Gareth Bacon MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I understand his point that the 4% of applications contain a significant number of units, but does he have a figure for that? How many extra units will be granted planning permission as a result of this change?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree that that is the reason for the existence of the Planning Inspectorate? If planning applications are refused for reasons that are not in accordance with planning policy, will they not be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to address the statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and I thank the Minister for his detailed opening remarks. At the outset I state that it is our intention to divide the Committee on the SI. Notwithstanding that, I am aware of the political balance of the Committee and the Government are likely to carry the day, so I have some comments and questions for the Minister. As I said in a Delegated Legislation Committee two weeks ago, “The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking” —[ Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 June 2026; c. 4.] . It is therefore no surprise to be back again debating regulations relating to the Act. In that Committee I raised some of the Opposition’s important and long-held concerns about local democracy. This SI may be about the planning system on paper, but the core of the changes it seeks to make strike at the heart of future local democratic voices and their ability to scrutinise planning applications. As I did two weeks ago, I am keen to make plain once again the Opposition’s firm view that we must get Britain building. There is broad consensus among the Government and the Opposition that this must happen, albeit with differences as to how it should happen. Still, that is better than the purely nimby sentiments expressed by some minor opposition parties. Where the Government and the Opposition most notably differ is over the issue of local democratic oversight and scrutiny, and the uncertain future of planning committees. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, just 4% of all planning applications are decided by a planning committee rather than by a planning officer. However, it is that 4% in which local voices—democratically elected local voices—are so critical. That is because at present, local councillors can call in planning applications for democratic determination, but the Government seem determined to remove that ability by mandating which applications must go to committee and which cannot. Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention? If so, how does he plan to ensure that planning officers are held to account under a national scheme of delegation? I know this is not the first time the Opposition have put this question to the Government, but it is of too great an importance not to be considered at every stage of this march towards a national scheme of delegation. Secondly, any attempt to suggest that the 4% represents either a great blockage or an insignificant hill on which to plant one’s flag is very far from the truth. In the period from January to March, 91% of major planning applications were decided within 13 weeks of the agreed time, up from 89% towards the end of 2024. That is the same system that delivered consent for 1 million homes in England between 2019 and 2024, and 2.5 million between 2010 and 2024. Given that 96% of all applications are already decided outside planning committees, and given the high number of planning permissions granted, why is curtailing democratic participation necessary? Removing local councillors’ ability to have their say is one thing, but doing so in exchange for a national scheme of delegation written and imposed top-down from Whitehall is a further insult to the town hall. I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the scheme includes the same local knowledge and understanding that local, democratically elected councillors provide at present? That is a concern not just on the Opposition Benches but for the Local Government Association, which, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, said: “there remain concerns around how it”— “it” meaning the national scheme of delegation— “will ensure that councils—who know their areas best and what they need—remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.” As local authorities are being asked to deliver increases in new homes of up to 487%, what assessment has the Minister made of the loss of local knowledge and local democratic input to planning applications? As I said at the outset, we agree that there is a need to build more homes, but why do local people need to be taken out of the equation by removing their democratically elected representatives from the process? There is also the question of transparency. How will the Government ensure that decisions taken by unelected officials are taken with sufficient probity? Then there is the question of applications made by local councillors themselves. For the sake of probity, it is usual for those to be heard by the full planning committee. Will that continue to be the case? What safeguards will be in place in the event that the council has a direct interest in an application—for example, where the application is made by the council itself or where it has a financial interest in it, perhaps by virtue of a loan to the developer? Finally, between the removal of locally elected voices and the introduction of overarching and subsuming spatial development strategies, what role will local plans, which are decided by elected councillors, play after all of this? I hope that the Minister will carefully consider each of those points and address them fully as we continue this debate.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  There is a strong corelation between the hon. Gentleman’s argument and our position. I agree with much of what he has said, but I cannot get away from the ratio that both the Minister and I have outlined in our speeches: 96% of planning applications are already decided by officers under delegated powers. Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that democracy is the inhibitor here? Is democracy introducing uncertainty into the system? If that is the case, he should say so.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine, for the first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I appreciate the remarks that he has made—and to address this draft statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking and has in many ways transformed how our planning system operates. In this House and in the other place, one of the key areas of concern for the Opposition when the Bill was being debated was local consent, democracy and control. The Opposition keenly recognise the importance of getting Britain building—we share that desire with the Government—be it more homes, more transport links or more new infrastructure. However, we acknowledge that that requires change in how the issues are addressed. For too long it has been too expensive, too cumbersome and too controversial to see major housing and infrastructure projects through to complete realisation. That is why the overarching ambition to streamline the planning process is welcome and is something that we in the Opposition are sympathetic to. Although the regulations are, according to the civil servants who wrote the accompanying explanatory notes, “consequential and/or minor and technical in nature”, they continue a worrying trend of centralisation that I hope the Minister will comment on in a moment. Through the regulations, the Government will make England-wide the system of spatial development strategies: a form of sub-regional mandatory strategic planning. The spatial development strategies are plans that look ahead a minimum of two decades and set the framework for local plans. For democratically elected local authorities, that means 20 years of subordinating the democratically accountable local plan to the “high-level documents”. However, it is not hard to see how that inevitably leads to institutional conflict. I take London as the example. In London, the spatial development plan is known as the London plan and is produced by the Mayor of London. Far from being a high-level strategic document, it is a 526-page tome containing more than 100 separate policies—often of a very granular and sometimes conflicting nature, which makes navigating the system excessively complex. In an area as huge and varied as Greater London, the “one size fits all” approach to the London plan is often in conflict with boroughs’ local plans. Given that spatial development strategies produce a mandatory framework, what recourse of action is available to local councils and local people who find it hard to reconcile the local plan of their local area with the determination of the overriding strategy? How will their voices continue to be heard? Secondly, and most importantly, I must press the Minister again to adopt a genuinely brownfield approach. This is not the first time we have conversed, debated and potentially sparred over this issue; there is widespread concern. Will the Minister make it clear how he intends to ensure that any long-term strategies encourage a “brownfield first” approach? How will he ensure that the spatial development strategies do not give a new and undemocratic weight to greenbelt developments by overriding any elements of local plans that currently prioritise brownfield development? The Government have spoken before about their reluctance to enshrine a genuine brownfield approach into law, but the Opposition believe it is far better that we deal with the issues now, rather than sandwich them in at a later and perhaps overdue date. Finally, we were told that a primary aim of the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to streamline and speed up the planning process. What assessment has the Minister made of the potential for the statutory inquiries that he has just referred to, authorised under regulation 2, to increase the amount of time necessary to get the planning system moving, rather than enlivening and quickening the process? Those important questions drive into the heart of the purpose of the very Act that the regulations seek to enforce. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will address those points and provide the assurances necessary to make the system workable.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government have previously stated that Hamas must voluntarily disarm in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, but that is clearly not happening. What is the Government’s practical strategy to ensure that Hamas is compelled to give up its weapons, cannot rebuild its military capabilities, and does not divert humanitarian aid?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. In the last three years, the number of Metropolitan police officers has fallen by 3,000, and it is now at a lower level than it was in May 2016, when Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Overall crime in London has increased by 26% and knife crime is up by 27%. It is true that policing in London is partially devolved, but over 70% of the funding to the Metropolitan police comes from the Home Office, and that makes the Home Secretary a key player. What is she doing to reverse the dismal decline that we have seen in Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate about the impact of the community infrastructure levy on private homeowners. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for securing the debate; he has campaigned on this topic diligently and relentlessly alongside his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I am sure those in the Chamber will agree that both of them have made powerful and persuasive speeches this morning. The community infrastructure levy—more commonly abbreviated to CIL—is clearly not being enforced reliably, consistently or appropriately enough. What should be, and was introduced as, a sensible alternative or addition to section 106 payments has become, for many homeowners, a financial burden far beyond their wildest nightmares. CIL was specifically designed to be a levy on developers in mitigation of the impact of new developments to ensure that they contribute to local infrastructure. It was designed with safeguards, such as the fact that the levy can apply only in areas where a local authority has consulted on and approved a charging schedule that sets out the levy rates, and published that on its website. The rates were to be decided by the local authority to ensure an added democratic oversight to the whole process. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, CIL was established with sensible exemptions—at least on paper. Primarily, it was meant to be the case that only new developments that create net additional floor space of 100 square metres or more, or create a new dwelling, are potentially liable for the levy. That should have meant that most residential annexes and extensions, house or flats built by self-builders, local authority or housing association-provided affordable housing and charity developments are exempt. Most importantly in the context of this morning’s debate, if a householder development is over 100 square metres, an exemption can still be secured if it is applied for, but that is not a straightforward process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash said in his opening speech, it is a rather onerous and complicated process of submitting myriad forms against tight deadlines before any building work can start. Many people are caught out, having filled out the forms incorrectly or late. In many cases, homeowners were not even aware of the existence of CIL until it was too late. Even in the case of an entirely innocent mistake where council determines an application to be retrospective, the householder will become liable for CIL. The CIL Regulations 2010, which were created under the Planning Act 2008, fail to adequately safeguard those exemptions and have therefore not properly protected homeowners from exorbitant bills from local authorities failing to properly discharge the collection of the levy. It is important to note that this is not happening everywhere. Around 200 councils operate CIL. As has been acknowledged in earlier speeches, some take a pragmatic, common sense and humane approach to its application. Others, however, demonstrably do not, and have followed the legislation to the letter without any regard for its overriding intention. That prompts the question: if some councils can adopt the regulations more flexibly, why cannot others? The Sunday Times has reported cases involving large sums of money being charged to residents in Surrey, Sevenoaks, London, Shropshire, Horsham, Bracknell Forest, Basingstoke, Chester and East Sussex. The Government have not issued any official guidance to local planning authorities on the enforcement decisions on CIL charges that have previously been levied on householder developers. We have heard powerful and devastating examples from my hon. and right hon. Friends here today: the details of the homeowners often improving their greatest and proudest assets—their homes—and finding themselves with a bill for life-changing amounts of money that they were never told they were at risk of incurring. That is a deeply troubling scenario to play out in our local areas, and it is made worse when we consider that in some cases the residents in question found themselves not only facing financial ruin but doing so with no right of appeal against the charge. This has led to people handing over their life savings or even their pensions, funding their debt through huge amounts borrowed from friends, family or sometimes unscrupulous lenders, remortgaging their homes or, in some of the most shocking cases, selling their homes to pay off the local authority, and finding themselves with nowhere to live and nowhere to go. Let me be clear: the Opposition are not saying the original intention was wrong, nor are we saying that this situation has come about by deliberate design, because it is important that local infrastructure is not only protected from the strain of increasing housing stock, but, vitally, upgraded to match new levels of demand. However, in too many cases, CIL is simply not working that way. Even beyond the heinous examples shared today, residents who are exempt from CIL but live in an area where it is being levied are not seeing its benefits. According to research carried out by the Home Builders Federation, that is because local authorities in England and Wales are currently sitting on an accumulative total of around £2 billion in unspent CIL money. These deposits are earning the local authorities in question millions of pounds of interest, which they are using to support their revenue budgets. The closest alternative, section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, is not much better. It allows local authorities to secure investment in central infrastructure arising from development, similar to but not exactly the same as CIL. Based on another piece of research from the HBF, across England more than £1.5 billion of section 106 contributions are made each year towards funding, facilities and services. However, according to the Urban Mobility Partnership, £5.3 billion of those annual contributions remain unspent in the accounts of local authorities in England and Wales. Even when they are spent, the HBF has shown that last summer local authorities reported a 20% rise in section 106 negotiation timelines, with 35% of all section 106 agreements taking more than 12 months to finalise and more than a third of councils having an average timeframe of more than 500 days. It is clear that our systems for supporting infrastructure in our local communities are failing private homeowners on two counts: first, and most shockingly, they are landing frighteningly large Bills on the doorsteps of unsuspecting homeowners who are seeking only to improve the homes that they have worked hard to buy, sustain and improve; and secondly, the benefits of the payments are not being felt by the local community. The Minister is a decent man, and I know he shares my concerns about this issue. He has said before that he “recognises that procedural requirements relating to exemptions for housebuilder applications under the 2010 CIL regulations have had financial consequences for some homeowners.” He further stated that “a series of households across the country have been very badly hit by this. It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.” I do not doubt his sincerity. The Government must address those points and do so quickly. Perhaps the Minister could commit today to finding much needed time in the next parliamentary session to solve this crisis, back homeowners and undo this regulatory mess. Would he be prepared to put a timeframe on that today? It is vital that more is done to help homeowners facing these bills and to ensure that funds find their way into the beneficial causes in our local communities, and for the Government to ensure that these outcomes are realised quickly.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Draft Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is the first time, Ms Vaz, that I have had the pleasure of serving with you in the Chair; I very much look forward to it. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he just made. As the Minister said, in 2020 the previous Government began the process of looking into policies to provide a more transparent picture of the control of land through the creation of a freely accessible dataset. This came out of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which provided the framework for greater transparency on contractual control agreements in England and Wales such as—as the Minister also pointed out—option agreements used to control the land short of outright ownership. The process began with a call for evidence, which was followed by an eight-week consultation in which respondents demonstrated broad support for the increased transparency of contractual arrangements, including for key stakeholders such as developers and local authorities. However, respondents also made it clear that they had some reservations regarding unintended consequences in respect of things such as commercial sensitivity and the potential burdens on small and medium-sized businesses. On that latter point, it is vital that the Government fully and meaningfully engage with small and medium-sized businesses in the sector ahead of implementation, to ensure that this statutory instrument leaves no one concerned about additional costs and red tape to a detrimental effect. The previous Government hosted targeted engagement sessions before and during the consultation period to ensure that those who were going to be impacted by the regulations were fully aware and given adequate opportunity to put forward their thoughts and views on the matter. Times are, however, a little different now, and there is an important context for this debate. Small and medium-sized businesses such as developers, land promoters and conveyancers face increasingly higher costs and difficult market conditions. Not the least of their concerns is this morning’s data release regarding the inflation rate, which showed an increase to 3.3% in the year to March and forecasts of a potential high in excess of 4% this year—double the rate the Government are aiming for. For the construction and development industry, the impact on input costs, supply chains, material and, in particular, fuel could be severe. The data release shows that fuel inflation increased by 8.7% month on month—the highest rate since the beginning of Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine. Even before the data release, the Building Cost Information Service had forecast that building costs will increase by 14% over the next five years to 2031. That will hit SMEs especially hard and make it harder for them to compete as the major house builders dominate the more expensive land acquisitions, which data from the BCIS showed to happen in 2025. In addition to that are rising staffing costs, driven by increases to the minimum wage and employers’ national insurance contributions, and only compounded by the shortage of skilled workers available to the industry. All that is alongside the regulatory and fiscal environment, which the industry tells us is stifling house building and development. Well-intentioned regulation is performing an important but far from perfect role in balancing the vital priorities of any Government to deliver a sustainable housing stock and ensure that homes are safe. That issue is much larger than the scope of this statutory instrument, but I know the Minister takes it very seriously and I look forward to further parliamentary time being spent on it. Ultimately, I highlight all this because, for SMEs, this instrument produces new costs that are predicted to be about £4.2 million per annum. When that is added to the higher up-front capital costs, supply chain delays, increased taxation and the regulatory burden, it is vital that this important step to create better market transparency does not become overshadowed by the costs that come with it. The instrument is right to promote a fairer and more open land market. Indeed, it is right that almost any market must be open to competition to allow SMEs to compete alongside major players. That is the foundation, of course, of any capitalist system, and I welcome regulation that provides more choice for consumers as well as fairness for small and medium-sized businesses. However, how does the Minister plan to ensure that that is exactly the impact of the regulations? The regulations come with a real risk of unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns about how the instrument will impact land values, landowners’ and developers’ behaviour, and community engagement. For landowners and developers, it is vital that the Government monitor the market to ensure that the regulations do not encourage the tying up of capital and shrinking of the land stock available for development by encouraging a wholesale shift to outright land purchases to avoid the regulatory requirements introduced by this instrument. For landowners especially, the Government must work with the sector to ensure that the public visibility of agreements does not foster an environment in which less land is brought forward for development. Without tackling those issues, the Government may only exacerbate the situation we increasingly find ourselves in—a situation in which the land, especially brownfield land, is preponderant, but where the high costs of construction and development preclude the laying of bricks or concrete. I finish with a simple but essential ask: will the Minister commit to a regular review of the potential trends and ensure that the regulations work as intended? Without that, efforts to build a transparent and competitive market, which are essential to the success of the housing market, could end up being lost in the shadow of prevailing economic downturn, be it global or national. The previous Government pursued this policy in 2024 to increase competition and transparency, and the potential of the intended consequences is why the Opposition will not divide the Committee today. However, the Minister must ensure that the regulations help to get Britain building and do not hinder British building, and must work with the industry to see that they work as intended.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Housing Needs: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  This is the first time I have served with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to do so, and to take part in this debate about the housing needs of young people. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for raising this important topic. The housing needs of young people are multifaceted, with experiences ranging from those in temporary accommodation to those in the private rented sector, those who own their home and those who, for whatever reason, unfortunately find themselves sleeping rough. However, what is clear is that the Government are overseeing a growing problem, and forecasts for the rest of this Parliament predict further misery for young people, whether they are seeking their first home or merely a stable home. One of the core issues behind the housing problem facing young people is a lack of supply, and the axing of measures that were designed to bolster demand. The dream of home ownership should be a reality for every hard-working person in this country, on which I think there is collective agreement in this room, but that is not the case. The Government have not yet done enough to make that dream a reality. For example, recent ONS figures show that the Government’s record in house building is not just a sorry sight; in fact, it is significantly worsening. The statistics show that house building in England is on track to fall to its lowest level in more than a decade. During this Government’s first 15 months in office, just 175,290 homes were completed in England—a far cry from the lofty target of 300,000 needed to meet their manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament in 2029. That crash is not showing signs of improvement either, with the three months to September 2025 seeing the number of dwellings drop to 30,880—the weakest quarter since the pandemic. Based on the pace recorded in the first three quarters of 2025, England is set for the lowest number of annual completions for over a decade, totalling just a measly 130,000. Those figures come alongside a release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last November, which showed that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was 208,600 in the Government’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 during the Conservative Government’s final year in office. Some 190,600 new homes were built, which was a fall of 8,000, or 4%, from 2023-24, once again suggesting that the Government are on course to fall well short of their 1.5 million homes pledge. If they fail to increase the rate of house building, there will be fewer than 1 million new homes completed by 2029, which is well short of their target. What does that mean for young people trying to get on the housing ladder? It means it is becoming only more difficult to buy a home, not easier, and that young people are being failed by the Government. It is not just in housing supply that Whitehall currently presents more hinderances than help for young people. Demand for homes is far from insignificant in this country, not least among young people, but the Government are doing almost nothing to help that demand yield results. By November 2024, having been in office for just four months, they had taken an axe to the previous Government’s measures to get people on the housing ladder by cutting right to buy, first-time buyer stamp duty relief and the affordable homes to purchase programme. That has done nothing to help an already unaffordable housing market. It has in fact moved one of life’s primary assets—the ability to purchase one’s own home—further out of the reach of young people. Young people already face huge challenges in buying a home. For example, the average age of a first-time buyer in England has climbed to 34, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire. New research shows the growing difficulty of getting on to the housing ladder, with the average deposit worth around a 10th more than a person’s yearly salary. Research also shows that the average age is rapidly being pushed up by the collapse of the portion of first-time buyers aged under 25. They now make up just 6%, despite having made up one quarter of those buying their first home in the 1990s. To compound the misery, more than half of first-time buyers now need two incomes to make a purchase. Of course, it is important to consider not just those who are fortunate enough to consider buying their first home, but those who are renting, in social housing or in no house at all. On renting, a recent and very informative report by Centrepoint found that one third of young people in the private rental sector reported discrimination by landlords or agents, with the biggest issue being employment status. As unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds hits 16% as a direct result of the Government’s economic policies—a higher rate than during the pandemic—on the current trajectory, this issue will only worsen for young people, not improve. On top of that, young people face the prospect of a reduced supply of rental housing and, correspondingly, higher rents, which we are beginning to see on the back of the Government’s rental reforms. For young people in social housing, the picture is no brighter. In the same report, Centrepoint highlighted that there are approximately 130,000 young households on housing registers. That means that if social housing were allocated at its current rate, with no new social housing applications from young households filed, it would still take more than six years to clear existing housing registers. To say the least, that is not a positive state of affairs. I hope the Minister will set out a clear path to addressing it in a couple of minutes’ time. There is also a need to tackle the frightening rates of youth homelessness and young people staying in temporary accommodation. I am sure we all agree that no one should enter adulthood without the stability of a permanent and safe home, but under this Government, rough sleeping has hit its highest level since records began. More young people were staying in temporary accommodation, and for longer periods, in 2024-25, and 123,934 young people faced or were at risk of homelessness between April 2024 and March 2025—a 6% increase in just a year. I doubt that the Government have done that on purpose, but young people deserve better. They deserve safe and affordable homes with demand-side support to make the dream of home ownership a reality. That is why the Conservative party has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. It is a bad tax, and one that needs to be abolished on primary residences to get the housing market moving and to give young people a better chance of getting on to the property ladder. I call on the Minister to get behind that plan, to reverse his Department’s recent failures, to get Britain building, and to get young people to obtain a real stake in their community, their society and their own lives through affordable and targeted housing.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and appreciate the remarks Committee members have made already. Ensuring the safety of people’s homes is, of course, a vital part of the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the aftermath of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the disaster that was the Grenfell Tower fire, the previous Government began that process through key pieces of legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. In many ways, the Opposition are pleased to see that work continue under this Government and the stewardship of the Minister. Unfortunately, apparently not all parties see eye to eye on the matter. Changes to the planning system, including reforms to well intentioned safeguards such as the Building Safety Regulator, may be necessary. That is far from what Reform UK’s most senior designated spokesperson on housing said just before the recess. His comments cannot merely be described as misguided; they were insensitive to the point of being cruel and dismissive. That lamentable episode once again highlighted Reform’s inability to grasp the technicalities of many policy issues, and, critically, the inability of this one-man-band to muzzle its improperly vetted spokespeople and their shocking views. Let me move on to the detail of the statutory instrument. The previous Government launched the responsible actors scheme in July 2023. The aim was clear and responsible: to use sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recognise action taken by responsible developers to locate, assess, remediate or pay to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings with a height of 11 metres or more that they had developed or refurbished over the 30 years leading to April 2022, as the Minister said. The other side of establishing the scheme was to create a responsible actors scheme prohibitions list, and I note the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire. The explanatory memorandum says that the Department “will continue to monitor and publish data” on that, but it appears that there is no data, so I would welcome it if the Minister copied me into her response to my right hon. Friend. The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions. As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding. The Government have said that “the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.” —[ Official Report , 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.] In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to “provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.” That pledge was made in July 2025. Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed? It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Protecting the Green Belt · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Protecting the Green Belt · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have previously claimed that so-called grey-belt land is comprised of old petrol stations and disused car parks, but by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes on so-called grey-belt land that had been approved by Government planning inspectors, 88% were due to be built on what had previously been undeveloped countryside. The evidence is unequivocal: the green belt is under attack from this Government. Why will the Minister not just admit that the term “grey belt” is in fact a dishonest concoction designed to mislead the general public?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Women’s Safety in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to take part in this debate about the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas. Any concern about the safety of women and girls in their local communities is, of course, of real importance, and I welcome the opportunity to examine the issue from the context of the planning system. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. Let me start by setting out why this debate is important, because the safety of women and girls should be a whole Government effort and of concern to the whole of society. It is relevant to consider the context at the outset. In July 2024, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing described the problem of violence against women and girls as a national emergency, making up just under 20% of all recorded crime in England and Wales. Data has shown that in rural areas, convictions for domestic abuse are less likely, and victims in rural areas are subject to domestic abuse for 25% longer than those in urban areas, and are half as likely to report it. It is clear that a strong disparity exists between the safety of women in urban locations and those in rural locations—I appreciate the value of this aspect of today’s debate. I have no doubt that the Government share the police chiefs’ concern. Despite that, the Government’s “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy” mentions rural locations just once. I suspect that is unintentional, but would welcome confirmation from the Minister in a few moments. When we think about safety, we often focus on laws, policing or personal responsibility. That is entirely understandable, but one of the most powerful tools we have is something perhaps less obvious and the subject of this debate: planning. The way we design and organise rural spaces, roads, transport systems, lighting, housing and community services can significantly shape how safe women and girls feel and actually are. It is important that women and girls feel safe in the built environment around them, and that choices are made to ensure that safety can be upheld. That is why it is noteworthy that the Government have said: “Design and planning are critical tools in achieving this.” The planning system may at first seem a somewhat unrelated aspect of Government policy in the context of women’s safety, but as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset emphasised in her speech, that assumption is wide of the mark. Through the planning system, both central and local Government can shape the built environment around women and girls to provide the infrastructure necessary to make rural streets, hamlets, villages and towns safe places for local people in general, and local women and girls in particular. For example, we know that well-lit streets, accessible transport and thoughtful design can work towards reducing violence and opportunities for harm. Those examples do not guarantee women’s and girls’ safety. It is of considerable regret that so many women and girls do not feel safe on our streets, despite efforts made locally and centrally by figures of authority. But the changes that such planning choices can lead to in making women and girls feel safer in rural communities are none the less of great importance. That is clearly why the Government have announced that they will “update national design guidance to reflect a VAWG perspective, ensuring that safety considerations inform how public spaces are designed.” I hope the Minister will update us in a few minutes’ time on the progress regarding that pledge. What specific changes will be made and when? In addition, the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport launched a consultation regarding the third cycling and walking investment strategy recently. In that consultation, the Minister’s colleagues noted: “Investment in well-lit, safe, high-quality walking, wheeling and cycling routes increases feelings of personal safety, as well as improving road safety”. The Government are yet to release their response to the consultation, which closed in November 2025. I hope the Minister will confirm that he will investigate how that pledge can be enacted, and what impact it will have on rural areas and the women and girls who live within them. On rural issues specifically, I have already spoken about better lighting and creating safer spaces, but rural areas face a multitude of other issues that can actively work against the protection of women and girls. Technology and communication infrastructure are key parts of modern planning. Access to mobile networks and emergency services can literally be lifesaving in rural areas, but, according to a report from the House of Lords, although the situation is improving, rural areas often suffer from much worse access to the internet and worse phone coverage than urban areas. In January 2024, the proportion of rural premises with access to gigabit-capable broadband was only 47%, compared with 84% of premises in urban areas. Around 5% of premises in rural areas were not able to access a decent broadband service at all, compared with just 1% in urban areas. Access to efficient broadband and speedy ways to contact key agencies in emergencies, including the police, would intuitively seem to be an important part of increasing the safety of women and girls in rural areas. The lack of public transport in rural areas can force women and girls to take longer, less safe routes home. Given that, as I already mentioned, rural areas tend to be less well-lit and are often less heavily populated, the increased risk to women and girls caused by the lack of public transport is obvious. In the planning system as a whole, there is a difficult balance between more effective regulation and making the system not just work for everyone, but actively support everyone in all aspects of life. It is clear that it will require a whole-Government approach to get that right. Planning alone is not a complete solution; it must work, as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, alongside other agencies, such as education, community engagement and strong legal protections. Without good planning, even the best policies can fall short if they attempt to work in isolation. The safety of women and girls must be improved and protected with a holistic and multi-departmental approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work today to shepherd this important Bill through Second Reading. I also want to thank all hon. Members, who contributed thoughtful comments and points, as we strive to work across the House to see this memorial realised. I thank the hon. Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). As outlined earlier on, it is of great importance that the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war is remembered with a fitting and lasting memorial. Built in a peaceful and appropriate way, according to the wishes of the survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the memorial will go some way towards helping the nation to remember the 72 people who lost their lives. But it is first and foremost a space for the Grenfell community. The avoidable national tragedy that was the Grenfell Tower fire must also be an unavoidable memory in this place. It is important that policymakers keep in mind the duty that we have to protect British citizens from failure, negligence and unsafe practices. As has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, we must not forget to remind ourselves of the raw emotion that comes with the creation of this memorial space. Since the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), understandably announced the decision to dismantle Grenfell Tower just over a year ago in February 2025, we have heard of the distress that this news brought to some members of the Grenfell community. It is vital that, as the Government move closer to fully dismantling the Grenfell site, they continue to engage with the bereaved and all those affected to ensure that their voices are not just present but listened to and that their concerns, memories and experiences are understood. I have also raised the importance of this funding being protected. It is imperative that as the process to build and maintain the Grenfell Tower fire memorial progresses, the funding that has been promised and the means by which it can be preserved is also safeguarded. While our greatest duty is to build on the lessons of the failures that led to the catastrophic fires, it is also our sincere duty to uphold the promises made to the whole Grenfell community since that night. For that reason, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservative party will not seek to divide the House. If a Division is required, although that seems unlikely, we will vote to pass the Bill into law to ensure that the memorial is built. This memorial is not part of the technical and regulatory changes that had to come as a result of the fire, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, the cladding safety scheme and all the effort undertaken by the Government with specific regard to the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings. It is not possible, of course, to put right the disastrous wrong that occurred on 14 June 2017, but the memorial can help to appropriately commemorate it. We will, therefore, support the Bill.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This will be one of those rare occasions when there is a broad consensus across the House. The Opposition support the Government in wishing to continue the work begun since that tragic night in 2017 to ensure that lessons are learnt, changes are made, and the 72 victims who lost their lives are properly remembered. My Conservative colleagues and I welcome the Bill, and will support it today on Second Reading and during its further stages. The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 54 adults and 18 children, was a national tragedy that still sits as a dark and distressing memory within our national conscience. The failures that led to that horrific blaze, and to so much bereavement and distress, have now been studied in great depth by the Grenfell inquiry. They had to be addressed in detail, which is why we welcome the Government’s work to implement the inquiry’s recommendations and support their efforts to meet all of them by the end of the current Parliament. It is firmly the responsibility of the Government of the day to implement those recommendations, but it is our collective parliamentary responsibility to allow the means for that to happen, to support the Government’s work, and to ensure that, nine years on, we continue the process of remembrance. It is very difficult for us here to judge how best to commemorate the 72 people who so tragically lost their lives. That is why I believe that it was the correct approach, in 2019, to allow the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to develop proposals for a fitting and permanent memorial. The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside it to remember the tragedy. It is very important that in remembering the fire, we also remember all those affected by the events that night: those who lost their lives, of course, but also the bereaved families, the survivors, and the immediate community who have previously lived, or currently live, in close proximity to Grenfell Tower. As this process of remembrance reaches one of its most important moments—the realisation of the monument promised to the Grenfell community by the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and by successive Governments —it is vital for any future monument to keep the four promises made to the community: the promise of a mission to create a place of dignity and peace; the promise to create a bold memorial to ensure that the tragedy of the fire is never forgotten; the promise to introduce key measures to ensure that the memorial is looked after and not allowed to fall into disrepair; and a final promise to ensure that the voices and wishes of the Grenfell community are always at the heart of decisions made about the memorial. As for the future and the preservation of the memorial, it is important for this space to be protected from decay and enabled to continue to serve as a focal point for peaceful and reflective remembrance of the horrors of the fire. That is why my colleagues and I welcome the provisions in the Bill to allow the maintenance and preservation of the monument. As was mentioned during a recent debate on the Grenfell Tower annual report, it is necessary for the Government to deliver on their promises of funding. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about that, and I hope that he will confirm the funding arrangements in due course. On a related note—although it is not directly connected with the purposes of the Bill—perhaps the best possible tribute to all those connected with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower would be for the Government to honour funding commitments regarding the completion of the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate for those who are still living there. The refurbishment was intended to be funded 50-50 by the Government and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The funding required from the Government is a small additional fraction of the reported cost of the memorial. The council has done its part, and I understand that agreement regarding Government funding is close, but the longer this is delayed, the more costs will inevitably rise, so let me take this opportunity to urge the Government to conclude these proceedings with haste. The inquiry’s finding that decades of systemic failure, as well as sheer dishonesty and dangerous negligence, allowed this tragedy to occur represents a shameful and damning conclusion on the work, or lack thereof, of culpable industry figures, regulatory bodies and successive Governments. The least that we can do now is support the full implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations, and we on the Opposition side of the House will constructively scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are proposing, to try to ensure that anything that is done is done properly. For today, however, I look forward to seeing the Bill through its remaining stages in this House, and to working constructively to move the memorial a step closer to realisation. That is why the Opposition do not plan to amend the Bill today. As I said at the start of my speech, we will support it, and support the aim for the memorial to become a real place of peace and remembrance for the Grenfell community.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the delivery of the civil service pension scheme.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer because, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been getting correspondence from former civil servants whose payments have been excessively delayed since Capita took over. I note what the Minister says about the Secretary of State meeting the chief executive of Capita, but would she commit to a full review of the service that Capita has provided so far? Will she also commit to making either a verbal or a written statement to the House about the actions being taken to make this service work better?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. The United States of America is our most important international strategic ally. Does the Prime Minister believe that his dithering and equivocal response to events in the middle east this week has made that relationship stronger or weaker?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  If lifting the two-child benefit cap is such a moral imperative for this Labour Government, could the Chancellor advise the House why only 20 months ago, a commitment to do so was entirely absent from the Labour party manifesto and why, 19 days after that election, Labour withdrew the Whip from seven of its MPs for the apparent crime of voting for that moral imperative?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Nursery Provision: Greater London · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps she has taken to help improve nursery provision in Greater London.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Nursery Provision: Greater London · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. Late last year, with relatively little notice, the trustees of a pre-school in my constituency, Crofton Early Learners, decided to close the pre-school, meaning that 40 sets of parents had a very anxious Christmas wondering and worrying about what childcare they would have in the new year. The very good news is that—thanks to the dedicated work of former staff, volunteers and parents—a new setting called Phoenix Early Learners was opened within just six weeks. Will the Minister join me in thanking both Ofsted and the Charity Commission for fast-tracking the paperwork necessary, and in paying tribute to the staff, carers, volunteers and new trustees of the new early learning centre for all the great work they have done for the local community?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  With all due respect, the Government need to do an awful lot better than that. They hide behind the claim that there is a clear downward trend in live gateway 2 applications, but the reality, according to the Government’s own statistics across all categories, is that the number of live applications in London has fallen by a mere 6% in the last 12 weeks. That is hardly a reason to celebrate, is it? Will the Government admit that they, Sadiq Khan and their under-delivering reforms are hindering building, rather than helping to get London building?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  When announcing reforms to the Building Safety Regulator last June, the Secretary of State’s Department promised to “enhance the review of newbuild applications, unblock delays and boost sector confidence”, but in London, where demand is highest, house building has fallen to its lowest level since 2009, which was under the last Labour Government. At gateway 2, towards the end of quarter 4 of 2025, there were still 740 live cases. On top of that, where decisions were made on applications, the vast majority were invalid, withdrawn or rejected; 67% were not classed as approved for one reason or another. That is not success, is it?