the teeth to Hongkongers such as Carmen?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to this Government, and we remain steadfast in our support for the Hong Kong community in the UK. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking me, but I cannot comment on a live planning case that is before Planning Ministers in my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I know that my hon. Friend has already spoken to the Minister for Housing and Planning about this issue, and that those discussions will continue. As you well know, Mr Speaker, pets bring joy, happiness and comfort to their owners, while also supporting their mental and physical wellbeing. We have strengthened the rights of private tenants to keep pets in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we will of course keep the position of leaseholders with pets under review.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Leasehold residents of Marlborough House in Maidenhead found that their developer had entered liquidation, leaving £250,000 in section 106 payments outstanding, as well as massive defects in the development. Leaseholders fear that the authorities will ask them for the section 106 money, and that the costs of finishing the development will fall on their shoulders. Given that some developers have poor track records, with dozens of companies going into liquidation, how can we strengthen leasehold legislation to ensure that future leaseholders do not have the same problems as those in Marlborough House?

Street Parking on Estates: Bracknell Forest

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point about the challenge around schools is well made. We all want to see more young people and families walking and cycling to school, but in some communities, that just is not possible. Also, we have to be realistic: in some communities, it just does not happen. The end result is what we often see in streets such as Staplehurst in Great Hollands, where there is a lot of conflict between those going to pick up their kids from school and the families who live there, who just need to get out without having their movements dictated by the timings of the school day. It is a real challenge. In those situations, local solutions need to be the vehicle that takes us forward, if the House will pardon the pun.

Enforcement is a really important part of the puzzle. On some streets in Bracknell Forest, at any hour of any day, a traffic warden could litter all the cars with tickets. Frankly, if there is not the parking infrastructure to allow cars to park, enforcement can only go so far, so although it is absolutely part of the solution, it is not the only part.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way, and congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. As he knows, Binfield in my constituency is part of Bracknell Forest. An issue in Binfield is commercial businesses being run from residential properties, which often creates increased demand for parking. I really support the hon. Gentleman’s call for localised support and action to target this issue. Would he like to work together with Bracknell Forest and me to come up with a solution?

[Peter Swallow]

That sounds like an excellent campaign. I have to say that I have not necessarily identified that issue in my part of Bracknell Forest, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have a further discussion in the Tea Room on that very important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me explain, as simply as I can, what we want to do. As the White Paper makes clear, we will ban the sale of new leasehold flats so that commonhold becomes the default tenure, and we will ensure that the process of conversion is as simple as possible so that those leaseholders in existing leasehold blocks who want to make that change can do so as simply as possible. But we have to ensure that those who do not want to make that change have the powers, rights and protections in relation to their homes that will give them the immediate relief that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What steps are the Government taking to help those leaseholders with doubling ground rents who now feel trapped and unable to remortgage or sell their properties without meeting the massive costs of changing their leases, which, as I know from personal experience, can amount to five-figure sums?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I well recognise the problem. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, historically ground rents were nominal sums—often peppercorn sums—but over the past 20 years we have seen a very different system develop. We have made a commitment, which we will honour, to take action on unregulated and unaffordable ground rents through legislation, and we will provide further details in due course.

English Devolution and Local Government

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that new unitary authorities need to be the right size to withstand financial shocks, so will she explain how merging councils that are in severe financial difficulty and just hoping that they get on with it will provide the security that we need?

[Angela Rayner]

As I said, we are working with local areas so that we can deliver local government reorganisation. I have also said that the 500,000 population figure is a guide for efficiency—we recognise that it might vary. We also recognise the financial constraints that councils have faced after 14 years under the Conservatives. That is why we have put a cash-terms increase of 6.8% into councils; it is why we are considering how to give long-term funding settlements, which the Minister for Local Government will outline; and it is why we will continue to support, and the Minister will continue to work on, the devolution agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

6. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of abolishing residential leaseholds.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

19. What steps she is taking to ensure that not-for-profit freeholders are accountable for their management practices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are very much aware that some managing agents provide a very poor quality of service to people like Tom and leaseholders across the country. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. As such, we have made it clear that we will strengthen the regulation of managing agents to drive up the standard of their service, and we are considering carefully the recommendations made in Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Residents of a housing development in Maidenhead bought their properties 10 years ago on 99-year leases. Now they are coming to sell their flats, they are faced with a charge of £15,000 to £25,000 each to extend their lease so that the new owners can get a mortgage. What will the Minister do directly to help those residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In terms of lease extensions, there are provisions in the 2024 Act that will provide some assistance to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. As with other parts of that Act, those provisions, in many cases, require a detailed programme of secondary legislation. In some specific circumstances, we cannot switch on the provisions until we have made the fixes through primary legislation that I referred to in answer to a previous question, but we are working at pace. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about what we are doing in this area.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

This is a wider issue to do with the poverty trap that so many people face this country. I am also proud to plug the employment Bill that will be coming forward this week. It is another incredibly important part of this Government’s agenda; the Prime Minister mentioned it earlier today. We want to make sure that the working people of this country feel better off, and are able to get on and do the things in life that we should expect anyone to be able to do—things that we were able to do as a result of the toils of the generations before us.

I want to talk database. Part 2 of the Bill will introduce a new online private rented sector database, to the benefit of landlords and tenants alike. Landlords will need to provide key information about the properties they let out, including around property standards and compliance with the law, helping tenants to understand more about the property and the landlord who they are looking to rent from.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Energy efficiency is really important in the rented housing sector, so does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the Bill ensures that landlords upgrade their rented properties to an energy performance certificate grade C or above by 2028?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree that we should be moving towards doing everything we possibly can to be efficient, and there will be consultations on that issue. One of the things that shocked me in bringing this Bill forward was that the standards are so low for some; we need to really ramp them up. The bottom line for me in bringing this Bill forward is that people should have safe, secure homes that are free from hazards. We can then build on that. We are doing much more as a Government on our ambitions to do that, working with landlords.

The database, alongside greater guidance and support from the Government, will also help landlords to understand and meet their legal duties. Good landlords should be supported and helped. In addition, the database will provide local authorities with the information that they need in their enforcement activities to drive out rogue landlords. In this Bill, I have also taken steps to support local government in its crucial role in keeping tenants safe and rooting out bad actors from the sector. That is why, as well as setting up the database, the Bill will give local authorities stronger powers to root out and punish the small number of landlords who deliberately flout the law, and will increase the maximum civil penalties, so that we punish offenders and further support local authorities.

Short-term Lets: Regulation

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate, and I also thank her for making the distinction between homeowners who sometimes rent out their property when they are on holiday and the commercialised industry that has developed. There is a clear distinction between the two, and I thank her for raising it.

Short-term holiday lets have a role to play in boosting the local economy in holiday and city destinations, as has been mentioned by Members already. Until recently, I was the vice-chair of the VisitWindsor partnership, and I saw for myself the benefits that short-term holiday lets can bring to a town, particularly during events such as the funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III.

In the 19th century, my constituency of Maidenhead, aided by the advent of the railways, became a popular holiday destination and was known as the jewel of the Thames. Today, it is not necessarily the go-to place for a weekend away, but we still have a number of short-term lets, which are not for holidays but instead support UK and global headquarters based in the town. They provide flexible accommodation for employees and visitors who come to the constituency, spend a few nights in a short-term holiday let and use our local facilities, such as the fantastic restaurants and businesses that we have. That is really welcome, but there is too much of a good thing.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead council is one of many up and down the country that is facing rising housing costs, as it is battling to build both affordable housing, and temporary accommodation for people who find themselves homeless—some of whom have been evicted from properties that have made their way to being short-term holiday lets, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) discussed. Some people are being forced to uproot their lives, take their children out of school and give up their jobs to move elsewhere in the country. It is devastating for everyone involved.

We have heard how councils could play a role in what the future looks like, but we have seen local authorities being asked to do more and more with less and less, which has plunged some into financial crisis. In rural areas, the growth of short-term holiday lets is undermining our communities. Key local services such as bus routes, shops and post offices are closing down. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) mentioned being told, “We don’t have any neighbours.” No Member can fail to be moved by that statement. When we hear something like that, I think everyone is clear that something needs to change.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued for local authorities to be given more powers, backed up by proper funding, to control second homes and short-term holiday lets in their area. We would allow local authorities to increase council tax by up to 500% where a home is bought as a second home, and bring in a stamp duty surcharge for overseas residents purchasing properties. In that way, owners who profit handsomely from the tourism business would be forced to pay back into their local communities.

During consideration of the Renters (Reform) Bill, the Liberal Democrats argued for a six-month moratorium on the marketing of a property as a holiday let if it had been repossessed by the landlord on no-fault grounds. Local authorities are key to this, because they know what is right for their area. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke earlier about a thoughtful, tailored, local approach, which we would welcome.

We are calling for a separate planning class for short-term holiday lets, requiring owners to apply for a change of use and allowing local authorities to set their own numbers.

[Noah Law]

Does the hon. Member agree that for furnished holiday lets that are subject to planning restrictions, it should be possible to register a change of use given the impending legislative changes?

[Mr Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. We need to make sure that what we do is backed up by funding so that local authorities are able to enforce the changes that are needed. I would not want to see local authorities having changes forced upon them without the finances and manpower to carry them out. We have seen so many cases recently where local authorities have a duty to do something but not the finance or manpower to do it.

We recognise that local authority housing teams have been hollowed out. Local authorities need the support to be able to enforce whatever decisions are made. I am hopeful that the Minister can tell us the Government’s thoughts about that. I think asking local authorities to put time and work into these changes, with the necessary finance and manpower, will be a worthwhile investment, because it is about time we turned the tide that we have seen engulfing our communities for so long.

I repeat that we need to draw a distinction with respect to people who have gone about this business in good faith. We do not want to penalise them, or people who have inherited a property and become second home owners by default. We all know that short-term holiday lets are growing in an uncontrollable manner. That is the thing that we really need to stop, especially where big business is involved, because it can rip out the heart of our communities. Our proposals would give control back to local authorities and communities, because that is where, as Liberal Democrats, we always believe that power should lie.