Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this important debate. I also thank those other hon. Members who have made contributions. I appreciate fully the concerns that the hon. Member for Ashfield raises about houses in multiple occupation. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities. The hon. Gentleman made a number of points concerning the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. Larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, national permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use to a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change back to a standard family home under similar rights. We do recognise that the free operation of the national permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas. That is why, where there is sufficient evidence of the need to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area, local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by means of introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I will address that point before sitting down, but I want to briefly touch on utilities. As resellers of electricity or gas, site owners must comply with the maximum resale price provisions, which prevent them from reselling energy at a higher price than they paid. There are other protections in place for residents, including the right to ask for documentary evidence to support any demands for charges. Where a resident has been overcharged, they can recover those amounts through a small claims court and may also receive interest on the excess charge. However, it is evident that the rules and how to enforce them are not always well understood in the sector. To further empower residents, I have tasked my officials with working with the relevant Departments to raise awareness and, if necessary, to make additional guidance available. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), noted, we are also taking steps to ensure that residents are protected by the rules already in place. In October, Ofgem issued a call for input to assess whether current arrangements under the maximum resale price provisions remain fit for purpose, ensure fair pricing and protect customers. Before I conclude, I will take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Despite the legislation that has been introduced over the decades, which was designed to address widespread malpractice and poor standards in the industry, we know that problems remain. We recognise that more needs to be done to further strengthen protections for park home owners, to improve park home site management and to support local authorities to bear down on unprofessional site owners. To that end, we do keep existing legislation under review. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to discuss complex ownership structures, in particular, and what they do in terms of the management of sites. However, I want to make it clear to hon. Members that legislation is effective only if it is used and enforced effectively. The Government want to see more robust enforcement by local authorities against unprofessional site owners and will continue to work with site licensing officers to raise awareness of their responsibilities and to share good practice. Responsible site owners have a role to play in building stronger relationships with residents and local authorities to tackle the unfair competition from unprofessional site owners. We also want residents to better understand their rights and to feel empowered and confident enough to enforce them, without fear of site owners or local authorities. We will continue to engage with national residents associations and encourage residents to contact LEASE, the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service, for advice about their rights. There are no quick fixes when it comes to improving the lives of park home residents, but I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members across the House as we seek to do so. Because such a wide range of issues has been raised, I commit from the Dispatch Box to write to all colleagues—perhaps in a “Dear colleagues” letter—setting out precisely what the Government are doing on all the issues I have not had time to cover.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. I thank all other hon. Members who have participated, and like many of them I welcome the strong cross-party nature and tone of the debate. I have valued the opportunity to hear the individual stories hon. Members have shared, including some really egregious examples of harassment and intimidation, such as the case of Dennis, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). One challenge in considering law and policy in respect of park homes is the huge variation in arrangements across the approximately 1,832 sites in England. The more real case studies that can be brought to the Government’s attention, the greater rigour we can bring to policy development. Despite representing less than 1% of housing stock, the park home sector is an important part of the housing market. Mobiles homes, as has been mentioned, provide housing for around 160,000 people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, park home sites are often advertised on the basis that they offer a luxurious, secure and supportive lifestyle, particularly for older people. In many cases, that is true, and it is important that several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), mentioned that there are some great park home sites. Unfortunately, as the debate has powerfully reinforced, the experience of many park home owners is far removed from that idyllic vision. I am unlikely to be able to cover all the points raised in this wide-ranging debate in the time available, but let me ensure that I at least cover the two main issues raised: site licensing and enforcement, and the commission payment. On licensing and enforcement, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 provides the foundational legislative underpinning for the site licensing regime operated by local authorities. The primary purpose of that regime is to ensure that sites are set up in the right places, which is why site owners are required to obtain planning permission to operate land as a caravan site. Unless a given site is exempt from having one, it will require a licence after planning permission has been granted, with relevant conditions attached by the local authority. The requirement for a licence is designed to ensure that sites and the amenities on them are properly maintained and kept safe for residents and other users. The wide-ranging Mobile Homes Act 2013, introduced changes to the procedures and penalties for enforcement of site licence conditions on residential parks. The new site licensing system, subsequently brought into force in 2014, gave local authorities substantial enforcement powers, including the ability to issue compliance notices and the discretion to refuse to grant or transfer applications. It also provided local authorities with powers to charge annual fees, to provide the resources they need to carry out their functions. Since 2021, there have been additional requirements for all site owners to be assessed by the local authority and placed on a local register of fit and proper persons. I commend Peter Aldous, a very valued former Member of this House, for the private Member’s Bill he took forward on that issue. A person can be included on the register, with or without conditions, for up to five years, and local authorities can charge fees to cover their functions in respect of the fit and proper person test. Taken together, those measures provide a robust range of powers for local authorities to draw on, and the Government expect them to be used effectively to ensure that sites are well managed by competent persons. At this point, I want to acknowledge the commendable work done by individual local authorities over the years, as well as the notable successes some have had in ensuring that sites are well maintained and in successfully prosecuting non-compliant site owners. However, my Department is aware that some local authorities do not apply or enforce existing legislation as effectively as they could and should. There are a variety of reasons for that, including cost and, on occasion, lack of expertise, but in some cases local authorities might simply decide not to take appropriate enforcement action. I therefore encourage residents who have concerns about health and safety on their site to raise them initially with the local authority if the site owner fails to address the problem. They can then consider escalating the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if their local authority does not deal effectively with their complaint. Turning to the commission payment, the 10% commission fee charged on the sale of park homes has been the subject of intense debate over many years, as we all know. Park home residents see it as an unfair and unjustified charge that has a negative impact on their finances and mobility. Site operators argue that the commission is a vital part of their income and that a substantial reduction in the commission rate would reduce total income without reducing expenditure, thus threatening the financial viability of parks. That important point was raised by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); there are many elements of this complex problem. I fully understand hon. Members’ desire to secure change in this matter, and I assure those present that I share their impatience. Unfortunately—this is where I have to take issue slightly with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan)—research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive on either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report, published in 2022, recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices. In 2023, the then Government sought feedback from stakeholder representative bodies on the report’s recommendations. The feedback reinforced the view that there was no clarity or consensus in the sector on the rationale for the commission. We are not consulting for consultation’s sake. There is a reason the Government published a call for evidence on 5 March this year concerning the rationale for the commission payment. Through that call for evidence, we are seeking to understand the following: the reasons for charging a commission before it became a statutory requirement in 1975, and whether those reasons have changed; what goods and services are paid for by the commission; how the commission rate is calculated to be a percentage of the future sale price of a park home; how the commission payment relates to other charges in the sector; and how receiving commission in the future enables site owners to meet their obligations effectively and efficiently. To date, we have had 400 responses from park home residents. I encourage residents and site owners across the country to engage with that call for evidence before it closes on 29 May. I encourage all hon. Members here to tell their constituents about it so that we can get the maximum amount of evidence submitted. Then we can properly consider what, if any, changes are needed to the payment of a commission, what the options are and how they would impact on the sector.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear that feedback. We will take into account any feedback that park home residents wish to submit—even in general terms and outside the strict questions they have responded to—when we are making policy decisions. I emphasise once again that I want the widest possible response from across the country that grapples with the complexity and the particular arrangements in place on specific sites so that we can make informed choices. I want to come on to the timeline, because several hon. Members have pressed me on it. Following an assessment of the responses received, we will publish a summary of them in the summer. I intend to outline our final position at the very latest by the end of this year. To respond to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), it is one of many priorities—but a very real priority—for the Government to bring the clarity that both park home residents and site owners require and have been calling for now for some years. I will strain every sinew to ensure that that happens as early as possible, but I give the commitment that we will have clarity on the position by the end of the year. Hon. Members raised a series of other matters, including written agreements, contractual rights, conveyancing, the adequacy of existing redress mechanisms in respect of pitch fees, overcharging in relation to utilities, and harassment by site owners. I assure them that the Government either have taken action or are exploring action in a number of those areas. That might take a range of forms, such as raising awareness about the protections and enforcement mechanisms that already exist or providing further guidance. We are taking some very real steps, not least in respect of utilities, which I want to speak to briefly.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 9 March. Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor correction that has been made to the regulations. At regulation 4(3)(c)(i), the words “the right” were printed without a space between them. This was noticed after the statutory instrument had been laid, and was rectified by means of a correction slip. The correction is purely typographical and does not affect the meaning or operation of the regulations. On the substance of the regulations, the Government’s considered view is that the land market in England and Wales has been too opaque for too long. Developers routinely use contractual control agreements—such as options, conditional contracts, pre-emption rights and promotion agreements—to secure rights over land without any requirement to disclose the details of those arrangements. In the absence of any obligation to disclose the details of such arrangements, local planning authorities cannot see who controls development land in their area, smaller developers waste time and money pursuing sites already locked up, and communities have no visibility over the development trajectory of land around them. While some agreements may appear on His Majesty’s Land Registry title registers, where a notice or restriction has been entered, there is currently no reliable or comprehensive picture of who controls land, short of ownership, across England and Wales. We think there is a compelling case for greater transparency. In their wisdom on this point—if not on many others—the previous Government agreed, and provided powers through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to address this issue. If Parliament approves them, the draft regulations will give effect to those powers. With a view to implementing the powers in question, the previous Government consulted on proposals between January and March 2024, receiving responses from developers, lawyers, local authorities, land agents and members of the public. The final regulations we are considering today reflect that feedback and the consultation with the sector, and they include some changes to narrow their scope, which I will come on to detail. The regulations create a duty on those who benefit from the agreement, such as developers and land promoters, to provide key information about the given rights to HM Land Registry, which will then publish it in a free-to-access geospatial database from April 2028. The regulations require the disclosure of four types of right: options, conditional contracts, pre-emption rights, and rights to direct or request that landowners enter into a transfer of lease, typically found in promotion agreements. They apply to registered land in England and Wales, and they set out exemptions to ensure that the requirements are targeted and proportionate. Those who are granted a right must provide the required information within 60 days of a trigger event—that is, the creation, reassignment or amendment of a right. Submissions must be made digitally through a regulated conveyancer. Parties typically already hold the required information. Throughout the development of the regulations, we have considered the burden on the sector and minimised it wherever possible. HMLR may refuse to register a notice or restriction on the register of the title until the requirements have been met. Failure to comply is a criminal offence under section 225 of the 2023 Act. I want to make it clear that the regulations do not require the disclosure of detailed commercial conditions, such as those relating to price or financial terms. The required information is limited to key information that advances our primary objective, which is transparency. The regulations also do not apply retrospectively. The previous Government consulted on a five-year retrospective window, but we have decided not to pursue that approach. That is a deliberate choice to minimise the burden on developers and land promoters, while still achieving meaningful transparency. The regulations matter because transparency is essential for a truly competitive land market, and it is particularly important to certain players within the house building system. Committee members will know that small and medium-sized enterprise developers have seen their market share significantly shrink since the 1980s, when they delivered 40% of the country’s homes. SME house builders are essential to meeting the Government’s housing ambitions and supporting local economies, and we need to do more than just simply arrest their decline. We need to put in place the conditions that allow them to thrive. The Government are acting to support SME house builders by increasing their access to land, providing further financial assistance and easing the burden of regulation, but we need to pull every lever we can. Helping them to identify genuinely available sites will remove another barrier that they face, and will therefore help to diversify the house building sector, so that more SMEs can get back on the pitch and help us to boost housing supply. The regulations will also mean that local planning authorities will be able to see who controls development land in their area, and it will give communities greater visibility over the development trajectory of the land around them, enabling earlier and more collaborative conversations. On that basis, I hope the Committee will agree that these are sensible, proportionate and, I hope, straightforward regulations that it can support.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his thoughtful remarks in scrutinising these important regulations. I stress again that the regulations have benefits for local planning authorities, for communities and, in particular, for SME developers. We could have a long and extensive debate on strategic land banks and how the house building system works—although I am sure that the Committee does not want to go there. We very much contend that there are concerns about the use of contractual control agreements and what it does to stifle competition in the house building market. Promoting transparency and competition is at the heart of the objective of the regulations. The database will allow smaller developers in particular to identify genuinely available sites from the outset, rather than them discovering too later that a site is already tied up through an option or promotion agreement. As a result, the regulations will remove that wasted time and cost as a barrier to smaller builders entering the market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in taking forward the regulations and looking at the feedback received in the consultation that the previous Government undertook, we have been at pains to minimise the burden on the sector wherever possible, and we were deliberate in ensuring that the regulations were proportionate when drawing them up. The Government’s assessment is that the overall impact on business will be de minimis. We do not expect any significant impact on the public sector either, as local authorities will benefit from having access to the data at no cost. I will briefly mention HMLR, which I do not want to overlook. We do not think the contractual control database will add significant burdens. It is a new, separate digital service that does not add to HMLR’s existing registration workload. Contractual control information will be submitted through a dedicated channel and processed separately from title registration applications. HMLR recognised the cost of introducing contractual controls regulation, which will be funded through its financial framework, as part of the 2025 spending review that it agreed. On commencement and implementation, the regulations come into force on 6 April 2027, and HMLR’s digital submission service will be available from that date. The transitional period gives grantees six months to report agreements that were entered into before commencement and allow time for the system to work through them. As I mentioned, we took the decision not to apply the regulations retrospectively to minimise the burden on the sector. As always, consultation with the sector is ongoing, but the previous Government engaged extensively with the sector through their consultation, and the drafting of the regulations reflects that feedback. Notwithstanding the shadow Minister’s points, which I hope I have addressed, I draw the Committee back to what the regulations will achieve. They will enable developers to identify available land more quickly and effectively, and local authorities to see who controls the development of land in their area. As I have said, that will give communities greater visibility over the trajectory of land around them. I hope that, for the reasons around transparency and greater competition that I have emphasised, the Committee will approve the regulations. Question put and agreed to.

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

  More

  Go on, then.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated for their thoughtful contributions. It has been a very wide-ranging debate, as I assumed it would be from the title. It has covered a range of issues including—from memory—empty homes, short-term lets, building materials costs, rural exemption sites, care leavers, housing allocations, social housing and housing association regulation. I will not be able to cover all of those points, but I will try my best to cover as many as possible. I am more than happy to follow up with individual Members on specific points, as well as to meet the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and wider team, which I enjoy doing on occasion as their spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, will know. As the House is acutely aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. Over a number of decades, the combination of a sharp reduction in the nation’s social housing stock and rapid house price inflation, partly driven by increased demand for housing as an investment product, have squeezed both social renting and home ownership. For many years, an expanding private rented sector absorbed some of the resulting pressure, but post-2015 changes in tax treatment have seen the rate of rental sector growth slow. The result is a crisis of housing availability, affordability and quality that is blighting the lives of people of all ages. However, the youngest are among the hardest hit. House prices have more than doubled since 1997 compared with incomes, locking an entire generation out of home ownership. We have traded a number of statistics, but the one that stands out to me is that first-time buyer numbers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, and that those under 30 are now less than half as likely to own a home as they were in 1990. That gap has created a stark divide between those who can draw on family support and those who cannot, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire mentioned in her opening remarks. That has concentrated housing wealth in ever fewer hands, entrenched social division and disadvantage and seen too many young people delaying life choices, including growing a family. It has also led to them paying more for less security. At the same time, increasing numbers of young people are spending longer in the private rented sector and facing high costs, insecurity and inconsistent standards because alternatives are out of reach. England’s housing crisis has many causes. We have debated them over many months in this House as the Government have taken forward a number of our reforms. Chief among them is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. For years, housing supply lagged well behind the needs of our population as well as comparative European countries. That is why we have placed so much emphasis over the past 21 months on making the necessary reforms to ensure that we have high and sustainable rates of house building over the coming years. We will get those high and sustainable rates of house building. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for detailing the consequences of the decisions that the previous Government took, not least to abolish housing targets. We are seeing them feed through, but there are green shoots. Housing starts are up 24% on the comparable quarter last year in the latest statistical release. With a view to ensuring that housing need is met in full, our reforms include the biggest overhaul of the planning system in decades, as well as the largest boost in social and affordable housing investment in a generation through our 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Of that, 60% will be allocated towards social rented homes, reflecting the Government’s prioritisation of that form of tenure. The Liberal Democrat spokesman often calls for 150,000 homes a year. I would love to see his grant-rate calculations to back up the claim that he can get that for £6 billion a year. That is a wild underestimation. Perhaps he will share those calculations with me on some future occasion when we meet to discuss this issue. Alongside increasing supply, we are taking action to support young people who aspire to home ownership. We have acted to widen access to mortgages. Following the Prime Minister’s call to action last year, the Financial Conduct Authority clarified its rules on affordability testing. As a result, most lenders now allow borrowers to borrow about 10% more than they could have at the start of last year. On top of that, the Bank of England has eased its loan-to-income rules, enabling tens of thousands of additional first-time buyers to get on the ladder. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also delivered on our manifesto commitment to launch a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, supporting the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages for buyers with deposits as small as 5%. That is an important backstop, particularly when there is volatility in the mortgage market, as we are currently seeing in response to the conflict in the middle east, which I will address more fully in a moment. We have also taken steps—this is why I slightly took issue with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—to rebalance the market in favour of first-time buyers, including through higher stamp duty rates on additional dwellings, council tax premiums on second homes, reforms to the taxation of property income and, as he knows, the abolition of the furnished holiday lets tax regime, which has removed tax incentives that previously existed for owners of short-term lets over long-term landlords. I know that he has—

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

  More

  We have.

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

  More

  In all candour, I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, he will know from the recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework that we propose to strengthen national policy in respect of rural exception sites. I know, given his keen interest in the subject, that he will have responded to the consultation. We are currently analysing the feedback with a view to determining final policy in due course. There are no quick fixes to any of this, and we are committed to the long-term decisions needed to ensure that young people can access secure, decent and affordable homes, and with them, the opportunity to build stable lives and strong communities. I thank hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon.

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

  More

  I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raises. To respond to his wider point about oversight, like all affordable providers of social housing, housing associations are held to the standards overseen by the regulator following the very welcome introduction of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government. The regulator has the powers necessary to ensure that individual providers, such as the ones he mentions, are held to those regulatory standards. If he wants to follow up with some of the specific constituency cases he has mentioned, I am more than happy to respond. This debate underlines a point that the Government accept without qualification and that I have heard from lots of hon. Members outside this Chamber: that the housing market has to work better for young people. That means: increasing supply, especially of social and affordable housing; supporting first-time buyers; fixing a home buying process that is too slow and uncertain; transforming the private rented sector so that it provides security and decency; and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end by making commonhold the default tenure and improving the leasehold model so that existing leaseholders can more cheaply and easily enfranchise and convert to commonhold—which I hope they will do in very large numbers.

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

  More

  I will not give way, because we are continuing a very long exchange that we have had over many months. I know he has other proposals on taxation that he would like to see happen, but I am just making the point that it is slightly unfair to say that the Government have taken no action in this regard and have not gripped that issue. We have made serious reforms to rebalance that.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and he knows that I am well aware of the issue. We continue to keep under review measures relating to taxation, as well as looking at, as he knows, the additional powers that we might give local authorities to help them deal with particularly acute concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes. As I say, we have had this debate over many months on both the pros and cons of licensing regimes and planning control powers in that regard. It is an issue that we keep under close review. We also have a number of Government-backed offers to directly help first-time buyers. That obviously includes shared ownership, which we continue to support while improving the model to strengthen long-term affordability, transparency and fairness for buyers. The lifetime ISA continues to be available to help aspiring buyers save towards a deposit, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a new first-time buyer product to replace the lifetime ISA and remove the need for a withdrawal charge. As a result of all those measures, we have begun to see early improvements. First-time buyer mortgage numbers increased to over 329,000 in 2024, a 16% increase on the previous year. As I have said, we are clear-eyed about the pressures arising in the mortgage market from instability in the middle east. Our assessment is that mortgage availability remains strong. Conditions are not comparable to late 2022, and first-time buyers should still be able to get on the housing ladder, particularly with support from brokers to find competitive options. However, uncertainty about interest rates may slow the improvement that we have been seeing in first-time buyer numbers, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely. I should briefly turn to the home buying and selling process, because helping young people into home ownership is not only about raising a deposit or securing a mortgage. Transactions currently take nearly five months to complete on average, and around one in three falls through, leaving first-time buyers out of pocket and too often back at square one. That is why we are committed to reforming the process to make it quicker, cheaper and more transparent. As hon. Members are aware, we consulted on a package of reforms to do that, including ensuring that key information is available up front before an offer is made, improving the quality and accountability of property professionals, and introducing binding contracts to reduce the wasted costs and heartache that come when a transaction collapses. I want to touch briefly on other areas of focus, because supply is not the only thing we have focused on. As hon. Members have said, we are on the verge of transforming the private rented sector through the implementation of our Renters’ Rights Act. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned when that Act “finally comes into effect”, and he does not have long to wait. From 1 May, the first phase of our reforms will give renters greater stability and security, stronger protections against unreasonable rent increases and an end to exploitative practices such as rental bidding wars and excessive demands for rent in advance. We are also progressing the reforms necessary to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, so that the dream of home ownership is made real for millions of young leasehold homeowners across the country. Again, I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that I would love to know what he means by “abolition”. Is it now the position of the Liberal Democrats that they would end approximately 5 million leases overnight and do what established commonhold associations across the country fear? The Liberal Democrats have to explain what they mean, rather than just throwing out terminology that does not correspond to a really difficult and challenging transition, which we are overseeing, away from the broken leasehold system and towards that commonhold future. We are progressing those reforms, switching on the powers that are already on the statute book and, as the hon. Member knows, progressing our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. Our overall aim is expanded housing choice and availability, and improved security and affordability across tenures.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Short-term Holiday Lets: Registration · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, we know that excessive concentrations of short-term lets affect urban and rural constituencies, and that coastal communities in particular are feeling the acute pressures that result from them. I am more than happy to engage with my counterpart in DCMS, as I do already, and to raise the specific points made by my hon. Friend.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Short-term Holiday Lets: Registration · Hansard source

  More

  Responsibility for developing a registration scheme for short-term lets in England lies with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is building a simple and easy-to-use registration scheme for short-term lets, informed by ongoing stakeholder feedback and consultation. The scheme entered user testing in October, ahead of its planned launch this year.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Short-term Holiday Lets: Registration · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the acute pressures that my hon. Friend faces in her constituency as a result of an excessive concentration of short-term lets. She and I met only recently to discuss that matter, but I will happily continue to engage on it with any hon. Member from across the House. As she knows, the Government appreciate that the excessive concentration of short-term lets can impact on the availability and affordability of homes, both to rent and to buy, and we continue to consider what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by such concentrations.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Short-term Holiday Lets: Registration · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is well aware of what we have already done on furnished lettings exemption. We look at taxation in this regard and keep it under constant review. We have had a long discussion on this issue over many years, but I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Short-term Holiday Lets: Registration · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with digital delivery experts to ensure that the registration service is robust, secure and simple to use, minimising the impact on businesses for precisely the reasons he gave.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Homes: Furnished Tenancies · Hansard source

  More

  The Government recognise that a far smaller proportion of social rented homes are let as furnished or partly furnished, compared with the private rented sector. In our response to last year’s consultation on a new decent homes standard, we made clear that we are exploring what more can be done to support the tenants who are most in need to access floor coverings and other essential furniture. Tenants currently living without essential furniture can, of course, look to local authorities for support through the crisis and resilience fund.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Homes: Furnished Tenancies · Hansard source

  More

  I do recognise the importance of ensuring that tenants can access essential furniture where required. Furnished tenancies are not mandatory. In making the decision on the decent homes standard, we had to balance the costs involved with the need to ensure that the requirements cover all providers. We are—not least through the best practice guidance that, as I have just made clear, we intend to bring forward—seeking to encourage the really good practice out there, so that more social landlords can take advantage of the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes provide.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Homes: Furnished Tenancies · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend Karbon Homes for its commitment to furnished tenancies. While such tenancies are not mandatory, we know that many social landlords want to know more about the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes can provide, as well as the funding and budgeting implications and operational requirements. We intend to publish comprehensive best practice guidance alongside our updated decent homes standard, and will engage with providers and other stakeholders in its development.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I find it quite galling that we have the shadow Secretary of State saying that we have lowered London’s housing targets too far and the hon. Gentleman saying that they are too high. They are just in the right place, from my point of view.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member should say that they live near highly sustainable areas for development and we want to see more homes come forward in those areas.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Local planning authorities have a range of planning enforcement powers to tackle unauthorised development, with strong penalties for non-compliance. In our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, we included proposals to strengthen national policy in respect of unauthorised development. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and other hon. Members about the issue.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework included proposals to strengthen support for rural exception sites, and to make it easier for authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites in rural areas. My hon. Friend will also be aware that designated rural areas are already exempt from the right to buy, but I would be more than happy to meet her and her fellow members of the research group to discuss protecting existing stock, and other matters covered in the recent report that she referenced.