Gareth Bacon MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The president of the Law Society has described the proposals as “an extreme measure that goes too far”. The chair of the Criminal Bar Association has described them as “a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations”. He pointed out that the juries are not the cause of the backlogs. The Government’s own Back-Bench MPs have described the proposals as a “dereliction of duty”, “a ludicrous proposal that will not work”, and “a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates”, which “goes too far” and the consequence of which would be “to destroy justice as we know it.” Why do the Government think that they are all wrong?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  4. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Education on methanol poisoning · Hansard source

  More

  On 21 November 2024, Simone White lost her life, aged just 28, following a mass methanol poisoning incident. She was one of six tourists who died after consuming contaminated drinks served at a hostel in the tourist town of Vang Vieng in Laos. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), I have met members of Simone’s family who live in our respective constituencies. The incident has prompted them to campaign for increased awareness and education about the dangers of methanol poisoning abroad. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Orpington, Declares that bootleg alcohol poses a considerable danger to tourists and has, tragically, resulted in deaths in countries including Laos, Turkey and Vietnam. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that children and young people are taught about the dangers of consuming bootleg alcohol as part of the PSHE or biology curriculum in schools. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003160]

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his remarks and for advance sight of his statement. Progress on leasehold reform is to be welcomed. Labour promised that when it stood for election 18 months ago, so it is about time it got on with it, as the previous Conservative Government had started to do. The previous Conservative Government began the process of fundamental reforms to the existing system of leaseholds by making it easier to extend a lease or to buy a freehold, increasing the standard lease extension time to 990 years, and giving leaseholders greater transparency over their service charges. His Majesty’s Opposition remain committed to giving leaseholders a fair deal, want householders to have security for the future and will continue to hold the Government to account on that. The Government made big promises to leaseholders at the last election. Do they believe that the Bill is the summit of their ambitions? What about the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024? What are their plans to implement secondary legislation? There are opportunities to improve leaseholder situations that are available to the Government now. Why have they not implemented those changes? Surely, if they were serious about reform for leaseholders, they would have picked up the 2024 Act and run with it, rather than doing nothing until now. The Minister just said: “I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, the last Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act contains a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation.” He went on to say: “While not included in the draft Bill, our intention is to rectify those flaws in primary legislation.” Perhaps he could tell us what those flaws are. If the Government have already identified them, why are the corrections not included in the forthcoming Bill? Surely now would be the time to rectify them. So if not now, when? I would be remiss not to comment on one of the central principles of housing reform: there actually needs to be some housing in order to reform it. The Labour Mayor of London is delivering the lowest house building in London since 2009, while Labour’s national housing delivery is nowhere near where it needs to be to meet its 1.5 million homes target. What is Labour doing to ensure that there are strong incentives to build more? Where is the second planning Bill that the Government briefed out to the media that they will need to introduce because of their failure to get the planning reform right first time? The Conservative party is pro-development, which is why we have announced both a plan to review the London plan to improve on Labour’s failings in London and to ensure that national development is done on a brownfield-first approach. Now, it is true that ground rent is an additional cost to leaseholders, but it is reported that the Chancellor is against capping ground rents because she believes it will deter pension fund investors. What does the Minister have to say to that? The Government are claiming that these measures will reduce people’s bills, which would of course be welcome, but if leaseholder ground rent bills are simply replaced by soaring council tax bills, with some local councils now facing more than 30% rises in council tax due the Government’s grossly unfair funding review, how will people be better off? In inner London, which has a high proportion of leasehold flats, residents in councils such as Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea are facing the double whammy of staggering rises in council tax and a council tax surcharge on top. Are the Government in fact claiming to cut a cost on one hand, while knowingly replacing it with even more costs on the other? I would be grateful if the Minister answered those points in his reply. We will scrutinise the Government’s forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, and we will hold the Government to account on their promises on leasehold reform and housing. We look forward to studying the details, and to the debates that will follow.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  Three local elections were delayed by one year in 2021, all of which were the result of local government reorganisations; a consultation took place with the authorities affected in advance and their views were taken on board. That is in complete contrast with what the Labour Government are doing right now. They are riding roughshod over the views of local people and cancelling elections for the second year running. It is vital that communities get the real empowerment they deserve, that taxpayers get the accountability they pay for and that new structures face proper scrutiny. That is why, on Report and Third Reading of the devolution Bill, the Opposition urged the Government to look again and accept amendments to ensure that the Bill provided those key tenets; true to form, the Government ignored those entreaties. The Opposition will continue to vote against the Government in Parliament on their botched handling of this issue. If the Government do not listen to local people, through whatever democratic means, we face a future for local government in which power is stripped from genuinely local authorities and people—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions—and centralised within geographically and demographically distant authorities instead. While the Government’s track record speaks for itself with rushed, top-down reorganisations of local government and higher council tax burdens on residents, the Conservatives believe that communities deserve a voice—not another expensive restructure that sidelines local priorities, moves decision making further away from voters and inflates the cost for taxpayers. While referenda, like elections, could be ignored by a Government who appear indifferent to the views of voters, the Opposition believe in local voices and will continue to stand up for our local democratic institutions. Our electoral process should not be abused or bent to the will of a particular party for its own partisan benefit. Ministers should treat voters with respect instead of disdain, stop undermining our democratic system and let the people of this country make their own decisions.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on the excellent points he made in his speech. Local government holds a special place in our multilayered and multifaceted democracy. It is democratically accountable, inherently bottom-up and strongly community-minded. The average local authority delivers more than 800 different services, providing key day-to-day functions that represent, for most people, the most noticeable interactions with political choices and democratic management. Whether it is bins, potholes, recycling and waste, libraries, adult social care or SEND services, the most obvious impact of many people’s choices at the ballot box are those delivered at the local level in their parish, district or county council. I am especially aware of that having served as a local councillor in the London borough of Bexley for 23 years and, on a regional level, as a London Assembly member for 13 years. It was a privilege to serve my constituents in those positions, just as it is as a Member of Parliament. That is why I know that local government deserves support and respect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that the Labour Government do not share that view. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I noted that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He is completely correct on that. However, my right hon. Friend was also completely correct to say that there was nothing in the Labour party manifesto that suggested a top-down, nationwide structural reorganisation of all local councils. There was no mention of riding roughshod over the wishes of local people and local government, but that is exactly the course the Government are pursuing. We have heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how the Government’s plans, which stretch far beyond the platform that they stood for at the election, will impact their local area and constituents. The Government’s programme of so-called devolution is already having sweeping impacts on councils and local people—not least, as we have seen for the second time in as many years, with the likelihood of the cancellation of local elections across vast swathes of the country. It is telling that of the 63 councils offered the chance to postpone elections by the Government, nearly three quarters of those doing so are Labour run or have a Labour majority. Following on from the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), there are a further four local authorities where the Liberal Democrats have at least a share of power, and one where they are in outright control. It is widely believed that Labour is denying democracy and running scared of voters by cancelling elections where it feels it will get a pasting. Independent voices—from academia to politics and the Electoral Commission—are urging that the elections should go ahead. Just recently, the Government told us they would. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the House on Monday: “Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead…I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again.” —[ Official Report , 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 58-59.] Her argument was supported by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), who said: “As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat.” —[ Official Report , 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 60.] He is surely correct in his assertion that this is what lies behind the Government’s actions. When 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote and the Government’s excuse is their own radically top-down and botched reorganisation of local government, it is no wonder that local people feel so ignored and insulted, as hon. Members have made clear today. Let me make it clear again: the Conservative party’s position is that the elections should go ahead. Our line has been completely clear and consistent. This mass suppression of democracy is, perhaps, the most egregious of the many negative outcomes of the Government’s bungled restructuring programme, although it is far from the only one. The greatest scandal comes in the Government’s approach to local councils as they seek to carry out this unmandated position. It is vital that local councils—the elected representatives of local people—and the communities in which they live are heard throughout any process affecting the make-up, functions and form of their local democratic institutions. Instead, Labour’s approach has been to dictate from Whitehall, forcing councils to sign up to a prescribed model of restructuring, imposed from the centre and leaving local people without a voice. We believe that true devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, elections and structure, but the Government have offered none of those things. While local referenda are expensive and non-binding, they provide another collective voice that could feed into the debate about how people want to be represented. The voices of local people should be front and centre of any restructuring process, but sadly, given their current approach, even if there were local referenda, it appears likely that this Government would simply ignore any view that did not correspond with their own.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A year ago the Secretary of State dropped the statutory free speech complaints scheme from the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. According to a letter published in The Sunday Times from 370 academics, including three Nobel prize winners, this has totally negated the whole point of the Act, thus imperilling freedom of speech on university campuses. When is the Secretary of State going to do something to correct this mistake?

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for bringing it forward. I have been rehearsing the name of her constituency in my head for quite some time, and I have made a mess of pronouncing it right from the outset, so I apologise to her. I also thank the 16 hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It seems that every time I return to this place, the Government have fallen further and further away from justifying their increasingly mistaken belief that they can deliver on their 1.5 million homes target. No one believes they are going to reach such a lofty, albeit much- needed, figure. We have pointed out that the Government’s efforts to reach that unrealistic target appear geared towards removing as much local input into decision making as possible, and towards shifting development from brownfield sites in cities and urban areas, where demand and infrastructure exists, to rural areas, where demand is often lower and infrastructure is far less well provided or even non-existent. That brings me to the Government’s new towns policy, about which, as it is currently framed, we have significant concerns, which I will touch on shortly. At the Labour party conference at the end of September last year, the Secretary of State pledged that the Government would go ahead with work on new towns in at least 12 locations. Since then, it has emerged that only three of those new towns will begin before the end of this Parliament, with the rest to be built after 2029. The three new towns that we will supposedly see begun before 2029 are Tempsford in Bedfordshire, Leeds South Bank, and Crews Hill and Chase Park in the London borough of Enfield. While His Majesty’s Opposition recognise the need to build new homes, we hope that the Government will work harder to listen to and address the concerns of local people living near these three sites than they have done with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), whose constituency includes one of the other nine lower-priority new town sites. He highlighted some of the Opposition’s key concerns when he presented a petition to the House on 17 December last year about plans for the Adlington new town, and he did so again in his excellent speech earlier today. The concerns he outlined were about the adverse impact on the green belt and on agricultural land, strains on local infrastructure and services, and the adverse impact on local communities. We are sympathetic to those concerns, which are not restricted to Adlington. One of the first new towns earmarked for building is in the London borough of Enfield, which has 37.3% green belt and 47.6% open space. According to the CPRE, the green space of Enfield, much of which is based on the borders of the Enfield Chase heritage area of special character, gives large parts of Enfield a rural character that is comparable to Richmond park or Hampstead heath, which are areas of significant local and historical value. The site of the proposed new town currently comprises commercial horticultural nurseries, garden centres, a golf course, working farms and greenfield land. The local businesses employ around 1,000 people, and all of this is threatened by the proposal. These are not vast swathes of undeveloped potential, but important green spaces that help as much as urban centres to define an area’s character and community. Tempsford in Bedfordshire is much the same, and has been chosen as an area for a whole new stand-alone town. My hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) highlighted, on behalf of his constituents, some of his concerns as the local Member of Parliament. It is vital that the Government work to fully and properly consult a local community like Tempsford—an area currently made up of small villages—rather than continue their top-down crusade against the countryside. That is why we Conservatives have repeatedly sought assurances from the Government about their plans for full and proper consultation with local people and communities. I hope the Minister will commit to that today. The impact of new towns does not stop at the boundaries of the local authority area in which they are developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) has highlighted that the proposed Crews Hill development in the London borough of Enfield will be closer to the village of Goffs Oak in his constituency than to Enfield town hall. The imposition of a new town of 21,000 properties on the border of his constituency cannot avoid having a direct impact on his constituents. Will the Minister therefore commit to proper consultation of communities and councils adjacent to the local authority in which the proposed new town may be built? He is a decent man, and I hope that he will. The Opposition recognise that the country is in desperate need of not just more housing, but more housing in the right places with the right infrastructure to support it. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) made precisely that point in her speech. Identifying where places have the right infrastructure, brownfield or urban capacity, and where new homes are most wanted, is a key factor. The Government must get serious about their failure to improve house building during their first 18 months in power. They must stop making excuses and blaming everybody else, and instead look at how to get the country building in the right places. That is why the Opposition have called for a brownfield-first approach to be properly actioned, not just paid lip service to, as it is by the Government. According to the CPRE, in a large number of local authorities there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. The same report shows that England’s brownfield sites increased in number, land area and minimum net dwellings by up to 54%, 6% and 34%, respectively, between 2018 and 2024. The Government will no doubt point to their brownfield passport policy in response to that criticism, but it should be noted that this policy, if actioned, is not without risk. It could result in bypassing crucial local input, minimising local community power in their own local neighbourhoods and rushing through developments despite legitimate local objections, which will do nothing for people’s faith in democracy. Even if that proves to be a misplaced concern, brownfield passports do not deal with some of the deep-seated causes of brownfield delays. After all, we know that there are already hundreds of thousands of planning permissions on sites that have not yet been built, and it is a lazy generalisation and an inadequate explanation simply to blame all of that on the land banking of greedy developers, because the causes are more complex. Funding, complexity, increasing regulatory burdens, delays and other factors all play their part. If the Government do nothing to address those factors, all they will succeed in is achieving more undeveloped planning permissions. As we all know, people need real buildings to live in, not unexecuted planning permissions.

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. It would be a great tragedy if the Government push on with their new towns policy and simply think that their brownfield passport will solve everything, because by having fewer developments on brownfield sites and some developments on greenfield sites, we will end up losing the precious green belt and still not delivering the amount of housing we need. That would be an own goal from the Government, so I hope they will take this point away and do something about it. The Government need to look further and faster at the proper development of brownfield land, rather than ripping up the green belt and steamrolling over local democracy, local voices and local communities. Recent history shows that this approach works. If the Government want to see urban regeneration or densification done right, they can follow Conservative examples and pursue brownfield first, not greenfield first, as the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), highlighted at the Conservative party conference. The Government need look no further than the Olympic Park in east London—a brownfield site transformed into a superbly connected hub of housing, business, retail and leisure that was completed under Boris Johnson as the Conservative Mayor of London. It was the same with Canary Wharf under Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine, when the old, dilapidated docks were completely regenerated, revitalised and reborn. Finally, as the Opposition mentioned in the final stages of the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the Government should add to their growing pile of U-turns and reverse the damaging blows the Chancellor and the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), dealt to the housing market and the construction market through their unholy trinity of economic decline, tax hikes and cuts to demand-side housing policies. Only through a genuine brownfield-first approach and a reversal of the damage inflicted by No. 11 and the former Secretary of State will the Government succeed in protecting our countryside and get on to building real homes properly connected with the right facilities that people actually want.

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is correct that I am familiar with the site in her constituency that is proposed as one of the new towns. I acknowledge, accept and support her argument that the DLR infrastructure would stimulate the regeneration of Thamesmead. Is it therefore a cause of regret that that site is not included in the three new towns that are scheduled to begin work before 2029?

• 12 Jan 2026 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  At the outset of the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), one could be forgiven for thinking that we had an entirely new Mayor of London. In fact, this year we celebrate, or perhaps more appropriately commiserate, a decade of Sadiq Khan’s tenure as London Mayor. In that decade, in the most prosperous city in Europe, Sadiq Khan has overseen not just stalling but consistently falling rates of private construction starts. Recent figures from Molior show that London began building just 3,248 new homes in the first nine months of 2025, leaving it on track to start building fewer than 5,000 in total in 2025. Incredibly, the Government’s response has been to cut their floundering mayor’s housing targets by 11%, but skyrocket targets in outer London authorities, where the vast majority of greenbelt land is. That includes an increase of almost 400% compared with previously approved London planning targets in my local council area of Bromley. Will the Secretary of State please explain why people living in places such as Bromley and our local greenbelt must pay the price for Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure and uselessness?

• 12 Jan 2026 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  What the Secretary of State did not say is that local boroughs are not in charge of building out planning consents, and he did not acknowledge that London boroughs are subject to the London plan. The Secretary of State claims that he is working with the Mayor of London, who writes the London plan, to build more homes, but unlike the Secretary of State, the facts do not heed the mayor’s spin. According to Molior, there were just 3,950 new homes sold in London during the first half of 2025 and just 3,248 private housing starts in the first nine months of 2025, against a nine month target of 66,000. The Secretary of State said last year that his own job should be on the line if he fails to meet his housing targets, so why does he not practise what he preaches, do Londoners a favour and tell sorry Sadiq to pack his bags over his decade of failure?