Housing secretary Steve Reed has firmly ruled out the introduction of rent controls in the private rental sector, shutting down speculation that the government may be preparing measures to curb rising housing costs for tenants.
Reed said he was crystal clear that ministers are not planning any form of rent freeze, directly contradicting recent interpretations of comments made by chancellor Rachel Reeves, who earlier this week stopped short of ruling out intervention in the rental market.
Her remarks prompted reports that a temporary, one-year rent freeze had been under consideration as part of broader cost-of-living support, with some suggestions linking the debate to economic pressures stemming from the Iran war.
Addressing the issue on Times Radio, Reed dismissed both the policy idea and claims of political calculation behind the government’s messaging. When asked whether Reeves’s comments were intended to blunt support for Zack Polanski’s Green Party ahead of May’s elections, he replied: “No. I think I’ve just been crystal clear, we’re not doing it.”
The intervention underscores growing internal scrutiny over Labour’s housing policy direction, with ministers now seeking to close down speculation that more interventionist rent measures could be on the table.
Reeves said on Tuesday: “This government have already taken action to reduce the cost of living and to bear down on inflation with the changes around energy prices, around fuel duty, prescription charges and rail fares.
“I will do everything in my power and use every lever we have to bear down on the cost of living, including for people in the private rented sector.
“That is why we have already introduced the Renters’ Rights Act.
“Whilst for people who have mortgages, they have seen cuts in their mortgage rates since we came into office, we will do everything we can to also help people in the private rented sector, because we must ensure that this conflict in the Middle East does not result in our constituents being poorer.”
Asked about the chancellor’s remarks, Reed said: “You’d need to ask her about the particular language she may have used but she was probably referring, I would guess, without having been there, to the fact that we’re changing the law to give renters additional rights.”
Propertymark has welcomed the news that the housing secretary has dismissed any prospect of introducing rent controls across England,
Timothy Douglas, head of policy and campaigns at Propertymark, commented: “Insight from across the UK, and especially from Scotland, has consistently shown rent controls deter investment, constrain supply, and decrease choice for many tenants.
“In addition, wider issues are also continuing to influence the domestic economy, applying additional pressures on landlords and would risk pushing the sector to the brink of collapse.”
“The UK government needs to focus all attention on encouraging investment across the private rented sector, to keep pace with current and future demand. It is vitally important that there is a joined-up approach and government departments are working together to deliver this.”
Comments (4)
“I will do everything in my power and use every lever we have to bear down on the cost of living, including for people in the private rented sector.
“That is why we have already introduced the Renters’ Rights Act”.
The result? Rents have / will go up as stock reduces. A 10 year old could foresee this. Supply and demand. Absolute madness.
LaBOUR ARE UTTELY S==T
I have said this every time there is another debacle, and I make no apologies for repeating it again.
The rent controls debate illustrates perfectly why housing policy fails generation after generation. Reed contradicts Reeves. Reeves contradicts Reed. Both are responding to electoral pressure rather than evidence. And in the gap between their contradictions, landlords exit, supply shrinks, and tenants suffer.
I have been watching this pattern since 2007, when Yvette Cooper gave the industry six weeks to protect new deposits. The legislation addressed the visible problem while the actual problem, existing unprotected cash sitting in agents’ drawers, went entirely untouched. Nothing material has changed since. Every administration, Labour and Conservative alike, has reached for the same politically convenient lever and pulled in the wrong direction.
Propertymark are right that rent controls deter investment and constrain supply. Scotland proves it. But the deeper problem is structural, not ideological.
The private landlord has become the de facto delivery mechanism for a social housing obligation the state abdicated. Right-to-buy hollowed out council stock. Build-to-rent serves institutional returns, not social need. The gap is filled by individual landlords who are then blamed, taxed, and legislated against for filling it.
No party will solve this because housing is too useful as a political weapon. It touches every voter and every government knows it. And compounding that, the civil service loses its domain knowledge every five years as ministers rotate and officials move on. There is no institutional memory, no consistency, and no strategy that survives contact with the next election cycle.
The only honest solution is to remove housing from the political cycle entirely. An apolitical housing department with a long-term statutory mandate, insulated from election timetables, is the only framework capable of retaining expertise, building genuine strategy, and delivering outcomes that work for tenants, landlords, and the wider economy. Not just for institutional investors and build-to-rent schemes.
Until that happens, we will keep having this conversation. Just with different names at the despatch box.
I fully agree. Housing is a basic human right, and should not be treated as a vote-winning football!