Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Housing: North Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Housing: North Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Housing: North Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Housing: North Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Housing Provision in Stafford · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. By ensuring that tenants can feel safe in their homes and giving social landlords clarity as to their responsibilities, the draft regulations are a vital part of that effort. I will take the draft regulations in turn, starting with the hazards in social housing regulations, or Awaab’s law. As the Committee will know, Awaab Ishak was just two years old when he died in December 2020, as a result of a severe respiratory condition that was due to prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. In the wake of his untimely death, Awaab’s parents have tenaciously and courageously fought to secure justice not only for their son, but for all those who live in social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are deeply grateful to them for their passion and persistence. Awaab’s death was wholly avoidable. His parents raised concerns about their living conditions time and again, but their landlord failed to take any action to treat the dangerous mould present in their home. Awaab’s law is vital legislation that will empower social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law, if they fail to investigate and fix hazards in their homes within set timeframes. Tenants will also be able to secure access to the Housing Ombudsman Service if their landlord does not adhere to the strict timelines for action in the regulations. Although progress also depends on a more fundamental change in the culture and values of social housing providers, Awaab’s law will play an integral role in ensuring that all social landlords take complaints about hazards seriously, respond to them in a timely and professional manner, and treat tenants with empathy, dignity and respect. It is also the Government’s sincere hope that over time it will build trust between tenants and landlords. The regulations apply to the social rented sector, but we are committed to extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, and have included measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill to achieve that. We are carefully considering how best to apply Awaab’s law to the PRS in a way that is fair, proportionate and effective for both tenants and landlords. We will consult on that matter separately. The Awaab’s law regulations will require social landlords to investigate and fix all emergency hazards, as well as damp and mould hazards that pose a significant risk to residents’ health and safety, within set timeframes. Potential significant hazards will have to be investigated by social landlords within 10 working days. Once the landlord has carried out an investigation, they will have to send written summaries to tenants within three working days and take action to ensure that the home is safe within five working days. Emergency hazards will have to be investigated and made safe within a maximum of 24 hours. If the social landlord cannot make the home safe within relevant timescales, they will be required to secure suitable alternative accommodation for the household until their home is safe to return to. Finally, any additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, and no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and will have to be completed within a reasonable period. Social landlords will also need to investigate potential emergency hazards and take action to make all emergency hazards safe, excluding cladding remediation work, as soon as possible and within 24 hours. Awaab’s law implies terms into social housing tenancy agreements, so that once the regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law. If they do not, tenants will be able to hold their social landlords to account by taking legal action through the courts for breach of contract. Awaab’s law will also include a provision for a defence if registered providers can prove that they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements of the regulations. That means that landlords will not be liable for a breach of the regulations if, for reasons genuinely beyond their control, they have not been able to comply with them. We intend to act as quickly as possible to bring all relevant hazards within the scope of the new legal requirements, but, to ensure its effective implementation, we have been clear that we intend to implement Awaab’s law through a phased approach. The regulations represent the first phase, covering emergency hazards and damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants. They will provide for an initial period of testing and learning to ensure the reform is being delivered in way that benefits social tenants and secures the lasting legacy that Awaab Ishak’s family have fought so hard for. In 2026, we will expand the requirements to apply to a wider range of hazards beyond damp and mould. The hazards we expect to extend Awaab’s law to in the second stage of implementation include excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, fire, electrical and explosions, and hygiene hazards. In 2027, we will expand the requirements further to apply to the remaining hazards as defined by the housing health and safety rating system, excluding overcrowding. As we progressively extend the application of Awaab’s law, we will continue to test and learn to ensure that the new requirements are operating effectively, and we will clarify and adapt our approach if it proves necessary to do so. It is important to stress that the phased approach to introducing Awaab’s law in no way means that social landlords have any leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to address dangers to health and safety present in their homes before Awaab’s law is fully implemented. Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act, and if social landlords fail to meet those timeframes they could be challenged by tenants through complaints processes, the Housing Ombudsman Service, and ultimately the courts. However, social landlords already have a duty to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards, as well as to remedy disrepair. The Government expect those duties to be met. Social landlords must ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standards, and it is critical that they take action as quickly as possible to resolve any issues of concern in the homes they let, and to guarantee the safety and comfort of their occupants. I will turn now to the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025. All rented homes must be free from dangerously hazardous conditions, including dangerous electrics. In addition, private landlords are required to check the electrical installations in their properties every five years. This Government are determined to ensure that tenants in social housing have the same protections. The regulations will come into force for new tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies in May next year. All landlords, social and private, will have to have the electrical installations in their properties inspected and tested by a person who is qualified and competent at least every five years. Landlords will need to ensure that electrical safety standards are met, and that investigations or repairs are carried out if required. The electrical safety standards, as set out in the British standard BS 7671, are the national standard developed by the Institution of Engineering and Technology.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It would not be a debate of any kind with my hon. Friend present were he not to take the opportunity to get Harlow on the record. He is a doughty champion for his constituency and I recognise the concern that he raises. The importance of these regulations is that requirements that already apply to the private rented sector will apply equally to those in the social rented sector. We want parity with how the requirements apply across tenancies, so that social housing tenants benefit from the same protections. The regulations also introduce mandatory appliance inspections on electrical appliances that social landlords provide. All landlords will have to provide a copy of the electrical safety report to their tenants and local authority if requested. That means that tenants will be informed about what work has been carried out in their home, and will have a record of the testing. Local authorities will also have the power to require landlords to carry out vital remedial works, or to arrange the works themselves and recover the costs from the landlord if relevant action is not taken by them. Additionally, the regulations will raise the maximum financial penalty to £40,000 for those landlords, private or social, who do not comply. Many landlords are already taking a proactive approach to keeping homes safe from electrical faults, so these regulations will not add additional burdens to them. However, we must ensure that all landlords are taking appropriate action and that all tenants can feel safe by making electrical safety checks a mandatory requirement for social landlords as well as those in the private rented sector. To conclude, the Government are clear that homes must, above all, be safe. Establishing clear standards and requirements of social landlords, and clear timelines to meet those requirements, will eliminate uncertainty for tenants and for landlords, helping to ensure that that is the case. Since their inception in primary legislation, both sets of draft regulations have received broad support, including from across the House—I recognise that Awaab’s law has its genesis in primary legislation under the previous Government and I commend the previous Secretary of State for his work in the area. I am confident that in bringing the draft regulations into force, we will have robust regulations and robust protections for tenants of all tenures. They have been strengthened by consultation with the sector. Subject to the approval of Parliament, Awaab’s law is due to come into force from October this year. Electrical safety requirements, as I have said, will come into force for new social tenancies in November this year, and for all existing tenancies six months later. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his broad support for the regulations and their intention, and for his questions. Again, before I address his specific points, I express my gratitude to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point—and, it should be said, to all the organisations and campaigners that have supported them along the way. To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, we have absolutely given serious consideration to the ability of registered providers of social housing to implement these requirements. One of the reasons why we are taking a phased approach, as I explained when setting out the purpose of the instrument dealing with emergencies and damp and mould hazards in the first instance, is to ensure that the sector as a whole is able and ready to implement these requirements, and that we can take a “test and learn” approach before extending the hazards in phases two and three. We also absolutely recognise that placing additional requirements on social landlords brings challenges in terms of costs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the measures that the Government have undertaken, including recently through the spending review, to rebuild the financial capacity of social landlords, so that they can play their full part not only in maximising the delivery of new social homes, but in bringing their existing stock up to standard. He will know that we announced £39 billion at the spending review for a 10-year social and affordable homes programme, but we also took other action, including a 10-year rent settlement and holding a consultation, which is currently out, on a rent convergence mechanism, which will rebuild that capacity and allow social housing providers to make these changes, as well as others that we are bringing forward on quality and decency. He will know that, for example, a modernised decent homes standard is out for consultation, and we have consulted on minimum energy efficiency standards. On enforcement generally, as I said, Awaab’s law implies terms in all social tenancy agreements. Social landlords will have to meet those requirements when they come into force, and if they do not, tenants can hold their landlords to account. If social landlords fail to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law, tenants will be able to challenge them through the courts for breach of contract. If the court finds that the social landlord is in breach, it will be able to order the landlord to rectify the problem and/or pay compensation. Seeking redress through the courts is not the only way that tenants can challenge their landlords for breaches of Awaab’s law. Tenants may wish to complain directly to their landlord in the first instance. That can then be escalated to the housing ombudsman, which has the power to order landlords to undertake repairs and pay compensation to the tenant—as the Committee will know, the housing ombudsman is a free service for tenants. Lastly, to answer the shadow Minister’s question about electrical safety—essentially, it was, “Will there be enough electricians to carry out these works?”— I draw his attention to the efforts we are making in various other respects and across Departments to expand and upskill the construction workforce, and to expand the supply of all the construction workforce we need for the built environment more generally, to ensure that we can meet our ambitious targets and all the other quality and safety measures that we are introducing. In relation to these regulations, we work closely with the electrical safety industry—the very people who will be doing the inspections—and with landlords to develop the policy. To support implementation, we are introducing the regulations through a phased approach, as I have said, with new tenancies coming into scope first and existing tenancies six months later. We will absolutely continue to engage with landlords and encourage them to carry out inspections sooner rather than later, rather than waiting until the date on which the new requirements come into force. I am more than happy to extensively describe the other measures that the Government are taking—albeit perhaps on a different occasion, Mr Vickers—such as the £625 million that the Chancellor has just allocated to bring forward construction workers, or the various industry-led initiatives out there that we are supporting. To conclude, it is not in dispute that far too many tenants still live in homes that are not well managed or maintained—we all know that from our postbags—or that they often struggle to secure adequate redress. We are taking action today to address this indefensible situation by ensuring that damp and mould hazards and all emergency repairs, whether they relate to damp or mould or any other hazards, are addressed within fixed timescales, and requiring landlords to meet standards of electrical safety. We will drive up the safety and quality of all social homes. Question put and agreed to. Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.— (Matthew Pennycook.)

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will have noted the £39 billion allocated at the spending review to our new 10-year social and affordable homes programme, which, as the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, we think will deliver about 300,000 affordable homes over its lifetime, with about 180,000 for social rent. He will also know that our Renters’ Rights Bill includes provisions that will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a matter that I know is of concern to hon. Members across the House. It is precisely to protect residential freeholders in Hethersett and other freehold estates across the country from unfair charges that we will consult in the near future on how we implement the consumer protection provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to the payment of estate management charges.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman draws the House’s attention to an important point about freehold estates, and I direct his attention to the report by the Competition and Markets Authority on the matter if he wants to read further. There is a problem here: too many amenities and infrastructures are not being delivered to common adoptable standards, and therefore many local authorities rightly say that they do not expect to pick up the tab for bringing those amenities up to the relevant standard and then maintaining them. We have got to tackle both issues as we look to end the prevalence of these freehold estate arrangements going forward.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily meet my hon. Friend about that concerning development. If she could write to me with the details in advance, that would be extremely useful.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Although swift brick coverage is increasing, we want to drive up swift brick installation. As I made clear on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we are considering using a new sweep of national policies for decision making, to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or would make them ineffective.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. He will forgive me if he knows this already, but we did strengthen the provision for infrastructure in our recent changes to the national planning policy framework. Beyond that, we want to strengthen the existing system for developer contributions—where infrastructure and affordable housing comes through planning agreements—so that local authorities can extract more public gain from that process.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government support selective licensing as a tool to tackle the impact of poor housing management on local communities. The general approval that we granted in December gives councils full powers to introduce schemes, regardless of their size. My hon. Friend’s own authority will have heard loud and clear his call for it to consider doing so.