Renters’ Rights Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsWednesday 22nd October 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Renters’ Rights Act 2025 View all Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 22 October 2025 - large print - (22 Oct 2025)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments 39B and 39C.
Matthew Pennycook
Today is a momentous day, because, subject to agreement from this House, the Renters’ Rights Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988—I was just six years old. In the decades since, England’s private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition. It now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life.
The need to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and, in so doing, level decisively the playing field for landlords and tenants is pressing. That is why we introduced the Bill within months of taking office. We promised that we would succeed where the previous Conservative Government had failed by legislating to transform the experience of private renting. I am delighted that we are now within touching distance of seeing the Bill become law. Before I turn to the final amendments agreed to in the other place, I want to put on the record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding through its House of Lords stages.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. We want to provide both renters and landlords with certainty about how the new system will be implemented. I will say a bit more on that in the course of my remarks.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make a bit more progress.
As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill on 8 September, although the Government were not prepared to accept amendments that would undermine the core principles of the Bill, we were more than willing to make sensible changes in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised. The changes we are proposing today are firmly within the spirt of that commitment. I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and Lord Young of Cookham, and I thank all the noble Lords involved for their willingness to work collaboratively to strengthen the Bill.
Let me briefly set out the purpose and effect of the amendments in question, beginning with those that relate to shared owners. Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D exempt shared owners from the 12-month “no re-let” period in respect of new mandatory possession ground 1A, which allows a landlord to evict a tenant because they intend to sell their property. The exemption is subject to meeting set criteria, to ensure that shared owners have made a genuine attempt to sell their property. The amendments in question also include a delegated power to remove the exemption in the future—for example, once the building safety programme has been completed.
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Minister has proposed. More and more of these issues have come to my attention in my constituency. Tenants then have to find alternative and affordable accommodation that is close to their work and close to their children’s education. I know this legislation applies to England and Wales only—I understand that. But the Minister is a good Minister, and he always shares information on the legislation that is put forward with the regional assemblies—in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will he do me and this House the favour of sharing the legislation with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the good things in the Bill can become good things for us in Northern Ireland as well?
Matthew Pennycook
The Northern Ireland Assembly can access this legislation online, but I will certainly continue to have conversations with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations about what lessons can be learned from what we have done with this Bill, and about what they can take from it.
I once again commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis, and I thank him for tabling his three amendments in lieu. As I made clear when we considered Lords amendments last month, the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. Many are facing unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distress sale. We also appreciate that it is often harder to secure a purchaser for a shared ownership property, and that the sales of shared ownership flats are more likely to fall through due to the additional constraints involved. As such, we have always accepted that the 12 month no re-let period would have placed many shared owners in an extremely challenging position.
The reason why the Government did not feel able to accept Lord Young’s original Lords amendment 19 was that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happened to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. I am therefore pleased to report to the House that the amendments in lieu deliver the core aims of that original amendment, while also ensuring that three key safeguards are in place to protect tenants.
First, there is a requirement for the shared owner to have informed the assured subtenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy about the exemption and its possible use. This will ensure tenants are aware of the particular circumstances of the tenancy they are entering into and can make an informed choice about whether they wish to enter into a tenancy agreement with the shared owner in question.
Secondly, shared owners must have informed their provider of their intention to sell before obtaining possession of the property from the tenant. This is an essential first step that all shared owners must take to begin the process of selling their property. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate requirement to evidence that a shared owner is genuinely intending to sell their home.
Thirdly, a valuation must be undertaken on the property by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or the shared owner must have advertised the property for sale. This can be done at any point before a property is re-let, recognising the need for flexibility in how shared owners will approach a sale.
Taken together with the protections that are already in place as a result of registered providers having to authorise sub-letting requests and having oversight of what rent levels can be charged, I am satisfied that these safeguards will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the risk that an exemption from the 12-month no re-let period might otherwise have posed.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for listening to Liberal Democrat colleagues who have made these points, as I have along with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), on previous occasions. It is very good that those living in military service accommodation will now have the opportunity to access the decent homes standard. Could the Minister assure me that he will work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all service families are aware of the decent homes standard—the standard to which they can hold their accommodation providers—so they can live in better homes in my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock and across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
We have ongoing dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about this issue, and if the hon. Member will allow me, I will elaborate on how we think these amendments will work in practice and how they interact with what the Ministry of Defence is itself doing. First, however, I once again thank Baroness Grender, Baroness Thornhill and the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for their continued support and advocacy for service personnel and their families.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that our armed services personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. We remain determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate. Alongside the commitment to drive up standards through a record investment of £1.5 billion in service family accommodation over the next five years, the Government will soon publish a defence housing strategy setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lives of those who serve our country. That standard will be published, so service families will be able to see, judge their accommodation against and interact with this new statutory duty.
As I outlined in the previous debate on Lords amendments, the Government acknowledge the need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure that the commitments we have made are honoured. The amendments in lieu will place the commitments I made to this House last month on a statutory basis. The Government believe that this, alongside the wider steps I have already set out, will help ensure service personnel and their families have the quality of homes that they deserve. The amendments also include a delegated power allowing the housing quality standards that SFA is assessed against to be updated when the current version of the decent homes standard is no longer considered appropriate—for example, when it has been replaced by a new modernised standard. The Liberal Democrats have indicated their support for these amendments, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
To conclude, I urge the House to support the amendments put forward by the other place, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation.
I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay.
There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are.
Matthew Pennycook
With the leave of the House, I will close this brief but thoughtful debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time available, I will respond to as many of the issues raised as I can.
Let me start by saying that I welcome the broad support for the Lords amendments expressed by both shadow Front Benchers. In our view, the amendments are reasonable and proportionate, and respond to legitimate concerns that were raised. They have the safeguards in place that we felt were needed, and we are happy that they are being incorporated into the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), raised the issue of supply. We acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build-to-rent providers but also landlords of any type, to adjust to this significant change in regulation, but we do not believe that the legislation will have a destabilising effect on the rental market, or a harmful impact on future rental supply, which, it should be noted, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build-to-rent sector.
According to the English housing survey, the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. Landlords have been aware of successive Governments’ plans to reform the sector since 2019. It is worth noting that a study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation of the PRS over the past 25 years, in the UK and internationally, had affected PRS supply. It concluded that there was no evidence to support the assertion that non-price regulation impacts supply. We will, of course, continue to work with landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme, and we will, of course, continue to monitor trends across the PRS, including the supply of properties, to understand how the market is responding to our reforms.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of rent controls. He knows that the Government are opposed to introducing rent controls. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, we do not support them, including rent stabilisation measures, because we believe that they could make life more difficult for private renters, both by incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely to a cap, where they might not otherwise have done so, and by pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home that they can afford.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about implementation. Following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules, and ensure the sector has enough time to prepare. As he is aware, the Bill will ensure that the new tenancy system for the private rented sector is introduced in one stage. At that point, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancy signed off on or after that date will be governed by the new rules.
As I said, I am glad that there is broad support for the Lords amendments relating to shared owners. It is worth saying that the Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide the information in question to the tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take the time to get this right, and find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do that using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), asked about various issues relating to the amendments about service family accommodation. In particular, he asked about investment. As I outlined in my opening speech, the Ministry of Defence has announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in SFA as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years to improving and modernising defence housing. That investment will unlock rapid work to tackle the poor state of forces housing, helping to support recruitment, retention and morale. As I mentioned, the defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will also set out wider plans to improve service family homes.
It is also worth saying that redress is already available to service personnel, who already have a robust system in place for raising a complaint about the standard of their accommodation and receiving remedy or reimbursement. If not resolved, complaints can be escalated to a service complaint, for which there are further powers of reimbursement, charge reduction and policy redress, and ultimately to the employment tribunal in cases of potential discrimination.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the delays to the Bill. I served on the Bill Committee more than a year ago now, and since then, so many tenants have experienced no-fault evictions. I encourage the Minister to move as quickly as possible to implement the Bill, so that I can tell my constituents how soon their assured shorthold tenancies will become rolling tenancies, and so they can benefit from that as quickly as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point well made, which I will respond to directly as I wind up. We know that many tenants out there want the great security, rights and protections afforded by the Bill in place as soon as possible.
We promised in our manifesto to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and this Bill delivers on that commitment. It will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections, so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of private rented housing, giving renters access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course, and it will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters. The Bill will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants, not only improving the reputation of the sector as a whole, but ensuring that good landlords enjoy simpler regulation and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
As I have argued many times throughout the passage of the Bill, the current system for private renting is broken. In abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions and modernising the regulation of the sector, the Bill will improve the lives of England’s 11 million private renters. It is a transformational piece of legislation and, if you will allow me a brief personal word, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take great pride in having developed and shepherded it through Parliament.
It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking a number of people. I would like to express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage; the expertise and insight that have been brought to bear in both Houses have strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was and remains one of the Bill’s biggest supporters. She was instrumental in ensuring that it was introduced so quickly after the formation of the Government.
I also thank all the stakeholders who have worked closely with the Government to ensure that the Bill will work for landlord and tenant alike. I cannot possibly credit them all in the time I have available, but I will put on the record my thanks to Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis, Citizens Advice and the other members of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, as well as the National Residential Landlords Association, the shared ownership network and Propertymark. I will say a final thanks to all the officials in my Department who have devoted so much time and energy to developing and progressing the Bill, particularly the Bill team, Aidan Hilton, James Kennedy, our lawyers and many more, and my private office, specifically Will Gaby and Grace Doody, who provided me with invaluable support throughout the Bill’s passage.
Completing the Bill’s final stage today is obviously only the beginning; once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In doing so, we will balance the need to act quickly, so that tenants can soon benefit from the new rights and protections introduced by the Bill, with ensuring that the sector has sufficient time to adjust and prepare for a significant change in regulation. The Government understand the need for certainty, and we will set out our implementation plans as soon as possible. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as all stakeholders, as we take forward that progress.
Lords amendments 19B, 19C and 19D agreed to.
Lords amendments 39B and 39C agreed to.
National Infrastructure Planning: Data Centres
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres.
In December last year, following consultation on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, we announced plans to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data-driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process.
The Government are now taking an important step towards ensuring that they can do so. I can confirm that applicants wishing to request that projects to develop large laboratories or gigafactories be directed into the NSIP consenting regime process may make a request to the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 under the existing industrial process or processes and research and development of products or processes descriptors prescribed in the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.
Furthermore, I have today laid the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations in Parliament. This draft statutory instrument amends the 2013 regulations to provide that data centres are prescribed projects capable of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime under section 35 of the 2008 Act.
The draft regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Subject to parliamentary time and approval, we hope to make these regulations and for them to come into force later this year or early next. This will then enable developers of certain proposed data centres on request to opt into the NSIP consenting process, provided the Secretary of State thinks that the project or proposed project is one of national significance and the development meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of the 2008 Act.
To support this change, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will prepare a new national policy statement for data centres. This will set out the national policy for this sector and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. It will also include the parameters, thresholds and other relevant factors which may indicate whether such a development is of national significance and capable of meeting the requirements of section 35 of the 2008 Act in order to be directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting regime.
[HCWS966]
Home Buying and Selling Consultations
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) has today made the following statement:
The Government are determined to modernise the home buying and selling process. A well-functioning system allows people to move into the right homes at the right time, enables households to put down roots in a community and supports labour mobility by making it easier to relocate for jobs. Its impact also extends beyond housing into sectors such as removals, construction, retail, and commercial property. Ensuring the process is swift, seamless, and reliable, therefore matters not just for individuals, but for the economy as a whole.
However, the current home buying and selling process is long, complicated and frustrating. It takes an average of 120 days to complete once the buyer’s offer has been accepted, and transaction times have increased by 60% since 2007. Around one in three transactions fail, costing buyers and sellers around £400 million per year in wasted costs. Older people often face particular challenges when looking to move or downsize with lengthy and uncertain processes deterring them from selling homes that no longer meet their needs.
These inefficiencies have consequences for the housing market and broader economy. Slow transactions reduce the demand for and the supply of homes, contributing to housing shortages and affordability pressures. Bottlenecks restrict the jobs market by making it harder for individuals to relocate to advance their careers. Sellers, especially older people or those looking to trade down, are often deterred by the hassle and uncertainty of the process, which in turn means fewer homes are listed.
Other countries show that the system can be better. In Norway, transactions complete in four weeks or less, with digitisation driving estimated savings of up to £1 billion over 10 years. Even within the UK, in Scotland up-front information and more binding contracts are already resulting in fewer fall throughs. There are clear lessons to be learned as we seek to ensure our system is more streamlined, less stressful, and fit for the future.
With a view to delivering a faster, more reliable system, driven by informed consumers, innovative technology and high-standard professional services, we have launched two consultations on reform proposals to transform home buying and selling.
These proposals will make transactions faster, fairer and more transparent, cutting weeks from the process and reducing the number of failed transactions. They will also support the wider Government agenda to unlock housing supply, improve affordability, and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes over this Parliament.
Our home buying and selling reform consultation proposes requiring sellers to provide comprehensive up-front property information before listing a property, including information from searches and a property condition assessment. This will help buyers make informed decisions and reduce the risk of late-stage surprises that derail transactions.
We are also proposing to professionalise property agents by introducing a code of practice for estate, letting and managing agents, and consulting on mandatory qualifications to raise standards and improve trust in the sector. We want digital property logbooks and packs to become a standard feature of transactions, reducing duplication and speeding up the process, and will consider legislating to require their use.
We are exploring greater use of binding conditional contracts to reduce the number of failed transactions, bringing our system closer to international best practice. We will work to streamline conveyancing and anti-money laundering checks, simplify processes and reduce duplication, including through the use of trusted digital identity services and we will accelerate digitalisation by supporting the implementation of common data standards, trialling a data trust framework to guarantee data provenance, and continuing to work with industry to drive adoption of digital technology across the sector.
These reforms will deliver real benefits for households. The buying process could become around four weeks faster, and the proportion of failed transactions could fall from one in three to one in seven. First-time buyers could save an average of £710 through these proposed new rules—a total of more than £180 million a year overall back in people’s pockets. Home movers could save around £400 per transaction.
Professionals will also benefit from a more efficient and competitive system. These sectors currently lose out on £1 billion per year as a result of failed transactions and our proposals will reduce the likelihood of this happening. Digitisation will reduce duplication and speed up processes, while also supporting innovation in the property technology sector, creating opportunities for growth and investment.
Alongside this, we are consulting on material information in property listings. This consultation seeks views on the information that should be included in property listings to support the transition to a system where buyers have the key details they need from the outset. Providing this information up front will help consumers make informed decisions and reduce the risk of transactions falling through.
The consultations will run for 12 weeks, until 29 December 2025. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, we will publish a road map this winter setting out how we will implement changes over the course of this Parliament. We recognise that these proposals represent a significant change for the sector, which is why we are consulting widely to ensure reforms are practical, enforceable and built to last. We know that this Government cannot do this alone. That is why we will continue to work closely with industry to deliver these reforms.
Our vision is for a housing market that works for everyone—faster, fairer and fit for the future; one that delivers the dream of home ownership.
[HCWS951]
New Generation of New Towns
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
One of the first actions this Government took upon assuming office was to establish an independent expert advisory panel, the New Towns Taskforce, to support the delivery of our manifesto commitment to build a new generation of new towns.
A key purpose of this new generation of new towns is to create new and expanded places and thereby boost economic growth and the supply of new homes—spreading opportunity and supporting strong communities. With that ambition in mind, the taskforce was commissioned to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns.
The Government made it clear that the taskforce should consider not only large-scale, stand-alone new communities, but also urban extensions and urban regeneration schemes that would work with the grain of development in any given area. We specified that each of the new settlements should contain at least 10,000 homes, but made it clear that we expected a number to be far larger in size. We also commissioned the taskforce with ensuring that any proposals would deliver well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, with the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities.
On 28 September, the Government published the taskforce’s final report as well as an initial response to it. In its report, the taskforce recommended 12 potential new town locations to the Government. In line with its remit, the taskforce has identified sites across a range of typologies that share core characteristics and reflect the Government’s ambition for new towns to unlock economic growth and deliver housing at scale. Collectively, they have the potential to deliver up to 300,000 homes over the coming decades.
In our initial response, we welcomed all 12 of the recommended locations. Prima facie, each has the clear potential to deliver on the Government’s objectives, with Tempsford, Crews Hill and Leeds South Bank looking particularly promising as sites that might make significant contributions to unlocking economic growth and accelerating housing delivery.
We also made clear that we support the placemaking approach recommended by the taskforce and are encouraged by the aims of its recommended placemaking principles. These include links to high-quality public transport, access to nature, and infrastructure like schools and hospitals, support for business growth and job creation, and the aim to achieve 40% affordable housing, with half of this social rent. The final selection of placemaking principles will be subject to environmental assessment and consultation.
The Government agree with the taskforce that the preference for new town delivery should be through the development corporation model, while recognising the need for flexibility depending on the circumstances of each site. We intend to assess the delivery vehicle options for each place, including consideration of central, mayoral and local development corporations, and the potential for public-private partnerships.
The initial response also states that planning decisions in all 12 recommended locations should consider potential impacts of other developments on the delivery of the new towns, in line with recommendations by the taskforce. We also note wider recommendations by the taskforce on ensuring that the planning system is set up to support new towns and that the legislative framework facilitates the role of development corporations in their delivery, and will carefully consider these recommendations ahead of our fuller response in the spring. In advance of this, we want to reassure local leaders that a consistent and fair approach will be taken to how local housing need targets interact with the future delivery of new towns, to support our overall aim of increasing housing supply, and we will set out more detail in due course.
The Government have commenced a strategic environmental assessment to understand the environmental implications of the development of new towns. This will support final decisions on precisely which locations we take forward as well as the final approach to placemaking and delivery. No final decisions on locations will be made until that SEA concludes, and preferred locations could change as a result of the process.
Ministers and officials will now begin work with local partners to develop detailed proposals and enhance our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver, with all promising sites and reasonable alternatives assessed and considered through the SEA process. Appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations will also be undertaken when required.
The Government will publish draft proposals and a final SEA for consultation early next year, before confirming the locations that will be progressed as new towns later in the spring alongside a full response to the report of the New Towns Taskforce.
In our initial response, we set out the Government’s intended approach to land. This includes the fact that the ‘no-scheme principle’ of compensation for compulsory purchase will apply, so compensation will not include any land value generated by the new town scheme. Any value associated with the potential for planning permission that arises as a result of the relevant new town scheme, including from potential created from the planning framework for the new town scheme, will also be disregarded in accordance with this principle.
Delivering the next generation of new towns will be a cross-Government effort and central to the Government’s agenda, not just in terms of building homes but in order to drive economic growth and spread economic opportunity across the country. It will be a priority across all Government Departments to ensure that new towns are built with the infrastructure and amenities required to create successful new places, with the long-term certainty of funding. We are determined to get spades in the ground on at least three new towns during this Parliament, and the Government are prepared to progress work on a far larger range of locations if it proves possible.
Finally, I would like to thank Sir Michael Lyons, Dame Kate Barker and all members of the New Towns Taskforce for their diligent work over the last year in producing such a considered and comprehensive set of final recommendations.
[HCWS948]
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My Department does not hold data on the proportion of people who have been granted asylum status living in the private rented sector in England.
John Lamont
It is extraordinary that the Minister does not have that answer. Too many asylum seekers are arriving in our communities far too quickly because the Government have failed on their promise to smash their gangs. People have had enough, and this Labour Government do not seem to have any answers. What actions will the Minister take to support local communities and public services to deal with the growing number of asylum seekers in our communities?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, as it was the previous Conservative Government—in which he served as a Minister—who lost control of our borders and presided over the complete breakdown of the asylum system. This Government are restoring order to that system, speeding up decision making and reforming the appeals process to cut the asylum backlog and remove those with no right to be here at a much faster rate than the previous Government. Our country has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Genuine asylum seekers who have been granted refugee or humanitarian protection status should be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman would have said the same some years ago, and it is a sign of just how far his party has fallen that he cannot now bring himself to do so.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Despite that answer, it is clear that things are getting worse. Our councils are battling with the cost of this Government’s border failures. The 22% rise in small boat arrivals, combined now with Chagossians arriving in rising numbers, throwing themselves at the mercy of our local authorities as they escape Starmer’s sell-out, is stretching council housing budgets to breaking point. The Government have refused to answer my written questions about what financial support they provide to councils housing asylum seekers and refugees who are granted asylum in their areas. Can the Minister tell the House how much of the proposed rise in council tax is for the cost of the Government’s asylum failures, and will he publish the full costs and support in the interests of transparency?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is conflating two separate issues. Genuine asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status and who can stand on their own two feet and work will rent, in some cases in the private rented sector and in other cases in market housing. Some dispersal accommodation for those seeking asylum will, of course, be in the private rented sector, and that can add pressure to local rental markets. That is why decisions must be made in co-ordination with local authorities and taking into account local housing pressures. More importantly, that is why the reduction in hotel use needs to be proceeded with in an ordered and managed way, not the chaotic way that the Conservatives have been calling for.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The national planning policy framework sets out that:
“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of…supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.”
We made changes to the framework in December last year that will support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward.
John Milne
In my constituency, we have seen promises of new schools and clinics repeatedly broken, but in every case it was not the developer or local council that let people down but national bodies such as the Department for Education and integrated care boards. They do it to save money by cramming more kids into existing schools and more patients into packed clinics. In the light of the 21,000 extra houses that have just been announced by the Chancellor for Horsham district, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can legally ensure that key local infrastructure promises are met?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always happy to sit down and talk to him about these and other issues. It must be said that when preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Local authorities are not doing that in all cases, which is why the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to do so. We can discuss that and other issues when I meet him.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
New housing developments agreed under the previous Government have been built on the green belt around villages in the Shipley constituency, such as Burley in Wharfedale, Wilsden, Denholme and Cullingworth, often without the vital investment in infrastructure such as GP practices, schools and other council services. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that as we build the much-needed affordable and social homes, we will prioritise brownfield and ensure adequate investment in the community?
Matthew Pennycook
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance; ours is a brownfield-first policy. She highlights an important point. The previous Government released vast swathes of the green belt in a haphazard and chaotic manner. We are taking a strategic approach to green-belt release, prioritising the release of the lowest-quality grey belt, and we are ensuring that where that happens, subject to our golden rules, we see higher levels of affordable housing and infrastructure. It is a much smarter approach. The previous Government did not adopt it, and they should stop carping about it now.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Water companies are not statutory consultees on individual planning applications, but they are consulted as part of the preparation of local development plans. On 26 January, the Government declared a moratorium on any new statutory consultees and announced a review of the existing statutory consultee arrangements. A consultation on proposals designed to limit the scope of statcons to where advice is strictly necessary and to remove entirely a limited number of them will be published in the near future.
Edward Morello
Outdated sewer systems mix clean rainwater with sewage, polluting rivers and placing strains on outdated infrastructure. If the Government are intent on not making water companies statutory consultees, a national rainwater management strategy mandating rainwater harvesting on new homes and major renovations would ease the pressure on infrastructure and reduce the likelihood of sewage overflows. What recent conversations has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about introducing a national rainwater management strategy? Will he consider making rainwater harvesting a mandatory requirement on new housing developments?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman raises an apt point. I regularly meet colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a range of issues, including water efficiency and management. I draw his attention to the consultation we launched just last month to review the water efficiency standards in the Building Regulations 2010. As part of that, we are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise that community-led housing delivers a wide range of benefits. We strengthened support for it in the revised national planning policy framework published last year, and in March we announced a 10-year social finance investment to provide capital funding for community-led housing. As part of the development of our long-term housing strategy, we are considering how the Government might further support the growth of the sector.
Gareth Thomas
Redwood Housing Co-operative spans five floors of social housing in the iconic OXO Tower on the south bank of the River Thames. Given that Redwood is run by its tenants, charges some of the lowest rents in central London and offers some of the best views, should not every community have a Redwood?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has long championed co-operatives, and I recognise his commitment to expanding co-ops in London and across the country. With that example, he draws our attention to the benefits that they can provide. We are considering opportunities to legislate to establish a legal framework for a co-operative housing tenure, which would help formalise the rights and responsibilities of both co-operatives and their tenants, and make co-operative housing a more attractive option. As my hon. Friend will know, I am more than happy to discuss the matter with him further at a suitable opportunity in the near future.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
In my Chichester constituency, a lack of available land drives high-density schemes in rural villages that lack the necessary infrastructure, and the schemes quickly become unpopular locally. Community land trusts such as the Westbourne Land Trust gain local support and deliver affordable homes, and that gives communities a real stake in that development. Does the Minister agree that community buy-in is essential if the Government are to reach their target for building homes? What steps are being taken to help community land trusts go from the planning phase to building homes?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady outlined another benefit of community land trusts: getting local buy-in. The availability of land is an issue for CLTs. I have already set out some of the ways that we are supporting them through new investment. As the Secretary of State said earlier, the new social and affordable housing programme will be designed with the flexibility necessary to support a greater diversity of social and affordable housing supply, including community-led housing.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As per my answer to question 4, the changes that we made to national planning policy last year were intended to support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure. When it comes to ensuring that necessary infrastructure is funded and brought forward in Cheadle or any other part of the country, we look to local development plans and infrastructure funding statements to address needs and opportunities.
Mr Morrison
Residents in Cheadle have contacted me about the huge number of speculative development applications coming through, particularly in Cheadle Hulme and Woodford. We are now being told that a 10,000-home new town will potentially be situated on the constituency border. GPs are completely oversubscribed in Woodford, we have not had a Sunday rail service in over a year, and the bus services are completely inadequate. This has been raised time and again by my constituents. Will the Minister meet me and the leader of Stockport council to talk about this issue, and how the Government can get developers to start investing in infrastructure before they develop homes?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues. The best way in which local planning authorities can protect themselves from speculative development is to have an up-to-date local development plan in place. He touched on developer contributions; we remain committed to strengthening the existing system to ensure that new developments provide the necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details in due course.
When it comes to the prospective new town that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I gently point out that it was not the Government but the independent, expert new towns taskforce that recommended to the Government that Adlington and 11 other locations in England should be the sites for the next generation of new town. On 28 September, we commenced a strategic environmental assessment to understand the environmental implications of new towns, and that will support final decisions. But no final decisions have yet been taken.
Mr Speaker
Order. I should say that that is the Adlington in Cheshire, not Lancashire.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government continue to implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. We have brought into force a number of provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, with more in the pipeline, and we remain on course to publish an ambitious draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year.
Mrs Brackenridge
Leaseholders in my constituency face unfair practices such as management fees tripling in as many years, stretching families beyond their means. Yet there are also a great number of responsible agents, including L&A Lettings, based in Ashmore Park. Can the Minister set out how the Government’s leasehold reform will strike the right balance, protecting leaseholders from poor practice without overburdening responsible agents, who already provide a transparent and fair service?
Matthew Pennycook
We know that there are good managing agents who work hard to ensure that the residents they are responsible for are safe and secure and that homes are properly looked after, but we also know that far too many leaseholders suffer from poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. In our recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or replace a managing agent as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. We think that those proposals strike the right balance, but we are analysing all the feedback we receive to that consultation.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the Minister for his answer to the previous question. In my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, leaseholders are facing soaring service charges and falling standards. Some have told me that they are considering withholding payment. Does my hon. Friend agree that much greater regulation of property managers is urgently needed to ensure accountability and standards?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend highlights that, as many of us know, the reality of home ownership for so many leaseholders falls far short of the dream. We absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, to drive up the standard of their service. We are looking again at Lord Best’s 2019 report on regulating the property agent sector, particularly in the light of the recommendations in the final Grenfell inquiry report. We have set out a number of specific proposals in the consultation that I referred to in my previous answer. Our preferred approach in implementing mandatory professional qualifications is for agents to belong to a designated body, but all final decisions will be taken in due course.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As the Minister will be aware, some freeholders find themselves trapped in a leasehold-like situation: the wider estate that they live on is managed by a management company and not adopted by the local authority. They are fleeced in exactly the same way by exorbitant management charges, and there are often unadopted roads and poor sewerage. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can provide protections for freeholders who find themselves in that leasehold situation?
Matthew Pennycook
We remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure housing estates from unfair charges of the type that the hon. Lady described. We will consult this year on implementing the 2024 Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the 1.75 million homes that are subject to those charges. We are committed to bringing those measures into force as quickly as possible.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Thousands of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon now live in so-called fleecehold developments, often with a lack of transparency in how service charges are set and a lack of maintenance of public open spaces, including drainage infrastructure. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that any leasehold reform will including tackling fleecehold and that the reforms will be applied retrospectively?
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Lady that we will tackle the injustice of fleecehold as part of the ambitious changes that we intend to make to the leasehold system, with a view to bringing it to an end in this Parliament. The consumer protection provisions in the 2024 Act, which I have already mentioned, will ensure that homeowners who pay an estate management charge will have better access to the information that they need to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the first-tier tribunal. There are other powers as part of those protections and, as I have said, we will consult on them shortly and bring them into force as quickly as possible thereafter.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am sorry to learn about the loss of social rented homes in that instance. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to reinvigorating council house building, and I direct her attention to the five-point plan that we published in July to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
My constituent Steve Dally was charged £70,000 by Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council for the apparent crime of building a home extension. I met the Housing Minister earlier this year to talk about abuse of the community infrastructure levy. Could he update the House on his plans to stop it?
Matthew Pennycook
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I agree that we have seen unintended consequences of the 2010 CIL regulations—they have unfairly penalised some homeowners. I can only reiterate the commitments I gave him during that meeting. In principle, we are committed to finding a solution to this issue, and I am more than happy to meet him again and update him on the steps we have taken in the interim.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Up and down the country, people are being priced out of their communities by sky-high rents and extortionate housing costs. In Wandsworth, the rent for a one-bed flat will cost the average Londoner almost half of their monthly take-home pay. Does the Minister agree that we must put an end to this situation and make housing affordable again?
Matthew Pennycook
We absolutely need to make housing affordable. One of the primary ways in which we can do that is to build more homes of all tenures, which is precisely what we are committed to doing. We can also boost the supply of social and affordable housing, which our social and affordable housing programme—worth £39 billion over 10 years—will do.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Winter is coming, and nearly 3 million households are living in fuel poverty, which is an absolute scandal. The long-awaited warm homes plan cannot come soon enough, but given that previous piecemeal programmes prioritised private profit and left us without the changes that our constituents so desperately need, will the Secretary of State commit to funding a public body to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate a nationwide programme of home insulation to hold cowboy builders—cowboy contractors—to account and deliver energy savings for all?
Matthew Pennycook
I will refer the hon. Lady’s comments about the warm homes plan to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. If she wishes to write to me with details of any particular cowboy builders, I would be more than happy to read what she has to say.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is great that we are transforming leasehold properties, but many leaseholders are now stuck in a gap with their freeholders when it comes to betterment. If they want to green their homes through new roofs, new insulation and electric vehicle charging, they have to pay a huge extra cost. Will the Minister and, if necessary, Ministers from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero meet me and my constituents to discuss this issue? There is a real gap when it comes to achieving green improvements.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In April, the Government described their decision to approve a major scheme to unlock over 8,500 homes next to Cambridge North station after six years in planning as “nationally significant”. Just four months later, the Government scrapped the whole thing. How is that consistent with the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will back getting Britain building?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that I am unclear about which particular site the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. Again, if he wishes to write to me, I would be more than happy to engage with him on the particulars of that case.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Cornwall’s economic potential is vast. Cornish renewable energy and critical minerals can power the UK’s transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy, but economic development funding through the shared prosperity fund has come to an end. Can the Secretary of State reassure the people of Cornwall that our economic growth will not be limited by the fact that Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I know that Ministers do not comment on ongoing planning applications, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to an inconsistency? Currently, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is changing its guidance on heather burning on deep peat because of climate change concerns, but there has not been a concurrent change to planning guidance on building on peat. Will the Minister agree to look at that, so that my constituents can be sure that any developments are safe and take account of climate implications?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my attention. He is right that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but I will certainly look into the matter. I wonder whether he would write to me with further details in that regard.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that it is possible to bring in elected mayors and new strategic authorities without forcibly merging county and district councils in unwanted, cumbersome and remote unitary authorities?
Provision of Council Housing
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing the debate, and thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to it.
The provision of council housing is of the utmost importance to this Government. After decades of marginalisation, we are once again asserting the necessity and value of social and council housing, as a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. Doing so is imperative, because successive Government have, for decades, failed to build sufficient numbers of social and council homes in England, and that failure is at the heart of the acute and entrenched housing crisis we face today.
As has been noted, as a result of diminished social and affordable housing supply, particularly in the wake of the coalition Government’s decision in 2010 to slash grant funding for affordable homes, over 1.3 million households now languish on local authority waiting lists, millions of low-income families have been forced into insecure, unaffordable and often substandard private rented housing, and, to our shame as a nation, over 169,000 children will go to sleep tonight in temporary accommodation. Acutely conscious that it would not be quick or easy, we entered government determined to turn that situation around, and that is precisely what we have begun to do. In the brief time available to me, I will detail how the Government are kick-starting a decade of social and affordable housing renewal, and set out the ways in which we have laid the groundwork for a reinvigoration of council house building.
As the House will know, the Government stood for election on a clear manifesto commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We did so to address the urgent need to provide homes for those for whom the market cannot cater, but also because the provision of social and affordable housing supports wider housing delivery. We know, for example, that on sites where more than 40% of homes are affordable, build-out rates are twice as fast. Boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is therefore at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally, and to meet housing need and housing demand in full across the country.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member will know that we have not set a target as things stand, for the reasons that we have debated on many occasions, but we keep the matter under review.
Matthew Pennycook
And we have debated that issue on many, many occasions. I have given the hon. Member very detailed answers as to why, at this point in time, we have not set a target, but we will keep it under review.
As I have said, boosting the supply of social and affordable homes is at the heart of our efforts to ramp up housing supply more generally, and because direct delivery by councils has been key to high rates of house building in the past, getting councils building again is an essential part of our strategy.
On social and council housing, the Government have put their money where their mouth is. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire made clear, at the spending review we announced £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years from 2026-27 to 2035-36. I can confirm that given the priority this Government accord to social rented housing, at least 60% of homes delivered through the programme will be for social rent.
Accurately forecasting long-term delivery is inherently challenging—that is one of the reasons we have not set a social affordable housing target to date—but we believe our grant-funded social and affordable homes programme could deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over its lifetime, with around 180,000 being for social rent. The programme will continue to support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in homes. It will also permit a limited number of acquisitions. We know these two delivery avenues are important to councils, including those with older homes and those who are looking to rapidly grow their housing portfolios to deal with acute local pressures. We also recognise that certain types of much-needed social and affordable housing can cost more to deliver, including those built by councils. That is why the programme has been designed to be flexible in order to support the greater diversity of supply required, with councils encouraged not to self-censor when coming forward with bids.
To improve financial capacity, to deliver new supply and support long-term planning, for the first time, we announced a 10-year social housing rent policy at the spending review. In addition, we have recently completed a consultation on how to implement a social rent convergence mechanism, the outcome of which will be confirmed at the autumn Budget. The inclusion of this mechanism will be beneficial to councils, with many authorities letting homes below formula rent. Both these measures will support their capacity to borrow and invest in new and existing homes.
Beyond investment, we have developed a series of measures designed to enhance councils’ confidence, capacity and capability to deliver, and I want to cover some of them as they directly address the subject of the debate. As the hon. Gentleman is aware and has noted, one of the Government’s earliest acts was to introduce transformative changes to the right to buy. We want to retain a scheme that helps long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we could not ignore the detrimental impact the right to buy was having on existing stock and councils’ confidence to deliver new social and affordable housing. So we took decisive action to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme that provides better value for money and creates the certainty for councils to once again build at scale. Changes that have already come into effect include returning the maximum cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. We have also enabled councils to keep 100% of their right to buy receipts for reinvestment in new and existing homes. But we will not stop there. Following consultation, we will legislate for a more comprehensive set of reforms when parliamentary time allows. These reforms will include a 35-year exemption from the scheme for newly built homes, and a first option for councils to repurchase homes acquired through right to buy if they are sold on. On top of this, from 2026-27, we will act on a long-standing ask from councils by allowing them to combine right to buy receipts with grant funding from the social and affordable homes programme.
In addition to revenue generated from sales through right to buy and capital subsidy, we know how important borrowing is to councils’ delivery plans. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. So far, this preferential rate has enabled councils to borrow £6 billion for investment in new and existing homes. I am conscious that this rate is due to expire at the end of this financial year, and recognise the calls from councils for long-term certainty. Considering this, we will confirm our approach to this discounted rate at the autumn Budget.
Many of the measures I have mentioned so far relate to councils’ financial capacity, yet we know—the hon. Gentleman again mentioned this—that the challenges they face are not solely financial, and that as rates of delivery have declined in recent decades, so too have the skills and capacity of their housing teams. In response, in partnership with Homes England and the Local Government Association, we have launched the council house building skills and capacity programme, backed by £12 million of funding this year. This programme aims to upskill councils’ existing workforces, recruit and train new graduates to become qualified surveyors and construction project managers, and drive engagement with the social and affordable homes programme.
To conclude, this Government remain firmly committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. Within that commitment, we have prioritised the delivery of social rented homes, and we are taking steps to enable councils—whether those already delivering or those with closed housing revenue accounts who want to deliver—to once again build at scale. We have achieved an incredible amount over the space of just 14 months, but there is much more to come. We will continue to engage with councils and pull every lever at our disposal to increase their confidence, capacity and capability to deliver the social homes that low-income families across the nation need to live, grow and build a better life for themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Playgrounds: Bournemouth East
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this important debate. I commend him for the eloquence with which he stated his case and how he always speaks on behalf of those he represents. I thank him for the tenacity and dedication with which he has continued since his election to promote playground and play space provision. I note and recognise his ongoing efforts to maintain and improve playground provision in his Bournemouth East seat. His council will have heard that message, too, as it has on other occasions. I thank him for his ongoing engagement with the Department on this matter. I should also welcome him to his role as the chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on play, which, as he mentioned, met for the first time last week. I am delighted that, through that avenue, he will continue to champion this work, and I look forward to the continuing discussions in this area.
The Government recognise that access to playgrounds is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities and in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young and old people. My hon. Friend made an important point about the benefits that playgrounds bring for parents and grandparents, who find others in their community to speak to when they are with their children or grandchildren in those settings. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I will speak in what remains of my time in large part to the planning system and how it supports play, but I will touch on other areas.
Our planning system plays an important role in securing and protecting playgrounds, but this is not the reserve of planning alone. As a whole, the Government are considering how to improve both the availability and quality of play spaces across England. Following my meeting with my hon. Friend after our debate on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I wrote, as promised, to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we do all we can across Government to support better outcomes for children and communities. We are considering how to bolster further the provision of sufficient opportunities for play, and although I cannot speak for those Departments and their thinking in policy terms, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government as a whole have heard his call to explore a national strategy in the area.
With local authorities and industry specialists, the Government have established the parks working group to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces across the country, including in Bournemouth East. The work includes increasing the number of playgrounds more generally. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver funding to enable neighbourhood boards in 75 communities across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. The boards can choose to use that funding for a wide range of activities, including to upgrade play areas.
My hon. Friend knows—we have a difference of opinion on this point—that it is not the Government’s intention to place new statutory responsibilities on local authorities in relation to play. We are instead giving them the freedom and flexibility they need to meet local needs, including looking after treasured green spaces. The spending review provided more than £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities can rely on. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding to be delivered through the local government finance settlement in financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. The Government have also committed to simplifying the wider local funding landscape, reducing the number of grants and consolidating them into the local government finance settlement, so that local authorities are able to plan more effectively for infrastructure, amenities and services.
As my hon. Friend also knows, because we have had many a discussion on this point, the national planning policy framework includes a number of safeguards for play spaces. It makes it clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. That includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal. Information gained from those assessments should be used to determine what recreational provision is needed, which development plans should then seek to accommodate.
The framework also includes strong protections for these spaces, where they may be threatened by development. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such spaces can be approved. It means that these facilities can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere. My hon. Friend welcomed the further strengthening of that policy in our update to the NPPF in December last year, through the explicit safeguarding of formal play spaces.
My hon. Friend knows—we have had this discussion, and I will continue to engage with him on the subject—that in recognition of the importance of play space provision, we are actively considering what more we can say about this important matter, including on the vital role of communities in ensuring that play spaces are fit for purpose. The debate today has, as have other discussions I have had with my hon. Friend, provided invaluable feedback and experience on play spaces and the issues affecting them in his part of England, and he has spoken about others more generally.
We are, as my hon. Friend knows, intending to launch a consultation on what are termed new national policies for decision making—that is, the rules by which development management is managed and taken forward. That currently sits within the national planning policy framework, but he knows we are looking at how we make reforms in that area. I have taken on board his points about what more that suite of national policies might do in relation to the provision of play space. I know that he will contribute, as a constituency MP, to that consultation when it goes live.
A couple of other points are worth mentioning. The national planning policy framework is supplemented by national design guidance, which encourages the provision of open space and play space, including guidance on types of play space and how this can be integrated into new development in an accessible, inclusive and secure way. We are in the process of updating that suite of national design guidance and we are reviewing existing guidance on play space as part of that effort.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of Sport England. With regard to that role, and potentially, as he put it, extending its duties to play, he will know that the Government have a moratorium on new statutory consultees. However, we want to improve and streamline statutory consultee arrangements in England more generally and empower local areas to make those important decisions. We remain committed to ensuring that our playing field capacity is protected and extended, and the NPPF ensures that those interests are maintained in the planning system, as I have set out.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East on securing this debate. I thank him for outlining, with his customary clarity and force, the issues affecting playgrounds in his constituency and around the country. Parks and playgrounds provide places for social connection, support health and wellbeing, increase community engagement and volunteering, help people to connect with nature, and can be a foundation for social capital that underpins local opportunity and prosperity.
We will continue to do all we can to bring together key stakeholders, as well as local and central Government officials, across the parks and green space sector to identify effective and deliverable solutions to improve the quality and sustainability of those spaces. More widely, this Government remain committed to creating a planning system that delivers the play space opportunities that my hon. Friend’s constituency and other parts of the country need. I look forward in particular to sharing our updated planning policies and designing guidance with him and other hon. Members in the months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Housing: North Staffordshire
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing the debate and commend her for managing to fit a phenomenal number of issues into that very brief speech.
In general terms, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government want to see more plan-led development and want development generally to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. While there is much more to be done, I trust that she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications in her constituency due to the role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, but I will seek to respond to as many of the general points that she raised as I can. If there are any that I am unable to cover in the time that I have, I will happily write to her with further detail.
I very much welcome the fact that the local planning authorities that cover parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency are all taking forward draft local plans. It is really important that local plans are put in place, and at speed. Having an up-to-date local plan, or, where one is not in place, ensuring that one is brought forward quickly, is the best way for a community to shape the development required in its area. Where local plans are not up to date or in place, there is a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. We really need to drive that point home: it is not cost-free to not have a local plan in place.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I commend to the Minister the draft local plan in Stoke-on-Trent, which is very bold. It recognises that there is an acute waiting list for housing in Stoke-on-Trent, and that we need to build the houses that we need for local people, so that generations of families can live there. The council is taking some tough decisions and building on pieces of land that residents would not ordinarily want built on, but that is one of the trade-offs for having a growing city.
The Minister and I spoke about an urban development corporation covering Hanley, in Stoke-on-Trent, to allow land assembly in order to bring derelict brownfield sites back into use and build the homes that we need. Is that a conversation that we can pick up again? The opportunity is there with the local plan, but it just might need a shove from the centre to help get it over the line.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am more than happy to pick up that conversation and see where we have got to. For the reasons I have already given, I will not be able to comment on the local plan in question, but suffice it to say that we have a local plan-led planning system, and such a system operates effectively only if coverage of up-to-date local plans is extensive.
My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware that the Government inherited a system in which less than a third of local plans were up to date. We have taken decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both by providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and by intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. We are also introducing a faster and clearer process for preparing local plans, which will set a clear expectation that local plans—as well as minerals and waste plans, it should be said—should be routinely prepared and adopted within 30 months. Other aspects of the reforms—such as the introduction of gateways; shorter, simpler and standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making; and a series of digital transformation initiatives—will support that aim.
I very much commend the efforts being made in the area in question to get the local plan in place. As I said, where local plans are not up to date, and where LPAs are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, areas are open to speculative development. It is right that, in those circumstances, development comes forward outside of plans—the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold—but we have made it clear that that is not a route to poor-quality housing, and we have added new safeguards to the presumption in the national planning policy framework in order to ensure that.
It must also be said that the absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable developments acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in development. Local planning authorities already have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with such provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned a number of issues in relation to brownfield development—development on previously developed land—as well as green-belt development. It should be said at the outset that, like all Governments over the last few decades, this Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. We want, in all cases, local authorities to exhaust their options for brownfield development. Indeed, we are making that easier: we made changes to the NPPF in December, and we have consulted on what we call a brownfield passport—essentially a means of making sure that, when applications on brownfield land are suitable, the default answer should be a straightforward yes.
David Williams
We have certainly talked about the brownfield-first approach being taken. As I alluded to earlier, one of the issues in Stoke-on-Trent is that we have a number of historic and heritage buildings lying dormant. I encourage the Minister to talk across Departments about how we could create a heritage building release fund, similar to the brownfield land release fund. Those buildings are at the centre of our towns and communities, but at the moment they tend to fall down on value for money.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily take that conversation up with colleagues in other Departments, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about heritage policy in the planning system more generally if he would find that useful.
The point needs to be made, and it needs to be made again and again, that there is not enough brownfield land on registers—and certainly not enough viable sites in the right locations—to meet the demand for homes across the country. That is why we have taken a different approach to the green belt. We are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over recent decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbourhoods from merging into one another. We have acted quickly to replace the haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.
I emphasise that Ministers do not themselves determine what, if any, grey-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for the local planning authority itself to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify doing so. In those instances, we expect it first to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising the density of development—a number of local authorities across the country are looking again at brownfield sites and exploring whether they can get additional density to make up housing numbers—and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated across borough boundaries.
Where those options have been exhausted, we expect local authorities to look again at green-belt land release. National policy makes it clear that, in those circumstances, local development plans must take a sequential approach: first exhaust previously developed land, then consider low-quality grey-belt land that is not previously developed, and only then consider other green-belt locations. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.
Leigh Ingham
The Minister and I discussed this issue just prior to the recess, particularly in relation to Eccleshall, where greenfield sites with really poor transport infrastructure, as well as poor sewage and water infrastructure, are being proposed for development. I gently remind him that we were going to meet this month or early next month to discuss that further. It would be great to have that meeting put in the diary as soon as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.
Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make this the final intervention; otherwise, I will not be able to cover all of the many topics that were raised.
Gareth Snell
While the Minister is talking about green-belt land, I want to talk about the Stoke-on-Trent local plan. Berryhill Fields in my constituency has been given a reprieve from previous Conservative plans to build. Other green spaces in Stoke-on-Trent could be protected if there was a way of passporting the Homes England compulsory purchase powers to local authorities so that they could do land assembly in built-up urban areas where landowners who have no interest in building houses in the city are sitting on great swathes of land, which are just causing nuisance and antisocial behaviour. That would help with housebuilding, but also with urban and economic regeneration. If the Minister looked at that, Stoke-on-Trent would probably be up for being a pilot area and seeing what could be done.
Matthew Pennycook
It is probably worth me writing to my hon. Friend. The Government have undertaken a number of reforms—building, it has to be said, on reforms made by the previous Government in the last Parliament—to compulsory purchase powers. Some of those powers are novel; not many places, if any, have tried some of the new powers that I have brought into force. We are very encouraging of any local authorities that want to explore them. Let me set them out in writing to my hon. Friend so that he has the full detail.
In the time left, I want to address a couple of other issues that were raised, starting with infrastructure provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made clear, communities across the country want to see infrastructure delivered as early in the development process as possible rather than as an afterthought. The provision of infrastructure is incredibly important. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF we published last year also supports the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.
Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare what is known as an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure through the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner has written to local planning authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 or community infrastructure levy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South knows, the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that specific point in due course.
My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of section 106 moneys. While there is a variety of entirely legitimate reasons why local planning authorities may be holding unspent developer contributions, including to facilitate the effective delivery of phased development projects, we recognise the need to ensure that the contributions that developers make to mitigate the impact of development and make it acceptable in planning terms are used effectively and in a timely manner. Local planning authorities are expected to use all the funding received by way of planning obligations. Individual agreements should normally include clauses stating when and how the funds will be used and allow for their return after an agreed period of time where they are not.
The planning advisory service, funded by my Department, provides support to local planning authorities in the governance of developer contributions. Any local planning authority that receives a contribution from development through section 106 planning obligations must prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement at least annually. Reporting on developer contributions helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent—and, in some circumstances, underspent—and what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and accountable system. I know from my own constituency, and I hear from many hon. Members, that what communities want is transparency about where those funds go and certainty that they are being spent on the right mitigations to ensure that development is made acceptable. As I said, we will bring forward further reforms to strengthen the section 106 system so that councils are better placed to strike those agreements and ensure that developers are held to the commitments they make.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues, including empty homes. I am more than happy to write to her on them. Community right to buy is not my responsibility as a Minister, but I will get the appropriate Minister in my Department to provide her with an update. She rightly mentioned the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which recently had its Second Reading.
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and other hon. Members for taking part. There is clearly a shared set of issues among a set of colleagues that needs addressing. I am more than happy to pick up conversations, and to meet them as a group rather than individually if that is useful, since some common concerns have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns of her constituents and the points that she made.
I emphasise once again that the Government are in complete agreement with my hon. Friend on the importance of plan-led development that provides the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services that communities want. If they get those things—this will not be the case for all her constituents, as it is not the case for all of mine, but it will be true in lots of cases—and we ensure that we get better development as well as more development, that will be a way to assuage some of the concerns that communities have about what housebuilding in their area means. I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes the Government have already made, along with those to come, of which there are many, are of lasting benefit to her constituents as well to as others in the region.
Question put and agreed to.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Matthew Pennycook ExcerptsMonday 8th September 2025
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Renters’ Rights Act 2025 View all Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 September 2025 - (8 Sep 2025)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77.
Matthew Pennycook
This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.
Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.
The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.
However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.
The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what?
Matthew Pennycook
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.
I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.
Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.
Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lords amendment 18 would reduce the prohibition on re-letting or re-marketing a property following the use of possession ground 1A from 12 months to six. We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so, but we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate. The Government remain firmly committed to the 12-month no-let restriction, and I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 18 on that basis.
Lords amendment 19 is a related amendment that exempts shared owners from the 12-month re-letting and re-marketing restriction, as well as other important restrictions. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. I know from my own efforts to support shared owners in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich that those affected by the building safety crisis often face unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distressed sale.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?
Sir James Cleverly
Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.
While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.
The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.
We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.
Sir James Cleverly
No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.
The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop. Does he not see the risk of abuse that comes with a ground that is so broadly drawn? That was our other concern, and he has not addressed it.
Sir James Cleverly
There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.
I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.
Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.
The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.
The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.
Gideon Amos
Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.
It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.
The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:
“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”
Crucially, it added:
“Moreover, there is no local authority”—
or anyone else—
“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”
We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.
Matthew Pennycook
Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic.
Gideon Amos
Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.
Gideon Amos
I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:
“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]
That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.
Matthew Pennycook
I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be.
Gideon Amos
I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.
The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.
This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs.
Matthew Pennycook
With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.
We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.
A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering longer and more stable tenancies.
In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.
The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.
We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.
Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.
Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.
I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.
I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.
Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.
To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Housing Provision in Stafford
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this debate. As you know, she always speaks with force and passion on behalf of her constituents, and has done so again today on this important matter.
I appreciate fully the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of residents in Eccleshall. I assure her that the Government want to see more plan-led development, and development generally, to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. Without doubt, much more remains to be done, but I trust she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local development plan or on individual planning applications within her constituency, due to the role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system. I will seek to respond to the points she has made in general terms.
Let me start by addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed about local development plans. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of areas having up-to-date local plans, and the detrimental impact on individuals and communities where that is not the case. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system, but a locally led planning system only operates effectively if coverage is extensive.
As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, we inherited a system where less than a third of local plans were up to date. We are taking decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both in providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the length of time that it takes to progress and adopt a local plan—on average, seven years. Slow progress in the preparation of local plans means that those areas are at greater risk of speculative development and that those local plans are out of date more quickly upon adoption, which creates uncertainty for communities and holds back development where it is needed. That is one of the many reasons why we intend to introduce a new, faster and clearer process for preparing plans. That new system will set a clear expectation that local plans, as well as mineral and waste plans, are routinely prepared and adopted in 30 months. Other aspects of our reforms will support that aim, such as the introduction of gateways, shorter, simpler and more standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making, and a series of digital transformation initiatives.
The new system will help us to deliver and maintain universal coverage across England, supporting the Government’s wider commitments to deliver the development the country needs. It is our intention that a package of plan-making reforms, enabled through provisions in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023, will commence later this year. I understand that Stafford borough council has chosen to introduce its next local plan under the new local plan-making system that we intend to put in place, and my Department will continue to engage with it to that end.
Where plans are not up to date and local planning authorities are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, it is right that development can come forward outside of the plan; the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold. However, we have been clear that that is not a passport to poor-quality housing. That is why we added new safeguards to the presumption in the revised national planning policy framework that we published in December last year. The absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in the development, and local planning authorities have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with any such provisions.
My hon. Friend asked me, very reasonably, what can be done about multiple applications and whether they can be considered in the round. I again stress the point that local development plans are the most appropriate way to consider applications in the round, in terms of allocating appropriate sites to come forward, and local plans do have an element of sequencing to them in what development they expect to come forward during the whole life of the plan, but for specific applications, it might be worth stressing that other proposed developments can be a material consideration in the determination of an individual planning application, although that is always decided on a case-by-case basis.
As my hon. Friend made clear, communities across the country, including in Eccleshall, want to see infrastructure provision delivered as early in the development process as possible, rather than being an afterthought that comes right at the end. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF, which was published last year, will also support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.
Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. When preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 and/or the community infrastructure levy.
The Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes such as the housing infrastructure fund. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details about our proposals in that area in due course.
It is worth mentioning the provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide for mandatory spatial development strategies in sub-regions across the country. That is a good example of how groups of local planning authorities can plan at higher than the local planning level for the effective delivery of new homes and infrastructure across a wider area, making smarter decisions in a framework that sees infrastructure and investment come forward.
Finally, my hon. Friend raised the issue of agricultural land. The Government place great importance upon our agricultural land and food production. The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should recognise the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. That said, the Government recognise that the system used to grade agricultural land is currently not fit for purpose. The maps are outdated, not at a scale suitable for the assessment of individual fields or sites, and are not suited to the changing suitability of land. The Government are exploring what improvements are needed to the ALC system to support effective land use decisions.
To conclude, I commend my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns felt by her constituents and Eccleshall and beyond. I emphasise once again my agreement with her about the importance of plan-led development to provide the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services. I am more than happy to meet with her to have a separate conversation on Eccleshall specifically, as she requested, but in general terms, I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes that the Government have already made, along with those to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents and those of other hon. Members across the country.
Dr Huq, I wish you, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members an enjoyable and productive summer recess.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Reciprocated all round, I think.
Question put and agreed to.