I am the Housing and Planning Minister.

That is precisely what we sought to investigate further through the pre-legislative scrutiny process. In the policy document that we published on ground rents specifically, you will remember that we sought further evidence on whether there is a justification for certain exemptions. We drew particular attention to negotiated quid pro quo leases. Unfortunately we did not, to put it simply, get enough evidence through that PLS process and the process that your Committee engaged in on that particular subject so we have gone out for a further technical consultation. We want to know very basic things, such as how prevalent these types of leases are, so that we can amass further evidence on which to base the decision of whether any exemption is or is not justified.

You are confusing a proposal from us with evidence seeking. As I said, we have evidence that negotiated quid pro quo leases exist, but we do not know how prevalent they are. We are seeking evidence on whether any exemption for them is justified given their nature. We are not proposing a roll-out of quid pro quo leases as your question suggests.

In a quid pro quo lease?

That is the type of issue we are trying to get more evidence on, and why we have had to go out for a further technical consultation to try to get more, so that we have a basis to make a rational decision on.

Just to supplement that, the bar for an exemption has to be extremely compelling in my mind. Let us see the evidence as to whether or not this type of lease meets that bar.

I would not say it is fair to characterise what we have done as prioritising quid pro quo leases. As I said, we need further evidence and have launched the technical consultation. We are hoping to publish the consultation on valuation rates imminently. As Committee members will know, that sits within the context that we now have guidance from the Cabinet Secretary where it has been agreed that Ministers should not initiate new policy commitments during this period of change and transition given the Labour leadership election. We are viewing all our announcements in the leasehold and commonhold space, and in other parts of the Department, in the context of that Cabinet Secretary guidance. Given that this is a consultation and previously announced policy, I am hoping we can publish that consultation before the summer recess.

Sorry, what do you mean by consulting on ground rents?

We do not need a wholesale, fresh consultation on the ground rent cap, just this brief technical exercise to try to get a bit more evidence and supplement what little we got through the PLS process in terms of specifically negotiating quid pro quo leases.

That is a tough question. I hear bandied about fairly often that as a Government we came into office without a plan.

I am sure you do. We had developed in opposition a very well thought-through, detailed and comprehensive plan with respect to housing and planning legislation and policy. I would argue we have ruthlessly executed that over the past two years. If I recount all the things we have done, they include overhauling the planning system, a £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing, a new homes accelerator stood up, a new homes programme consultation, the Renters’ Rights Act taken through, and foundations to take forward legislation over the course of this Parliament that will bring the leasehold system to an end. I am very proud of everything we have done and that the Government will continue to do in not only implementing the legislation we have already introduced but taking forward further legislation and policy changes.

I am extremely proud of the measures we have taken to boost rates of house building over the past two years. We have seen some incredibly encouraging green shoots. I thought this might come up. Let me cite some evidence we have to date. To the year ending March 2026, outlined planning applications were up 54% from a year earlier and detailed planning applications were up 19% from a year earlier. When it comes to starts—obviously one of the most important measures—we are up 15% compared with the previous year. That is not to say that the headwinds have not grown stronger. I have been really honest with your Committee that the war in the middle east is placing incredible pressure on the house building industry. Effective demand has been hit badly and building material costs are up. The headwinds are strong but those foundations will ensure that we will have high and sustainable rates of house building in the years ahead. We are incredibly proud of that.

I have lost track of the number of times I have gone around this with the Committee. There is a very clear measure of how we are performing against our 1.5 million homes target across the Parliament, and that is net additional completions. Those are publicly recordable figures and you will be able to judge them on it. In all honesty I do not know what you mean when you say benchmark. I have told you why we have not provided annual projections of housing completions over the Parliament. We have gone through that in exhaustive detail in previous sessions. You will be able to judge us on net additional completions. Given that we inherited an absolutely dire inheritance when it came to house building supply—that squeezed supply that the changes to the December 2023 national planning policy framework set in train—again I am incredibly proud of what we have done to turn that around and put in place the foundations for high and sustainable rates, along with everything else we have done over a two-year period. I think even you would be generous enough to admit that we have done a lot in what is a pretty brief period of time in terms of Government.

That is a really good and topical question and I will answer it. For reasons that are best known to you—Chair and the Committee—this is a very wide-ranging session in terms of topics, lots of which are very technical. I am not going to dominate; I am going to pass to Emma and Jo to fill in and take some questions. On overheating specifically, it is really important to say first that we recognise the scale of the challenge presented by overheating. It is already acute in terms of being a severe public health issue. It will obviously only grow more acute in the years ahead due to climate change. There are lots of reasons for it. It is often commented on, but the historic design of homes in England is intended to trap and retain heat in the cold winter months, and that can cause issues going forward. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations, and we take it extremely seriously. It is really important to understand and share with the Committee the Department’s role in monitoring, redress and enforcement. As you know, Mr Forster, there is no maximum statutory limit on indoor temperatures. There is no threshold that the Government monitors data on across the whole of England in terms of when those thresholds are breached—we are not inside individual homes measuring temperatures and getting average temperatures. Our role as a Department is to put in place a number of regulatory measures and a framework to try to ensure that the homes we build going forward are appropriately designed to deal with overheating, and that existing homes are free of various hazards including hazard 29 of the HHSRS and overheating in that respect. It breaks down in different ways in different tenures. I might bring in Emma and Jo on this. Under the SRS, for example, homes have to comply with the decent homes standard and are subject to Awaab’s law. When we roll out the further phases of Awaab’s law, overheating will come under those further phases. The DHS will obviously be rolled out to the PRS and SRS in 2035. It depends on who is monitoring what and what arm of Government, whether it is new or existing homes, and the various measures we have in place—the decent homes standard, HHSRS and so on. To come back to your original question, partly because there is no maximum statutory limit, the Government are not monitoring temperatures in every single home and coming up with average temperatures across the country from last week or any week, and those thresholds. It is more a case of putting the regulatory framework in place so that we can deal with this as a hazard under HHSRS. Over time, hopefully the decent homes standard will eliminate those hazards entirely—although we can come on to compliance with the DHS and other issues. I hope that is helpful.

Do I think the MHCLG should be nationally monitoring temperatures in individual homes?

To give you a specific example, the HHSRS system was introduced in 2004 so that residents had a means of redress when it came to particular hazards. As I said, overheating is a hazard. When it comes to a tenant being able to seek redress for that particular problem—I am just trying to explain how the system works—it is not Government going into every home and monitoring the temperature; we are relying on tenants themselves to come forward. Emma can perhaps expand on that.

Let me take those in two parts, with a caveat on the last one that I am not the Minister responsible for building regulations specifically, but I am more than happy to talk to them. Again, there is a slightly complex picture, which I can hopefully explain in a way that the Committee can follow. When I go back to the general point on the Climate Change Committee, we absolutely accept the warnings in respect of overheating. This is obviously a growing problem. When it comes to the risk of overheating in existing homes, Emma has spoken about the various means of redress, and we touched briefly on it but we can go into the enforcement measures that can be taken in more detail. You have the Regulator of Social Housing, which has consumer standards that include safety and quality, and this falls under those, along with the Housing Ombudsman Service, Awaab’s law and so on as we roll it out. There are also Government programmes in place to ensure that we can deal with excess heat issues in existing homes. In the case of homeowners, it would be for them to take a decision. For example, the warm homes plan includes a grant subsidy for what are called air-to-air heat source pumps, which can cool as well as warm homes in the winter months. There are ways that the Government are supporting the overhaul of existing homes. On future homes, the Building Safety Regulator is responsible for ensuring that new build properties comply with the standards that are in place in terms of excess heat. This is where approved document O comes in. It has only been in place since 2022, so it is feeding through the system in terms of the impact that is having. Part O brings a lot of benefits in terms of the hierarchy that it puts in place, which is a focus on passive measures in the first instance. This is all the things other countries do routinely: window shutters, awnings and how you design out heat, but also more active measures, such as air-to-air, in cases where it is necessary. The Building Safety Regulator is undertaking a technical review of part O. There are issues with part O and how it maps on to other regulatory requirements in this space, which the Building Safety Regulator is working through. House builders, residents and others have expressed concern about its impact on design. On new builds, the part O approved document has only been in place for four years. We are reviewing how it is working. The New Homes Quality Board—it is not an ombudsman yet but wants to be—obviously has an interest in this area in terms of looking at what standards come forward. Again, in terms of redress and enforcement, this is where it would be for local authority building control to ensure that buildings are being built in a way that is compliant with part O and other parts of the relevant approved documents in the building regulations. It would not be for central Government to take that enforcement role themselves.

We have not announced a timeline for the completion of that technical review.

You can encourage in that manner. I will pass it on to the Building Safety Minister and Andy Roe at the BSR.

Again, I will bring in Jo and Emma to add some detail. We are very confident they will be able to comply. We have given them the time to comply and are providing lots of detailed guidance to help them to roll it out. Again the regulator has a role in terms of SRS, MEES and those consumer standards coming through. We are confident that we have put in place the support, the guidance and the time that will allow landlords to meet those standards.

Again this is where lots of the issues you are touching on are cross-departmental in important ways. The fuel poverty standard responsibility rests with DESNZ rather than MHCLG. We agree that it is right to retain the current fuel poverty measure. It reflects some structural drivers of fuel poverty, such as building quality. It also sets quite a useful benchmark for warm homes plan interventions. It is important that overall affordability is also measured alongside that. I may be mistaken, and I am happy to check and write to the Committee with further details, but I think the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has committed to taking forward the current fuel poverty measure beyond 2030, but that really would be policy for that Department. We work very closely with it on MEES and other aspects of policy where it crosses our departmental interest, but the fuel poverty measure would be one for them, not this Department.

This is a really important question. I see it in my own postbag and advice surgeries on a weekly basis, as I am sure Committee members do. Again, it comes back to the role of the Department in the regulatory framework that has been established. We monitor overcrowding at a building level to the extent that the HHSRS monitors and seeks to address it as a hazard. I referred to excess heat as hazard 29 earlier but it is overcrowding—I am getting my hazards mixed up. The HHSRS monitors overcrowding as a hazard and there are a variety of means by which local authorities can seek to take action against it, such as improvement notices, hazard awareness notices, prohibition orders and civil penalties up to £40,000. Again, we are getting our information in part from HHSRS, from category 1 hazard referrals and from other sources. In general terms, we obviously monitor the effectiveness of the regulatory framework overall.

I will be absolutely honest with the Committee.

I have always been really candid about the trade-offs that exist, and there are some real tensions and trade-offs when it comes to overcrowding policy. What I would say in general terms is that the statutory definition of overcrowding has been in flux basically since the Victorian era. It was overhauled in 1935 and again in 1985. Part 10 of the 1985 Act, which governs the legal framework for overcrowding, has limitations. I do not think that is really in dispute. I would have to read the quote in context but it is probably what the Minister at the time was talking about. Bear in mind that the 2004 Act was trying to introduce the HHSRS system, which we have already spoken about at quite a lot of length and which allows for overcrowding as a category 1 hazard to be addressed. I think it was in that context. It is really important though—I am speaking to various housing lawyers about this—that there is a power in the 2004 Act to amend the statutory definition. At any point, us or any Government could widen that definition. From memory, the last Labour Government went out with a discussion paper on the definition of overcrowding in England and whether it should be widened to encompass, for example, HMO licensing and the rest so that we have one unified standard. They did not take any action off the back of that. Here is where it comes to the trade-off, and it is a real trade-off. Unless we significantly boost the supply of social and affordable homes, we would be introducing rights that are essentially unenforceable. I have 26,000 to 27,000 people on my local housing waiting list. Simply shifting a category subset of those into a higher rate of overcrowding when we cannot rehome them does not really address the problem. I come back to the fact that updating the standards in the absence of that very significant boost of supply just introduces unenforceable rights. I recognise that the current system has limitations. Maybe this Government or a future Government will want to look at those standards at the appropriate point, and whether there is a case for a unifying standard. Our focus really has been on how to get people out of overcrowded homes: you build lots more social and affordable homes in a way that allows us to move those families out of them.

It is obviously an absolutely pressing need. I find in particular that cases of overcrowding that come to my advice surgery on a weekly basis are heartbreaking in themselves. There are young children who cannot study properly living in a living room because there are not enough bedrooms. That is absolutely heartbreaking and there is an impact. Where I would slightly disagree with you is that children are accounted for in the current legal framework. They are explicitly accounted for in the formula for working out whether a family is statutorily overcrowded, in the sense that room and space standards factor in children. If you are under one, you are discounted. If you are under nine, you count as half a person—not obviously in moral, ethical terms, but for the calculation. If you are over 10, you count as a full adult. There are rules—for example, where children of different sexes are not able to share rooms. I can see the Committee nodding. You all have this in your case workloads as well. They are accommodated for, but we come back to the central problem. Families with children who are overcrowded need a new social home. I have brought my handy copy of the document—I am accused of not having strategies for things. We are trying to boost the number of social homes coming through. As I say, there might be a case in future for looking at that legal framework. Just overhauling it in the absence of that puts pressure on local authorities and gives tenants rights that are essentially unenforceable. In a sense we have that test already. If you are statutorily overcrowded in a social housing property, you are what is colloquially known as homeless at home. You have the right to be rehoused in TA, but people do not want to be rehoused in TA, so they will stay in their social home being overcrowded. Again, supply is the long-term answer.

We can go back over cold and warm homes and the impact. We have been very clear about how tenants can seek redress in those instances and the role of the regulator and the ombudsman, all of which can take action by way of compensation, fines or whatever it may be. There are established redress routes. Give me some suggestions on what else we could do other than build new homes for these people. I get so angry when I hear people opposing housing developments with affordable housing in them when they are sitting on top of local authority housing waiting lists of the size that we see across the country all the time.

Let me briefly say that we recognise where elements of the system are not working properly. Let us take HHSRS. I remember writing an opinion article in The Guardian about 15 years ago about this, but the problem with HHSRS is actually that enforcement is not a statutory responsibility. This is not the sexy end of local authority directorates. Those teams are often cut back to the bone. Again what are we doing as a Government? What can we do to ensure that local authorities are able to enforce against category 1 hazards in a more effective way? Resourcing is at the heart of it, along with capacity and capability. We are taking action on these elements. The ombudsman again has a business plan in place to try to drive up performance and all the issues you have spoken to, which Emma might want to talk about. We are taking action in terms of redress, enforcement and all these areas to try to make the system work more effectively. Again, I come back to the fact that we will not deal with the problem unless we are building at scale again and moving these families out, so that we have housing that accounts properly for local needs. Do you want to say anything specific about the ombudsman, Emma?

If I am honest, I would have to check whether it is legal to move a family that is statutorily overcrowded into another property where they remain statutorily overcrowded, even if it is an improvement. I am more than happy to come back to you on that. As you would expect I would come back to the importance of up-to-date local plans, because it is through local plans that we expect authorities to plan for the housing need requirements in their area. If that includes more family homes of a four-bed size, they should be taking that into account. Again it is so important that we have that up-to-date, local plan-led system so that local authorities are adapting to the demographic changes and the needs of their communities through their local plans.

I may be mistaken but I could swear I have answered the Committee on this point before. I will do so again.

I will do so again around the proposed changes to the NPPF, which we are in the final stages of analysing. The previous Government made a commitment to 100% M4(2) but had no plan whatsoever about how they would deliver that commitment. On arriving in office and looking at changes to the planning framework, we sought to push what are 0% M4(2) delivery pipelines in many areas much higher. We proposed through the consultation—again we are analysing the feedback to that—a minimum proportion of 40% in all areas so that we can drive up coverage and better match need but, importantly, we are leaving it to local areas and discretion to take that proportion higher in instances where they think their local needs demand it to be so. It is not the case—as has been put to me—that by the changes we are proposing in the NPPF we are requiring that 60% of all properties henceforth meet M4(2). It is for local areas to tailor their needs assessment and what they need coming through, but we want that minimum in place across the country to drive up coverage, which is very low in some areas. In making that decision we balanced a number of factors, including the impact on supply of 100% M4(2).

Through the local plan process, local areas obviously derive a housing needs requirement from the standard method in the NPPF. They should also look underneath that—as part of the development of local plans—at what their housing needs specifically are and what types and tenures of homes they need in their area, and set that out in their development plan accordingly. What we are saying is that you must have a 40% minimum of M4(2). If you make that housing needs assessment in your local area and think objectively that the need for those types of homes is 58%, that can be put in your local plan. In terms of monitoring and coverage, local plans are then assessed and hopefully in most cases found sound by the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of whether it meets that framework.

Yes, put very simply.

I cannot make a judgment on whether it would definitely reject x local plan or not; it would be looking at the plan in the round and judging whether it was sound, but it would have to take this into account. This is all subject to whether we confirm the 40% M4(2) in the final NPPF; as I say we are working through the feedback. Were we to do so and a local authority submitted a plan to be examined that had 10% of M4(2), that would be a reason to find it not sound.

Yes. The Department will not do that for each of the many hundreds of local authorities across the country but it expects that as part of plan development.

Simply because of the type of home and product that those standards produce. M4(3) is a very specialised product: it is completely wheelchair accessible. That is not a product that the vast majority of families in the housing market require, so it is a much more specialised product. M4(2) is not a niche product in that sense. There are wider benefits to M4(2)—particularly in the context of an ageing society—that have general gains.

From memory the feedback we have had to the NPPF is that a minimum threshold of M4(3) is not particularly appropriate in the way that a minimum percentage of M4(2) is. It is a very different product.

No. The proposed framework is very clear that you must plan to meet local housing need. You should be assessing the need for M4(3) properties. We are just saying in the sense that where on M4(2) there is a floor and that discretion to adjust for need, on M4(3) there is complete discretion, to be brought forward through local plans.

Through the proposed changes to the national planning policy framework.

There are undoubtedly concerns that exist about that minimum percentage. We think that is the right thing to have proposed and are working through all the feedback. I suppose what I am saying in terms of the framework is that that proposal obviously did not exist before. It is what we are proposing to come forward as well as generally boosting coverage of up-to-date local plans which, as you know Chair, was extremely low when we came into office.

We have not published any analysis as to the supply impact of different M4(2) scenarios. The Chair has just acknowledged that house builders certainly think there is a cost to delivering M4(2) properties over M4(1).

We do not routinely publish internal analyses of that nature. It plays into the decisions we have had to make on what was proposed in the framework and the final decisions we will make on it.

That is a really fair question. Emma or Jo might want to talk about the grants that are available to adapt homes. In an ideal world we would get to 100% up-to-date local plan coverage, on the basis of new-style local plans, with the final proposals in the framework. If we take forward M4(2), over time in theory you would ideally get to 100% coverage, with 40% M4(2) coverage everywhere as a minimum and far higher proportions in lots of areas if that is what local needs account for. The gap of properties that need to be adapted in future will narrow. We are talking about new properties here. There will be properties that have come through the system that are not M4(2) compliant and might need to be adapted. Obviously over time we want to reduce the amount we are having to spend on grants to adapt those by generally having this standard that has benefits for us all in the future in an ageing society, where M4(2) has those more generous standards. Does that help you?

We judged what a reasonable percentage would be, went out to consult on it and are working through the feedback. We have had this in various sessions and I completely understand the Committee’s desire to have all the evidence that Government looks at internally. Again I come back to the fact that we have to preserve a certain amount of freedom to make decisions and to go out and argue and justify those decisions. The feedback is really important here. On this and many other questions in the NPPF, we are testing whether that is the right amount and asking for feedback from house builders, local authorities and various stakeholders as to whether we have made that correct judgment. I do not think anyone denies that there is an additional cost to building at higher accessibility standards.

That is a really good question. Through the NPPF we have tried to limit the discretion of local authorities to put in place their own standards when there are national standards in place. We are working through all this right now. On energy efficiency and internal layout, what is the amount of discretion that is appropriate, given that we are putting in place, for example, future home building standards on energy efficiency that are at a higher level than exist now? On accessibility, it is very hard to give you a hypothetical for any particular local authority area, but the combination of demographics, local housing need and viability challenges in any particular area will have to work through the local plan. The local plan will be tested on whether it is deliverable and viable through the EIP. Inspectors will look at that. Working back to the thrust of the original question, I do not think that means a different decision for us in terms of the planning framework and the minimum expectation it seeks to make through local plans. Is that fair, Jo?

I will come back to you with a final comment. You can hold us to the theoretical 100% standard that the previous Government committed to and had no plan to deliver, or you can hold us to the very significant uptick that we are seeking through this 40% minimum and discretion, given that lots of local areas are planning for zero M4(2) at the moment.

I will chase a reply on that, Chair.

To go back to Mr Mohindra’s question—he has left so does not get to hear me opine on this—this is one of many things I am really proud of. It was a previous Government commitment to introduce Awaab’s law, and I fully recognise what they did to make that initial commitment, but we have stepped up and made sure that we are implementing it, and implementing it in a phased way that ensures that providers can cope. That is really important. We could have introduced all three phases in one big bang moment. The great fear, which was justified, was that the repairs service of every registered provider would then shift wholesale into meeting the demands of Awaab’s law and routine repairs and maintenance would not take place. We had to strike a careful balance, but we are rolling it out. In terms of how it has gone so far, I would stress that it is still pretty early days. We are seeking to implement all three phases on the basis of a test-and-learn approach as we go. Again the phased approach gives us the ability to see what is working and what is not working so well in phase one, before we go out to phases two and three. There are really positive and encouraging signs. Emma might want to add a bit more detail on cultural change within organisations and adaptation through triage processes, ensuring that the types of hazards we are trying to get at are being addressed in a really timely manner. Challenges have been highlighted as well, which is why we will seek to address all those in phases two and three. A good example is where we can be clearer on our expectations in terms of guidance, which Emma might want to add to. Again, as we go to phase two, the test-and-learn process is allowing us to ensure that we are learning the lessons and that providers can manage those further phases.

Let me take those in turn. We have feedback and engagement with local authorities but we do not have data from individual local authorities or registered providers as to the precise caseload they have and so on. We will get national-level data on how much is coming through the ombudsman and the courts if it has to go to court. Obviously Awaab’s law is premised on the basis that you get that timely redress, but if not you can take it to court with the ombudsman. We do not have that detailed aggregate data from all RPs on that side. In terms of rolling it out, the important thing to note, which is why we started with the hazards we did in phase one, is that the sector had—not uniformly but largely—geared up to implement Awaab’s law as we have applied it to damp and mould, for example. In the wake of Awaab Ishak’s death, there has been a huge focus on damp and mould. Lots of providers had already taken action outside Awaab’s law coming forward. When we extend to that wider set of hazards in phases two and three—excess heat is a good example—there are challenges in terms of how prepared RPs are for that. As much as we have seen really positive signs of cultural change, there are issues such as the triage process that are really challenging. When a call comes in, how do you decide whether it is a routine repair or an Awaab’s law case? How do you guide residents? We have a whole programme and campaign to try to raise awareness about the sort of things that residents should seek redress from through Awaab’s law. There are challenges that come forward with the further phases. On the timeline, it remains as stated in February WMS. It was my colleague from Ashton-under-Lyne who published that particular WMS where we committed to phase two this year. We remain on track to do that.

We have not stated a specific timeline in terms of the roll-out of Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. Unless I am mistaken—the Chair can tell me—I think the Committee estimates or thinks it is appropriate that the roll-out happens in 2028-29. That would be a reasonable estimate. Certainly there is no reason why we should not be able to roll it out in this Parliament but—here is the important qualification—the PRS is obviously very different in nature from the SRS. We said we would consult, and we will, about precisely how we roll out Awaab’s law for private rented sector tenancies. There is a very different set of challenges, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

I feel like I am dominating. Let me bring in Emma or Jo to talk through some of the challenges. It goes to the size of some providers.

We are seized by the urgency as well. It is worth pointing out a slightly bigger-picture conceptual argument that I want to register with the Committee. The new decent homes standard requires a landlord to address category 1 hazards. Over time we want to have that standard driving up overall standards, as the previous one did—not uniformly successfully, but the rates of non-decency have really come down. In an ideal world, the need for Awaab’s law disappears over time as the decent homes standard drives up standards overall, but there probably will be an ongoing role for it. In these years where non-decency is high, we obviously expect tenants to rely on it.

We are confident we can hit that target. It is also worth saying that decent homes 1—for want of a better term—was a huge success, and lots of effort and resource was obviously poured in by the last Labour Government to pull those standards up. They did not get to 100% compliance. Again, that comes back to the regulatory penalties that apply in that scenario. It is not the case that if landlords do not meet it, nothing happens. There are penalties involved, but we will obviously aim to push for 100% compliance with that standard. Again, I have touched on this with the Committee on a previous occasion: in the SRS, landlords obviously need to comply with the existing decent homes standard. We expect them to tackle non-decency whenever it exists. We expect landlords in both the PRS and SRS not to wait until 2035—the last minute—to be pulling homes up to standard. It comes back to the point we have spoken about in terms of overcrowding and these other pressures. We have to balance the impact on supply. We want registered providers to be building new social and affordable homes as well as overhauling their existing stock. There is a balance to be struck, which is why we think the timeline as applied under decent homes 1 was broadly the right timeline to allow them to adjust. In many cases lots of providers will be bringing their stock up to the new decent homes standard well before 2035.

We will strain every sinew as a Government to get to 100%. I am accounting for the fact that that may not be possible, but we will do everything we can as a Government to ensure that we hit that standard. It is important to note—Emma may want to touch on this—that the decent homes standard obviously incorporates MEES, where we are again pushing social sector landlords to meet that updated MEES standard. We have made it much more stringent in terms of timelines on the PRS, recognising the higher rates of non-decency. The DHS incorporates MEES. Again it is another push—particularly in the short term—on PRS properties to get properties up to standard. Is there anything more that can be said about timelines and coverage, Emma?

The only thing I would say—not to excuse the regulator of all failings, which I would not do—in terms of the new consumer standards is that they were obviously only legislated for in 2023 and they are only being rolled out now. I get regular monitoring reports of RPs that have fallen short and where performance measures are being taken. What I have seen is lots of cases of things such as C4 judgments where the provider has been pulled up to C1. The initial thrust is mediation and constructive work with a landlord; that is better than fining a landlord, which is going to impact on tenants in the round in the long term. We have seen some success stories of RPs and local authorities pulled up to standards such that they have been able to come out of the performance measures.

Maybe we can share that question, and I will do the resourcing first. We are relying on local authorities to enforce and are giving them significant amounts of money to help them do so. We provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million in 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have through the Renters’ Rights Act. We want to move to a sustainable form of funding over the long run, because local authorities can levy penalties in their enforcement duties. In large part we want the system to become self-financing in terms of enforcement action, but there are lots of local authorities that recognise they need to step up. They have a lot of new duties and we are working very closely with them as a Department to provide them with that support. In terms of landlords being able to switch and how that applies to different tenures, I will bring in Jo.

We can certainly review the evidence session. As you know, there is a live conversation about the regulation of property agents more widely.

At that point I thought it would be published shortly. I am afraid I cannot give you a date. One reason why I brought this document, and many other things, is that I want—

It is a plan for social and affordable housing delivery. I wanted to emphasise that we have complementary strategies in various areas that we are taking forward. I have pressed individual Members on this, and I genuinely would love to know what the Committee thinks the long-term housing strategy can address that existing plans and strategies do not. There is still a case for pulling together all the various aspects of our plan and these various strategies into a single document, looking at issues like demographic change and the outcomes we want to seek, so it is still our intention to publish one, but I cannot give you a date. As I have hinted at across the board, we are now currently—before the summer recess—working under Cabinet Secretary guidance. That means we are looking at all those products that we might publish or announce and whether they meet that test in any way of announcing new policy or not.

The social rented sector said, “We expect that strategy to touch on social and affordable grant or regulatory changes.” We have done that through this document. The expectations for what people assume it might cover or what they want it to cover may be slightly different from the Government’s internal thinking. You will find out at the point when it is published.

Indeed, and you will be able to once we have published it.

I am not going to speculate on its contents, but again that is a really good example that gets at the Committee’s thinking, because we have a whole digital planning programme that we are rolling out with the Extract and APD tools. We made a recent announcement on this. There is lots of detail out there. The absence to date of a long-term housing strategy does not mean that we are not taking action. We are very clearly stating our intentions and the outcomes we are seeking through other announcements. Emerging technologies have a huge role to play. In terms of emerging technologies for the issues we are speaking about today in terms of quality, the sector is doing a lot of work on its own. To date we have not felt the need to actively support the sector in rolling out particular technologies, but we have a very close and ongoing relationship with the sector as a whole. If that is an issue it needs support with, I have no doubt it will tell us.

I do not know about the Department; it has not been raised with me directly. I remember I was really seized of it at the time because some powers to bring forward regulations on digital planning were in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I scrutinised as the shadow Minister at the time. In terms of that digital programme roll-out, there is huge potential for geospatial plan products that in some cases can dissipate and mitigate concern about development when residents can see that other countries do this much better than we do. Residents can see exactly what a local plan is aiming for, targeting, massing high areas of housing growth and all the rest to try to pull in people to engage with the planning system who otherwise would not, without leaving things entirely to people objecting at the development control stage. There is huge potential, but drones specifically have not been raised.

I recognise this is a real concern to colleagues across the House. It is raised with me very regularly and I have issues in my own constituency with it. Our general judgment as things stand is that local authorities already have powers to restrict the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from or can deploy licensing powers to ensure HMOs are safe and well-managed. We believe they have robust powers. What I want to get at with colleagues—I am more than happy to sit down with the Committee again or a cross-party group of MPs, because it is raised with me so frequently—is whether it is a case that those powers are deficient in some respect.

I had a Conservative member say to me the other day, “I’m getting all these applications for small HMOs coming through. There’s nothing we can do about it.” I said, “Has your authority got an article 4 in place?” “No.” There are powers that are not being used everywhere. We do not have compelling evidence that those powers cannot be used or that attempts have been made to use them and have failed. For example, when an article 4 is in place and things are being refused, are they being overturned routinely at appeal? Let us understand what is going on. I would have to have some compelling evidence to bring in new powers as opposed to supporting local authorities and ensuring they are using all the powers at their disposal as things stand.

I can check whether I am correct but I believe I am aware of whole-borough article 4s. I had an Adjournment debate on one the other day. I will just make this final point. We consulted in the NPPF on proposals for a more flexible policy in relation to the use of article 4 directions, so that planning authorities can remove permitted development rights as necessary to safeguard the amenity or wellbeing of areas. We are looking at strengthening policy again, looking at the feedback received on that particular point in respect of HMOs and the planning framework.

I agree with lots of that. That is very useful feedback. More of that please. I encourage the Committee to do a review and a response on this specifically. We would love to get at some of the issues of consultation lengths and all the rest of it. I will just say as a slight counterweight there is a role for HMOs in the housing system. They are not always and everywhere a cause of antisocial behaviour or detriment to the wellbeing and quality of life of an area. I absolutely recognise that their proliferation and excessive concentrations of them in lots of places can cause real issues.

No. In terms of pre-empting announcements to Parliament and giving you specific dates, we have made it really clear. You are always willing to try but you are not going to extract.

Mr Speaker would have sharp words with me if I preannounced things.

Phase two involves the roll-out of the ombudsman and the database. These are big, impactful reforms. There is a lot of detail to work through. For example, what sits under the database? How much data? What type of data do we want to collect? These are really big questions to work through. We have already started taking the SIs through for some things. I took the framework SI through for a new ombudsman just the other day in a Committee. We have said from late 2026 to 2028 is the timeline for the roll-out of phase two.

Not really. In Committee we touched on some things that we think are really logical and uncontroversial things for it to track—for example, gas and electrical safety certificates. I made a big point of this in opposition. There are lots of requirements that have grown up around section 21 notices that it would be very logical to extend over. There have been calls from various organisations to get into a far more expansive list of things to record. Should the database appropriately record rent levels, rent history, history of enforcement notices and all this? You can start to really make it a large data collection. In all that, we will be balancing what is proportionate for landlords to want to submit and what will benefit residents in terms of the information they have. That is a big piece of work.

As I just said, you could include every piece of information about a house and its history if you really wanted to be as expansive as possible. I think landlords would push back and say that that is not practical.

To be clear, I am certainly not ruling out rent levels and historic rent levels being part of the database, but I would have to take a judgment in the round about what is reasonable and proportionate to ask the database to record and what are the benefits from any particular addition. We got loads of feedback on this throughout the passage of the Act. There will be further opportunities for people to feed in about what they want to see the database bring forward.

There are penalties under the Act for not engaging with the database.

I will double-check as I always do, but I am near certain that agents acting on their behalf are covered by the database provisions in the Act. It goes to Mr Brash’s earlier point: how are we funding enforcement? We are funding enforcement to local authorities in terms of these new duties through direct funding from the Department. Local authorities can levy fines, which they can use to augment and enhance their enforcement capability. Again, we will ensure that future database revenue fees are supporting local authorities to carry out the enforcement functions.

There is a statement of terms and other things that come forward with the Act. We have obviously thought about the Act quite honestly. There is a role for local authorities here and there is a role that the Department is supporting in rolling out best practice on enforcement across local authorities. Some do exceptionally well; others face challenges.

It is quite early days for some of this stuff. For tribunal challenges, for example, we are just seeing the very early data coming through.

To avoid me giving the Committee mistaken information, can I write and set out exactly where we are and what is public and so on?

Yes, put simply, but I will give you some additional detail and clarification.

Not to deflect but these are the type of really practical nuts and bolts issues that we have to work through as we bring the regulations forward. These are big sets of regulations for the ombudsman database eventually in phase 3, with Awaab’s law and the decent homes extension.

We always take the Committee’s recommendations seriously. We have lots of useful feedback to date. Obviously the database will be publicly accessible as well at some point after it is stood up.

As you say, there was a generational increase in the social and affordable housing grant. We went out seeking bids with both prospectuses and guidance: GLA on one hand, Homes England for the rest of the country. We had a—I will not say necessarily surprising—phenomenal amount of interest in that programme, far more than the programme can cater for, with bids way in excess of £39 billion in total. The programme closed on 15 April. We are working through, with Homes England and the GLA, all the bids that have come in.

Yes. Again, I refer you to the Cabinet Secretary guidance about how quickly we can confirm those bids.

I would answer that in two ways. First we received more bids than there is grant because they come in individually from providers. The programme as a whole is always going to have to disappoint some providers in terms of some specific bids that come in when it makes final decisions. That is just to say that it is heavily oversubscribed. It is also the case that the programme as a whole straddles successive spending reviews. We as a Department have a spending review profile in this period and we are working within the constraints of that profile.

To be really clear, Homes England and the GLA went out to providers to say as such and to ask providers to calibrate their bids in light of being oversubscribed.

They are asking for more money.

Would I love to double the social and affordable homes programme? Yes, I would love to. We have to cut our cloth. We can only allocate the amount of funding that is in the programme, and within the spending review profile we have. A decision to reopen that would mean reprioritising funds either within the Department or outside the Department across Government. That may be something the new Administration wants to look at.

What do I say to that, Mr Brash? This is a problem that cannot be tackled at a local authority level. It is a countrywide problem for local authorities including my own, which discharges people into TA in lots of parts of north Kent, for example, because it cannot do so locally. Reaching for the option of banning it outright would cause some serious problems in local authority areas. To the extent that this comes back to the social and affordable homes programme, this is where we have to get the balance right on the national split and the decisions. If we give less money to London, for example, it cannot build those homes that will eventually stop the need for discharging people into different local authority areas. It is a real balance in terms of how we get the split right across the country and what bids we are leaning into so that local authorities can get at the heart of the problem. Tell me if I am wrong. My experience is that my local authority would certainly always seek to house anyone who is discharged or put in TA in the local area. It would bend over backwards to try to use the local authority housing fund, grant funding and various arrangements to try to keep people in borough, not least because you have people travelling back to schools over large distances and all the rest; there is a footprint and connection there. Send me evidence if there is but I have not seen many local authorities doing this.

Do local authorities have a choice?

I am taking from you that you want to see generous allocations to London and other parts of the country so they do not have to face this problem. That is the balance we face. Families are being housed in these areas because of the lower rental values.

It is a whole-country problem in the sense that we have to deal at source with those parts of the country that are facing those pressures and cannot house people locally. I absolutely agree with you. Just shutting off the ability to do that would cause some quite serious problems, but I recognise the concern.

Jo, you can supplement this answer. There are a number of points I would make in response to that. One is that a number of house builders are facing very considerable pressures at the moment, largely but not exclusively related to the impact of the conflict in the middle east and the viability challenges they have faced across the country. The Department will always look at what would happen in various scenarios if house builders faced real difficulties, particularly where Homes England is invested in partnerships. What we have seen over recent years in many cases is the consolidation of the market—that is, a house builder taking on another house builder. Barratt Redrow is a good example of what can happen that does not require Government intervention.

I would be reluctant to speculate on that point. I suppose what is important—it goes back to the SAHP—is that we recognise across registered providers the importance of providing clarity and certainty on funding allocations at the earliest possible opportunity.

Thank you, Chair. I will chase your May letter through my private office.