Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that veterans who served in Northern Ireland and were then pursued by the IRA to Germany and attacked there deserve more reassurance than the words that duplication will not occur unless “the duplication is essential”?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Settlement: British National Overseas Route · Hansard source

  More

  The case for legal migration and for those genuinely seeking asylum is undermined by evidence that businesses in Station Road in my constituency are using and exploiting migrants to carry out illegal trading. Local businesses are shocked and frustrated that when the police raid those premises, they remain open and continue trading. Will the Government consider bringing forward legislation to provide for the immediate closure of illegally trading shops?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Ah, over there.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that. I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process. Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements. Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4. The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable. That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans. I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale. In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain. Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [ Interruption. ] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I intervene simply to place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently undertook a study trip to Denmark to look at waste heat. I probably should have put that on the record, but it is in the register.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats broadly support the statutory instrument, but we have a number of issues to raise. One is that this measure should not mean the overriding of all planning policy. Indeed, green belt policy needs to be protected. Although we welcome the fact that an NPS is being developed, it would have been more helpful to see the draft of it at this stage. We encourage the Government to go further and consider a national policy statement for business and commercial projects generally, because they will have a big impact as nationally significant infrastructure projects. There are significant opportunities with big business and commercial developments of data centres. Such developments enable the meeting of standards that cannot be met with smaller piecemeal development. With an eye to what we all must do—seek ways to drive down bills for householders—it is worth noting that there are 1.4 GW of data centres in the UK; that means 1.4 GW of heat. That heat is often the subject of agreements in which companies are paid to take it away, but it is free heat that could heat over 1 million households. We hope there will be a clear requirement in the national policy statement to ensure, as happens in other countries, that “waste” heat—which is free or has a negative cost, because sometimes a company will pay to have the heat removed from its site—is used in local networks wherever possible. We strongly encourage the Government to go down that route. We also want the strategic spatial energy plan introduced so that there is a national overview of where data centres are located, with the proviso that under this statutory instrument the Secretary of State will consider, on a case by case basis, whether or not to direct under section 35 that a data centre is a nationally significant infrastructure project. We are content to support this measure, but we urge the Government to move forward with their national policy statement to ensure the provision of free heat from data centres to households and to defend key planning policies that must remain in place, such as protection of the green belt.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to be able to stand in today’s debate and pay tribute to those who fought for this country, but that is nothing compared with how humbling it was to stand with veterans this morning and on Sunday in my Taunton and Wellington constituency to consider the massive sacrifices made by veterans and those who died for our country. At the time of VJ Day, I paid tribute to three photographic reconnaissance unit pilots who lost their lives—two of them from Wellington and one from Taunton. Today, I would like to place on record the memory of Corporal Tom Gaden of the Rifles, who tragically lost his life to an IED in 2009 in the Afghanistan campaign mentioned earlier. As well as to the veterans, I pay tribute to those who have continued to serve their community, such as Lieutenant Colonel Ray Hall MBE, the president of the Taunton Royal British Legion, and Michael Rose, who recently retired as president of the Wellington Royal British Legion. I also pay thanks to the town of Wellington for maintaining the tradition of holding its remembrance service on the Sunday afternoon, so that the Member of Parliament can attend both of those two massively important events in our calendar. On Friday, the parents of two serving officers came to my surgery to talk to me about their housing conditions. I was proud to be able to report—on behalf of the whole House, really—that moves have recently been made on improving military service family accommodation. I was privileged to play a small part in that, as our housing spokesperson in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, to secure the decent homes standard for service family accommodation. I warmly welcome the Government’s £9 billion for military housing, and I hope that the single living accommodation review will follow fast on the heels of the service family accommodation promises that have been made. I also pay tribute to those veterans who continue to live in Taunton and Wellington, who are now perhaps some of the last veterans of the second world war in our communities. I will write to the Minister, because I know she will have a lot to remember for his summing-up speech, but I invite her to wish William Spiller, a former leading aircraftman, a happy 100th birthday for 8 December. When I telephoned him this morning, he asked me why I was bothering with phoning— “Doesn’t everybody text these days?”—and he followed that up by sending me a text. With a spirit like that, I can understand how he and the rest of the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe!

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also look at the police having the power to close illegal shops and stop them trading immediately, rather than having to take lengthy processes through the courts before they can be closed down?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate on a matter that clearly resonates, as we can see from the number of Members present. I recognise entirely the concerns that he and other hon. Members raised about the impact of high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation and their effect on local housing and local housing markets. When family homes rapidly convert into houses in multiple occupation, it can fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood and put genuine pressure on affordability for families who want to put down roots in an area. Those concerns are legitimate, and they need to be taken seriously. Antisocial behaviour can also have devastating impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods. That is not and should not be regarded as a low-level issue. Whether it is excessive noise, discarded rubbish, parking difficulties from overcrowded properties or more serious issues of intimidation and disorder, these real issues affect people’s daily lives and their sense of safety in and around their own homes. No one should have to live with that. I know the frustration of residents who see neighbourhoods change in ways that make them feel less secure and less able, as other Members have said, to affect the future of their neighbourhoods. The loss of family housing stock is a particular concern for local communities. When properties that once housed families, with the children attending schools and people contributing to the fabric of the community, are converted into transient accommodation, it erodes the stability that makes neighbourhoods thrive. That is why many councils and residents are looking for solutions. The issue is far greater than just HMOs themselves. Often people living in HMOs are those on the lowest incomes, who simply cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do not always choose HMOs as their preferred housing; they are there because they cannot access affordable housing and because the housing market fails them. Statistics on social housing tell the story starkly. There are 1.3 million households—many of them families —on the social housing waiting list who need affordable, stable homes and cannot access them. We are deeply concerned that the Government’s target of 20,000 social homes a year is not sufficient and is nowhere near enough. The Liberal Democrats have pledged a target of 150,000 council and social rent homes a year, because a massive public house building programme is exactly what is required to address this crisis. A fundamental lack of social housing to support those on lower incomes is driving people into HMOs in the first place. I am sure that many HMO occupants and residents would far rather be in secure, affordable housing. We support and respect the use of article 4 directions by local communities to require planning permission for HMOs in certain areas, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighbourhoods or to protect a dwindling stock of family housing. We agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield that streamlining those processes would be worth while. Will the Minister consider removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve article 4 directions, so that councils can put them through more easily and quickly? After all, local authorities know their areas best, and they should have the tools to manage development in a way that reflects their priorities and concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) so eloquently pointed out, in areas with high levels of second homes and holiday lets, such as Cornwall and the Lake district, councils lack the powers to control housing stock. The last Government promised to legislate to make planning permission a requirement for change of use to holiday lets, as is already the case in Wales. Will this Government deliver on that issue, which is vital to particular communities around the country? On controlling the proliferation of HMOs, article 4 directions are ultimately a blunt, short-term instrument. They may prevent conversions in one area, but they can shift the problem elsewhere. Vulnerable people must not be pushed into even more precarious housing situations. The only way to genuinely relieve pressure on family homes is to increase the supply of social housing. If sufficient social homes were available, those on the lowest income would not be forced into the private rented sector and HMOs. Family homes would remain available to families and the housing market would function more effectively. That is the fundamental solution. Where there are genuine problems with antisocial behaviour, waste or parking, councils should use the powers at their disposal. Acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered in 2003, can be effective in that regard. Additional licensing for HMOs for three or more tenants, which many councils have introduced, sets standards for management and gives authorities real teeth against rogue landlords, but the processes should be simplified for that avenue of action, too. A comprehensive approach is needed. That means building far more social housing to meet demand, properly licensing and regulating HMOs, and using article 4 directions as part of a wider housing strategy. We must not lose sight of the fundamental need for more social housing.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I warmly welcome, as do the families of 40 Commando in Taunton, the Government’s adoption of the decent homes standard proposed from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the £9 billion investment. Can the Minister give an indication of the timescale within which all service family accommodation will be brought up to that decent homes standard?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing what, given the number of Members taking part, has clearly been an important debate. Liberal Members of this place have been campaigning to end residential leasehold and the charges it entails since Lloyd George, who, at the time his People’s Budget in 1909, said that the practice “is not business, it is blackmail... Ground rent is a part of it—fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without…consent.” His words ring true today. Over a century later, we still have the same feudal system, and charges that trap homeowners in a cycle of uncapped ground rents, exploitative charges and similarly unreasonable estate management fees. The scale of the problem is staggering—there are 4.8 million leasehold properties in England, which is more than a fifth of the housing stock—but England, Wales and Australia are the only countries still operating such residential leasehold approaches. Most other countries are perfectly able to ensure building maintenance and safety without relying on such outdated practices. One of the things I hear most often from my constituents is how long it takes to get change in this place, and property service charges are a perfect example. They have been around for decades, but very little seems to have happened. In 2019, the Government commissioned the independent Lord Best to write a report, and he laid out sensible solutions and a clear path ahead: a new property regulator to establish a code of practice, the licensing of property managers and agents, and minimum qualifications for those working in the sector. While I acknowledge the last Government’s work in this area, it took them five years to bring forward legislation, and when they did in the form of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, they completely neglected to regulate property management or spiralling service charges. That is a measure of how leaseholders have been let down despite the overwhelming evidence of the need for action. The Labour Government promised that they would implement the rest of the Act, but well over a year later little progress has been made—progress that would give redress to those saddled with charges they cannot contest and marriage values that are wholly unreasonable. These delays are failing the people who are trapped in these properties. Recently, I heard from one constituent about their experience of leasehold service charges. When they purchased their property in 2022, the service charges were £1,700. In 2023 they rose to £2,600, which is a 52% increase. The next year they went up to £3,700, which is a further 43% increase. The following year—2025—they reached £5,010, which is another 34% increase. Overall, the service charges tripled in just three years, and for what? After a huge effort by residents asking to see quotes and invoices, it turns out that the answer was that it was for nothing—or rather for incompetence and, as Lloyd George might have put it, for greed. There were invoices relating to other buildings entirely and gaping differences between maintenance quotes and actual costs. Eventually, through the right to manage, the residents appointed a new managing agent and got their charges back down to around £2,000. That means that over those four years, residents paid approximately £13,000 in service charges. If the charges had remained at the proper level, it would have been £2,000 a year, so they have overpaid by £5,000 each and they will never get that money back. The money went straight into the pockets of unregulated managers. That is the cost of delay —it is a real cost being borne by constituents of mine and other Members. The constituent said to me that the process was akin to having a full-time job, which is an entirely unreasonable way for the property industry to be working—and what about residents who are less able than my constituent? Some residents may be older or in poor health, or simply ill-equipped for the massive task of navigating that bureaucracy. They may be so busy with work or children that they do not know they have been ripped off until it is too late. Folk should not have to devote that level of time and energy to get redress. The issue of fleecehold, which has been referred to by hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), must not be forgotten. Companies such as FirstPort have been mentioned, and I assure Members that they are as much of a problem in Taunton and Wellington as they are elsewhere. Freeholders often have even fewer rights to challenge estate management charges than those who have leases. The arrangements operate almost like leaseholds. Such residents pay double—both their council tax and estate management charges—and often receive a far worse service than those who live on estates fully adopted by a local authority, where the only charge is council tax. They have all the financial burdens of leasehold without the legal protections. Another constituent—a freeholder in Taunton—has been awaiting the regulations for years now so that he can take his case to tribunal. Even the rights that exist on paper are worthless without effective enforcement. Currently neither leaseholders nor those paying estate management charges have any easy way to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is why we need both the provisions of the 2024 Act to be commenced, and an independent regulator with teeth and the ability to cap unreasonable charges levied on both leaseholders and freeholders. Even the British Property Federation said back in 2023 that “the lack of any provision to introduce competency standards or regulation to our sector is a missed opportunity.” The Property Institute has welcomed proposals for oversight. When even those who would be regulated are asking for it, surely it is time to act. The Government rightly have an ambition to build 300,000 new homes a year, but we Lib Dems would prefer that to include a stretching target of 150,000 social homes. We agree that homes are needed. However, in building them we must not create a next generation of fleecehold properties. The practice of developers building estates with shared roadways and public spaces, then retaining ownership through management companies and charging residents for their upkeep while those same residents are paying council tax, has to end. For the vast majority of standard developments, there needs to be a presumption that shared areas must be adopted by the local authority. Crucially, councils need to be given the proper resources to allow that; the ability to recoup the costs of managing those spaces from developers or landowners; and powers to sanction those who fail to complete roads and similar infrastructure to the right standard. We cannot allow developers to profit from management companies, while residents pay twice for the same services. It has been 116 years since Lloyd George called out these practices. We have had six years since Lord Best’s report laid out a clear path forward. We have had over a year with the new Government in office. The evidence is overwhelming and the solutions are clear. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for: a new property regulator, as recommended in the Best report, establishing a code of practice, minimum qualifications and the licensing of property managers; leaseholders to be enabled to get alternative quotes for maintenance; a power for residents to act in common to take ownership of management companies and common areas; the strengthening of councils’ powers to adopt, with resources from developers or landowners; the urgent abolition of ground rents for existing residential leases; and, crucially, the capping of unreasonable service and estate management charges. Millions of leaseholders and freeholders are waiting. They have waited long enough. It is time for the Government to act and end what has become the great British property rip-off.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. They have no recollection of the past, they are blind to the experience of their own Government, and they are only asking, urging and pleading us to look forward, not back at their own record. In Taunton and Wellington, there are countless examples of folk who are unable to afford a home of their own. Rosanna, a qualified solicitor, has been living with her parents for over six years because she is unable to afford a new home. What is needed is a far bigger focus on building the council and social rent homes that are needed by our country. The Liberal Democrats propose to raise the number from the Government’s target of 20,000 per year to 150,000 per year. There should be less reliance on a few big house builder developers, whose interest, perfectly reasonably, is in increasing profits and the value of their land, rather than in making their products cheaper—why would they?—or in necessarily increasing the amount of housing supply. Less reliance on the big developers and more council and social rent homes delivered by public funding would mean that there would be no need for the Government to cut the affordable housing requirements in London, as they did last week. Our manifesto provided £6 billion a year over five years to begin to achieve not just the 90,000 social rent homes that Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that we need, but our manifesto target of 150,000 homes. A decent home should not be for just the most vulnerable and excluded; all working people should be able to have a home with a decent rent. Coupled with that, we need new routes to be available for people to get on to the home ownership ladder and a new generation of rent-to-own homes, where renters can gain ownership over 30 years.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of his constituency in Wales and has experienced the effects of the reduction in and dwindling of council and social rent homes around the country in Wales, as in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency. We used to have 30,000 council homes available, but we now have only 6,000, and that number is going down every year. This is not about the broken promise not to allow people to buy their homes; it is about the broken promise of not replacing those council and social rent homes. That has to be addressed, and it was never addressed by multiple Conservative Governments. Without those changes and wider tax reform and investment in social and council rent homes, this policy on its own would do nothing to help my constituents, and I am unable to support it.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member, for whom I usually have respect, was clearly not listening to what I said. It is possible for there to be several features to a change in tax policy. Our argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans pointed out, is that we need a comprehensive review of property taxes. The effect of the stamp duty holiday was to increase house prices. It may, none the less, be a valuable policy, because it may free up transactions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) argued. My observation is that these are not the policies that will help people who are struggling to afford a home to rent and to get on the housing ladder in the first place. They may be valuable for other reasons, but they will not address that problem. As I say, coupled with that we need a big investment in rent-to-own housing. Since 2015—this is the big point, which would be unaffected by the Conservative proposal— the multiple of income needed to get a mortgage, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has risen from four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half times their income. Without more genuinely affordable homes in significant numbers and wider tax reform, this cut is unfunded. It will leave first-time buyers with nothing new and transfer funds to the wealthiest. That is simply not enough to help my constituents. We need a much more ambitious renaissance in the building of council and social rent homes, and we need new measures to help people to get on to the housing ladder.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I understand why Conservative Members keep asking us to look forward not backwards: their own Government’s experience with the Truss Budget is one that they do not want to remember and would like to forget, but unfortunately its effects were long, far-reaching and serious for all of our constituents.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Access to home ownership has never been harder. Fewer and fewer people can afford to buy a home of their own, and 12,000 households in my county of Somerset are languishing on the waiting list unable to get a home at a decent rent. We have heard a lot about Mrs Thatcher, but since the sell-off of council houses began, 2.3 million were never replaced. The Conservatives broke that promise over and over again, so although our population has increased by five times that amount, we have had a massive loss of homes for social and council rent; several Conservative Governments never replaced them. By taxing transactions, stamp duty land tax is unfair on buyers. It needs to be reformed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has said, as part of a full review of property taxes. The vast majority of first-time buyers would be completely unaffected by the Opposition’s proposals, because they already pay no stamp duty land tax. It seems clear that, by triggering a big increase in house prices, the policy would mostly benefit those who are selling homes at high prices, and probably only those right at the beginning of the chain. More importantly, wiping out tax revenue without wider tax reform or any serious proposals for the resulting massive hole in public finances would be another Liz Truss Budget in the making. Perhaps she planted the magic money tree, but this autumn we are seeing the fruits of it in more mad Conservative tax proposals. It seems clear that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the Truss Budget’s rocketing of inflation and increasing of mortgage rates, which affected everyone in my constituency.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I would point my constituents to the comments made by Lucian Cook, the head of research at Savills, who has said that the proposed SDLT giveaway would simply pass straight into house prices. It would have very little, if any, effect on people’s ability to buy homes, whether they are downsizing or not.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Employment: People with Health Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  Four thousand people in Somerset, many of them with disabilities, are being transitioned from employment and support allowance to universal credit. They were assured that they would not lose out, but one constituent waited three months with no income at all, until an intervention by me and the Department. Somerset was not warned about this transition, which is causing it huge difficulties with assessing the implications for council tax benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that, just as people were told, they will not lose out in the transition to universal credit?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families. I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family. This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it. Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it. Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Ending Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate and on all the work he has clearly be done in this area—of course, the fact that he is Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has absolutely nothing to do with the compliments I am giving him. This is an important debate, because homelessness touches every part of the United Kingdom, in every local community, and everyone who believes, as the Liberal William Beveridge did then, and we do today, that homelessness and poor housing are part of the giant of squalor and need to be defeated. Unless people have the shelter of a decent home, they cannot be truly free to lead the fulfilling lives they wish to lead. The level of homelessness today has rightly been termed a crisis by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it is one that demands our attention and our action. Across England, over 117,000 households were living in temporary accommodation at the end of March 2024, including more than 151,000 children. That is a fail of national proportions. While the issue might be most visible in urban areas, rural homelessness has risen by 40% over the past five years, leaving many without access to services or support. In my county of Somerset, over 12,000 households languish on the waiting list and are unlikely to get the homes they need, after decades in which we have lost millions of council houses, which were never replaced—4.3 million sold off since the 1980s, part of a net loss of 2.2 million social rent homes in this country. But statistics, of course, do not tell the whole story. Take Ed, who is in his 50s, came to my surgery. He is living in his car, trying to hold down a good job as a lorry driver, but not one good enough to be able to afford a home near his family in Taunton. Take Mary, who is sharing her bed with her teenage daughter, while her younger daughter shares the only other bedroom with her grandmother; or the young mum and baby who had all their belongings put on the pavement outside their hotel on a Saturday morning, when they were turned out with nowhere to go. These are the real casualties, and far too many of them are children. Councils struggling with the rising costs of the care crisis and special educational needs system are often unable to devote the resources to homeless people that are needed. That is why the Liberal Democrats have, among other things, called first and foremost for a cross-Whitehall plan to end all forms of homelessness—an approach that co-ordinates action across Departments, ensuring that solutions are integrated, effective and comprehensive. The interministerial group recommended by the Select Committee would therefore need to take forward a homelessness strategy, which we urge the Government to deliver as soon as possible. Secondly, a cornerstone of our approach must be a “somewhere safe to stay” legal duty, to ensure that anyone at risk of sleeping rough can have shelter. That would provide a realistic basis for restoring stability, rebuilding trust and giving people the support they need to move forward with their lives. That is something that the nearly 4,000 veterans found to be homeless in England particularly deserve, in addition to the decent homes standard for forces’ families, which we are delighted to be helping to bring into legislation in the Renters’ Rights Bill this week. Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats would abolish the two-child benefit cap—something brought in by the Conservatives in 2017, once the coalition was no longer there to moderate their instincts. No child should bear the consequences of such an arbitrary financial restriction. Fourthly, those experiencing homelessness should be exempt the indignity of only being allowed the shared accommodation rate, because forcing vulnerable people into unsuitable sharing only exacerbates the risk of them returning to rough sleeping and undermines their security. Fifthly, councils must be empowered and properly funded to provide safe accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse, to ensure that escaping violence never has to mean making oneself homeless. The housing support system is also failing those in need. The housing support allowance has not kept up with inflation and has not been increased for some years, leaving many unable to meet rent costs and at higher risk of homelessness. The Liberal Democrats would restore it to the 30th percentile of local rents and ensure that it was automatically uprated against that benchmark every year in future, so the support keeps pace with the reality of the housing market. That is a simple but vital reform, preventing families from slipping through the cracks simply because a policy has failed to keep up with rising costs. Recent Government funding announcements have, of course, been welcome in principle, but they must be judged by their impact. The previous rough sleeping initiative was replaced by the rough sleeping prevention recovery grant, yet in Somerset this amounted to a 0% increase on 2024-25 levels, or a real-terms cut. That must not happen again. More fundamentally, local authorities must be equipped to deliver permanent accommodation, to integrate medical, social and emotional support, and to provide a permanent pathway out of homelessness, not merely a temporary respite, not least to escape the rip-off of hotels and private B&B landlords draining public funds from hard-working taxpayers. Housing supply therefore remains crucial to this whole challenge. In Somerset, we urgently need more accommodation suitable for homeless people and more follow-on accommodation. That needs to be tackled by unlocking more council sites and speeding up delivery. Ultimately, it does need more funding. In parts of Somerset, such as Minehead, my Lib Dem colleagues are building the first new council houses there for a generation and have just announced another £40 million for more council houses. However, local young families deserve genuinely affordable council and social rent homes in far greater numbers. Liberal Democrats would therefore build 150,000 new social homes a year, and in our manifesto we included a £6 billion a year investment to get up to that level of delivery. For the generation locked out of home ownership, we want to see a generation of rent-to-own houses, where renters gain ownership after 30 years or can port their equity if they move sooner. We have long called for a statutory target of 150,000 new social homes a year, so it is disappointing the Government propose only 20,000 social homes a year and are relying far too heavily on private developers to fix a crisis that is not in their remit. Liberal Democrats also propose an £8 million a year emergency upgrade programme to ensure that homes are safe, warm and energy efficient, tackling fuel poverty by cutting energy bills. Only by addressing housing and energy insecurity together can we prevent homelessness before it begins and support those already at risk. Homelessness is preventable. It is a product of policy changes, neglect and underfunding. Councils like Somerset have just committed to an ambition to achieve 1,000 affordable homes a year, but what it and other councils need from the Government is support that is meaningful, sustained and accountable. Last year the Shared Health Foundation found that between 2019 and 2024, in just one Parliament, 74 children died in temporary accommodation. Not only that, but temporary accommodation was officially cited as a contributory factor in those deaths. I am sorry to say that 58 of those children who died were babies under the age of one. Let us ensure that this stops and that next winter does not see the tragic ending of the life of even one more rough sleeper, or one more family deprived of safety and stability. Liberal Democrats will fight to ensure that homelessness and poor housing are no longer a crisis but are consigned to the past, a chapter in Britain’s history, as William Beveridge intended.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful point; we desperately need people to come and work in our national health service and care sector. Does he agree that the case for legally working migrants and refugees who genuinely need asylum, perhaps from Syria or Afghanistan, and the case for our communities, who want stability, have been undermined by the staggering incompetence of the asylum system? Waiting times for decisions have gone up to more than a year, or more like a year and a half in nearly two thirds of all cases. That incompetence is stirring division and disbelief, and it needs to be addressed urgently.