Social Housing Bill [HL]
Thursday 14th May 2026
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Monday 1st June 2026
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Second Reading on the Social Housing Bill. I look forward to listening carefully to noble Lords’ contributions from across the House. I am particularly conscious that many in this Chamber bring deep experience of housing, local government, safeguarding and the realities facing communities. I therefore would like to begin by recognising the value that this experience brings to our debate and thanking noble Lords for giving the Bill the attention that it warrants.
Before I turn to the detail, I hope the House will allow me a brief personal reflection, because this Bill is really personal for me. This legislation is not abstract; I grew up in Stevenage in social housing. In those days, before everyone carried a phone in their pocket, before the internet shaped the world—I should add that not even every house had a phone; I am that old—and before cars were widely affordable, community was the bedrock of our lives. Part of the unwritten contract for my parents when they accepted the offer of a job and a home in Britain’s first post-war new town, which is 80 years old this year, was that their parents would be welcome when they retired and that their children could, if they wished, be housed as children of tenants.
One of the great strengths of living in Stevenage was the sense of continuity and belonging that it offered. Families put down roots, your parents could live nearby and, in time, you could imagine your own children building their lives in the same area with the possibility, if they needed it, of a secure, affordable home in the community they knew. That sense of security—that social housing could be there not only for you but for the next generation—is part of what social housing at its best can provide: stability, dignity and the foundation on which people can build a life.
Amidst the complexities of modern life and the cost of living crisis, retaining that sense of community is more important than ever. Yet for too many people, it is no longer something they can rely on. In Stevenage, the housing stock has fallen from around 32,000 homes in the 1980s to around 8,000 today, and many former council homes are now let to those on universal credit, costing the public purse more than double when compared with a council home and leaving over 2,000 families stranded on waiting lists. This is a picture that we see around the country.
Over time, social and affordable homes have become scarce. In many places, homes sold have not been replaced. The result is that families who could once have lived side by side, in the same town and neighbourhood, are now too often separated by necessity and forced to move far from the support networks they depend on. That is one of the reasons I care so deeply about this Bill. It is about restoring a sense of security and fairness for tenants today and for communities tomorrow. Everyone deserves to live somewhere decent, safe, secure and affordable, in a community where they feel at home.
That is why the social housing sector plays such a critical role in our system, providing a home to around 16% of all households in England and supporting many of the most vulnerable, including those on the lowest incomes and those living with long-term illness or disability. Yet, for many, that security is out of reach. Today, more than 1.3 million households are on local authority waiting lists for social housing and over 175,000 children are growing up without a stable home. Families are left with little prospect of secure housing in their community. They are forced instead into the increasingly expensive and insecure private rented sector or into temporary accommodation at significant personal cost and growing expense to the public purse.
This country has not built enough social and affordable housing for decades. While nearly one in three new homes in recent years has been social or affordable, overall delivery remains far below the historic highs of the 1950s and 1960s, when housing was delivered at a far greater scale. This decline reflects a combination of factors over recent years. including lower levels of public investment, constraints on providers’ ability to borrow and invest, and wider economic pressures, such as inflation, which have increased the cost of building and maintaining homes. At the same time, the steady and significant loss of social housing stock, particularly where homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced, has further undermined the ability and confidence of providers to invest in building the new homes that communities so urgently need.
The Government therefore placed social and affordable housing at the heart of our manifesto. We have been clear that addressing these long-standing challenges requires not just incremental change but a sustained programme of renewal, bringing together investment, reform and delivery across the sector. The priority of this Government remains to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The delivery of these commitments is well under way.
In 2025, we set out a clear five-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. First, we are delivering the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation through the £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme to support social housebuilding at scale. Secondly, we are rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest, supported by a stable 10-year rent settlement. Thirdly, we have established a more effective and stable regulatory regime by updating the decent homes standard, implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards, and the passing of Awaab’s law to drive up the safety and quality of homes for tenants. Fourthly, we are reinvigorating council housebuilding, which this Bill directly supports, recognising the central role of councils in social housing delivery. Fifthly and finally, we are strengthening our partnership with providers and investors to unlock capacity and accelerate delivery, and with tenants themselves to guide our reforms—including addressing the social housing stigma that tenants highlight as a key priority.
This Bill forms one targeted part of this wider programme of renewal, making the necessary legislative changes to underpin our reforms. We have already given social housing providers the long-term certainty and stability they need to dial up their housebuilding ambitions, through grant funding, long-term certainty about their incomes, clear and final quality standards, and specialised support for councils. We now need to deliver the parts of our decade of renewal plan which require primary legislation. The Bill will protect the number of social homes available to those in need and, in doing so, incentivise the building of more social rented homes. It will create a fairer system, with stronger protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clarify the statute book so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.
Taking each of these objectives in turn, I turn first to protecting homes and enabling new supply. Right to buy has long provided an important route into home ownership, helping many social housing tenants achieve greater security and a tangible stake in their community. Since its introduction, it has supported more than 2 million households to buy their homes and realise the benefits of home ownership. But—and this a very big “but”—too often the homes sold have not been replaced. This has led to a steady loss of social housing stock, reduced the availability of genuinely affordable homes, and weakened councils’ confidence and capacity to invest in new supply, particularly where homes are sold and do not return to the sector.
It cannot make sense for a council to invest in building a new home and then for a qualifying right-to-buy tenant to move in and purchase that home for significantly less than it cost to build. The Bill therefore builds on the existing tranche of reforms that the Government have already made to the right-to-buy scheme. The measures will continue the mission to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, one that continues to support long-standing tenants to buy while ensuring that councils can replace what is sold and better protect existing social homes to meet future housing need. We will increase the eligibility period from three years of tenancy to 10 years, which better reflects current practice and ensures that the scheme is targeted at those with a long-standing connection to their home. We will also better align discounts with cash caps and introduce a 35-year exemption for new-build homes, protecting new supply and giving councils the confidence to invest in homes for the long term.
Alongside this, the Bill introduces a new requirement for private providers of social housing to notify their local authority and other potential buyers before selling a home. This will maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector. Taken together, these reforms will shift the trajectory of the system from one where stock has been gradually depleted to one where it is protected and can begin to grow again. These measures are not about undermining aspiration but about ensuring that it is delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and sustainable, so that future generations have the same opportunities as those before them. They are designed to ensure that the sector is larger in the future, not smaller, and more capable of meeting need, not less.
Secondly, on the protection of tenants who are victims of domestic abuse, all tenants deserve safety and stability but those experiencing abuse face acute risks and, too often, must choose between staying in their home and continuing to suffer that abuse, or leaving and risking homelessness. The Bill strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports rather than frustrates a victim’s route to safety and recovery. This sits alongside wider government action to improve quality standards, strengthen tenant voice and ensure that the sector works in the interests of those it serves.
Thirdly, the Bill reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and clarifies the statute book, enabling councils and providers to invest with confidence. It repeals unimplemented and unworkable provisions from previous housing legislation, including requirements to sell high-value homes, impose fixed-term tenancies by default and charge higher rents to higher-income tenants. It also streamlines the outdated consents process so that councils can make more decisions about the management of their social homes without having to get approval first. These changes bring clarity and reduce barriers to delivery, setting up the social housing system for the ambitious future we are working towards.
Social housing is an essential part of a functioning housing system. It provides security for families, supports communities, reduces homelessness pressures and, when done well, represents good value for the taxpayer over the long term. This Bill is a vital part of our reforms, but legislation alone cannot deliver the decade of renewal we want to see across the quality and supply of social housing. As I have said, this Bill is one targeted part of a comprehensive and ambitious plan that the Government are already delivering through record investment into new social housing; through new modern and robust standards to improve housing quality and safety and to strengthen tenant engagement and landlord accountability; and through working with the regulator and the sector to ensure that the system is stable and investible. Ultimately, the Bill is grounded in the everyday reality of families who need secure homes, in the practical requirements of councils and providers that need certainty to build so that future tenants can access social homes, and in the principle that the state has a responsibility to ensure that safe, secure and affordable housing is available to those who need it.
In the course of this debate, I know that noble Lords will rightly scrutinise the detail—how reforms are implemented, how we safeguard fairness and how we ensure that the sector can deliver—and I welcome that scrutiny. But I hope that the House will also recognise the central purpose of this Bill: to strengthen tenant protections for victims of domestic abuse, to clear away barriers that prevent investment and delivery, and to protect and grow the social housing available across the country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association for Local Councils.
The Social Housing Bill attempts to address an important issue across many local authorities: namely, that we are not building enough social housing. Yet this Bill goes about this issue in completely the wrong way. There are, of course, some measures that we welcome. In particular, we welcome the Government’s efforts to give landlords and the courts more powers to protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It is absolutely crucial that victims do not fall through the cracks of the system, and we will support efforts to strengthen the Bill in this regard.
However, for the most part, this Bill’s focus is not on the development of new social housing; it merely moves the goalposts on the existing housing stock. This Government came to power on specific promises in their manifesto to
“prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock by reviewing the increased right to buy discounts introduced in 2012 and increasing protections on newly-built social housing”.
The first part of that pledge promises to prioritise the building of new socially rented homes, yet this is not what is prioritised in the Bill before us. Instead, the Bill goes into tweaking overdrive on the right-to-buy scheme. While we recognise the Government’s promise to review the discounts introduced in 2012, other provisions in the Bill represent an all-out attack on the right-to-buy scheme: a key Conservative legacy that has helped so many own their own home and has transformed social mobility across this country. Indeed, I heard the Minister describe the right-to-buy scheme as a “leaky bucket”. For a council that fails to build enough social housing, this may indeed be its point of view, but that is not whose side we are on. We on these Benches are not on the side of failing councils; we are on the side of hard-working families who do not want to be dependent on the state forever.
To be clear, we do not dispute that we need more social housing. Our population has grown rapidly, and development has not kept up with that demand. Under this Government, more landlords are exiting the market; unemployment is on the rise, especially for young people; and more and more people may be forced to look for social housing. But what do they find? They find the First Lady of Sierra Leone, who otherwise occupies a presidential palace. They find that social housing is being taken up by non-UK nationals, as was highlighted in the “Alternative King’s Speech”. Approximately 33,000 new social tenancies each year are going to households where the lead tenant is a non-UK national. At the same time, the Government invest around £4 billion annually to deliver roughly 30,000 new social homes. That is neither sustainable nor fair for British citizens.
According to the 2021 census for England and Wales, 72% of those who identified as Somalis live in social housing in the UK. That is an example of a dependency culture right before our eyes. This is not why the British taxpayer pays tax. This is not a functioning safety net, nor is it a welfare state working for its own citizens. Moreover, it is evidently not the right-to-buy scheme that is the problem here. We Conservatives know the solution. We need to build more new social homes for local people, not restrict their opportunities for home ownership.
We need the opportunity of right to buy, but at least one new home must be built with the money from the right-to-buy sale. If you do this, it is a win-win outcome. We need an honest and mature conversation about whom social housing is for and what the state can afford. We need to recognise that it is a finite resource and should be reserved for those who truly need it, without needlessly trapping people into welfare indefinitely and with no way out. We also believe that councils should have the powers to decide who to prioritise, such as those with existing connections to their local area, or veterans who have done so much for our country.
Reacting to the King’s Speech at the start of this Session, one Labour MP summed it up perfectly: “This is incrementalism”. That is exactly what we are seeing with this Bill before us now: tweaking with a successful scheme in order to weaken a proud Conservative legacy, rather than solving the problems the country faces today. This is red meat to appease Labour Back-Benchers in the other place, who—let us be honest—would rather see the right-to-buy scheme abolished altogether.
This is not serious policy direction, let alone a vision. This House and the British people deserve better. I repeat that there are measures in this Bill that we welcome, particularly to protect victims, and there are certain measures that we, of course, recognise as manifesto commitments. But we have serious concerns about significant aspects of this Bill: its implementation and commencement, the powers being handed over to the Secretary of State and all that is currently absent from the Bill to properly and adequately address the problems we face.
Where are the measures to keep larger social housing providers accountable to their local communities, for example? How can we make shared ownership schemes more workable in practice? How can we enable councils to have more choice over what works best for their residents? I look forward to hearing the contributions and insights of other noble Lords across this House on how we can make this a better Bill for the other place, and I look forward to engaging constructively with the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Well, my Lords, that has started the debate on this important Bill in a rather polarised way. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who used some of the rhetoric of pointing fingers of blame at minorities, when we should be talking about people in need of decent housing. I hope that we can do the reverse and think about people who need social housing rather than who they might be.
I have both a practical and a direct interest in this Bill, as a councillor serving on Kirklees council, dare I say? I concur with much of what the Minister said in her introduction to this Second Reading; I too spent all my childhood benefiting from the dignity, stability and quality of a council home.
Liberal Democrats largely welcome this Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. That is not to give it a complete stamp of approval but rather to acknowledge that fundamental reform of the provision of housing—at social rents, I emphasise—is long overdue. The provision of good-quality housing at a rent that is affordable—not affordable rents—is a basic human right that has been sorely neglected over the past 40 years. There is a direct link between quality of housing, educational outcomes and long-term health needs. It is in the interests of society as well as of individual families to provide good-quality housing that is available at a cost that everyone can afford.
The Liberal Democrats’ solution is the building of 150,000 homes for social rent every year to meet the needs of the 1.34 million households in England on local housing registers. That is likely to equate to over 4 million adults and children hoping and wishing to be allocated a property at a social rent.
The Government’s estimate is that, for larger family homes of four bedrooms, the wait to be rehoused can be as much as 18 years and that 28% of new lets are for families who are statutorily homeless. In my council, there are 19,000 households on the housing register and the number of new lets each year is around 1,700. Some 2.4 million council houses have been sold under right to buy. In Kirklees, there were 46,000 council houses in 1980; now, there are fewer than 22,000, with 19,000 households on the housing register. That alone puts into stark relief the acute problem of social housing provision. The fundamental failure of right to buy was that it was never accompanied by a right to build using the income from sales. The result is the scandalous lack of genuinely affordable housing for so many families.
The Bill begins to address the lack of supply of social housing. First, it introduces a 35-year exemption for new builds, which provides certainty that a council investing in building new homes is financially sustainable, as the capital borrowed to build can be paid back from rental income over that period. Increasing the qualifying period for the right to buy to 10 years will further protect the much-reduced stock that remains. Those are positive changes in our view, but what the Bill fails to do is substantially increase the supply of social housing.
The Government will point to the £39 billion allocated for the construction of houses in the social rent and mixed tenure sector. However, the aim is for just 180,000 new homes for social rent in a decade, when the need is so great. Measured against the scale of the challenge, that is a paltry response. Increasing the supply of housing at social rents benefits families who are in receipt of housing benefit. Their low income can then be spent on essentials for their family. The lack of social housing has resulted in many families entering the private rented sector, where rents are not equivalent to housing benefit. For example, in my own town a two-bedroom back-to-back house for rent in a Victorian terrace will cost around £750 a month—I know noble Lords who live in London think that that is peanuts, but where I live it is a lot of money—whereas the local housing allowance for claimants for a two-bed property is under £650 a month. There is a gap of £100 a month for a family claiming benefits, which makes a huge impact on their being able to afford basics.
There is also an impact on the cost to government, which the Minister pointed to. This year, spending on support for housing will reach £37 billion. The provision of housing at a social rent would reduce that revenue demand on government. It makes good sense to invest in more provision of social housing.
The other good thing in the Bill is the indefinite right of first refusal to purchase a former council house, in Clause 6, which provides a new route to increasing the supply of social housing. An additional benefit of this clause will be to provide greater stability in some council housing estates where private landlords have taken over houses that were formerly for social rent, having been bought under the right to buy and then sold on to private landlords. Often, these private landlords are distant—with some living in South Africa, in my experience—and in these situations do not provide the same support and management as that provided by council housing providers and registered social landlords.
There are other important changes in the Bill—for instance, on responding to domestic violence, as well as the proposal to streamline housing consents. There is therefore much to support. However, the gaping hole in the Bill is a more ambitious plan to meet the need for genuinely affordable housing at a social rent—not affordable housing, which is very different and often not affordable. Doing so would transform the immediate lives and future prospects of so many of our fellow citizens. Against the magnitude of the need, the Bill provides important first steps but falls mightily short of the real challenge, which is a greater supply of social housing.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but, as we embark on the Back-Bench speeches, I invite noble Lords to note the advisory speaking time of seven minutes. If we can stick to that, all speakers will get a fair crack of the whip, especially the later ones, and we can achieve a reasonable finish time. I would be grateful for your Lordships’ co-operation.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I declare my housing interests as in the register.
I commend the Bill, which introduces a number of legislative changes to enhance the quantity and quality of desperately needed affordable and social housing. I particularly welcome its provisions for constraining the right to buy, for the repeal of the awful and never-enacted measures to enforce sales of the best social housing, for the next steps in the endless story of the Grenfell tragedy, and for greater security for domestic abuse victims. Together, this whole package of measures will make an important difference.
In Committee, I will be bringing forward some modest but important amendments on points of detail, but for this Second Reading debate perhaps I could set the Social Housing Bill in its wider context. The Government have been taking significant steps to increase the output of councils and housing associations. The social housing sector’s subsidy settlement via Homes England, at £39 billion for the next 10 years, is the best since 2010. The national housing bank looks promising, and the agreement for rents to be increased by CPI plus 1% annually for a decade should ensure ongoing management and maintenance costs are properly funded. Other government measures aim to streamline planning consents and get the reluctant housebuilders to allocate a proper proportion of their new homes for social housing. That is all good stuff which will, I hope, produce around 50,000 new affordable homes per annum, more than half at social rents.
However, it is worth remembering that total investment in the social sector is a fraction of its level in times past. The proportion of the nation’s homes represented by council and housing association accommodation has fallen from its peak of 32% to just 17% today, partly due to the more than 2 million sales under the right to buy. The Bill seeks to address this problem of running the bath with the plug out, which should encourage councils to build once again.
Nevertheless, there is one serious omission in the Government’s support for the social housing sector: there is virtually no funding or strategy for the upgrading of hopelessly outdated current housing stock. That includes the leftover 1960s and 1970s prefabricated estates and tower blocks that now need renewing or replacing; the flats over shops in half-abandoned high streets; and the unfit privately rented pre-1919 properties that are long past their sell-by dates. While the Government’s emphasis on adding 1.5 million extra homes over the life of this Parliament is to be greatly applauded—particularly with the emphasis on social housing—it is a serious hole in the Government’s strategy that existing outdated housing is largely ignored. While I welcome the special help for particularly deprived neighbourhoods in the form of the Government’s Pride in Place initiative, this new funding does not stretch to improving existing accommodation. Sadly, the current absolute priority for new building is leaving tens of thousands of tenants in the sort of conditions that led to the untimely death from cold and mould of little Awaab Ishak in Rochdale.
Investment in housing-led regeneration has its own paybacks, with beneficial side-effects that are not always so apparent from the building of new homes: the most hard-hit local economies get a boost; much-needed opportunities emerge for training and apprenticeships for the growing number of NEETs; communities can see and engage with the renewal of their local environments; health and well-being can improve for populations with the worst health records; and hope and aspiration, after years of neglect, can be restored. The Renew project, representing the social housing providers in the northern regions, shows what can be done using devolved powers and funding for pilot schemes. In Greater Manchester, mayoral development corporations—MDCs—with wide powers are busy with major regeneration projects.
In relation to private sector properties in urgent need of upgrading, Blackpool Council, for example, is putting pressure on the worst landlords and taking direct action of its own through a local housing company. Elsewhere, community-based housing organisations are acquiring and modernising the poorest-quality private rented housing. So much more could be done to improve neglected estates and neighbourhoods if regeneration were mainstreamed once again. Maybe the Government’s overdue long-term housing strategy will address this omission. Perhaps the shift in powers to the mayors and combined authorities will lead to greater priority for regeneration activity. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister when the promised national housing strategy can now be expected.
Finally, I will comment on the state of the housing association sector. Mergers and takeovers have led to fewer and much larger organisations, which has brought some downsides. This trend has obvious financial advantages—lower borrowing costs and economies of scale in procurement and employment—but it has meant that some housing associations are geographically widely dispersed and decision-making is distant from those affected. Some of the sector’s broader, housing-related, place-shaping activity—local employment schemes, partnerships with local homelessness charities, civic engagement of staff in local affairs, et cetera—has unfortunately been lost. In return for the help that the Government are now providing and the extra support from this Bill, I hope more of the housing associations will behave like the best in class and increase their sensitivity to their tenants and communities at the local level, regaining the trust and confidence that this sector needs and deserves.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is always daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, on a matter to do with housing. I begin by declaring my interest: I am the chair of the Church Housing Association, a recently formed, not-for-profit social housing provider that we are seeking to build, literally and metaphorically, on the five core values that were set out in the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s commission on housing, Coming Home, which was debated in your Lordships’ House a few years ago. Those values—that social housing should be safe, secure, sustainable, sociable and satisfying—provide a set of tests against which any proposed legislation could be measured, hence I warmly welcome the Bill. It will make social housing better.
Housing is a fundamental human right. It is a foundation for other core rights, including things such as health, dignity, sanitation and sometimes the right to life itself. The Bill rightly addresses the concern that there is not enough stock in this country to house those in need.
We have heard some facts—I will offer one or two more. In June 2025, more than 172,000 children in England alone were living in temporary accommodation. For the last six years, temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor to the deaths of at least 74 children. Those are all government figures.
Lack of secure housing, moreover, is damaging our children’s ability to learn. I speak to secondary school heads in Manchester who are having to make special provision for study for children who have no permanent home, who sometimes arrive at school in the morning not knowing where a taxi will take them home to in the evening. We cannot allow this to continue.
Protecting and increasing our housing stock is an essential step to reduce the waiting list. That is why I welcome the Bill’s commitment to exempt newly built homes from the right-to-buy scheme and to streamline processes that will incentivise local councils to build more homes. Indeed, I applaud what is already happening, such as the increased investment in building housing for social rent that Manchester City Council has made in the last couple of years, supported by the Manchester Social Housing Commission, which it has been my privilege to chair. Yet, while building new homes and reducing leakage from the social housing sector are important, it is clear that the condition of our existing housing—as has already been mentioned—poses a very real threat to the health, well-being and lives of many social housing tenants. Here I turn, as others have, to concerns not adequately addressed by the Bill.
The measures introduced in Awaab’s law, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to, were a direct response to the death of a young child in my diocese. These measures hold social housing providers to account for addressing the root causes of damp and mould, not just blaming them on the lifestyle of the tenants. Among those living in these conditions, the proportion with an occupant suffering from a health condition has now increased to 47%. Almost half of those living in those conditions have a health condition.
Alongside mould and damp, we are approaching a decade on from the Grenfell tragedy, yet too many people are still living in homes that do not provide adequate protection against fire. Some 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding have not yet even begun remediation works. These are official figures. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Best, by inviting the Minister to set out for us how the Government intend to prioritise the safety and condition of existing homes alongside the delivery of new housing.
I turn from stock condition to poverty. We are all created equal. We should all be afforded equal opportunities. For children growing up in poverty, their aspirations for the future are overshadowed by the constant burden their families face in making ends meet, confronting food insecurity or being unable to afford to heat the home properly. I have had to address this House too many times on the growth of food banks. If the Government do not prioritise making social homes more affordable—genuinely affordable does not mean 80% of market rent, and when we define it like that we are not only insulting Britain’s households; we are abusing the Oxford English Dictionary—and if we do not address this problem, the cycle of poor life outcomes for today’s children, tomorrow’s adults, will only continue.
Poverty is a problem not only for social renters but for those in the private sector. Currently, more than 45% of private renters are living in unaffordable housing, according to IPPR research. Might the Government consider introducing double-lock rent caps in private sector housing, not only to slow the growing number of private renters who are falling into poverty but to free up social housing stock by making this sector more accessible to low-income families?
Sometimes, over time, the unintended side-effects of what was a well-intended piece of legislation—it might have done some good in its time—can come to outweigh the merits of the policy behind it. Some 40% of properties acquired through right to buy appear in the private rented sector within 10 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded us, they do so at much higher rents and often much poorer standards, both of physical maintenance and support for the tenants in them. That was not the intention of right to buy but that has been the outcome.
At the same time, it is now beyond any remaining doubt that subsidies to enable first-time buyers to get on to the housing market have done little more than further inflate property values. That is all they have done; there was a report on it in just the last week or so. The real beneficiaries have been the volume builders and those with significant capital already in property. Money that could and should have been spent building more social housing or keeping rents lower has been wasted on pointless political posturing. Can we be assured that that era is now over?
This housing crisis is not just a question of supply but of dignity, health and justice. The Church of which I am proud to be a part is committed to its long-standing role in building communities and supporting social cohesion. But families cannot participate in community life when their most basic needs are not being met. This Bill will be judged not only by the number of homes it delivers but by whether those homes enable renters to feel safe and secure, plan for their futures and nurture their communities.
Back in 1990, as a young parish priest, inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Best—he was not a Lord then but he was a great campaigner for housing—I wrote to my then bishop. I warned him that the crisis of unemployment that had plagued the 1980s was about to be superseded by a crisis in social housing. Some 25 years on, that crisis is still with us. This Bill can be a big step towards addressing it. I look forward to its progress.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who has consistently championed the social housing sector.
Social housing is a vital national asset built to provide families on low incomes with a safe, secure, affordable place to live. After decades of marginalisation and underfunding, the tragic reality is that thousands of families still lack a safe and affordable home. Over 170,000 children currently live in temporary accommodation. I am proud that after a regrettable period of decline and marginalisation under successive Conservative Governments, this Government are once again asserting the value and importance of social housing. The Social Housing Bill is an important pillar of this work.
My noble friend has emphasised the targeted aims of the Bill. I welcome its narrow drafting. It is clear and precise. It aims to achieve three clear and laudable objectives: protect existing social housing stock, protect victims of domestic abuse living in social housing, and clarify the statute book.
With 1.3 million households on social housing wait lists, all social housing sold off under the right to buy should have been replaced, like for like. That has just not happened under the present system. In its current form, right to buy has unsustainably depleted the stock of social homes and restricted confidence to build and invest, depriving so many families of a vital resource.
Of course, social housing residents’ ability to buy their own home has an important role to play, but this must be done sustainably, protecting social housing stock where necessary and with clear safeguards against misuse. Measures in the Bill to increase the qualifying period to 10 years, reform discounts, and introduce a 35-year exemption for newly built social housing will help to ensure that the policy is more sustainable and offers better value for taxpayers’ money.
These reforms will also give councils greater confidence to invest in new supply, which is essential if we are to begin reversing decades of lost stock. This is particularly important in rural areas, where pressures are especially acute. Research from English Rural found that while 17% of the population live in rural communities, they receive just 7% of new affordable homes. Over 306,000 people are currently on rural waiting lists, and at current building rates it would take nearly 90 years to clear that backlog.
Rural development is always more challenging due to the availability of land, amenities and resources, but low replacement rates against right-to-buy sales have exacerbated these challenges further. I therefore strongly support the provisions in Clause 7 to disapply right to buy in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas. These changes will help safeguard vital social homes and better reflect the realities of constrained rural housing markets.
Among the most important protections are those contained in Part 2 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill, which confer new protections on victims of domestic abuse who live in social housing. We know that housing plays an important role in cases of domestic abuse, where housing uncertainty can be used by perpetrators to exert control. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people who are experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Social landlords are well placed to identify domestic abuse and prevent escalation through offering support and guidance to survivors of domestic abuse, but the present legal framework does not always allow them to respond effectively, particularly in cases involving joint tenancies.
That is why the National Housing Federation has said that it strongly supports measures in this legislation which allow survivors to apply to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy, giving the survivors greater housing security and the ability to remain safely in their homes where appropriate. This is a significant and welcome step forward. It is, however, a highly complex and sensitive area in practice. It will be critical to work closely with social housing providers on the implementation of these changes. We need to ensure that staff are fully equipped to protect victims and support them in rebuilding their lives. Can my noble friend the Minister say a bit more about the Government’s plans to support the implementation of these changes?
Finally, I turn to the topic of social homes being sold—referred to as “disposals” in the sector. We know that England has some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Many properties are ageing, require significant investment or no longer meet modern standards or regulatory requirements. It is understandable that there are concerns about any social homes being sold in this context. However, it is important to note that disposals act as a standard part of responsible asset management. Crucially, proceeds from these sales are reinvested to build new, higher-quality homes and improve housing stock. In some cases, a single sale can fund the building of more than one home, supporting the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes this Parliament.
The number of social homes owned by housing associations has consistently grown in recent years, increasing by over 26,000 per year for the last three years. The sale of housing association homes out of the social rented sector has therefore not resulted in any net loss of social homes. For some properties, regeneration could be a desirable alternative to disposals. The noble Lord, Lord Best, emphasised this point very effectively. I suggest that the Government could support housing associations and councils in increasing the rate of regeneration by introducing greater flexibility on net additionality rules in the social and affordable homes programme and providing other forms of assistance.
The Government’s plan to put in place the foundations for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing can deliver lasting change and finally turn the tide on the housing crisis. The package of long-term investment announced at the spending review last year was the first step towards doing so. This legislation is another. I echo the National Housing Federation in saying that this legislation
“demonstrates the government’s commitment to protecting the supply of social housing for future generations”.
I hope that the social housing sector continues to work in partnership with government to deliver a decade of renewal for social housing and ultimately to build the homes that our country so desperately needs.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I will develop part of the argument she adduced—that there is sometimes a case for disposing of social housing.
I want to address the ongoing controversy whereby the right-to-buy policy led directly to the shortage of social housing. I voted for the 1980 Housing Act; more relevant is that I was a junior Minister under Michael Heseltine and was responsible for implementing it and then defending it. That brought me into conflict with the late Baroness Hollis—then Councillor Hollis and chairman of the housing committee in Norwich—who refused to implement the policy. I had to put in the commissioners and suspend her. We met again 30 years later, when I joined your Lordships’ House. She was emollient, if unrepentant, and we became good friends.
I understand the argument that all the receipts should have been reinvested in social housing. But suppose I had gone to Geoffrey Howe, the Chancellor at that time, and put that argument to him. He would have said, “George, that is not how it works. When we privatise Heathrow and Gatwick, we don’t build more airports. When we privatise the docks, we don’t build more docks. What happens is that the money goes into a pot, along with North Sea oil, income tax and everything else, and there is then a collective decision about how to spend it. You, George, have inherited from the outgoing Labour Government very generous provision for social housing and you’re telling me you want to keep the billions from right-to-buy receipts all to yourself, not just for this year but for every subsequent year. That would be wholly unfair to the Secretary of State for Health, who cannot sell the hospitals and add to his baseline, and to the Secretary of State for Defence, who cannot sell the nuclear deterrent”. I would have come up against the policy that dare not speak its name in the Treasury—namely, hypothecation.
Under hypothecation, all the fuel duty and vehicle excise duty would go to transport and be spent on potholes, and health would have to survive on parking charges and prescription charges. So there are very good reasons why all the capital receipts did not automatically go back to the department that generated them. I see a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, smiling—if not nodding.
Even if I had won that argument and all the receipts had been kept by my department, it would have made no sense in housing policy terms to allow each local authority to spend 100% of the receipts on housing. In the 1980s, all the receipts stacked up in the shire districts, where there were houses with gardens and the housing pressure was much less, and there were relatively few receipts in the inner cities, where the predominant stock was flats. The policy of requiring the local authority to reduce its debt by 80% of the receipts enabled the department to recycle the receipts. We would say to South Bucks, for example, “You’ve got to use all the receipts to reduce your debt”, and to Islington or Tower Hamlets or Southwark, “You can increase your debt by the corresponding amount in order to invest in housing”. It was a progressive policy, which annoyed a lot of Conservative councillors, but which should be supported by the other side.
Right to buy brought additional benefits in addition to being popular—so popular that no one has ever repealed it. All the evidence that I saw at the time showed that those households that exercised their right to buy looked after their property better than the cash-strapped local authority they had bought it from—they had a real incentive to do that as home owners—so the nation’s housing stock benefited. Also, the newly enfranchised residents on the estates joined forces with existing tenants’ associations, or in some cases set up new ones, to campaign for improved conditions on the estates, and everyone benefited from that.
I would also argue that there were wider social benefits in that the predominantly single-tenure estates became pepper-potted with owner-occupiers, leading to more diverse and less polarised communities. On some estates there are now third-generation owner-occupiers—a continuity that the Minister herself commended in her opening speech.
However, I have to concede that there was one consequence of the policy that we did not foresee and which has done much to discredit it. Once the properties had changed from tenancy to owner-occupation, we assumed that the owners would stay there. The whole thrust of Conservative policy was to promote owner-occupation. We did not envisage, nor did I personally want, properties then to be bought by landlords charging market rents, often underpinned by housing benefit. For the first decade or so, that was not actually an issue; it became an issue after 1996, when buy-to-let mortgages were introduced.
This is not the right time to argue whether it makes sense for the nation’s savings to be spent buying existing assets—pushing up the price—or to be invested in government stock and then in infrastructure, or in stocks and shares and then in industry, providing wealth and jobs. That imbalance is now being slowly put right by making ISAs more attractive than buy to let and encouraging institutional investment in new build.
In conclusion, what basically happened is that the right-to-buy receipts went into the pot. No homes were lost; the tenure simply changed. The pot was then spent on schools, hospitals, aircraft carriers and the rest, from which everyone benefited. The decision not to spend enough on social housing after 1980 was a collective decision by successive Governments after considering all the other demands on the public purse, as the Minister said in opening. I end where I started. The right-to-buy policy was not inevitably going to lead to the loss of social housing. The consequence of enfranchising millions of tenants has been a bonus. The lack of social housing, as I said, is a reflection on successive priorities by successive Governments.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and although I may not agree with all his points, I certainly respect his experience and views. I start by declaring that I work for the Local Government Association. I support the Bill, not only as a Member of this House but as someone who has spent years working at the coalface of housing need as a councillor who led on regeneration and planning for eight years, becoming one of London’s largest housebuilders. I welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the importance and value of regeneration.
I welcome the Bill and other measures that the Government have implemented to speed up housebuilding to address the housing crisis, including the £39 billion for social housing. Social housing is a foundation on which people build lives. It is where children grow up and go to school; it is where families such as mine put down roots and where communities are built. When we allow social housing stock to erode, we are not simply making a balance sheet error, we are narrowing life chances. As mentioned by my noble friend the Minister, the numbers are stark. It is a source of shame that more than 175,000 children are in temporary accommodation. More than 1.3 million households across England are currently on waiting lists for a social home. We simply do not have enough homes.
The temporary accommodation bill alone should give us pause for concern. Government figures show that council spending on temporary accommodation reached £2.8 billion in 2024-25. This is not just a housing argument; it is a fiscal one. Research by the National Housing Federation and Shelter found that the government funding needed to build the social homes we require would be fully paid back within 11 years through savings on housing benefit, NHS costs and homelessness expenditure, and additional tax receipts from construction employment.
If the case is so clear, why have we not built? I know from direct experience why councils find this so difficult. Barriers such as the state of the housing revenue account, the cost of public borrowing and workforce shortages have all been challenges to councils which want to build, and I welcome the steps the Government have taken to start to address these. Then there is right to buy, which the Bill rightly addresses. Right to buy was introduced in 1980, and today there are more than 131,000 fewer affordable homes than there were at the start, driven largely by the failure to replace homes under that scheme. The measures in the Bill to extend eligibility to 10 years, exempt newly built stock for 35 years, and provide a perpetual right for first refusal on resale are genuine improvements and I welcome them wholeheartedly.
There is, of course, a rich irony in the fact that those on the opposite Benches who argue most loudly for the right for every family to own their own home have, at the local level, spent years frustrating the very development that would give families somewhere to live in the first place. We have all watched the pattern: support for housing in principle but objection to housing in practice—a planning application in a leafy ward that somehow never quite gets backed. The former Government removed mandatory housing targets and saw new approvals collapse accordingly in precisely those areas where housing need was greatest.
We on this side of the House believe that you cannot claim to support housebuilding while blocking homes at every planning meeting. This Bill is for those who are willing to follow this through. Addressing supply must meet demand. I offer two suggestions. The first concerns a replacement ratio. Parliamentary scrutiny has previously found that the system should ensure that any home sold via right to buy is replaced like for like, with local authorities retaining all receipts to enable them to do so. A one-for-one replacement principle could be built into the framework, even implemented flexibly over a defined period, to give councils and communities the assurance that every sale is matched by a new beginning.
The second concerns the flexibility of right-to-buy receipts. I raise this as someone who has seen at first hand how the current rules interact with the real complexity of delivering housing at scale. A major regeneration scheme—the kind that generally transforms a community, delivering hundreds of homes alongside schools, green spaces and new streets—may take five, seven or even 10 years from conception to completion. Planning processes can be lengthy and viability assessments contested. Development timelines are not solely within a council’s control. Restrictions on the use of right-to-buy receipts have been identified as a key barrier to council housebuilding and, although temporary flexibilities have been introduced at various points, they have not provided the certainty or permanence that councils need to plan with confidence.
When receipts must be spent within fixed timelines or face clawback, councils are pushed to smaller, faster projects that may not represent the best long-term value, rather than larger, more complex schemes that transform communities. Allowing councils permanent flexibility to combine right-to-buy receipts with other government grants and to spend receipts at a timescale that reflects local development realities, particularly when councils can demonstrate that receipts are committed to a named scheme, could be a way forward.
This is a good Bill. It is overdue and it is needed. But good housing policy is not made in this Chamber alone; it is made when legislation is matched by resources, by long-term partnership between central and local government, and by a shared willingness at every level—local, national, urban, suburban and rural—to say yes to the homes that our country needs. The National Housing Federation and Shelter estimate that 90,000 homes a year are needed to meet demand. This Bill is another step which this Government are taking. Every measure that we take in this House to bring those homes a little closer is a measure worth taking. I look forward to engaging with this Bill and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I am no expert in housing, as many people in the Chamber are; if some of my questions and comments appear naive, it is because I am reflecting what many of the general public think and understand about social housing.
It is 30 years since I was on the board of a housing association, which was in inner east London. I joined because of my realisation of the importance of housing to the general health of the population, which was more my direct concern. I have never forgotten the enthusiasm and commitment of my colleagues on the housing association board, and I have never doubted that we will always need some kind of social subsidised housing. I am going to keep saying “subsidised”, because it is most important we remember that the taxpayer is funding the majority of this social housing. The population at large do not understand the terms “social housing” and “affordable housing”. It is really confusing to get to grips with what they mean these days. Who is paying? Who is responsible? Do the general public know what they are?
I should declare that I was a beneficiary when the right to buy was introduced. We were renting a flat in the Barbican tower block—indeed, I still live there. In those days, the City of London Corporation rented them out at economic market rents. We were council tenants, of course, and we benefited phenomenally from this extraordinary policy. If the private rented sector had been able to use the receipts, or if receipts had been collected from right to buy and then spent on other social housing or on private rental markets that would produce better quality housing, all would have been fine, but that never happened, because of the very reasonable political reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Young—and I understand the hypothecation problem. We have lost so much housing stock, which has been pretty catastrophic. It has left an extraordinary number of people without any hope of being able to afford a home of their own, either rented or purchased.
I welcome the narrow focus of this Bill and shall certainly support it, although I wonder whether the years of eligibility as a criteria for purchase should be even longer than is being suggested. I am also concerned about the quality of new homes, both private and social rented, but I was reassured when the Minister waved her somewhat daunting spreadsheet of quality improvement work at us Cross-Benchers at a meeting. I shall say no more about that at the moment but to wish her luck in getting all those brown ticks done.
We can debate the other provisions of the Bill in greater detail in Committee, but a huge number of rental properties remain empty. What are the Government doing about that when they are proposing that we should have a lot more social homes and are thinking about where they should be built? We have already heard about the somewhat catastrophic loss in rural areas, where people have had to move away. I wonder whether we have the balance right, and I am particularly concerned about empty homes.
Like many people, I wonder whether the Government should examine more closely why such a high proportion of our population lives in social rented housing compared to the rest of Europe. The Netherlands is higher still, at 20% of housing provision, and we are, as we heard, running at about 16%. Are the Government giving any thought to this issue? I understand that the reasons are historical and, sadly, ideological, but I question whether it is necessary or desirable. It seems to me that people staying in social rented accommodation long after they can afford to move out is an imposition on other taxpayers. I remember that the Cameron Government tried to introduce legislation to change this, and it failed for practical reasons and because of disincentives in the system. But when you are struggling to finance a steep mortgage, it comes as a bit of a shock to discover that the relatively well-off neighbours have such a public benefit. Security of tenure is one thing—giving people security to know where they are going to live is good—but retention of the financial benefits for many years over those which are necessary is quite another.
If the Government want to ensure that social housing policy is fair for all people, they must surely tackle homes left empty and question who is occupying those that are available. I repeat that I shall support this narrow Bill, so let us get it done.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, as an adviser to development forums in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cheshire and the Thames Valley, and as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation.
I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, because she made a number of interesting points, one of which I want to add to, if I may. I was pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who said many things that will help to inform our debate and get us beyond what might otherwise be an unhelpful polarisation between those of us who believe from experience that the right to buy is a successful policy that should be continued and those who for other, perhaps ideological, reasons want to restrict the right to buy.
There is a practical point about how right to buy should be managed. For example, if the Government wanted to reduce the discount and chose to do so, there would be an unwelcome practical implication for those who had legitimate expectations that they would be able, after a number of years, to exercise the right to buy. I think they should, at the very least, be able to continue to exercise the right to buy on the understanding that they would continue to occupy the house for a long period, and that if they cannot commit to that, or to the right of repurchase by the local authority, they should not be able to exercise the right to buy. There are ways in which we should be able to support right to buy, rather than simply restrict it.
The point I want to come back to, which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, helpfully made, is the distinction between affordable and social housing. I hope that where we are at the moment in the debate on this Bill and associated issues is looking at increasing the supply of homes for social rent. I am afraid we are very far from where we need to be. From my work in development forums, I know that many developers are unable to secure purchases by housing associations and registered providers of contracts for the supply of affordable housing. That is impinging on the number of homes that are available for social rent. Roughly one-quarter of what they are providing is for social rent, so that is probably 30,000 affordable homes coming through the Section 106 route, of which probably no more than 7,000 are homes for social rent.
Homes England is, correctly, pursuing an increased social and affordable housing programme, but, even if that achieves the 60% social rent composition that Homes England is aiming for, that would mean a maximum of 18,000 homes for social rent a year, and I will be very surprised if it manages to reach that figure. We are probably looking at no more than about 25,000 homes for social rent in total, but the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, who is not presently in her place, was talking about housing federations and the like looking for up to 90,000 additional homes for social rent. I do not know how we can possibly reach that figure.
However, I say to the Minister that if it is not even necessarily part of the scope of this Bill, it is important for us to look at additional ways in which we can generate capital to support investment in additional, affordable and, in particular, social housing. I suggest that she has a look at the Legal & General report, published in April this year, which looked at the possibility of, as it were, energising the latent value in the social housing stock for the purposes of reinvestment into new social housing. That is what many noble Lords on all sides of the House are looking for. The report essentially proposes that housing associations—and the same principle could be applied to council housing stock, where it exists—take the latent value and say, “Let’s transfer this as a large-scale transfer into a partnership provider”, where the partnership is with institutional investors who are looking for long-term investments with an index-linked source of income, which, of course, is what we now have by virtue of the CPI plus-1% increase in rents.
So there is the possibility of generating additional capital that can then be reinvested back, directly through the housing associations, into additional affordable housing. Legal & General’s estimate is that, if this were done for about one-third of the total housing stock in housing associations, it could lead to as many as 8,000 additional social homes per year, representing roughly one-third of the total of affordable homes that could be funded as a consequence of such a major project. Time does not permit me to talk more about this but I hope that Ministers will look actively at it. I would be pleased if they were able, with officials, to engage with this report and its possibilities, and with the housing associations and the local authority sector, to see whether we can create a new programme that would deliver that degree of value, because at the moment we have housing revenue accounts that are cash constrained and housing registered providers who are cash constrained with all the costs of maintenance, building and so on. We have to find ways in which we can realise their asset value in order to overcome their present cash constraints.
Lord Babudu (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak at the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Even if we may not agree on everything, there was much in his remarks that I agree with.
I strongly support this Bill, both its broad intention and its specific provisions. Like my noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, my support is rooted in my own experience and that of many of the people I served as a local councillor. When I was growing up and my family needed social housing, we were able to move into a decent-quality flat in south London near to where we had lived before, shortly before I took my GCSEs. Frankly, I dread to think what it would have meant for me and my studies, for my parents and their work and for my brother and his medical care if we had had to move much further afield to poor-quality housing. In my time as a local councillor, I met many families living in conditions that clearly were not suitable for them. They were desperate for an opportunity, like I had in the late 1990s, to get into decent social housing where they could thrive.
I begin with that because I think it is important, in discussing social housing, to put people at the centre and to keep in mind health and the wider implications of where you live. As other noble Lords have touched on, the home is one of the most important determinants of the health of people of all ages. We know that, for children in particular, staying in low-quality temporary accommodation can mean disrupted access to primary care, delays in accessing developmental support, poorer mental health outcomes and reduced educational attainment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also mentioned—and that is before we get to elevated risks of respiratory illnesses and other conditions. The breadth of the health impacts that we see in families living in inappropriate accommodation is substantial and accumulates, and it deserves to be named here. I ask noble Lords to keep those health impacts in mind throughout this debate.
I recognise that increasing the supply of social homes is not the only route to addressing those harms—many noble Lords have mentioned the conditions of housing—but the context we are in gives us good reason to do what we can with this Bill to increase and protect the supply of social homes.
Before I discuss the Bill itself, I acknowledge, as others have highlighted, that it is properly understood as part of a much wider programme. The 10-year rent resettlement, the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme and the mechanisms to lower borrowing costs for social housing providers, both private and public, are serious measures, and I gladly welcome them.
Turning to the Bill itself, the reforms to right to buy are comprehensive and strike the right balance. The increase in the eligibility threshold from three to 10 years, the reforms to discounts, extending the right of first refusal on the onward sale of formal right to buy properties, and the exemption of newly built social homes from right to buy for 35 years represent proportionate steps that address some of the aspects of right to buy that have proved most damaging to maintaining levels of social housing stock, while maintaining what I agree is a valued route to home ownership for long-standing tenants.
I welcome the provisions protecting social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. During my time as a local councillor, I saw the profound dilemma that current laws can put victims in, forced to choose between living in danger or losing their home. I am really encouraged that the Bill stands to help to address those problems, and I know it has been welcomed across your Lordships’ House.
Taking these and other provisions of the Bill together, I share the hopes of my noble friend the Minister that they will ultimately increase the supply of much-needed social housing across the country. However, I want to speak to an issue that several noble Lords have mentioned. Shelter’s 2024 report on the need for social housing, Brick by Brick, drawing on data from MHCLG, estimates that 260 social homes were lost over the decade prior. In that context, the Government’s wider programme currently indicates an ambition to support the building of at least 180,000 social rent homes over the next decade, but it seems that these plans would not even take us back to where we were. I recognise that the Government’s programme is ambitious, particularly by recent standards, but the scale of need raises the question of what the Government’s success measures are for the Bill and whether their plans are sufficient to give us the social housing we need, according to the Government’s own estimates.
I turn to more of the detail of the Bill, although I note that this is not the time to do too much of that. I welcome the requirement for private registered providers to notify local authorities and other known social housing providers in the area before they dispose of social housing. This may be a misunderstanding on my part, but could my noble friend the Minister explain why the Bill does not seek to introduce a right of pre-emption here, as exists with formal right to buy homes? The same supply impact on our social housing stock applies in both circumstances, and a four-week notice window seems quite tight for giving social housing providers enough time to decide and then act on the opportunity to secure a social home.
In conclusion, I look forward to seeing the Bill return in Committee and to better understanding the success measures against which it will be judged. Most importantly, I look forward to seeing the necessary steps being taken to achieve marked improvements in the supply of decent social housing in this country, and to the health benefits that will follow from that for individuals and families who are so desperately in need of it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I empathise totally with the Minister because I too grew up in a council home. It was in Moulsecoomb, Brighton, and was part of the “Homes for Heroes” development in 1925. My parents moved into it probably 25 years later. The welcome feeling of stability, security and community—of having shops close by and a garden—and being able to plan for the future was amazing. I still remember it incredibly fondly, so I welcome the Bill because any measure that strengthens social housing, protects tenants and begins to repair decades of neglect is a step in the right direction. For example, the reforms to right to buy are long overdue, while stronger protections for survivors of domestic abuse are important and necessary. I also welcome the Government’s continued recognition that social housing must be part of the solution to the housing crisis we are in, but, while I welcome the Bill, it does not match the scale of the problem.
I am going to repeat figures that have already been mentioned, but they bear repeating because they are so shocking. We are facing a housing emergency—not in the future, but an emergency happening now that is already devastating lives across the country. More than 1.3 million households sit on social housing waiting lists. Councils are spending billions of pounds every year on temporary accommodation. Families are raising children in cramped rooms with no security or stability, and young people are of course finding themselves locked out of affordable housing altogether. One in 50 Londoners is homeless and living in temporary accommodation. Among children, it is one in 21. How have we got to those figures when we live in one of the wealthiest countries—and wealthiest cities—in the world?
The Government describe this Bill as the next step in the housing renewal programme but the steps are simply too small. The private sector has never built enough houses, and Thatcher’s right to buy has cost the taxpayer millions. The Government’s housing benefit bill has gone up and as social housebuilding has collapsed to historically low levels, instead of the taxpayer building and owning, the taxpayer now provides a subsidy for private landlords.
We need to build council housing that people can be proud to call a home and that is warm in winter, cool in summer, free of damp and at a reasonable rent. In an age of billionaires, it is big corporations and investors which have driven up the price of homes that they call assets. The housing market is broken and the corporate investors have broken it. We cannot solve the housing crisis by slowly reducing the rate at which we lose social housing stock. We have to start providing homes at scale again, both through new homes in the right places and by supporting councils to bring back what is already available. Obviously, history shows us that this can be done. After the Second World War, more than 150,000 social homes were built every year. Councils were supported to build them, finance was provided and housing was treated as the essential national infrastructure that it should be. We need that same ambition now.
The Government’s reforms to right to buy are welcome but should have happened years ago. I also welcome the Bill’s provisions relating to survivors of domestic abuse: the principle that victims should not be forced to lose their home because of someone else’s abuse is absolutely right. However, I am concerned that some of these measures might not work in practice. They rely heavily on outcomes in a criminal justice system that too often fails victims of domestic abuse. Many survivors never see a conviction; many never even see a prosecution. We need to hear from the Government what alternative forms of evidence and protection can be used so that survivors are not excluded.
Then there is the question of affordability. A survivor may obtain sole tenancy rights, but what happens if they cannot actually meet the rent on a single income? We must also remember that removing a perpetrator from a property does not automatically make a survivor safe. Post-separation abuse is a reality experienced by thousands of women, so they will probably need some support for these tenancy changes. Young people experiencing homelessness, leaving care or escaping unsafe homes also need access to social housing, yet the stock available to them continues to shrink. The reforms in this Bill alone will not change that reality.
The Bill contains worthwhile measures and I will support its progress, obviously while offering helpful advice and ideas at the same time, but we should not pretend that it meets the scale of the problem in the housing emergency that faces this country. What frustrates me most is that the Government have seen that there is a problem but are not doing enough to actually fix it. This should have been the Bill that launched a new generation of council housing by committing to new build and the refurbishment of older housing stock at a rate we need. Instead, it feels like an opportunity only half taken.
The housing emergency demands urgency and ambition. Millions of people cannot afford for us to settle for anything less. I hope that as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, the Government will listen carefully and find ways to strengthen it, because the country needs more than baby steps to reform a broken system. It needs a social housing revolution, and this Government must be braver.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot to welcome in this Bill but I must admit that after Clauses 1 to 4 and Clause 6, I then start to find it concerning. I say that because I am all for trying to make sure that when people buy a home for which they have been paying rent, there are good reasons for that to happen. I cannot explain it any better than my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham did earlier, but there is no doubt that being freed from whatever rules and restrictions the council or housing provider have—and being able to do what you want in your own home—was a big liberation for people. As a consequence, I am concerned about the changes that are being brought in.
I start with Clause 5 and the discount being reduced to 5%, but going up to a maximum of 15%. It is my understanding that when the discount was introduced—I think it was under the Conservatives—it was 32%. It was a Labour Government in 2004 who put it up to 35% and then there were consequential increases. I really wonder why it feels as if the Government are doing everything possible in the Bill, apart from removing the right to buy, to make it difficult for people to do that. This will backfire on them, or perhaps a future Government who are not a Labour Government, when they start to realise what will happen if people are still in that social housing once they are no longer earning and have become pensioners: a lot more money will need to be paid out in housing benefit to allow people to stay in that home.
One of the reasons why it seems as if young people have given up on being able to buy a home is when they know they are paying more in rent than a mortgage would cost them. It is about getting that deposit, and the whole point of getting on to the ladder from social housing is that you have, in effect, already been helped to get on that first rung.
When I was in government in DWP, I did some work with MHCLG on a particular policy. MHCLG was never very enthusiastic about it, but it was about how we can turn what gets paid in housing benefit into, effectively, mortgage payments. It is a question of what we can do when we are already helping people to live in a particular house or flat. How can we genuinely make sure that, in effect, it becomes something that has to be done for only 30 years instead of, potentially, 60 to 70? That is why there is a real economic challenge in aspects of this Bill.
On other missing aspects, I am concerned about the blocking of rural areas. It would be useful to understand whether the Government have considered what somewhere that is not an AONB today, but is in the future, would mean to existing rights. That has happened, as we have seen an expansion of AONBs in recent years and more national parks are intended. There is also nothing to restrict the housing association or council from selling the house in question. This happened in the constituency I used to represent in Suffolk—in Orford and Aldeburgh—and the money was not being used to rebuild homes locally. It was being used to build homes up to 100 miles away. Meanwhile in local communities, no social housing was going to be left for the children of those in that housing and who wanted to stay in the area, because it was being sold off.
I recall that one of the houses was quite large and had a large garden. That is no surprise, as post World War II a lot of social houses were built with large gardens so that people would be encouraged to grow their own food. But now this particular site could easily become the site of at least two, if not three, new houses under modern designs. The only answer was, “We are putting it up for auction”. That housing association provider—I am not a big fan of Flagship and New Tide—arranged it that so that you could buy a very nice housing plot in this particular rural area, which was an AONB, if you had enough cash; the way they did the auction was that it was only available to those who could pay cash, not those who could get access to a mortgage.
If the Government are intent on stopping the right to buy on rural houses for tenants, I do not think they are going quite so far as to require councils or other housing providers to replace them—I think they are enabling it, but they have always been able to do that. But I do not think it is right, in effect, to take that out of the housing market to address the needs of people in rural areas.
Another issue here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, picked up on, is the number of empty homes. I believe that there is an annual requirement, but it is not very specific about where the empty homes are. I came across this when the new homes bonus was in place. The bonus was given to councils which built homes, but it was offset by the number of empty homes. We discovered that, in that bit of Suffolk at the time, there were over 100 empty housing association homes. It is absolutely paramount that we have more transparency on this and that, frankly, housing associations and councils are held to account. They actually decided to demolish about 30 homes so they did not count anymore. I am pleased that they did rebuild some homes there, which were well-adapted, but these are the sorts of things happening locally.
What is missing is that, if a housing association sells a house, the first dibs should go to the council, another housing provider or indeed the tenant. It should also be required that the housing association or provider replaces it locally, which means within 10 miles—we are not talking about 100 miles, as is happening with some of the housing associations and providers today.
While there are aspects I welcome, there is a lot that I do not welcome and which I think that the Government will come to regret in the future. It is no surprise that the social housing list is so high; having a subsidised rent is always very attractive, and the unfortunate break-up of families has also had an effect, as indeed have aspects of immigration. I am sure this Bill will get the careful scrutiny it needs. I will not be here for day 2 of Committee, but I reserve the right potentially to bring amendments for the first time on Report.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare my registered interests in property and as a past chair of three housing associations. I am fully supportive of this Bill. It is very rare that you find a Bill that you are so enthusiastic about, but I am because it supports my current thinking.
I certainly appreciated the intellectual arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the right to buy is not itself responsible for the diminution of our public housing stock; I accept that. But the fact is that it has led to a huge decline in public housing stock as politicians did not use the money that should have been used, and now we see the big social need for more social and public housing. It has also had unintended consequences. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, did hint at those. There is a housing estate in Winchester, in Hampshire, where I live, which is now dominated by student rented accommodation, because 40% of the stock is now back in the private rented sector. That actually makes it more difficult to keep the appearance and the pride of the estate as they should be. So, it has had unintended consequences.
I also support the extra protection for victims of abuse in this Bill; that is long overdue.
One has to see this Bill in the context of the Government’s Delivering a Decade of Renewal for Social and Affordable Housing document. The first thing that is of benefit in that is the recognition that it is a 10-year plan. Five-year plans barely get off the ground before the five years are over. I think that is important, although it puts into question whether the Government are going to achieve 1.5 million homes in five years—I do not believe they will. A 10-year plan is much more sensible. Secondly, securing a firm, stable rental income increase policy to encourage investment is very important. I supported the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that. It provides the opportunity for alternative capital sources. Thirdly, the Government’s boost to housing numbers is not enough yet but, given the financial constraints, it is a start. The other important thing in the Government’s policy is the recognition that, to get housing numbers up, you need a big contribution from the public sector and from housing associations.
In the limited time I have, I want to concentrate on three issues, which I think are important in social housing and what is needed now in the social housing sector. The first thing is to recognise that the housing market is in the doldrums, and the Government’s policy depends on half the social houses coming through the work of developers. But there is the current state of the market; in London in the last financial year, only 6,325 homes were completed. They need over 80,000. Everywhere there are unviable housing schemes because of the big increase in housing costs, the uncertainty in the market and the dominance of the six major developers, whose business models still depend on house prices rising. It is not surprising the housing market is in the doldrums.
Are the Government looking at a contingency plan if the doldrums continue? Will they be prepared to step in and buy houses from the private sector if any of the private sector builders go into administration? Would they be prepared to accelerate investment? This does not necessarily mean the total spending over 10 years but, to get the housing market moving, they may need to accelerate the investment in social housing in the short term.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who cautioned against concentrating solely on new build; improving stock is just as important. We have to remember that the tenants are actually helping to fund investment in the associations and through the council housing revenue accounts through their rents. They need to see some benefit in the stock they are living in, and we need to make sure that resources are going into this. What plans do the Government have for keeping housing providers up to the mark in improving their stock?
One final issue I would like to comment on, which is a concern to me, is the well-being of tenants and the sense of pride of community. Anyone who has been canvassing in social housing stock in recent years knows that they are also part of the alienated electorate. That is the strongest feeling you get when you go around social housing. Why is that? It is not surprising that a lot of these people are struggling to make ends meet. They are the most vulnerable in the jobs market and they are cynical of the management they experience. I have spent time in housing associations countering the view “It’s good enough for them”; it is not. They have to have the best quality of repair work and the best environment on their estates, which private estates could look up to. They also need some help and service: encouragement, through housing associations, with job training and training on IT and the use of facilities. That would actually help their housing management as well.
There is a danger in our social housing that alienation leads to non-participation and to people wanting to vote Reform. Regeneration is absolutely critical in some of these estates. So investment in improving estates must be made to show that the housing managers care. This can be done through improving landscaping, sorting out parking and reinstating support services, all of which we have accepted in the private sector but are not in public housing.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I am just finishing. What plans will the Government bring forward to improve sink estates generally and restore the confidence, commitment and involvement of social tenants?
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak on the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill. I will share a story about Carla and Chloe. Some time ago, Carla became homeless following a relationship breakdown. The traumatic aftermath of this personal tragedy is hard for many of us to imagine. Two decades of homelessness ensued, with Carla searching night after night for a safe spot to sleep on London streets. She would often pick a place near to a restaurant with outdoor heaters, in a desperate attempt to find some kind of warmth in an otherwise cold world. We need this Bill for Carla and many like her.
We have rightly heard from noble colleagues about the scale of our housing crisis: 4.2 million citizens in need of social housing; 1.3 million stuck on waiting lists; and, more worrying still, 175,000 children who will go to bed again tonight in temporary accommodation. Jon Kuhrt from Hope into Action says that it is surely right to say that
“housing injustice is perhaps the greatest social policy challenge we face”.
There are communities across this country where a lack of adequate social housing is the prime reason that families are trapped in poverty and communities are struggling to thrive. By increasing the qualifying period for right to buy and introducing a 35-year exemption for newly built social homes, the Government are protecting housing stock and giving confidence to councils to build more social housing.
Also to be welcomed, as many noble Lords have mentioned, are the strengthened protections for those suffering domestic abuse. This will finally prevent victims from being forced to choose between their personal safety and the place they call home. In all this, the Bill offers a timely response to a deeply human problem.
However, there is another lesson to be learned from Carla’s story, and that is where Chloe enters. Carla’s problems went beyond matters of bricks and mortar. Although housing is an essential part of the solution that she is looking for, the most decisive need for her was pastoral care and practical support. At this point, Chloe comes in. As a caseworker for the Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields, just down the road, Chloe built a relationship with Clara. She earned her trust, helped her to access a wide range of support and services, and ultimately helped her to secure a room in a women-only hostel. The combination of a safe place to stay, if only temporarily, and someone she could depend upon has been life-changing for Carla.
In the words of Bonnie Williams, the CEO of Housing Justice,
“a home is sustained not only through tenancy law, but through relationship, trust, community and belonging”.
Complex human problems require deeply relational solutions. Alongside the Connection, the charity that helped Carla, St Martin-in-the-Fields runs the Frontline Network—the UK’s largest network of professionals and volunteers working with the vulnerably housed. The Frontline Network is generously supported by public donations to the BBC Radio 4 Christmas appeal, the world’s oldest fundraising media campaign. A recent survey of those working with people who are homeless showed that 80% of them believe that homelessness is getting worse, 50% say that they themselves are at risk of burnout, 51% say that the immense challenge they have in supporting clients is having a negative impact on their well-being, and 34% are struggling to pay their bills due to the salaries they receive not covering their cost of living.
To maximise the social and economic return on the investment outlined in this Bill, it is vital that His Majesty’s Government increase funding to those in housing associations, local authorities, charities and faith communities who provide the essential human infrastructure that will enable this legislation to change lives. It is not only flats and houses that we need. The Government should not wholly rely on charitable giving and the good will of charities to provide the decisive human interventions for those in the greatest need. Committing just a fraction of the overall budget to the human support that brilliant caseworkers such as Chloe provide would radically increase the number of sustainable tenancies while radically reducing the number of individuals and families who find housing only later to find themselves homeless all over again. This tragic back and forth comes at a crippling cost to the state and does untold damage to the lives of individuals and families. Miriam Morris of the Church Homeless Charity points out that, by investing in innovative local interventions and human-to-human support for people, we deliver much better outcomes and radically reduce our costs, both economically and socially.
Carla needs this legislation to pass. For now, Chloe is continuing to support Carla in temporary accommodation and hopes shortly to help her move into a safe and warm home of her own. She will then no doubt continue to support Carla as she sustains that tenancy. Few of us in your Lordships’ House have shared Carla’s experiences, but all of us know what it is to go through difficult times in our lives and to find someone we can truly rely upon.
I am wholly supportive of the Government’s attempts to deal with the social housing crisis through the legislation put before this House. In doing so, I look forward to hearing how we will help people like Carla by backing workers like Chloe. Alongside bricks and mortar, how will we invest in those wonderful front-line workers who provide a beautifully relational solution to a deeply human problem? If we can do that, this legislation will change many lives. What is more, we will join heroes like Chloe and play our part in helping Carla and many others both to find a house and to turn that house into a home.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly support this Bill, which will help with the operation of the right-to-buy scheme. I was doubtful about right to buy when it first came in, but I do not now support its abolition in any sense, although I recognise that in Wales and Scotland they have found it necessary to do so. But it needs to be subject to some additional measures.
I support the provisions in this Bill. I have long thought that the qualification of the length of time that a person has to be a tenant of the council before they have the right to buy has been too short, and we are addressing that. I recognise that the Bill provides that new build is not subject to the immediate right to buy for 35 years. I strongly support the provisions in this Bill relating to people suffering domestic abuse. I also recognise what others have said: it is a question not simply of giving the tenancy to the abused spouse or partner but of making sure that she—it is normally she but sometimes he—does not suffer additional abuse by finding an alternative safer location for them. These measures are important for making right to buy operate more easily and to protect existing tenants.
However, I cannot help but feel a little disappointment that the Social Housing Bill that I saw in the initial list of provision for this Session of Parliament is so limited. We have a situation in which the market in every form of tenure of housing in this country is in total crisis, and particularly the social housing element is in crisis. Thousands of people cannot ever envisage being given any social housing. We have councils that do not provide any social housing and we have numbers of people who are stuck in property that requires new input to bring it up to the safe standards that are required. We see the health of our children being endangered by the dampness and unhealthy conditions in some of our social housing. All those things need addressing, but they all need money.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said at the beginning, we need to have a guarantee that money goes back into the social housing sector. I understand the clear exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Young, as to why the need to recycle the money was not followed by successive Governments, whether it was in the hands of the Treasury or the local authorities, and we deplore that. But from now on should we not, by some mechanism or another—the Treasury, after all, has mechanisms for ensuring that departments and local authorities spend money in many different directions—establish the principle that the money received for the disposal of right-to-buy homes goes back to create greater and more improved social housing? If that is not done, we will again go through the process that the noble Lord, Lord Young, described, and end up with the fact that social housing for those who really need it is not available.
I hope that, if we require a broader housing Bill, which I hope the Minister will be able to produce in the coming months, or at least in the next Session of Parliament, there is a new approach to social housing. I do mean social housing, not the broad definition of affordable housing; the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, was absolutely right to say that that confuses the issue. We mean social housing, and we need to ensure that resources are directed to people who can deliver social housing. That requires a lot of things to happen: it requires changes in planning laws, and changes to ensure that the construction industry itself is capable of doing this, which probably requires tackling the oligopoly of big housebuilders and developers, which tend to dominate and persuade local authorities that social housing is actually not a good idea because they cannot make enough money out of it. We need to make an approach on lots of different fronts to get the new social housing delivered, but we should start from the premise that what goes out of the social housing sector should go back in. There must be an obligation on local authorities and the department to produce a new form of legislation and new mechanisms to ensure that happens.
I hope my noble friend the Minister can give me the assurance that at some time in the foreseeable future we will see another Bill to ensure that the level of social housing is kept up and that therefore we see an end to the terrible situation whereby the lack of social housing at present creates misery. A failure in housing policy for many years needs to be addressed by this Government, and I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that that will indeed happen.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, that I was a previous leader and councillor for the London Borough of Bexley and vice-president of London Councils, and that I have had involvement in the Local Government Association.
I must admit that when I heard the title of this Bill, I was really quite intrigued, as in my opinion there are so many avenues it could have gone down. But for a Government who say that they want to solve the housing crisis, I was so disappointed when I read that the main focus seemed to be about the right to buy. To put that into context, I grew up on a council estate in Lewisham, in the very early days of the right-to-buy scheme. I recall the aspirational conversations of my parents and their peers that this was their opportunity to own their own homes. That discussion was not about making profits; they fully intended to remain in those homes in which they were raising their families. None of them was high earning, but they were prepared for mortgages and taking responsibility for their home and improving it.
I am sure that many from that time will recall that the first thing the majority of those people did was to change the front door—and did we not all recognise that when canvassing, years later? But it was not just the front doors, as they also had a sense of pride in their surroundings and put many hours into helping with the maintenance of the area, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referenced earlier. The other thing it did was to give them independence, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referenced, so that as they got older and circumstances changed, there were options and the possibility of moving to more appropriate accommodation to ensure that they could continue to live independent lives. That probably saved a lot in social care support that we will never recognise.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I am a supporter of the right-to-buy policy. For every story you will hear of people making profits and being greedy, we should not forget the reality of the majority of people who remained in the property, and intended to continue to do so. However, given that the Bill is supposed to be about delivering on the Government’s manifesto to prioritise the building of new social rented houses and to better protect existing stock, there seem to be a number of important aspects missing, as my noble friend Lady Scott referenced earlier.
The first one, from my perspective, is about making sure that social housing is being used by those for whom it was intended. I vividly recall a conversation with a local housing association when we were embarking on a large regeneration scheme in Bexley, when I asked how it could be sure that the people living in the properties were who they thought they were. I am afraid that digital communications and electronic banking have ended the days of the rent man calling regularly and seeing the tenants, which has meant that the system is open to abuse; the “key job”, where social housing can be sublet, is a very real risk. The man from the local housing association looked at me as if I had two heads at the time, but once the work started in earnest to establish decant need, he admitted that I was right and he was amazed at what they found.
The second aspect is the council waiting list, which has been referenced here many times this afternoon. It appears that the size of waiting lists is sometimes championed in the same way as “My dad is bigger than your dad”. However, if those lists are not regularly revisited, they will not only continue to grow but become inaccurate and lead people into a false sense of security. A regularly refreshed list means that the right priorities are used when nominations are being considered. More accurate information could also ensure that the right people are getting the nominations. Probably most importantly of all, it would mean that those on the list will have a more accurate view of the possibility of housing becoming available.
The next issue is whether tenancy of social housing should be assumed to be lifelong. The Bill seeks to repeal addressing the lifetime tenancy that was introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Is it right that high-income earners remain in subsidised housing that the less fortunate cannot access due to unavailability? While the Government suggest that addressing high-income tenants could bring about disincentives, do they really believe that? The viability of increasing the supply of new social housing, whether through new build or regeneration, needs a mature conversation, and we should recognise that regeneration means decanting, which actually makes it even more costly.
Yes, right-to-buy receipts as well as Section 106 and CIL moneys can be used, but is it sufficient? If it is not viable, does there need to be a conversation about the cost of building or the cost of not building? That needs to be a grown-up conversation. If social housing is to be created, why not seek to ensure that good tenants can be rewarded and backfill with new nominations, which could often mean downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family homes?
The cost of creating supported accommodation is not viable, either for the elderly or for others who may need support. That is short-sighted and needs addressing, again because that could free up family accommodation but also because it means pushing costs into other areas such as social care.
The proposal in the Bill that concerns me is around domestic violence. Although I agree that there is a need to address tenancy issues, the suggestion is that the perpetrator has to be convicted, which could take some time to come about, so that needs to be considered, as does whether the person who has been abused needs to move from the area. These are two things that I am sure will come out through the Bill’s passage.
Another issue is the disposal of social housing through sale. I very much agree with this proposal, as we found out that one of our local housing associations was selling ex-council properties as a consequence of seeing them pop up on auction sites. Bearing in mind that Bexley’s social housing stock is held by registered providers—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness wind up, please? She is over time.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
That means that that is actually taxpayers’ money. There are many other things that the Bill could go into. It seems a shame that the Bill presents an opportunity to address some of those issues that really impact people, but I am sure that the Minister will be open to conversations throughout its passage.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I fondly recall the times in London Councils meetings when we would sit around the table and agree on virtually everything—sadly, this will probably not be so today, but it is still a pleasure to speak after her. I am pleased to speak in support of the Social Housing Bill and in particular the restrictions which the Bill introduces on the exercise of the right to buy. In doing so, I declare my interests as non-executive chair of H4Life, in Quoin Partners and as a member of the advisory board of LHG.
There are some policies pursued by Governments which are very much of their time. Perhaps regrettably, we do not review those policies sufficiently regularly and they become enshrined in our body politic, but they were the answer to the question of a different era. Right to buy is one such policy. That does not mean that Conservatives cannot be proud of that policy, but nor does it mean that it is the right policy for today.
Let us look at the differences between then and now. In 1980, London was a city whose population was declining, down to 6.8 million from 7.5 million the previous decade. Councils had vacant council housing stock and—can noble Lords believe?—hard-to-let properties. The average property price in London was about £22,500; that is £75,000 in today’s money. For this city, the policy of right to buy met a number of challenges—the realistic aspiration which many people had of owning their own home, at a time when property prices were relatively low, and there was surplus housing stock across the capital.
Today the figures are starkly different. London’s population is 9.1 million, having risen from 8.2 million 10 years ago. That is an increase of a third from 1981. Councils have ever-increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation.
There is no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let; there is a housing shortage. The average property price is £542,000—more than seven times, in real terms, the cost of a home in 1980. Sadly, the aspiration of owning your own home is something which many young people regard as being a wholly unrealistic prospect. Renting their own home, rather than a room, is their property ambition.
It is in this context that we consider the Bill. It is plainly right that local authorities should be allowed to protect their existing stock when it is such a scarce and valuable commodity. I welcome the extension of the qualifying period from three to 10 years—it is clearly right. I was also struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that maybe we should be looking for a longer qualifying period.
I particularly welcome the indefinite right of first refusal, which will be given to local authorities which have had to sell property under the right to buy. Bringing former social housing stock back into use as general needs housing is often a speedy and cost-effective way to increase council housing stock. If it can be used as a way to help regenerate estates and provide more housing for future needs, that must be a good thing.
I am pleased to see the protections given to newly built stock in Clause 18. When I was leader in Southwark and we embarked upon our council housebuilding programme, which was, and remains, the largest programme in the country—a commitment to build 11,000 new homes—we were concerned that we would be building stock which we might lose relatively swiftly to right to buy. The proposed protection of that stock for 35 years will give some reassurance not only to Southwark but to those local authorities across the country which are building new stock, and it will convince them that they are right to build. I think that there is an argument for considering a longer period because quite often the cost of the build has not been repaid after those 35 years; let us look at the real-terms period when those costs will be repaid.
Many problems remain with our ability as a country to deliver the new social housing which we need—not just social housing but housing as a whole. The money spent by local authorities on building new homes is undermined by the amount which we seem content to spend on temporary accommodation and homelessness. But, importantly, with that restriction on right to buy, the Bill protects what we do have, and for that reason it should be hugely welcomed.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the part owner of rented property in West Yorkshire. In my contribution to the King’s Speech debate last month, I referenced how disappointing it was that the Government would bring forward legislation to further curtail property ownership through a diminishing right-to-buy policy. The Social Housing Bill is a narrow-minded piece of legislation which misses huge opportunities to rectify many of the ongoing issues in the social housing sector—issues that this side of the House will seek to rectify in Committee and on Report.
Property ownership is not a bad thing. It gives families a sense of security in life and a stake in society. You cannot make a modern-day case for capitalism if the individual does not own capital. I refer noble Lords to the paper commissioned by the London School of Economics in December 2024, Human Capital from Childhood Exposure to Homeownership: Evidence from Right-to-Buy. There are some notable points to consider. The right-to-buy scheme has generated detectable, sizeable school performance gains. The policy gave rise to improved educational outcomes via improvements in the local community. The right-to-buy policy had positive effects on educational and downstream labour market outcomes. The right-to-buy experiment shows that increasing home ownership generates greater human capital accumulation.
To curtail the ability of residents in social housing to purchase property through right to buy is immoral and goes against every fabric this Government were elected to uphold. Those opposite may be surprised to know that the decision to allow local authorities to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts was made by the previous Conservative Government, and it is right. The days when local authorities were forced into pooling right-to-buy receipts on to national schemes undermined the principle of the scheme; namely, that a right-to-buy receipt be used to build new social housing to replace stock that had been purchased privately. I hope this Government will consider using this Bill to put into legislation that the 100% retention of right-to-buy receipts be made permanent.
On a similar point, the Government announced that right-to-buy receipts would need to be spent by local authorities within a 10-year period. Could this legislation include an ability for local authorities to seek an exemption from the Secretary of State where they may have right-to-buy receipts linked to future regeneration schemes coming down the line? As I am sure the Minister will understand, given supply chain constraints in the construction sector, this is having a knock-on impact on local authorities.
Following my contribution in the King’s Speech debate, I reiterate my interest in the upcoming Law Commission consultation on escheat land, which is transferred to the Crown Estate. I understand the commission will look at the feasibility of transferring escheat land to public bodies other than the Crown Estate. I would welcome confirmation in the Minister’s summing up on whether her department will push for housing revenue accounts to be included in this on the basis that local authorities agreed to use such land for building social housing where practical.
Finally, Clause 9 is of concern to me, and I seek clarification on its necessity. It will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to contribute right-to-buy receipts towards national pooling schemes. Given that the Government have said they would like to keep 100% of right-to-buy receipts for local authorities, I would welcome clarification on why Clause 9 is therefore needed, unless the Government plan to reallocate localised right-to-buy receipts to national pooling schemes.
This Bill is wrong and undermines the principles of home ownership. Significant work will need to take place in Committee and on Report to bring it to a satisfactory condition.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. There have been some thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I particularly enjoyed the passionate defence and argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, for regeneration to take priority. I hope the Minister heard those comments and will respond. I will confine my remarks to welcoming provisions in the Bill relating to survivors of domestic abuse and to raising two areas that would help the Government meet their ambition of tackling housing insecurity by supporting people to remain in their tenancies and communities, as the Minister spoke about at the outset.
First, I support the provisions in the Bill for survivors of domestic abuse. The barriers people face when trying to leave an abusive household, whether navigating tenancy arrangements, securing alternative accommodation or avoiding financial penalties, can keep them trapped in dangerous situations for a very long period. Provisions to tackle that are hugely welcome. It would be good to hear more about how the Government foresee these measures working for people in practice in a timely way. I imagine that will be part of our discussions in Committee.
I will focus on two areas that I think would help the Government achieve their ambitions of supporting greater housing security. They recognise that some people need lifetime secure tenancies and are repealing mandatory fixed terms created by the 2016 Act. However, a tenancy agreement alone does not limit people’s ability to stay in their home and community. We need systemic thinking about the kinds of homes we are building—whether they are appropriate for people’s needs as they age and as our climate changes, and how we support people to maintain health and well-being throughout their life. There is nothing in the Bill about that.
When I was an MP in Brent, around half of my constituency casework was about housing. The most desperate situations almost always involved families whose needs had changed because of disability. Families had to wait years for housing that met their needs. Without it, children were dependent on others to shower, get to the toilet and even get out of their property and get to school, when they should have been exploring their independence. For adults, it limited their ability to go to work, and it limited others in their household too.
I also have some personal experience of these struggles. My husband is a wheelchair user. When we could no longer make our flat work, after a series of mishaps, including being stuck inside for a week after the lift broke and nights sleeping on the sofa after the internal stairlift went on the blink again, we were, thankfully, financially secure enough to make the move elsewhere and pay for our own adaptations. But I have other relatives whose experience has been different. One who became a wheelchair user after a serious accident got stuck in hospital for months after he was ready for discharge because no accessible social housing was available. He was discharged several times to a Travelodge, without care, as it was the only available accommodation with level entry and a wet room. Both chaotic discharges resulted in fairly rapid further emergency hospital readmissions, with all the misery and NHS cost involved.
In my role as a board member of two NHS trusts, Barts and EPUT, both listed in my register of interests, I am conscious of the pressures on NHS trusts to discharge patients and of how, too often, lack of suitable housing is the main barrier. The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that one in five disabled people living in social housing is in accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs. The Centre for Ageing Better says that only 13% of homes in England in 2005 met the four most basic accessibility criteria for someone to visit or live independently in a property with dignity. Almost 13 million people may now be living in homes that do not meet their accessibility needs, with lack of accessible private accommodation only adding to the pressure on social housing lists. The Government’s recent healthy homes guidance recognises this, recommending that all new homes should meet accessible and adaptable standards under Part M4(2) of the building regs, yet the Bill contains no serious attempt to drive that transition at scale.
I will say something briefly about green space, because this too is an issue of inequality that too often disappears from housing debates. Social housing policy cannot concern itself simply with the existence of housing units in isolation from the environment around them. Where people live affects physical health, mental well-being, childhood development and community cohesion. Access to green space must not be an optional extra or the preserve of affluent neighbourhoods; it should be part of healthy social infrastructure.
The inequalities on this are stark. Research consistently shows that poorer communities and communities with higher proportions of social housing have significantly worse access to quality green space. Nearly 3 million people in England live more than a 10-minute walk from a public park, while those in deprived urban areas experience some of the worst environmental inequalities in the country. This matters because the evidence on health outcomes is overwhelming. Studies published in the BMJ have linked increased access to green space with significantly lower levels of preventable illness and premature mortality in deprived communities; in other words, access to nature is not an aesthetic nice to have, it is a core part of preventive public health policy.
There is much in the Bill that I support, but I am concerned that it lacks the scale and urgency that the situation demands and misses areas that would support the Government to meet their ambitions to tackle housing security. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness’s additional points, which need to be taken on board. I will provide a general welcome to the Bill, particularly the changes it makes to the right to buy, but I will also use this opportunity to highlight the relationship between housing tenure and the quest to provide all pensioners with an adequate income.
On the sale of social housing, I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister is not present, because I was going to say some nice things about her introductory speech. It was a powerful and effective speech which came from the heart, but with clear policy content. I almost felt like, as they do in the Commons, leaping to my feet and waving the Order Paper. It was exactly the sort of thing I want to hear from the Front Bench, and I thank her very much indeed for the way she presented the Bill. I also agree with much of what else has been said by my noble friends.
I am a long-term opponent of the right to buy. I respect my noble friends who take a broader view of the issue, and I accept that this is a fight where we have to accept what is being proposed on the mechanics of right to buy. I was impressed by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and his exposition of the justification for the right-to-buy process. The important point that he missed from his exposition, the one that does not get mentioned, is that this is fundamentally a political project on the part of the Conservative Party. It was an attempt to social engineer in the belief that it would have an adverse effect on support for the Labour Party. This is clearly a fact. In Westminster, they were caught out—and they paid the price. I was around as a local councillor at the time, with a large quantity of council housing in my estate, so I was aware of the debates that took place. It is undeniable: the political pressure for this policy was about social engineering to try to disadvantage the Labour Party. Noble Lords should not try to deny it.
It not only failed to obey the law in that particular case, but it also had a destructive effect on social housing. It also had a destructive effect on the finances of local government—the net effect on its finances was adverse. Most importantly, it had an adverse effect on the social housing stock. The end result has not been more owner-occupation; the proportion of houses owned by owner-occupiers is in long-term decline now. Instead, we are seeing this shift to expensive, low-quality private rented accommodation, much of which is ex-council stock and should be available to social renters. So let us be honest about the nature of right to buy.
I want to put this into the context of the specific issues affecting pensioners. Two weeks ago, the first report of the Second Pensions Commission was published. Much in there is about the nature of people’s tenure and the effect it has on their incomes. There are certain items in the report that are worth highlighting. It finds that
“two key groups with a higher risk of poverty are those without private pension income”—
no surprise there—
“and renters (particularly in the private sector)”.
It also goes on to tell us that
“the number of non-homeowning pensioners is expected to grow: by 2050”,
the end of its period of remit,
“half of pensioners in poverty are projected to be renters”.
The problem is particularly acute in the private rented sector, so the development and expansion of social housing is a crucial element in developing decent, adequate incomes in retirement for pensioners.
I very much hope that the ministerial team will take this on board. It will be worth them and the officials reading what the report says about social housing and the long-term impact it will have on the standard of living of pensioners. The more we are able to develop social housing and offer it at social rents, the lower the level of poverty will be among pensioners. I hope that is an objective we can all support.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate that so many people have made important points in. I declare my interests as chair of Look Ahead, a social housing provider that works with homeless people and those with mental health problems, and as a previous non-executive director of Aster and Southern housing associations.
The Bill is designed to protect existing social housing stock and to respond to long-standing challenges in the number of homes available by reducing the number of social homes sold through the right-to-buy scheme and removing significant disincentives for councils to build new supply with receipts received from such sales. The Bill is also designed as a route to home ownership for eligible long-standing tenants.
All social housing stock, as other noble Lords have said, should provide safe, secure homes for individuals and families in which to live. As so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, evidence demonstrates that there is a significant relationship between people’s physical and mental health and the security of a well-maintained flat or house in which to live.
The new consumer standard for social housing is resulting in greater investment in many of our current homes, but that actually means that many housing associations are building fewer newer homes because of the investment in current stock.
As many other noble Lords have said, there have been opportunities for people to buy their social homes at a substantial discount. Though in principle an extremely good concept, we know that it has been open to abuse through individuals exercising the right to buy, then subletting and ultimately using the increase in property value to benefit other family members; or through some tenants even borrowing money from unscrupulous lenders to purchase their homes, then being held to ransom, in effect, and forced to sell their homes at less than market value to repay the debt to those lenders. This effectively makes the so-called purchasers homeless, or results in them having to move to a less suitable property, with any remaining funds they have available after such a transaction.
The new Bill will increase the minimum qualifying period for exercising the right to buy for secure tenants from the current three-year period to a 10-year tenancy. That may result in individuals who can do so saving a deposit and choosing to leave their social homes and buying independently or through a shared ownership arrangement, thus releasing social housing provision for those on the waiting list.
However, the proposed Act makes little mention of tenants dwelling under a shared ownership arrangement, except regarding disposals notification requirements. Can the Minister indicate whether His Majesty’s Government could consider an amendment to the Bill for people who have bought a percentage of their property through shared ownership and paid rent on the other element of their home for 10 years also to be granted a discount reduction of 5% on the remaining property value after the 10-year qualifying period?
Many shared ownership tenants, particularly single people, have gone down this route due to their inability to access rented social housing. A change to enable shared owners to be part of a discount scheme would include many essential workers, such as paramedics or teachers, who could then take advantage of the proposed scheme. Indeed, the optimist in me thinks that it may encourage young people in essential occupations to stay in expensive areas that are hard to recruit to, when they have purchased a shared ownership property, as they feel they could get a discount at a later date. Depending on the Minister’s response to this issue, I hope to work with others in this House on an amendment to reflect parity of discounts for shared ownership residents. I welcome the content of the Bill and passionately believe that it will result in fewer families in more expensive private rental accommodation or, in worst case scenarios, living in bed and breakfasts due to a lack of availability of social housing stock in the area in which they live.
Finally, can the Bill make provision for councils to consider purchasing additional social housing stock that is currently vacant? The latest data, to which I was so kindly referred by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—I received her note only this afternoon—states:
“The overall number of unsold units increased”,
by December of last year, “by 11%” from the previous quarter,
“to 7,313, with the number of units unsold for over six months … increasing … to 3,016 units, the highest number since December 2023”,
indicating the points that other noble Lords have made about the difficulty of selling stock at the moment. Is it not time that we bought this stock and put it into social ownership for rent? Further investigations could be done across England to understand the detail more fully. How can we allow such properties to remain vacant for prolonged periods after completion while families with children live in temporary accommodation? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester identified this challenge.
The Bill is welcomed, but let us swiftly try to improve its intentions, so that we genuinely increase the social housing stock at pace and make life happier and healthier for many of our population.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench: it is quite right to debate the effective allocation of scarce public resources. That needs to be said.
The Government have brought forward the Bill ostensibly with the desire to protect social housing and facilitate the building of new supply. This is an admirable goal. We need more houses. The UK is building only 200 homes a year per 10,000 people added to the population over the past 20 years. However, there is an aspect of this discussion which does not receive the attention it deserves and which I will highlight later in my remarks: population and housing tenure.
I welcome in particular Clause 12 and Schedule 1 on victims of domestic abuse. However, the tenor of the Bill is generally hostile to right to buy and seeks, particularly in Part 1, to circumscribe and curtail the rights of those seeking to exercise their rights under the scheme. I know that, for many people in the Labour Party, right to buy is a totemic scheme to which they have been opposed by habit and tradition with tribal hostility. But for many of us, it represented and still represents the greatest and most profound transfer of capital via property rights, in our country’s history, to working people away from state oligopoly and, sometimes, municipal slum landlords. It gave a pathway to prosperity, self-reliance and family stability and success to thousands of British citizens of modest means from 1980 onwards and boosted home ownership to almost 70% by the early 2000s. I accept that it was by no means perfect and that more emphasis should have been placed not merely on paying off local authority debt but on building good-quality homes for working families—not merely substandard properties for those on welfare, which exacerbated multigenerational welfarism.
It is important to dispel the myths about right to buy. Your Lordships’ House will no doubt be aware of research published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. Human Capital from Childhood Exposure to Homeownership: Evidence from Right-to-Buy demonstrates strong empirical evidence not just of increased prosperity and financial stability but of real demonstrable improvements in educational attainment. It generated detectable, sizable school performance gains among young people exposed to home ownership, showing an increase in the number of good grades in high-stakes exams as well as a reduction in crime.
Despite all that, I want to leave the ideological debate for Committee. Instead, I ask a fundamental question about housing and particularly social housing: what sort of housing do we want? What sort of homes would best serve the needs of the British people? What do we want our housing to do?
The ONS has argued that, from about now—mid-2026 onwards—deaths in the UK are projected to exceed births. The BBC reported two weeks ago that births have fallen to the lowest level in 50 years. The UK is facing an unprecedented situation that will have a significant impact on the strength and viability of our economy. Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, there are projected to be 450,000 more deaths than births. We all want economic growth, but low birth rates create an ageing population increasingly dependent on the state, leading to a vicious circle of higher government spending and a weaker economy.
How do we address that? Families are the building blocks on which a society is built. A 2026 poll commissioned by the New Statesman found that 81% of men and 82% of women between the ages of 18 and 30 said that they would like to be married or in a civil partnership one day. It also found that 75% of young women and 80% of young men wanted to have children at some point in their life. Analysis of the 2025 UK multifamily housing survey and historic surveys indicated that the perceived ideal family size has mostly stayed similar since 1945. British men and women in the 2025 survey said, on average, that they would be happiest with 2.1 or 2.2 children.
However, one significant issue that is often not factored in is housing tenure. The analysis of the UK multifamily housing survey found that housing was a significant factor in how British people approach having families. Some 81% believe that the cost and availability of family homes is making it harder for people to marry and start families; only 9% disagreed. Some 74% said that the type and size of housing available has a major impact on people’s decisions about having children. Some 65% of the public agreed that too many new homes are small flats, and that they are unsuitable for raising families. More than half personally know young people or couples who are delaying having children because they cannot afford a suitable home.
The public also have views on how to address the problem. A majority wanted new housing developments to include a higher proportion of family-sized homes, and 65% wanted three-bedroom homes to be prioritised in the planning rules for new development, so that families can put down roots and become part of a stable local community. A survey of people’s preferences from the Institute for Family Studies found that those who wanted to have children saw having a two-bedroom property, instead of a one-bedroom property, as having the same impact on their confidence in having children as a £1,900 to £2,600 reduction in their monthly housing costs.
Policy should not and cannot tell people whether they should have children, but it can make it easier for those who want to. In 2023, flats rose to almost 22% of housing stock, while detached homes and bungalows fell to between 25% and 26%. Our policies, under both parties, have focused on the number of houses and not on those that are compatible with the family. As we think about housing, and social stock in particular, including the aesthetics of new housing developments, we should look to support the family. Local plans and housing needs assessments should track and plan for the number of bedrooms and family-sized properties. Local and national policies should plan for the building of family-sized homes. Our planning policy should focus on schemes that are viable and conducive to families.
Finally, as I have exceeded my time, Britain is facing a crisis of the family and significant housing challenges. The policies we discuss in this House should attempt to deal with both those problems. For no other reason, I welcome the Bill and hope it gives rise to opportunities for the Government to begin to solve these pressing, significant societal issues.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my housing interests as a landlord, leaseholder, former renter and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Leasehold and Commonhold Reform.
The Social Housing Bill before your Lordships’ House is to be welcomed, particularly changes to the right-to-buy system and provisions intended to protect victims of domestic abuse. The Bill should be read alongside His Majesty’s Government’s plan to build 1.5 million homes in England by the end of this Parliament, including some 300,000 social and affordable homes under the affordable homes programme. Of these, at least 60% are intended for social rent over five years—just less than 40,000 a year. HMG have committed £39 billion over 10 years for the new social and affordable homes programme. So far, so good.
However, when you drill down into what is actually happening in the housing sector, the picture is not so rosy. Shelter estimates that 90,000 social rent homes are needed every year for the next 10 years. The reality is that just about 12,000 social rent homes were completed in 2024-25 in England and, over the same period, around 21,000 social homes were lost—almost double.
The impression is that the Government are tinkering around the edges, when what is needed is a radical improvement in the delivery of affordable homes to buy and rent to tackle the current housing crisis head on. Right to buy should not be restricted but should be banned outright, as a first step. In that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton.
The housing crisis has not been helped by a clear downturn in housing starts over the previous year. In 2025, starts were still 21% below pre-pandemic levels. The housing market is the worst that I have seen in my lifetime, for sellers, buyers and renters. We are witnessing a catastrophic situation. In London, we have witnessed a near collapse in housing starts. Less than 6,000 homes were started in London in 2025, which is about 94% below the level needed. The impact on the supply of affordable homes and sky-high rents is obvious. At the beginning of last year, 23 of the 33 London boroughs recorded zero starts—the lowest level since 2010. For affordable housing, the picture was even worse, with the second-lowest starts on record.
What does this mean for the overall target of 1.5 million homes? London is supposed to deliver a large share of this target—about a third—but current building implies that a large national shortfall is baked in. Starts today drive completion in the next couple of years. With starts this low, completions will drop sharply later this decade, blowing a hole in government targets, and the housing crisis will get only worse. What is needed is a massive post-war-style building programme of social housing and a regulatory and financial environment which allows this to happen. Housing has to be built and viable. Eventually, relaxing the planning application process, as proposed in London, will not suffice. Delivery, not targets and endless consultations, is required. His Majesty’s Government need to wake up to the scale of this crisis and adopt immediate radical measures to deal with it. At the moment, they are in denial over the scale of the housing crisis and adopting piecemeal policies to deal with it.
Another case in point is the state of the existing rental market, in which long-term rental properties are becoming increasingly rare and landlords are turning to virtually unregulated short-let platforms, such as Airbnb. They are doing that because they are bound by few rules, are more lucrative than long-term lets, avoid costly measures such as EPCs, and can easily avoid tax.
These short-let platforms took off only in the last decade. I think that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government does not understand the scale of the problem and the impact on the long-term rental market. There are over 100,000 Airbnb-style short lets in London alone. In the city of Bath, which I know well, with its population of about 100,000 people, there are up to 1,700 Airbnb-style short lets. That is bad for local hotels and B&Bs, let alone for people looking for a long-term rental home. Barcelona is phasing out all short-term tourist flats by 2028, and there are strict restrictions or bans in Florence, New York, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Las Vegas, Penang and other places. A register, as was proposed by the Government, will merely record the problem and do nothing to ease it.
In one block in London that I know well, it took two years and the threat of flat forfeiture to stop a landlord renting through Airbnb, so causing excessive wear and tear, noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, with visitors arriving at all hours with their suitcases and sometimes staying just a day or two. I look forward to the Government’s new plans to enforce leases in the absence of forfeiture.
To protect our residents in cities and resorts throughout the UK, His Majesty’s Government should institute an immediate ban on these type of short lets and encourage landlords to return to affordable long-term rentals. Some of these landlord properties will undoubtedly be sold, although anecdotal evidence suggests that many trapped landlords are unable to sell in the current dire market conditions.
Currently, the private sector accounts for one out of five households, but the private rental sector has shrunk by 250,000 in the last 12 months. The Minister may continue to deny that, but Savills estimates that 800,000 to 1 million additional private rented homes will be required by 2031. Even if the PRS does not shrink by then—which I doubt, given population and affordability pressures—where are those extra homes to come from? Unlike Airbnb, the PRS is heavily regulated and taxed, buy-to-let mortgages have gone through the roof and interest is no longer tax-deductible. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to expand the PRS? I suspect nothing.
In conclusion, we need to see radical action from the Government to solve our housing crisis, with no more delay and no more dither, through the delivery of a massive affordable and social housing programme and, yes, a more supportive role for the PRS.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this pragmatic Bill, as it seeks to protect social housing stock and tenants. It is shameful that, due to low wages and profiteering, too many people cannot afford decent housing. Some 330,410 households need homelessness support; 134,760 households are living in temporary accommodation; and an estimated 172,420 children are living in temporary accommodation. Social housing matters, because it enables local authorities and housing associations to address homelessness, provide secure accommodation for families, provide affordable housing to millions of people, provide competition for the private sector and reduce the cost of living crisis. The depletion of social housing stock forces families to enter the private rented sector, which is more expensive.
Some 4.4 million new social homes, or around 126,000 a year, were built in the 35 years following the end of the Second World War. By 1983, in the aftermath of Conservative policies, social housebuilding declined to 44,240 a year, and by the end of Conservative rule, in 2024, it was down to 10,000 a year.
The right to buy for sitting council tenants did not start with the Conservative Party, though it likes to take credit for it. It has existed since the 19th century. The Housing Act 1936 and the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959 affirmed that commitment. The biggest change came in 1980, when the Thatcher Government offered tenants massive discounts, which my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton might say were actually bribes. By March 2025, 2.8 million homes had been sold to tenants across the UK at an average discount of 44% of market value. The discounted sales generated £62 billion, which local councils could not use to replenish the stock. Some 1.9 million council homes were sold by England’s local authorities for £51 billion. In 2024 the same houses were worth £430 billion. Commenting on this, the think tank Common Wealth said in 2024 that
“£194 billion corresponds to the equity that was effectively given away for free through the discount. Only £236 billion corresponds to the equity that was compensated at market value at the time of sale, for which councils received £51 billion in nominal terms, or £104 billion”
in 2024 money. So this was a massive giveaway by the Conservative Party.
The housing stock has not been replenished. In the 44 years after the Conservative right to buy, councils built a total of 300,000 new homes, severely restricting their capacity to provide affordable accommodation to millions. The total number of social home housing stock has declined from 6.8 million at its peak to 5.4 million. Insufficient social housebuilding plus too many homes being sold or demolished means that there has been a net loss of social housing stock in almost every year since 1981. In some years, more social homes are being sold than actually built. Around 18,500 council homes were planned to be sold off in 2025-26. That is almost eight times more than the numbers built in 2024-25.
The housing crisis has been deepened by the legacy of the Conservative policies. It has pushed more people into poverty and the expensive private sector. Nearly 41% of council homes sold under the right to buy are now being let in the private market, so that has not actually increased home ownership at all.
In 2025, England had a waiting list of 1.34 million households. In 2024-25 alone, England’s councils spent £2,842,091 on temporary and emergency accommodation, which could have been avoided if there was an adequate stock of social housing. This drain on the public purse has more than doubled in five years.
Against the background of the Conservative legacy, I welcome the constraints in the Bill on the sale of social housing and profit-making from it. I welcome the Government’s 2025 announcement to build 300,000 social and affordable homes over a 10-year period, of which some 180,000 are for social rent. In my opinion, that is not enough. Civil society organisations are calling for 150,000 new social homes a year. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not being ambitious and how such a tiny target will address the social housing crisis?
I also urge the Minister to amend the Bill to ensure that the number of social housing units sold in any two-year period does not exceed the numbers actually built during the preceding two years. Otherwise, we will never be able to fully replenish the housing stock. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill. Before I come to my main comments, I just want to address what feels to me to be the demonisation of the right to buy.
I come from a very poor community, and I recognise the comments that my noble friend Lady O’Neill made on how our community purchased those houses to live in. They did not purchase those houses to become stockbrokers but to live in them. If we move on to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jackson, they boosted great social outcomes. They boosted not only the economy of those local economies but the confidence of those families. It was the launching of those families into better exam results for their children and better social outcomes. I wonder how many people who sit in either of these two Houses could point to the fact that their grandparents or parents bought their house and that was the beginning of their journey to these Benches. We do this country a great disservice when we talk about those people as if they were profiteering. They bought their homes to support their families.
I also go to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey: what are we going to do with a huge number of people when they become elderly if they are all in social housing? We already spend £37 billion—I believe that was the figure I heard mentioned in this House—on supporting people in their homes, which is great, but that number will grow significantly if we do not help people on to the housing ladder. The main thrust of my speech today will be about young people and getting them on that ladder.
I start by saying that I can support many of the things in the Bill. I believe the Government are genuine when they say they are trying to protect social housing. I grew up in social housing but I also had the misfortune of being homeless for a long time. I sofa-surfed for many years. Anybody from my background would tell you that the older you get, the less cute you are, and the less prepared people are to put you up. Can you imagine coming home and finding me lying on your sofa so you have to sit in your bedroom? That is what many young people are facing in this country today.
It is right to protect newly built social homes from being lost too quickly to the right to buy. It is right that we look again at how homes are sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Where possible, it is right to bring them back into the social housing sector, and it is absolutely right to protect the victims of domestic abuse so that they are not forced to choose between remaining trapped in that situation and giving up their housing.
Those are sensible and humane provisions, but my concern today is that the Bill is too narrow in its outlook to address the scale of the housing crisis we face today. It protects parts of the existing system but does not yet answer the bigger question: how do we build enough genuinely affordable homes for people who need them now and for the generation to follow them? You have only to look at London and the staggering failure of the Mayor of London to produce enough homes. He was given a very generous settlement by the previous Government and an equally generous settlement by this Government but he has utterly refused to do that. Housebuilding in London has collapsed, and young people are at the forefront of bearing that.
Changing the right-to-buy rules may slow the loss of social housing but it will not by itself create the homes we need. The problem this country faces is not simply the loss of homes from the social housing sector; it is a failure to deliver enough homes over decades. But protecting the stock is not the same as expanding the stock. That distinction matters. My first challenge to the Minister is: where are the hard delivery mechanisms in this Bill? Where is the clear link between protection of the social housing stock and the building of new homes at scale? If the Bill is to be credible, it must be accompanied by a serious, long-term plan for delivery: not simply warm words about renewal but actual homes in actual places, with infrastructure to make this actually happen.
While I welcome the Bill’s protection for social housing, I ask the Minister: how will this legislation help a young person who needs social housing today and is not yet on the housing list, and how will that be delivered? If the Bill protects only those already inside the system, it will fail a generation outside the gates. The test of the Bill should be not whether it preserves social housing stock only but whether it improves housing opportunities for those currently locked in the system and those locked out of the system altogether.
The Bill needs to have stronger accountability and clearer outcomes. The House of Lords Library briefing notes that the Government have not published an impact assessment for the Bill. That is a serious omission. We are being asked to support legislation that changes property rights, local authority powers, tenant expectations, provider behaviour and the long-term economics of social housing, yet we do not have a clear assessment of what the Government think the impact of those changes could be.
How many additional homes do the Government believe will remain in the social housing sector because of this Bill? How many homes do they expect local authorities or providers to repurchase through the extended right of first refusal? How will the 35-year exemption for newly built social homes affect council and housing association investment decisions? How will Ministers measure whether young people, care leavers, domestic abuse survivors and homeless households are benefitting from the results of this Bill? These are not technical questions. They go to the heart of whether the Bill will work.
I urge the Government to be careful about adding process without adding capacity. For example, requiring notification before disposals may be sensible but if councils and providers do not have the funding, speed or institutional capacity to act on those notifications, the right to be notified risks becoming the right to watch homes leave the sector anyway.
The crisis that we face now is not just in social housing but in housing generally. Many people, particularly young people, who have great housing need will never get anywhere near a social tenancy. This Bill must affect the whole housing crisis, not just social housing. I am a massive fan of social housing and I am a product of social housing, but I have lived through the nightmare of social housing being inadequately resourced.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My lords, it is a privilege to be part of this debate. As somebody who is still pretty new here, the sheer range of expertise and experience is striking to me. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Abri Octavia housing association.
We live in a country where people on a low income simply cannot afford a decent place to live, where 1.3 million people are on council waiting lists for social housing and where well over 350,000 people are homeless in temporary accommodation. Many millions are in poor-quality homes that they cannot truly afford. As I saw many times while I was chief executive of Shelter, the lack of a secure home breaks people’s sense that their country has any investment in their future. It breaks communities, damages trust and destroys people’s sense of belonging. Can noble Lords imagine how this entirely justified sense of unfairness could be weaponised to exacerbate blame, scapegoating and division? We do not have to imagine it; that is exactly what is happening in many of our communities right now. As a country, we cannot afford to let this continue.
For decades, and through successive Governments, we have failed to build the social homes that are the only solution to this emergency. Independent analysis commissioned by Shelter shows that if this failure continues for another decade, the cost to the economy and our public services will exceed £117 billion. This is why I very much welcome the current Government’s much-increased investment in building social housing and, in particular, the way in which they have rebalanced the priority of the so-called affordable homes programme towards the only genuinely affordable form of housing for people on low incomes—social homes. Our communities desperately need even more and they need it soon. I urge the Government to make bolder, faster and more ambitious changes, to get councils building social homes at scale once more.
Turning to the Bill, the reforms that it introduces to right to buy are critical and much to be welcomed. We also need to see the replacement of homes already lost to right to buy, which has meant that, over many years, we have been losing more social homes than we have built.
The Bill’s measures to protect survivors of domestic abuse will transform the prospects of many abuse survivors and their children, and are very welcome. To achieve its aims, the measures in the Bill will require significant co-operation between social landlords, the criminal justice system and local specialist organisations that support survivors. Post-separation abuse makes up 40% of calls to the national domestic abuse helpline, according to the charity Refuge. This could be exacerbated if perpetrators are forced from their home, as I know well from my time as chief executive of Women’s Aid. The measures in the Bill are a major step forward, but they require significant local co-operation and resources to be implemented successfully.
There is a major challenge around survivors’ ability to afford a tenancy on their own, particularly if the abuse has included financial exploitation and saddling the victim with debt, as is very common indeed. I propose that the Bill could be strengthened still further, by ensuring that domestic abuse survivors are exempt from housing-related debt rules, which are currently denying them access to social housing. If added to the Bill, this measure would be a huge step towards ensuring that domestic abuse is no longer a precursor to homelessness, as I have seen throughout my career. I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the Minister about this.
In 2017, when I first joined Shelter, I met a woman who had fled an abusive relationship, losing her job and social housing tenancy in the process, to another city over 100 miles away. She and her three children were living in one room in temporary accommodation, nowhere near friends or school. She was desperately isolated and fearful. Shelter helped her into new temporary accommodation that was somewhat better. Shockingly, however, when I left Shelter last year, nearly eight years later, she and her children were still there. They still had nowhere to call home. The measures in the Bill, particularly with the addition that I have suggested, will, I hope, mean that a woman going through the same experience now would have a different story. That would truly be an achievement.
However, for that family and hundreds of thousands like them, now and in the future, only a new generation of social homes will make the difference that they need and repair people’s sense that their community and country are somewhere where they can put down roots, feel secure and respected, and achieve their potential. This is not about the dream of home ownership. This is about the reality of working hard, paying your rent and getting security in return.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, for years I fought on the front lines of our housing crises. That is why I support the Bill. It tackles one of the most pressing issues facing our country: the shortage of safe, secure and affordable housing.
Housing should be more than a privilege that is available to a fortunate few. It should be a foundation upon which people can build stable, productive and fulfilling lives. Good housing builds thriving societies by improving health outcomes, educational attainment, employment opportunities and community cohesion. The benefits extend beyond the housing sector itself. Investing in social housing is therefore not simply a housing policy but an investment in the social and economic future of our nation. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, emphasised this, and I commend her for it.
For too long, demand for social housing has outstripped supply. Families spend years on waiting lists. Councils face mounting costs for temporary accommodation. Young people struggle to find an affordable place to live and vulnerable individuals often lack the housing security that they need to rebuild their lives. The Bill addresses those problems directly. At its core, the legislation recognises a simple truth: we cannot solve the housing crisis if we continue losing social homes faster than we can replace them. Social housing is a finite resource. Every home sold without adequate replacement means one fewer opportunity for a family in need.
The critics lament the restrictions on right to buy, but if every social home sold is one less home available to a family on a waiting list, how exactly does their approach solve the housing crisis that this country is facing? Furthermore, why should taxpayers fund the construction of social housing if those homes are not guaranteed to remain available to future families who need them? That is why the Bill’s reforms to right to buy are so important. By extending the qualifying period before purchase and protecting new-build social homes from immediate sale, the Government are ensuring that public investment remains available to the communities it was intended to serve.
When taxpayers fund the construction of affordable housing, it is only reasonable that those homes continue providing affordable accommodation for future generations rather than disappearing from the social housing stock within a few years. So, I ask the opponents of the proposals: do you accept that the current housing shortage requires us to protect existing social housing stock? If not, what are the alternative solutions? What do they offer? These measures are not about preventing aspiration; they are about balancing individual opportunity with the wider public good. Home ownership remains an important goal, but so too is ensuring that thousands of families have access to affordable housing in the first place.
I welcome that the Bill creates the stability needed for local authorities and housing associations to plan for the future. When housing providers know that newly built homes will remain within the social housing sector, they can invest with greater confidence, develop long-term strategy and borrow to build the additional homes our communities desperately need. I would like someone to explain to me how preserving newly built social housing for future generations is less beneficial than allowing it to leave the social housing sector shortly after construction.
Beyond individual measures, the Bill represents something larger: a commitment to fairness. A fair society in which people have access to stable housing is one in which children can grow up in secure homes, where families can put down roots in their communities and where older residents can live with dignity and peace of mind. What is fairer: to preserve affordable homes for thousands of families over decades or to prioritise the sale of those homes to a smaller number of individuals? If social homes continue to be sold faster than they are replaced, how do the naysayers propose to reduce the waiting list for the thousands of families currently in need of affordable housing?
Importantly, this legislation strengthens protections for some of the most vulnerable members of society. Victims of domestic abuse should never have to choose between their safety and their housing security. By improving protections for tenants facing those circumstances, the Bill provides practical support to those who need it most and helps ensure that housing serves as a source of safety rather than uncertainty.
The Bill offers a practical and sustainable way forward: it protects existing social housing, supports the delivery of new homes, strengthens tenant protections and ensures that the public investment produces long-term benefits. The question before us is not whether we can afford to protect and expand social housing; the real question is whether we can afford not to. I believe the Bill provides a step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the degree of political ideology that this Bill has provoked has been quite entertaining this afternoon. I was terribly tempted to wade in, especially when my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about where the money went. But I will resist that temptation—
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Or I might just cheat, if I have enough space at the end, and put the odd little bit of dagger between the ribs.
The Bill is very welcome. It helps put a knife through the heart of a highly damaging Thatcherite right-to-buy policy that has persisted from the 1980s onwards and seen the total number of social homes in the UK decline from 6.8 million in 1981 to 5.2 million in 2025. Particularly important are the measures in the Bill that disapply the right to buy in protected landscapes and wider rural areas. That is absolutely vital.
The Government have promised a decade of renewal of social housing, so I hope that we see additional action to support local authorities and housing associations to build more social homes as well as the measures in the Bill. But I want to take a different tack and ask the Minister some important questions, not about how many social homes are to be restored or created but about the quality of those homes.
First, I believe that it is the Government’s position that the social housing sector needs to have a minimum energy efficiency standard set, and that this should be at EPC level C or equivalent. I hope the Minister can confirm that that is the Government’s position. Can she also say how this will be implemented and whether it will be something the Government have existing powers to do or whether it will need further legislation? If it is the latter, and further legislation is required, the Bill would seem to me to provide an opportunity to legislate. Although the social housing sector is not the worst sector in terms of energy inefficiency—the private rented sector is notably worse—it is even more important that social homes are efficiently warm and reduce bills for the least well-off residents.
The second important question to the Minister is: alongside the commitment to more social homes, what steps are planned to enable these homes to have their energy provided by smaller-scale renewable energy generators, particularly community-run ones? At the moment, there are crippling financial and bureaucratic obstacles to community energy generators being able to sell their energy direct to local homes. Funding issues, planning permissions, grid access and market access all make it impossible for community energy companies to sell directly to local homes. Yet such local provision would provide cheaper energy bills as well as a healthier environment and energy that would be independent of the Strait of Hormuz.
Local community energy projects were supported in DESNZ’s Local Power Plan, which was published in February. There was a promise of £1 billion of funding, hands-on support and regulatory reform so that community energy could grow at pace and scale. Will the Minister undertake to speak to her DESNZ colleagues to ensure that social housing residents can benefit as soon as possible from the cheaper energy that local community energy can provide?
My third question is, as you might have guessed, about trees. I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission and past chair of the Woodland Trust. Can the Minister give the House some assurances about grasping further opportunities from the commitment to social housing and gaining further public benefits in considering how the social homes will be built? Houses built with timber reduce reliance on high-carbon concrete and steel; they lock up the carbon for the duration of the house’s life, which in many cases is several generations. In addition, wood is a natural insulator, reduces energy needs and lowers energy costs. In Scotland, 92% of all houses are timber framed; in England, only 9% per cent are timber framed. What plans there are to use the push for social housing to make a reality of the proposals in the Government’s Timber in Construction Roadmap 2025, which was published last year?
Will the Minister take account of the work of the Woodland Trust on tree equity? Its tree equity project shows that rich areas have lots of trees and a nice environment, and poor areas have next to no trees and a crap—that is a technical term—environment. The Minister spoke passionately from her direct experience about the benefits of social housing in Stevenage, giving a sense of security and of belonging. Can she give assurances that the disadvantaged areas most in need of social housing will get the concomitant tree planting that is required to improve their environment, reduce heat effects, improve air quality, reduce flood risks, and provide the well-documented health and mental health benefits for those who are most at need? They need social housing but they also need tree equity.
I have got some time, so I might make two last remarks about the political debate. I was brought up in Scotland, quite a long time ago. At that stage, 55% of all housing was social housing. It was not regarded as a last resort for poor and disadvantaged communities. It was regarded as the bedrock of housing provision for people on low wages who were going to continue to be on low wages. The degree of security and stability that that housing provided was immense. I do not think we should forget that. For me, it fits closely with the future role of local authorities returning to the days of being substantial housing providers for a group of people who are not ever going to be in a position to see an uplift in their housing ability because of their persistent low wages.
I have a piece of history to talk about. I ran the health service for Westminster when Dame Shirley Porter was the Conservative leader of Westminster City Council—I keep forgetting that I am supposed to be unaffiliated at the moment. The right to buy was very much pressurised in Westminster City Council. I asked Shirley at one point why she was doing this. She said, “Because I want to get good Conservative voters into the borough”. Before the Whip stops me, I shall just say that I bought, 30 years later, a right-to-buy house in Westminster. I wrote to Shirley in Israel to say, “Shirley, the policy has failed”.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I endorse the comments that she has made.
Decent, affordable and secure housing is a basic human right. To start, I thank the Minister for the way that she introduced the Bill, particularly in sharing her personal experience, and for the briefing that has been offered to noble Lords in advance of today’s Second Reading. I declare my own housing interests as set out in the register. On these Benches, we broadly welcome the legislation, but we will scrutinise it carefully. After decades of ever-decreasing social housing stock under right to buy—a scheme which, regardless of its original intentions, has depleted one of our most precious public assets—we welcome that this Government are moving rather decisively to stem that flow.
Extending the minimum eligibility period from three years to 10, reducing maximum discounts and exempting newly built social homes from sale for 35 years after construction are substantive reforms. The Chartered Institute of Housing is right to call them a positive step. Kate Henderson, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, spoke for many when she said that with 4.2 million people in need of social housing in England, these measures should make right to buy a far more sustainable scheme. I add my voice to that welcome, and welcome the extension in perpetuity of the right of first refusal.
However, what concerns me is not so much what is in the Bill as what is conspicuously absent. Last week, the UK broke the record for the hottest ever day in May, and a week-long heatwave caused the UK Health Security Agency to issue amber heat alerts. Heat is a slow motion and inescapable killer that preys most on those who are financially poor or in ill health. The Guardian reported that, in 2024, the summer heat in the EU claimed roughly three times more lives than car crashes, 16 times more than murders and more than 10,000 times more than terrorists.
The Climate Change Committee has just published A Well-Adapted UK, the fourth assessment of UK climate risk. Its findings for social housing tenants are alarming. We already know that not one of our adaptation pathways is adequate. Our climate is changing faster than our policies. The committee warned that, by 2050, 92% of existing homes are likely to overheat; that is the central assessment of the most rigorous, independent scientific analysis available to Parliament. The UKHSA estimated that, during the summer of 2022, there were 2,803 excess deaths among people aged 65 and over in England. The climate for which our housing stock was designed no longer exists. Labour plans to build 1.5 million new homes, many of them social or affordable. They must be climate-ready to be fit for purpose. Social housing tenants are disproportionately elderly, disabled and/or suffer from chronic illness. They are more likely to live in flats, which overheat faster than homes. They live predominantly in urban areas, where temperatures are higher. They cannot, in the main, afford the cost of air conditioning. We are debating the homes of the people most at risk of dying from extreme heat.
The Government will point to Part O of the building regulations, which already requires new homes to be designed to mitigate overheating risk, and to the technical review. I acknowledge this, but Part O is a building regulation. It sets a design floor, not a statutory duty tied to a social housing programme. It is not specific to social housing, it carries no enhanced standard for vulnerability and it lacks the weight of primary legislation. I do not dismiss what the Government are doing elsewhere either. The warm homes plan is a genuinely ambitious £15 billion programme and the energy independence Bill announced in the King’s Speech is likewise welcome, but neither is sufficient. The warm homes plan acknowledges the overheating problem and commits to incorporate passive cooling measures, but they are an aspiration, not a duty, and it applies primarily to retrofit. I see no evidence that the energy independence Bill will enact the required powers. The Minister will argue that this Bill is deliberately narrow in scope, but a simple provision here would not expand the Bill unduly and its absence would be a missed opportunity.
The Climate Change Committee’s A Well-Adapted UK report recommends approximately £11 billion of annual adaptation investment, with around two-thirds directly to the built environment. This is a recommendation of the statutory adviser to Parliament. I want to see this Government being prepared to translate that advice into a binding duty where it matters the most. In Committee, I intend to pursue a statutory obligation requiring that all new social housing, whether built by local authorities or registered providers, be designed and constructed to reduce the risk of overheating. Building in overheating prevention at the design stage costs a fraction of retrofitting. Every home built today without these standards is a home that will need costly remediation.
The Bill will be judged not only by what it contains but by what it chooses not to. Without additional adaptation, heat-related deaths in the UK could increase sixfold from around 1,600 a year today to 10,000 a year by the 2050s. We have a Social Housing Bill, a major housebuilding programme and the most authoritative climate risk assessment this country has ever produced, published just days ago. The question Parliament must answer is this: knowing all that, are we going to build the same dangerous homes over again? I say we must not.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a retired member of a farming family who still rent out some domestic property.
I cannot say how much I welcome this Bill. For over 40 years now, I have been struggling against the almost total lack of affordable housing in rural areas and trying to limit the damage done to our rural communities by the right to buy. It has been obvious to me for some time that however much we allow for the building of new homes in the countryside, we will never get to the point where less well-off rural families will be able to buy their own homes. Why should they have to buy? Why can they not rent?
The answer to that, at the moment, is that there are hardly any houses to rent in rural areas. There are some housing association rentals but very few private landlords—usually farmers with spare cottages. As rural house prices soar ever higher than their urban equivalents—research shows that a village house can cost over 50% more than a similar urban dwelling—the sale of these rural rented houses becomes ever more likely and puts them ever more out of reach of local working families.
As I have said many times in this House, the answer lies in the provision by local authorities of affordable housing to rent. Council houses really worked. I stress the very real need for more rural council houses. Currently 17% of the population live in rural areas, but they receive just 7% of any new affordable homes. Rural council houses were among the first to go under the right to buy in the 1980s—who would not want to live in the countryside? There are hardly any such houses left now. There are currently 306,000 families on rural housing waiting lists, and Defra research indicates that council house waiting lists in mainly rural areas increased by 32% in the four years to 2023, while in the same period there was no increase in predominantly urban areas.
The effect of this has been disastrous for rural England. It has led to rapidly ageing communities, a loss of local services, a breakdown of social networks and a complete absence of the necessary vigour that young families give to any community. Lack of housing has also undermined the rural economy, making it harder for businesses to find a good workforce and ultimately making it harder for any remaining workforce to find businesses.
The rural housing crisis—I emphasise that word—is now of epidemic proportions, and this Bill could be like the arrival of the long-awaited first ambulance at a rural motorway pile-up. Note that this is the first ambulance; there is a lot more to be done.
I will briefly run through some of the Bill’s clauses. Extending the qualifying period from three to 10 years is good. I would have gone for 12, but 10 is good. Reducing the discounts available is good. Extending the period from five to 10 years when a discount given to a purchaser can be reclaimed from a subsequent sale is also good.
On Clause 6, I approve of the right of first refusal up to 20 years. While we need more of all types of housing everywhere, it seems right to allow social landlords to retain what was social housing within the sector. Rural England attracts rich retirees buying into the market whenever and wherever they can, so such a right of first refusal will be very useful.
Clause 7, exempting all our national landscapes from the right to buy, is good. I hope that the reference to exempting areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State applies to any community with a population of under 3,000, as in the 1996 Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that and am happy if she wants to write.
Also in Clause 7, I was surprised that the exemption for new housing is as high as 35 years. That would seem a bit long if you are at all interested in any form of social mobility, but I understood it when I got to Clause 9—if there had been any doubt that the local housing authority would not be in receipt of the sale proceeds from the right to buy in the future, it will need a long time to get some return from its new housing investment. To me, Clause 9 is the weak point of the Bill. I detect the obfuscatory hand of the Treasury all over it.
There was—and is—nothing wrong with the right to buy. There was just no long-term thinking about the way it was introduced. By far the biggest problem with the old right to buy was that all the sale receipts went to the Treasury and the local housing authority never saw the money. It could therefore never reinvest; it could not waste council tax money on building council houses, only for them to be bought out below cost, at a discount, a few years later. Clause 9 is a golden opportunity to definitively put this right.
I am not convinced by the anti-hypothecation arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Young. There is no right to buy in hospitals or nuclear power stations, to use his examples. We will not lose those assets from their use by society as a whole, but we have lost all our council houses from society as a whole. If we are going to replace that loss, we need to change the way that we do things. We do have a housing crisis.
I am assured that all receipts from the right to buy will, in future, go to the local housing authority—so why not just say so? Clause 9 is so hedged about with ifs, what-ifs and what-nots that it appears that the Treasury is keeping open the right, in future, to once again steal money from the local authority housing budgets, as it has done for the past few decades. I know that that is rather simplistically put but, if we are trying to solve a long-term housing problem, please let us think long term. We must state firmly in the Bill that all receipts from the right to buy belong to the local housing authority or the housing provider. They should be ring-fenced for future local housing investment.
To sum up, I approve of the Bill, but only if it leads to widespread investment in rural council houses in the future. I am for ever hopeful.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have previous experience in the delivery of social housing. During the 2010s, when I was leader of South Norfolk Council, we consistently delivered 1% of England’s entire affordable housing every year. My council built more homes to rent than the rest of Norfolk put together. Every home lost to the right to buy was replaced and then some. After my nearly 20 years as council leader, the number of affordable houses in south Norfolk had gone up from 4,188 to more than 7,000.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, that the amount of social housing is not a finite resource; it can be built. We had an ambitious plan that could be delivered through development proceeds from a position of negotiating strength. The Planning and Infrastructure Act and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act have weakened that power but, when I was leader of the council, I held all the cards. Now those cards are held by developers, on undeliverable housing targets under the five-year land supply, so the Government have made their task harder. The irony is that this Bill has never been needed more, since the private rented sector was decimated by the Renters’ Rights Act, which turbocharged rents to new highs. Who knew?
That said, I welcome the measure for a 35-year lockout for new homes on right to buy. The probability that brand new homes could be acquired under right to buy has chilled new investment and spawned no end of avoidance structures from within local authorities, which is diverting.
In some respects, it is shame that the right to buy will be diluted. It should be stated clearly and loudly that the ability to buy your own home has been one of the most empowering success stories of the last 40 years. Done right—as I did, as leader of the council— a social home that is bought houses two families: the family who bought the house and another one in the new house which replaces it.
This plays to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron: I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one, even if they are in the same housing market area. When my neighbour Norwich City Council could not build houses or spend the receipts, it lent the money to us and we built some affordable houses within a mile of the city boundary. My reading of the Bill is that this desirable behaviour would be banned, and that is crazy.
This leads me to the subject of locality. I understand that the Bill is limited in scope, but protecting the stock cannot be just a national numbers game. Housing is more local than that, but that is not envisaged in the Bill, as I read it. There are general freedoms for social providers to recycle funds, not within a specific area but across their entire estate. As part of my ward work, I was surprised last month when a home in Brooke, in the ward where I live, was under the management of Victory Homes but being managed from Gloucester. The freedom to move receipts within the RSL without challenge, from Norfolk to Gloucester, does not help local people at all. Unless we protect the stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it is cheaper, not where it is needed. The RSLs are different from the councils.
I was grateful to the Minister for the drop-in before the Recess, when she explained that it is very difficult to define territories. From one ex-council leader to another, she must know that that is incorrect. We both developed local plans based on housing market areas. They are defined; they exist. It is just not the case that area management is not part of the Bill. The principle of locality is established and there are welcome carve-outs for national parks. I just wish that it would go further on national landscapes. In Committee, I will seek to probe how receipts can be recycled locally by default before being snaffled by the centre.
None of this would be necessary had social housing providers not become so large. Scale has not been good for the tenants. It has led to a lack of local accountability. National RSLs populating their boards with the great and the good, acting as pound shop developers on the government dime, has seen tenant reps excised from the landscape. The consequence is that the focus on local matters, such as anti-social behaviour, has been dropped, as I know from my own ward casework. This Bill could have been stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of the law-abiding resident, but it is not.
Candidly, far too great a focus on development has led to a loss by these RSLs of the social purpose of providing social homes. RSLs cannot even sell houses they developed initially for the private market to be used for social use, and that is wrong. Instead, one of the effects of the liberalisation of certain financial powers in this Bill may be to drive financial engineering to new heights. The truth is that as RSLs have become overleveraged, they have been caught out by the increase in build costs, finance and land costs. Quite simply, there is no space for the social purpose of these organisations. That is an omission this Bill should correct but does not.
I am disappointed that the Bill purports to protect the supply of new homes but fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. I spent about £3 million a year adapting homes for an ageing population. In some cases, it might have been a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, a £75,000 extension was required. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those adaptations. The new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes. It is bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who has to pay twice, once to put the adaptation in and again to take it out. Where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of adapted homes for the ageing population? I have heard it said that this is an allocations issue and we are not going there. I say: why not?
As I warm to my allocations theme, where are the protections for veterans? Where is the assertion that those with local needs should be prioritised? Where is the preference for the indigenous population? Where are protections for local needs, for affordable housing in our villages—small developments in places such as Bergh Apton that local people campaigned for, not against? Where are the stronger fiscal incentives for people to downsize from the family home as they age? This Bill is deficient in that it does not even look at the totality of the supply and certainly fails on the demand side. Partial supply without looking at the demand is no solution at all. The Bill is incomplete. It looks only at the home, not really at the people who live in it. It does half the job, and in Committee we will attempt to make it whole.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I am another former council leader. When I was leader of Telford and Wrekin Council in Shropshire, we took a bold and innovative decision to address the growing shortage of good-quality, affordable homes for local people. Rather than simply discussing the housing crisis, we decided to act. We established a wholly owned housing company called Nuplace with a clear and practical purpose to build high-quality homes for rent on council-owned brownfield sites, to regenerate neglected land, to provide homes for local families and at the same time to generate income that would support vital local services. At the time, some questioned whether the council should be involved directly in housing delivery in this way.
However, I am proud to say that the result has more than justified our decision. So far, around 1,000 homes have been built or are in the process of being completed in the near future through this scheme. Tenant demand has remained constantly high, which demonstrates the real need for well-managed, affordable rental homes. Approximately 25 acres of previously underused derelict land has been regenerated, transforming eyesores into thriving communities. Our policy focused on delivering high-standard, energy-efficient properties that local people are proud to live in. I am told that the tenant satisfaction rate remains at around 96%, which is a remarkable achievement by any standard.
The financial benefits have also been substantial—this is some years ago in Telford and Wrekin when I was leader of the council. The scheme has generated more than £8 million in net income for the council, alongside more than £3 million through council tax receipts and new homes bonus funding. At a time when councils across the country were facing severe financial pressures, our innovative housing policy both met social needs and strengthened our council finances. Although I am no longer with Telford and Wrekin Council, I am told that the scheme continues to perform strongly with high demand.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that councils across the country should seriously examine models such as that of Telford and Wrekin Council? It is not a complete solution to the national housing shortage, but it is certainly a part of the answer. This approach delivers multiple public benefits simultaneously. It increases housing supply, regenerates brownfield land, improves the local environment, creates construction jobs and apprenticeships, supports local economic growth, provides secure homes for working families and generates long-term revenue streams for local authorities. It also demonstrates something very important: that local authorities, when given the freedom and confidence to innovate, can become active partners in solving national problems rather than just waiting for a diktat from central government.
At a time when housing pressure continues to affect so many families, particularly young people and key workers, we should encourage practical, locally driven solutions that combine social purpose with financial sustainability. I hope the Government will continue to support councils that are prepared to take this kind of ambitious and entrepreneurial approach to local housing policies.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and to hear his contribution on the housing problems in his area.
I endorse our Front Bench particularly and the opening speech we heard on some of the problems with this Bill. In passing, I will take up my noble friend’s reference to veterans and the importance of helping them. Some time ago at King’s Cross station, I was sitting on a bench waiting for my train. A man came up and sat beside me, and we got chatting. He was a veteran. He had served in the Royal Marines for more than 11 years, including in Afghanistan, and had been shot in the back. He lived in social housing with his daughter. Shortly afterwards, before we spoke, his daughter had been killed in a taxi accident; the driver was found guilty of reckless driving and sent to prison. The man lost not only his daughter but his home and never knew where he was going to spend the night, at which station, but I have not seen him since at King’s Cross. I feel that this is a very important priority and should be given the same protection in law as the other categories that this Bill addresses.
One of the central premises of the Bill is that there should be more state housing and that the more social housing there is, the better. This is to be promoted by restricting the right to buy and putting more obstacles in the way of tenants trying to buy their own homes. These obstacles include increasing the number of years, as we have heard, from three to 10 and making it expensive, as we have also heard, for tenants to buy by amending the percentage discounts, so cutting the value of the tenant’s stake in the home they may have lived in over decades. They include reducing the stock of right to buy homes as a proportion of overall council housing; for instance, no newly built homes will be available to buy for the first 35 years, so you may, if you are a tenant there, in your working life, never be able to aspire to buy that home if you settle in that area. Another obstacle is creating delay and uncertainty for applicants by increasing the time landlords can take to respond to them, both on eligibility—from four to eight weeks or from eight to 12, depending on the sort of tenancy they have—and on giving information on the price and details: from eight to 12 weeks for freehold or from 12 to 16 for leasehold. In the light of these changes, can the Minister please let us know whether the Government consider that the increase we have seen in right to buy sales will continue or decline as a result of this measure, and what the estimated figures are over the first five years after the Bill becomes law?
The Bill will have further damaging effects. First, in terms of cost, it will increase the stock of housing owned, managed and run by local councils or those registered by them, thus augmenting the power of the state over men, women and their families and augmenting the costs for taxpayers. The DWP estimates that this year, the housing bill will be almost £39 billion, a rise of £913 million on last year—the highest, in today’s prices, since 1970, measured on similar data. By contrast, the taxpayer receives a significant, as things stand, return from social housing sales receipts. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham what is done with these housing receipts, which can alleviate the tax burden on taxpayers, who might have to meet other needs, or perhaps they might even help to lower taxes. In the financial year ending March 2025 alone, local authorities received £798 million from a reported 7,494 eligible sales, an increase of 7% compared to 2023-24. I ask the Minister, on a per annum basis for the first five years of the operation of this Bill, in respect of the decline in sales and the maintenance and overheads that must now be borne by councils and taxpayers, what is the estimated additional cost?
Secondly—this is a very serious problem, and we have heard about it today from noble Lords— the Bill will undermine the incentive for working people to be independent and support themselves and their family, preventing dependency on benefits not only during working life but well into old age and retirement. As we have heard, already in 2026, across England, Wales and Scotland, almost 6 million people—a record 5.95 million people—will receive housing support from the taxpayer this year. That is 1.2 million more than in 2019-20. In Cambridge, where I live, around 65% of tenants receive some form of benefit, with 55% on maximum housing benefit or universal credit.
Thirdly, the Bill will undermine overall economic growth and increase overall the ever-growing burden of taxation. This is an attack on property rights by taxing the earnings of working men and women to subsidise the unproductive public sector and a benefits culture. I therefore do not share the Government’s enthusiasm for increasing the size and power of the state over people’s lives, turning individual men and women into supplicants dependent on the state, potentially for the rest of their lives, without the incentive—
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I must ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
—to earn enough to pay a market rent and take responsibility for themselves and their families. State housing, subsidised by the taxpayer and owned and managed by the state, is not home ownership. It is state dependency.
Lord Bird (CB)
It is either the market or the state; that seems to be the argument.
In 2017, I went to a city that was having problems with a whole bevy of people. What we did was to try to reorientate the way that local charities worked together. One of the things that really interested me was getting charities working with businesses. I am very interested in the idea that you get businesses to trade with charities so that money does not really pass hands, because the businesses have to spend and the charities have the need.
We identified a housing association that wanted to expand its work. It had gardening facilities; it had painting, decorating and repairing and all that. It wanted to expand but was very limited in this very small town. I went to talk to estate agents—the most evil people on God’s earth, according to some—and I said, “Look, what you’re doing is buying services, because you’ve got 150 or 250 buy to rents. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you bought the services from a housing association? You would pay the same rate”. It would also help the housing association to address a problem that nobody talks about. I have not heard anybody say—excuse me, I have put too much glue in my teeth. I am getting them redone in Turkey soon, so that I will not have the problem.
Lord Bird (CB)
Anyway, to address the problem which I have not heard anybody mention: why is it that if you live in social housing—if you are the child of social housing—you have about a 2% chance, as a child, of finishing whatever levels you do to leave school and then getting into university or a highly skilled job? I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Best, about this when I first came into the House. The problem we were trying to address in that little city was that 70% of the people living in social housing were unemployed. We have to face that, and I do not see any provision in this Bill for creating the opportunity.
I believe in social mobility, like the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. What I do not like about what he says—forgive me my trespasses; he is a Conservative, so I cannot agree with him, even though we come from the same neck of the woods, up there in Notting Hill—is that the only way you can get social mobility is through a housing purchase by your family. Why is that? I know it is true, and I know hundreds of people who have done it, but why has social housing changed so much from the days when our Minister was moving to Stevenage?
Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham, where we were in a block of flats and had a toilet that we shared with no one, whereas when we lived in the slums, we had to queue up if we wanted to do our business. We might have had to wait two days for certain services that you would want in a toilet, but there we had our own beautiful piece of social housing. In that block of flats were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who were old. It was sociable and socially mixed.
Unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class. Until we address the issue of around 70% of people living in social housing not having a job—they are stuck and their children are stuck—the arguments around it will go on, but we need to address the poverty that is thrown up but not addressed at this moment. It is certainly not addressed in the Bill.
I am a great believer in social mobility. I am a perfect example of it; I am as posh as anything now, though I did not start poshly. But I would love to see a situation where social housing was addressed as a place of great opportunity, great security and great comfort, so that it becomes what virtually everybody here today has described as the beginning of a new future. Unfortunately, for too many people it is not a beginning of a new future. It is a place where you and your family are parked for maybe the next 100 years.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite overwhelming to speak after such an expert on housing and homelessness as the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I thank the noble Lord for his speech.
I welcome this Bill and thank my noble friend the Minister for her work on it. I have just finished eight years as a councillor in the London Borough of Islington, and I welcome these moves to retain social housing and encourage the building of it. A lot of my casework over eight years as a local authority councillor was trying to help people on a housing waiting list of 16,000. Even with our borough’s country-leading buy-back scheme, through which we had a grant from the Mayor of London to buy back right-to-buy properties and bring them back under council ownership, we still struggled to get those waiting list numbers down. I am delighted that this Labour Government have included right-to-buy reform in this Bill as part of a suite of policies to tackle the housing crisis.
Before I move to my substantive points about the Bill, I want to say this. When I entered your Lordships’ House, I understood that this was somewhere prized as a place of evidence-based scrutiny, robust evidence and expertise. So I have to take note and challenge when I hear casual tropes being deployed. I lived on the Bemerton Estate, a council housing estate, for over 13 years. In that time, I had the honour of getting to know my neighbours, who became my friends, some of whom were incredible Somali women. Time constrains me from telling noble Lords in detail about Mana, Hana, Safia and others; that is for another day. Suffice to say that Mana is referred to by many as the godmother of the estate and by others as the queen of the Bemerton because of her service to generations of residents and her key role in interfaith initiatives. She is a brilliant woman who instinctively builds community. So I implore noble Lords on all sides of this House to err on the side of thoroughness and evidence when speaking in this place.
To return to my substantive points about this Bill, I am proud of this Labour Government and the work of many, both here and in the other place, who have created a plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Working in prisons repeatedly brought me face to face with women who had suffered the most appalling violence and survived it, mostly at the hands of men. Some 68% of women in prison have suffered domestic abuse. Certainly, almost all the women I worked with in my decade of working in and after prison disclosed sexual or domestic abuse as part of their life stories. This has made me a passionate advocate for the survivors of that abuse.
This Government’s ambitious strategy is rightly a cross-government strategy. It cannot just sit in the Home Office, and it is entirely appropriate that this narrowly drawn Bill includes provisions to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse and their access to housing. At Islington Council, our primary reason for people becoming homeless was parental alienation. The second most common reason was domestic abuse.
As such, there are parts of the country that have been tackling this in innovative ways for many years and taking a whole housing approach for survivors of domestic abuse. Both Cheshire East and Islington Councils have been platinum accredited by the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance for their work in this field. This is a plea, in seeking to refine this Bill, to my noble friend the Minister and the team to make sure that they have thoroughly reviewed the best practice that is already available and make sure that this legislation complements and turbo-charges the work already going on in many local authorities.
To achieve that whole housing approach and the accreditation from DAHA, Islington Council put on extensive staff training. Even if it was somebody coming to repair a light, there might be an opportunity to speak to someone who needed help with a domestic abuse scenario. They made sure that any contact someone had with the council might be a pathway to a safer life for that person. The council also had a collaborative daily safeguarding meeting, advocated for strong and inclusive partnership working with the voluntary sector and pursued robust relocation policies. Staff developed a high-risk move policy, so they could quickly rehouse individuals fleeing violence in addition to providing flexible funding to assist those transitions.
The Bill does many things well, but I want to flag to my noble friend the Minister that she should consider reviewing the grounds required for moving somebody from a joint to a single tenancy. The grounds involve waiting for people to breach an order, rather than just having an order—a non-molestation order, for example. When you have those orders, you already must have proved that domestic abuse has taken place. Perhaps having an order may be enough, rather than putting a survivor/victim at further risk by demanding that the perpetrator breach that order before they are able to transfer their tenancy. This is to ensure that everybody that might need this kind of help to move to a single tenancy or to move home is able to do so without putting themselves at further risk.
As I said, this is a welcome and very long overdue suite of measures to address many of the problems of our social housing stock. The measures around domestic abuse are particularly welcome. These are stronger legal mechanisms that remove perpetrators from social housing tenancies and will enable more survivors to stay in their home, if it is safe to do so, or to move to different accommodation as the sole tenant.
I commend this Bill and the brilliant measures therein to the House. They enable autonomy and independence. They enable the dignity of the individual through the dignity of social housing, including for all those—whatever their country of birth—who are fleeing domestic abuse.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister particularly for her very clear and personal introduction to the Bill. I feel I will be the first person to stand up and say that I was not brought up in a council house, but I looked with envy upon those who were. When we were evicted from our home in Wales, we came up north to my father’s family in Preston, where we lived in a house in which the sink was on bricks in the kitchen. It still had what I called Bunsen burners—gaslights—on the side, and there was no plumbed-in bath. There was the luxury of one toilet outside, just for us. I made friends with people at my primary school who lived on the Larches estate, which was a real exemplar of brilliant council housing at its peak. If we had had one of those houses, my father would have used the right to buy—I am absolutely convinced of that.
I am grateful to follow all the contributions. I started off making notes of what people were saying, because the seven minutes has given us time to get some detail and some quality. I will not make a list of everybody, but I will quickly go through some thoughts outside the scope of the Bill that are quite interesting. I will kick off by saying that I was quite troubled—I echo what the noble Baroness on the other side said—by some of the comments made in the Chamber, particularly around who the “true” people who need social housing are and about the most vulnerable people in society being “state dependent”. I want to register that that has made me feel really uncomfortable.
However, I was greatly enlivened by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who brought together housing injustice and poverty, and of course most poignantly by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. The connections between health, housing and poverty were ably brought out by my noble friend Lady Teather, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Babudu. They are inextricably linked, and as people in this world we absolutely know that.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Stoneham and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, brought out the importance of the regeneration of estates and neighbourhoods, which is totally missing from the Bill. I hope the Minister will tell us where it is because it is important that, when people open their front door, they feel they live in a safe, clean and green neighbourhood. I think we would all aspire to that.
Let us throw in rural issues—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others. This keeps coming up all the time, does it not? It is clearly an area that we are neglecting. Of course, on environmental issues, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Russell. I can see that this Christmas tree will have lots of baubles hung on it. The noble Lord is shaking his head—we will have to see how we go. But there was certainly real quality there.
As several colleagues have said, there are elements here that we on these Benches really welcome, particularly the provisions intended to strengthen protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse—the final comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, were really pertinent to that intention—and the steps to slow down the loss of much-needed social housing stock.
However, context is everything. The Bill sits within a wider and, in many respects, ambitious programme. The Government’s decade of renewal is backed by significant investment—the most for a long time—and a commitment to expand supply at scale, alongside reforms to the private rented sector and to housing quality and standards. So, to give credit where it is due, taken together this suggests a Government seeking to grapple seriously with the housing crisis, which has occurred over decades and under Governments of all stripes.
The crisis that we have heard expounded on by many is profound, with over 1 million households waiting for social housing, more than 134,000 in temporary accommodation, and the eye-watering cost of that to society. There have been decades of undersupply, combined with the steady depletion of social housing stock. I think we are very clear on these Benches that this is not a moment for incremental change; it is a moment that demands systemic delivery—that is going to be a word that I use a lot.
When we turn to the Bill itself, however, we encounter something a little bit more limited—some might say tame—and deliberately so, it would seem, from the Minister’s introduction. This at best is a fragment of a much larger cloth. The strategy, however, speaks of scale, delivery and renewal over a decade, and the Bill speaks largely of frameworks, adjustments and protections. These are relevant, but not sufficient to meet the challenge—and this was a theme that was echoed by many noble Lords, not least of all my friend Lady Pinnock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to name but a few. I would say that, even judged on its own terms, the Bill could and should be stronger.
We are not going to get a consensus on everything. Let us take right to buy. I was particularly struck by the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, of right to buy, which really nailed it. The times they have a-changed—and who was it who famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind”? That is absolutely what has happened with policy, and it is what noble Lords have been saying about how council housing has really changed from what it was to what it is—so we have to change our policies.
The reforms here are really sensible. They recognise the long-term damage done from the loss of social housing stock, with millions of homes sold and not replaced. Let us look at last year’s figures: 10,000 homes for social rent built, give or take a few, but a net loss of 4,000 after sales and demolition, against a recognised need of 90,000 a year. The core problem remains unresolved, which the Bill is genuinely trying to address. We have a system that allows homes to leave a sector in acute shortage without any reliable, enforceable guarantee of replacement.
The Local Government Association has said that the Bill could go further, so we want to strengthen this Bill in Committee by giving councils greater flexibility to exempt properties based on local need and with the tightening of the link between homes sold and homes replaced, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, moving much closer to a truer one-for-one requirement. Protecting stock must mean actually protecting it.
I totally agree on the domestic abuse provisions—time is flying, so I will be quick—and the intent here is welcome. However, as was said, we really need to listen to the people who work in this area, because there are things that we can do to make that even better.
But still, for us, the fundamental issue is that this Bill does not deliver any single home. The wider programme is focused on increasing supply, but this just protects it—it clarifies, it adjusts, but it does not build. That matters, because delivery depends not just on policy intent but on the capacity, capability and the workforce. I am surprised that nobody really went into today the fact that we are facing a serious skills shortage in construction, with tens of thousands of vacancies and a need for hundreds of thousands of additional workers. Without a credible skills pipeline, we simply will never deliver the houses that we have all said today that we need. I will be very interested in the Minister’s answer to that.
I loved the conversation about money, with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, having completely different perspectives; I am sure that we will go into that even further. There were recurring themes about the ability to deliver at pace and scale and for certain sections, most forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his usual inimitable style.
We do not oppose the Bill; it moves in the right direction and contains sensible provisions. I look forward to us getting into the detail in Committee. As we all know, it is the social housing blockage at that end of the housing crisis that we need to unblock to move people on. We will support the Government as far as possible, but, of course, we will push them to go faster and further, because that is our job.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There seems to be a fair degree of consensus that we have a housing crisis and that something needs to be done about it, though we may differ on what the solutions are. In particular, we welcomed those speeches focused on protecting vulnerable tenants and strengthening safeguards of victims of domestic abuse. Those protections matter and we will continue to engage constructively as this Bill progresses to ensure that they are as robust and as effective as possible. But, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and other noble Lords, it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is also about the need for social support.
However, having listened carefully to the debate, we remain concerned that this Bill does not adequately address the fundamental causes of pressures facing social housing. The central challenge is not difficult to identify—we have a housing crisis because this country has not built enough homes that people can afford. We have not built enough homes for ownership, private rent or social housing to meet demand.
Yet instead of focusing relentlessly on increasing supply, this Bill concentrates largely on restricting existing routes into home ownership and expanding ministerial powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, just raised, the Bill is not about building one extra home. That is why we believe it risks treating some of the symptoms rather than the fundamental cause. The answer to a housing shortage is straightforward: build more homes that people can afford. That requires political will, difficult decisions and a willingness to support development where it is needed.
As an example, my own authority, Central Bedfordshire, has delivered more than 1,000 homes in the last six months alone. The noble Lord, Lord John, raised the increasing costs of housing in London—London has registered fewer than 1,000 homes in the first quarter of this year across the entire capital. That is a buildout rate around a 20th of that of Central Bedfordshire. Is it any surprise that housing is so expensive in London? Central Bedfordshire is not unique. I can name a list of neighbouring authorities, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford, Northamptonshire and South Cambridgeshire, which have all had good buildout rates, and there are many others across the country, though I am not quite as familiar with them.
Too often, we see Labour councils resisting development locally while demanding more powers and more funding nationally. When areas with the greatest housing demand fail to build enough homes, those pressures do not disappear; they are simply transferred to neighbouring authorities and communities which are forced to build, often on green fields. That is not a sustainable approach to solving a national housing crisis.
Much of this Bill is centred on weakening the right-to-buy scheme. We believe that that is a mistake. The right to buy was one of the most significant social mobility policies of recent decades, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. It gave millions of people, many from working class backgrounds, the opportunity to own a home for the first time, build security for their families and establish a greater stake in their communities. My noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Eaton raised the research from the London School of Economics, which noted how right to buy enabled an increase in human capital.
When managed properly, with receipts reinvested effectively, it can also lead to an increase in housing supply. Surely it is better to have two homes: one for the existing tenant exercising their right to buy; and a second new home, funded by the proceeds from that right to buy, for a family on the waiting list. That is known as a “buy one, get one free”. Two homes must be better than one. It has the benefit of allowing specialist accommodation, such as disability accommodation and so forth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, raised. If you get those proceeds, you can start doing that. I do not say this in isolation. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire, we used the proceeds to build more homes than we sold. Is that not a win-win? It can be done, as we did in Central Bedfordshire and as has been done elsewhere.
We have a generation of young people who increasingly feel locked out of ownership altogether. Many are paying substantial rents every month while finding it impossible to save for a deposit or satisfy affordability requirements. In 1980, London renters spent on average 14% of their income on rent. Today, private renters in London are paying close to 50%. Is it surprising that council housing waiting lists continue to grow? The right to buy is not the primary cause of the pressures facing social housing. The deeper problem is that housing stock has too often not been replaced and that overall housing delivery has lagged behind for many years.
We need to have an honest discussion about the management of social housing, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. I do not cite these figures to criticise tenants; they simply illustrate the scale of the mismatch that can emerge over time if scarce housing stock is not managed actively and fairly. Social housing is supported by substantial public subsidy. It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to expect that it is allocated fairly, managed effectively and focused on those in greatest need, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Bird, with his focus on the unemployed. At a time when many families remain on waiting lists for years, these are questions that Parliament should not shy away from addressing.
The Bill misses opportunities elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, raised, it will do little to tackle the well-known shortcomings of shared ownership, despite the fact that many shared owners continue to face significant costs while enjoying only limited benefits of ownership. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, while there are many excellent housing associations, not only is there insufficient focus on accountability where housing associations or registered providers fail tenants through poor management or declining standards but we need to ensure efficient and effective operation and delivery. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, they need to be accountable.
Alongside new housing delivery, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we should be thinking much more seriously about regeneration. Across the country, there are communities with enormous potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, yet this remains largely absent from the Bill.
There is a broader difference of principle at the heart of this debate. We believe that more homes of all tenures are needed. We on these Benches believe that home ownership matters. We believe in aspiration and regeneration. We believe people should have the opportunity to build stability, independence and security for themselves and their families. Of course social housing has a vital role to play; nobody disputes that. It provides an essential safety net for those facing hardship and circumstances beyond their control. However, a successful housing system should do both: provide support for those who need it while helping those who aspire to ownership to achieve it. This Bill does not strike that balance.
As my noble friend Lady Scott said in opening, there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and will support constructively, but there are also significant concerns that this House has a duty to examine carefully. Ultimately, the public want more homes, regeneration, greater affordability, fair access to social housing and, wherever possible, the opportunity to own a home of their own. That is a principle that on these Benches we will continue to defend. I look forward to the further scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very thoughtful and constructive debate. As ever, there has been an incredibly wide range of experience and insight brought by this House, and I really welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill today. The debate has covered a varied range of issues, and I will do my best to respond to as many of those issues as I can in the time allowed—but I assure noble Lords that I will check Hansard at the end, and if there is anything I do not get the chance to respond to, I will reply in writing.
I want to give one piece of statistical information in relation to the impact of the Bill. Under the previous pre-reform baseline, the system was projected to deliver a net loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036 due to right-to-buy sales. By contrast, following implementation of the measures in the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period. I hope it will be many more than that, but the provisions in the Bill will deliver that.
Before turning to the specific points raised, I will make one general point. I was very keen to stress in my introduction that the Bill is a range of very specific measures in relation to right to buy, domestic abuse, and removing some of the bureaucracy around social housing. It does not cover all of the Government’s programme on social housing, because much of that programme does not need a legislative framework. In fact, we have already started to deliver much of it with a £39 billion investment. The social and affordable housing programme is already under way and will be delivering very soon. Many of the quality issues that were raised in the debate are also already being dealt with; there are extensive programmes to deliver them, and that reform is on its way already.
The Bill attempts to start easing some of the pressure on social housing, which is being caused by the specific issues contained within the Bill. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will sympathise when I say that if you bring an enormous Bill before this House—we went through the process of the levelling-up Bill together—you get criticised for doing a Christmas tree Bill. However, if you bring a narrow, tightly focused Bill like this one, you are criticised because you have not put everything in it. So as a Minister you are never going to win—but this is the right step to take at this point in time.
A considerable number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pinnock, Lady Shah, Lady Murphy, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Gill, Lady Young and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Lansley, Lord Babudu, Lord Sikka, Lord Bailey and Lord Bird, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—talked about housing supply and the ability to deliver increased social housing supply. The fact that so many noble Lords mentioned this highlights the great importance of that issue. The Bill strengthens our commitment to building more social rented homes and to delivering what we all want: the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about the Conservative legacy, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just repeated that theme. We would not be where we are now if we had not had 14 years when this problem was pushed under the carpet. In the time that the Labour Government have been in power, we have delivered the Renters’ Rights Act, tackling the problems that private rented sector tenants have in their tenancies. We have passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which has swept away some of the planning bureaucracies preventing housing being built. We are now approaching this Social Housing Bill, as well as empowering local councils and strategic authorities to deliver the infrastructure and the homes we need to grow our country. So I will not be taking any lectures from the other side of the House about their legacy, which has caused the housing crisis we are now trying to fix.
Our reforms to right to buy, notably the 35-year exemption for new-build social homes, will directly support our ambition by ensuring that councils have the confidence to deliver. The Bill’s changes will stop homes being sold before councils have recovered the costs of building them. Anyone who has been a council leader will know the pain of building homes and having them sold for less than they cost to build. Crucially, the Bill builds on the funding and regulatory certainty we have already given the sector to boost supply, including the £39 billion of investment—the biggest long-term investment in recent memory. The programme aims to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes, including at least 180,000 for social rent.
As other noble Lords have said, I have been somewhat disturbed by some of the comments about allocations to non-UK nationals. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa status means they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for an allocation of social housing. For all social housing, the overwhelming majority—88% of social housing lead tenants—are UK nationals, according to the 2024-25 English Housing Survey. It is not at all helpful to use some of the derogatory and mischaracterising tropes that often accompany discussions around social housing. That is just not helpful, and I hope we can avoid that in future discussions. Fraudulent tenancies are sometimes obtained, and where they are councils have very strong powers to deal with them. I hope that anyone listening to or watching this debate—including anyone in this Chamber—who is concerned about a fraudulent tenancy will do what they need to do: report it to the local authority concerned. I hope we can avoid comments like that during the rest of the discussions on the Bill.
Of course we have to support councils to build more homes. My noble friends Lady Shah, Lord Whitty and Lord Sahota, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Young and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Fuller, all spoke about that. In 2024-25, councils completed 10,480 homes, the highest number achieved in over 30 years. The Government are committed to reinvigorating council housebuilding, and councils are central to our efforts to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding. We have already taken decisive action to maximise councils’ engagement with our new social and affordable homes programme. Since April, for the first time, councils can mix right-to-buy receipts with grant funding, helping to improve the financial viability of their bids.
We have also allocated almost £9 million to 44 councils to support bid development through the council housebuilding support fund. This funding forms part of a £63 million four-year programme to support councils to improve their skills and capacity to build housing themselves. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I note that a great deal of work is going on with skills and capacity more generally in the construction sector. Finally, we are helping councils to borrow more cheaply to finance housebuilding by extending the preferential lending rate from the Public Works Loan Board for another year until March 2027.
The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, my noble friend Lord Sahota and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, clearly highlighted the need to provide support. Local authorities need to deliver programmes that are right for their areas. This is about the Government providing that support and funding and then letting local authorities implementing that in the right way for their local community.
We are all concerned about the safety and decency of social housing. There have been a number of mentions of Awaab’s law in our debate today. The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Babudu and Lord Stoneham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Jones, all highlighted these issues. Reforms are already under way which will deliver transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The newly updated decent homes standard will ensure that all rented homes in England are decent, safe and warm, designed with tenant safety at their core, while remaining proportionate and affordable for providers to deliver.
In addition, the Government have legislated on Awaab’s law, requiring social landlords to investigate and fix damp, mould and emergency hazards within strict timeframes. We have committed to bring forward regulations for further hazards using a test and learn approach. We will announce timings for the implementation of phase 2 in due course.
The Government have published a draft update to the national design planning practice guidance, which consolidates key existing guides and tools into one document. The updated guidance illustrates the Government’s priorities for well-designed places, helping local authorities to make planning decisions and developers and architects to submit planning applications to local planning authorities. It highlights that well-designed, liveable places should have a mix of house types and tenures to suit people of all ages and all stages of life, according to different needs, and integrated with other facilities. We are clear that this guidance should be applied across all housing sectors in this country, including social homes. A consultation seeking views on that guidance closed on 10 March, and we will publish a final version in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred to my spreadsheet about the quality of homes. I have just taken on this responsibility. I take it very seriously, and there is a lot of work to do.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to energy efficiency in social housing. We are committed to ensuring that every tenant has a decent, warm and comfortable home. We are implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards in the social rented sector, requiring all social homes to meet the new energy performance metrics. They will help make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants, reduce fuel poverty and make homes warmer, more comfortable and less susceptible to damp and mould.
We have also published the future homes standards, which will come into force in March 2027 for non-high-risk building work. All new homes will have excellent insulation, low-carbon heating systems and, in most cases, solar panels.
To answer my noble friend Lady Young—sorry, I should not call her that now, but she still is—social landlords will be required to meet one of the new energy performance certificate metrics. We have listened to the sector’s concerns about affordability and deliverability, and we have introduced two compliance dates to address these concerns, allowing providers to balance their time and financial capacity across other housing priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a key issue around investment in social housing and mentioned additional ways to generate capital to support investment in social housing. We are open to hearing innovative ideas that meet our core principles—delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality and sustainable places—so my officials are very happy to follow up with the noble Lord on specific proposals, and I hope he will be happy to discuss those with us.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised an issue about Clause 9. Clause 9 will not affect the increased flexibilities we introduced in July 2025. Councils will continue to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, and those flexibilities will remain in place indefinitely. From 2026-27, councils will also, for the first time, be able to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes. The purpose of Clause 9 is to reduce administrative burdens for councils and central government because currently, whenever the rules on receipts change, the department must reissue retention agreements to every stockholding authority. Clause 9 will streamline this by allowing the Secretary of State to modify the requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements while maintaining oversight. It is a safeguard power rather than something that takes away the important retention of receipts.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Teather, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, mentioned the important issue of estate regeneration. We are clear that increasing supply and improving the quality of existing homes must go hand in hand. Too many tenants are living in homes that fall short of modern expectations, and we are determined to increase the number of social and affordable homes and to drive up standards across the homes that already exist. That is why the reforms that I have already mentioned are under way—to improve the quality and safety of social housing.
We are committed to supporting estate regeneration schemes to transform neighbourhoods and deliver well-designed housing with a better quality of life for tenants. The core strategic objective of the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is to maximise supply, but it will also support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in affordable homes.
The noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, among other Peers, all spoke on the right to buy. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government are not seeking to abolish the scheme. For many social tenants, it remains a crucial route into home ownership, opening the door to greater security and opportunity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord John, highlighted, we must also confront the reality before us. For too long, homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced at the rate needed, contributing to growing pressures on social housing supply and waiting lists across the country. That is why the Bill takes a balanced and responsible approach, retaining the opportunity for long-standing tenants to buy their homes, while protecting vital stock and ensuring councils can replace homes sold. So these are practical, necessary reforms that are designed to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme.
On the issues around home ownership and social mobility, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Gill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, the right to buy provides a pathway for social housing tenants to own their home. However, as I said, too many homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced. So we are reforming this, as we set out in our manifesto, but we are not shutting the door on home ownership; that pathway will remain for tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for a long time.
On the wider issue of home ownership, there is an extensive programme going on now with the sector to make the buying and selling of homes much less complicated and much easier for first-time buyers, so your Lordships will hear more about that in weeks to come.
The one-for-one replacement of homes was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Warwick, Lady Shah and Lady Neate. We are moving away from the previous one-for-one replacement target for homes because that was introduced when there was no wider expectation placed on councils to build. We know that the right to buy has acted as a strong disincentive to council housebuilding, which our reforms will unleash. We are calling on councils not just to replace homes sold but to go further and play a central role in delivering a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. That reflects our wider programme and objective. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery to make sure that this continues to be the case.
I want to speak briefly about the rural exemption, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Excluding rural areas from the right to buy reflects the very real and unique challenges of replacing social and affordable homes in those communities. Constraints on land, planning and supply mean that once homes are lost, they are often extremely difficult to replace. For that reason, we have taken the targeted decision to exempt designated rural areas from the scheme. We are not proposing to exempt any further areas from the scheme.
I have already spoken a bit about allocations, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was very concerned about these issues. The allocations framework is not included in the Bill, but work is going on with the sector to discuss further issues around allocations. The allocations framework gives priority to the groups who are most in need, and local councils have the freedom to manage their own waiting lists so they can develop solutions that make best use of their social housing stock. They are required by law to give priority to certain categories of people—for example, those who are homeless, as I know the noble Baroness will be very well aware—and we committed in our National Plan to End Homelessness to work with partners to update statutory guidance on social housing allocations to make sure that the framework is working effectively, and to support vulnerable households.
I will just briefly mention the mergers of housing associations, which was a common theme that came out during the debate. Housing associations of course play a vital role in delivering good quality homes and services, and landlords sometimes conclude that the best way to do this is through a merger with another housing association. Housing associations are independent organisations that make their own commercial decisions, and we do not direct how they run their business. However, all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards before and after any merger. In addition, under the transparency, influence and accountability standard set by the regulator, where a merger is being considered, tenants must be given the opportunity to influence and be involved in that process. A landlord must also be able to demonstrate to affected tenants how they have taken the outcome of the consultation into account when reaching a decision. I knew I was not going to get to all the points I wanted to make, but I will respond to noble Lords in writing on those I have missed.
Fundamentally, this Bill is key to ensuring that social housing continues to play the role it should in our society, not just for today but into the future. As I reflected at the beginning of this debate, social housing has long provided more than just a roof over people’s heads. It supports stable, connected communities, places where people can put down roots, build their lives and remain close to family and support networks. The Bill is a step towards restoring that stability—what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, called opportunity, security and comfort. Those were good words. It is protecting the homes we have, supporting the building of the homes we need and ensuring that the system works fairly for those who rely on it most. In doing so, it seeks to ensure that future generations can once again enjoy the security, opportunity and sense of belonging that I had growing up in Stevenage and that social housing has provided for so many in the past.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clause 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 20, Title.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Monday 15th June 2026
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (15 Jun 2026)
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start debate on the first group, I rise to remind the House of the rules on declaring interests. Noble Lords should declare any relevant financial interest the first time they speak at each stage of a Bill. This means that, in Committee, relevant financial interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. Thereafter, the declaration does not need to be repeated in Committee. Declarations should be specific and brief. Members should briefly indicate the nature of their financial interest and not simply refer to their entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
Amendment 1
“Abolition of Right to Buy(1) The Right to Buy scheme is abolished.(2) The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows—(a) omit Part 5 (the right to buy);(b) omit schedule 4;(c) omit schedule 5;(d) omit schedule 6;(e) omit schedule 6A;(f) omit schedule 9A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to abolish the Right to Buy scheme.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin with an apology for not taking part at Second Reading. My fellow Green Peer, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, took part but is unable to be here today so we are doing a little tag team effort. I am afraid that I will not be here on Wednesday, but I expect that she will be back on Report.
I also begin with a little bit of explanation, because the groupings today are technically complicated. Clause 1 would abolish the right to buy. To introduce that involves me opposing various clauses in some subsequent groups. I am opposing Clauses 1 to 9. This is all for technical reasons. I have not pulled this out as a separate group. That is how it was arranged. That is why we have this slightly odd-looking arrangement—it is for technical reasons.
Clause 1 provides for the abolition of right to buy. This is heading in the direction that the Government propose for the Bill but going further. Others who are opposing other elements in the Bill are seeking to reverse the Government’s direction, but to be clear: I am aiming for us to go further. The case for abolishing right to buy is not some theoretical proposal. Scotland and Wales have already done it successfully. We have a central question here: should social housing be treated as a long-term public asset or continue to be sold off during a housing crisis?
In Scotland, right to buy ended on 1 August 2016. It has been estimated that since then, 15,500 social homes in Scotland have been saved for the public. That is a lot of housing—a lot of households living in their community and children being able to continue to go to the same school. The sort of stability that social housing has provided has continued in Scotland, but here in England we continue to see families torn out of their communities and a continual turnover. In Scotland, Dr Mary Taylor, the CEO of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, said:
“SFHA is delighted that all forms of the right to buy policy in Scotland have now come to an end and this hasn’t come a moment too soon. Right to buy has had its day and has no place in modern Scotland”.
Wales came somewhat after Scotland with the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018. The Labour Welsh Government said that these sales were increasing waiting times for social housing and reducing the access to affordable housing, which is a statement of the obvious. Ministers also argued—I acknowledge that the Government are doing something about this—that councils and housing associations had the confidence to build without fear that they would immediately lose that housing.
The Labour Welsh Housing Minister at the time, Rebecca Evans, said:
“By protecting the stock of social housing in Wales, we are ensuring it is available for the long term to provide safe, secure and affordable homes for the people of Wales”.
This is no longer an experiment. It is established policy across much of the UK.
We discussed the negative impacts of the right-to-buy policy extensively at Second Reading. I do not intend to go over all the same ground but will highlight a couple of points. I draw first on the public wealth aspect of this. A report from the Common Wealth think tank, Wrong to Sell: How Right to Buy Gave Away Billions in Public Wealth, described right to buy as one of the largest giveaways in UK history. It has led to a situation where one in six private tenants in England rents a former local authority home, with much greater cost and often worse maintenance, without the democratic oversight that you get with council housing.
Considering the overall value of that, the report estimated that homes sold by English local authorities through right to buy are now worth £430 billion in 2024 prices. This is only part of the great privatisation, but this estimate says that this a bit more than the £400 billion that we have lost by selling off public land into private hands. This has also meant a structural shift towards higher-cost private renting. We know how much the cost of private renting is affecting so many households—so many communities—particularly the young. There is also increased long-term housing benefit expenditure. I hear from my right a lot of concern about the welfare Bill—this is one of the very significant drivers of it. There is also the exposure to market volatility.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I hope the House will not agree with Amendment 1. I feel a little bit personal about this because the amendment knocks out huge chunks of the Housing Act 1985, which I put on the statute book 40 years ago.
The noble Baroness talked about the erosion of the social housing stock. However, 17% of the housing stock in this country is social housing. That is roughly double the EU average of 9.3%, so already we are way out of line with our European neighbours in our provision of social housing. But I oppose this amendment because if one looks at Clause 9, it makes it clear that 100% of capital receipts from the right to buy will be ploughed back into social housing. So it is exactly the opposite of what the noble Baroness said, that the right to buy would increase the waiting time. What would increase the waiting time is acceptance of this amendment, because it would deny local authorities the capital receipts which would still accrue to them, so I disagree with her fundamentally.
There are other reasons for disagreeing with Amendment 1. For millions of people—1.8 million people—it was a foot on the property ladder for those who simply could not otherwise afford it, and many of those against the right to buy are people who own their own home. It gave people financial security which they would not otherwise have had. It became no longer the preserve of those on middle or higher incomes, and it gave something back after paying years of rent. Also, in the long term, it can reduce dependency, because those who bought their home now have an asset that can be taken into account if and when they move into care. There are wider benefits that we touched on at Second Reading, which I will not repeat. The right to buy helped break down the monolithic nature of some of our local authority estates. I very much hope that the Government, and indeed others in the House, will resist Amendment 1.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to take part in this debate in Committee. I will not reiterate the comments I made at Second Reading, because I talked then about family provision in social housing and we will discuss that specific issue in later groups. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley on her promotion to the Front Bench, and it would be remiss not to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her promotion. I think it is a promotion—anyway, she is back on the Front Bench.
As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, right to buy was one of the most transformative policies in British political history. It resulted in 58% of people owning their homes in 1981, being boosted to 69% by 2001, although that figure has now fallen back to 63%. Boosting home ownership boosts self-reliance, and 81% of people in most recent polls support the concept of owning their own home and being part of a property-owning democracy. In fact, 1.9 million homes were sold following the Housing Act 1980 to date, affecting 4.5 million social tenants. As we heard at Second Reading, right to buy improves social mobility, especially for those working people on low or modest incomes. We also heard demonstrable, empirical evidence from the London School of Economics about the impact being in homes that were bought under right to buy had on the educational attainment of children and young people. That was a longitudinal study, as noble Lords will remember.
I must say in passing that the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, are always sincere and well-resourced with research, but on this occasion I cannot agree with her for the reasons that my noble friend made clear. Capital receipts from right to buy were £51 billion, of which £47 billion was retained and remitted to His Majesty’s Treasury. The most recent sales in England in 2024-25 raised almost £800 million from 7,494 sales.
The important point to remember is that between 2012 and 2025, 48,000 units were replaced directly from recycled right to buy receipts back into the social housing stock. It is also important to nuance the arguments and remember that we had the renaissance of housing associations and alternative housing providers in that period, so it is not altogether correct to look at council housing and social housing just within the context of local authority housing.
There are a number of myths about right to buy, which is one of the reasons why I oppose the noble Baroness’s amendment. As my noble friend said, the level of social housing that we have is still high by international standards. I think we are fourth in Europe out of about 25 countries—significantly more than France, Italy, Germany and other large countries.
The fall in public sector housing construction began well before the advent of right to buy in 1980. Social housing waiting lists were, in fact, bizarrely stable when right to buy was at its most popular in the 1980s. There is a reason for that: social housing waiting lists were derived as a function of demand, not supply. So, in the period between 1981 and 1997, social housing waiting lists fell from 1.2 million to 1 million, in a period when we were selling off 100,000 council homes under right to buy. The problem, of course, was that the wider housing market was overheating, with a rise in real housing prices of 108% between 1997 and 2009.
The final myth is about discounts. Yes, you can say that discounted money is dead money to the taxpayer, but that criticism has to be misplaced. If one looks at the cost of, for instance, significant maintenance by local authorities and the payment of housing benefit then those alleged costs are significantly lower than claimed by those who oppose right to buy.
As my noble friend said, by abolishing right to buy we would remove the revenue and income stream for building more social homes, and that cannot be right. We would need to have an alternative if we were going to get rid of right to buy. Although I might not wholly agree with this Government’s objectives as outlined in the Bill, the noble Baroness’s proposal does not make sense because it would mean fewer homes for people who needed them, and that cannot be good. On that basis, I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a part-owner of rented property in West Yorkshire.
One of the strikingly important things for me, and I hope for all noble Lords, is the positive outcomes for young people exposed to the right-to-buy scheme from the 1980s. This is not wishful thinking on my part; it is clearly shown in research from the London School of Economics. I referred to this at Second Reading, but it is worth reminding noble Lords about.
The right to buy guaranteed detectable, sizeable school performance gains among young people exposed to it, increasing good grades in high-stakes exams. There is also evidence that there is an income effect, which gives more financial stability to households through home ownership, and there is a crime reduction effect from public housing tenants becoming owners of their own home. It is disappointing that such prejudice against right to buy is likely to remove from social housing tenants the opportunities which right to buy has created for so many.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is good to kick off our first day in Committee on this important Bill. As noble Lords will know from our comments and speeches at Second Reading, we broadly support the Bill, so I will endeavour not to make Second Reading speeches and to be as brief as possible, given our support for it.
We support tighter restrictions on right to buy—I think the evidence is clear—but we do not believe in its total abolition. As was said over and over by noble Lords at Second Reading, over 2 million houses have been sold this way since 1980 but nearly 1 million more have been sold than replaced. Looking at last year’s figures, 7,500 homes were sold and only 3,600 were replaced. More worrying was the net loss of nearly 4,000 homes last year. Losses outstripped gains. This is not sustainable, yet the need grows. Homelessness rates are growing. The number of families in temporary accommodation is growing. My local authority is now reaching the point that many others have already reached with the impact on their budget of temporary accommodation.
However, we believe that a total ban is not the right answer, which is why we cannot support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because housing need is not the same everywhere and local councils understand their own housing pressures best. In some areas, right to buy should definitely be paused; there should be a moratorium. In others, it should be more tightly controlled, but always—in the view of our Benches—with one condition: homes sold must at least be replaced on a one-for-one basis, if not better.
A blanket ban would remove that flexibility. It would replace local judgment with central diktat, and we believe that some transition to home ownership is aspirational and desirable. We are certainly not coming from the same place as Conservative colleagues in it being a holy grail. A healthy housing market should be able to staircase ownership for some people without the significant loss of much-needed social homes—hence some of our later amendments, which I hope will make sense as we go through. Be assured, we do not mean it to enable some local authorities to abrogate their responsibility to provide social housing of all types. We would definitely encourage more than one-for-one replacement. We want reform, not abolition, and devolution, not central diktat.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I add my congratulations to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on returning to the Front Bench. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this first day of Committee. This amendment would abolish right to buy altogether, and, in doing so, would remove one of the most significant routes into home ownership available to social housing tenants. The Conservative Government introduced right to buy, which was founded on the simple belief that ownership should not be the preserve of the wealthy or the fortunate few. Conservatives have long believed that people should have the opportunity to own their own home, build an asset, and enjoy the security and independence that home ownership brings. It is a hand up, not a handout.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the amendment, perhaps I may declare an interest, and in doing so apologise that I neglected to declare it at Second Reading. One of my daughters works for a housing association. I should have said that at Second Reading; it is in the register of interests. I also add my congratulations to those offered to my noble friend Lady Curran, who is appearing on the Front Bench for the first time today. I have already had a chance to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her new role, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She is not in her place today, but we have worked together for all the time I have been in the House on some very long and complicated Bills, and I am very grateful to her. I would like to put that on the record too.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Before I respond on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, let me say that I am pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Social Housing Bill. As I set out at Second Reading, this is critical legislation that goes right to the heart of our current housing crisis. More than 1.3 million families in need of a home languish on local authority housing waiting lists and the number of children growing up in temporary accommodation continues to climb, so we must act now to turn around decades of losing more social homes than we are building.
This legislation brings forward measures to protect much-needed social housing and incentivise new building, as well as groundbreaking reforms to create a safer and fairer system for those experiencing domestic abuse. At Second Reading, I was clear that this Social Housing Bill sits within a much wider programme of social housing action which clearly demonstrates our Government’s ambition and commitment to deliver the hope for the future that decent affordable social housing represents. Together with the Government’s wider package of reforms and the £39 billion of investment, this Bill will ensure that we can provide decent, safe, secure and affordable housing for generations to come. I look forward to getting into the detail of the Bill’s provisions over the course of Committee, and to engaging with noble Lords on these important measures.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, intends to abolish right to buy. The noble Baroness has also given notice of her intention to oppose all the right to buy clauses, with the exception of Clause 6, standing part of the Bill, making it clear that this amendment accompanies that intention. The Government have no plans to abolish the right to buy. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership, to own their own homes, boosting social mobility and opportunity, and supporting aspiration for families across the country.
Following the commitment in our manifesto, we are reforming right to buy through this Bill. This will deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme, where long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years can buy their own homes—but, crucially, where councils can replace them and contribute to the urgent and rising need for social and affordable homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the long called-for ability for councils to retain 100% of receipts, and this Government have facilitated that. By reforming the right-to-buy scheme, we will protect much-needed housing stock and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, more homes will be available to house those on waiting lists and those who are homeless.
We have committed to the biggest funding boost for social and affordable housing for a generation. I remind the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Jamieson, that many of the homes sold have never been replaced. Between April 2012 and March 2025, there were around 133,000 council right-to-buy sales, with only around 51,000 homes replaced over the same period. Not only has this depleted much-needed homes for households in need but it has reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, and it has restricted broader investment in council housing. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that through the Renters’ Rights Act this Government have significantly strengthened renters’ rights, including with regard to rent increases.
We think we have the balance right here, making sure that we address some of the issues around right to buy but also continuing to give that opportunity and aspiration for those who want to purchase their own homes. We therefore oppose this amendment, and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who contributed to this short but passionate Committee debate. I join others in welcoming the noble Baronesses, Lady Curran and Lady O’Neill, to the Front Benches.
I think the Minister agreed with me that right to buy and the way it has been implemented up to now have done enormous damage. We are in agreement about the loss without replacement of so much social housing. I also acknowledge her points about the Renters’ Rights Act, which is a step in the right direction, although the Green Party would like to see this going much further, with rent caps.
In saying that, I respond a little to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have the greatest respect. He compared the percentage of social renters in the UK with other parts of Europe. Of course, the conditions and the arrangements for private renting in many parts of Europe give people far greater security of tenure and far greater security of life than our arrangements do, even with the Renters’ Rights Act.
A couple of other points from the noble Lord, Lord Young, really need to be referred to. On the idea that housing will be sold and then ploughed back, later we will come to Amendment 16 about buyback. If we see an extension of buyback, it is possible to imagine a home being sold under right to buy and, very quickly, the council buying a house so that another one is available immediately. But the more typical situation will probably be that a house is sold under right to buy and maybe 10 years later a new social housing unit appears as a result of that money. That is a very long gap, and of course there is still disruption to the community. It will not often be an immediate response.
In picking up a couple of points from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not start a whole debate about where the rise in house prices comes from, but a study from King’s College London in 2018 estimated that, without foreign investment money coming in, prices would have been 19% lower then. Of course, we saw a great financial liberalisation—part of the whole right-to-buy scenario, where we have turned what had been secure and affordable places for people to live into something regarded primarily as a financial asset.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who suggested that social housing should be only a short-term replacement until you move on with your life. We want people to have a secure and affordable place to live for life, if that is what they want. That should be the foundation of our communities. We are not stressing enough the impact on communities of right to buy; we are focused very much on the impacts on individuals. The turmoil that right to buy has brought communities should not be ignored.
Baroness Eaton
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to enable a debate on the Government’s decision to extend the right to buy eligibility period from 3 years to 10 years.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the debate on this second group of thoughtful and varied amendments. We have just heard a spectacular defence from noble Lords of the right-to-buy scheme, which the Government seem determined to restrict quite drastically throughout the provisions in the Bill. In Clause 1, the Bill proposes to extend the qualifying period for right to buy from three to 10 years. I will focus on Amendment 2 in my name, which is a probing amendment as to the rationale behind this extension.
I already have concerns that tenants of social housing who are able and willing to buy their property should be forced to wait longer. I understand that the Government, in their manifesto, committed to increase the protections on newly built social housing, but this provision would affect existing social housing tenants too. There may be many tenants right now who are on the cusp of reaching the three-year eligibility requirement, with high hopes of finally being able to own their own home, but who will have to wait an additional seven years when the Bill becomes law, unless it is amended. That is a long time to wait and be on welfare. If the Government insist on an extension to the qualifying period, why not extend it to five years rather than 10, as my amendment suggests? Can the Minister explain what evidence base there is behind that number? In addition, exactly how much social housing stock is a 10-year extension expected to protect for us—as opposed to five, say—and how has the impact on existing tenants been assessed, if at all?
We must ensure that 10 years is not just an arbitrary number chosen randomly. If there is a justification, it should be outlined and explained clearly for the House to scrutinise. We must also remember that we are talking about real people living in social housing right now—people with hopes and aspirations, whose rights to buy a property should not be treated carelessly or without thought. What data do the Government have, if any, as to how many tenants are about to reach the three-year qualifying period? Can the Minister please share that data with the Committee? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and from other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Committee. I apologise to noble Lords that I was not able to be in your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I declare my relevant technology interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of Avalanche (BVI), Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.
In my set of Committee amendments, I want to assist the Bill by bringing the strands of inclusion and innovation and talent and technology through every possible supportive clause of the Bill. In this group, I speak to Amendments 3, 10 and 13 in my name.
Amendment 3 sets out provisions to establish a digital life-cycle service for right to buy. In doing so, it would provide greater empowerment, knowledge, connection and communication to those who may wish to avail themselves of the right-to-buy service. This would be an effective and important use of digital technology and, through that, could play a positive part in enabling digital inclusion. Critically, the amendment does not seek to rely just on digital; it sets out provisions for alternative means of connection to ensure this life-cycle service could be achieved through systems such as text messaging. Amendment 10 would develop this in the context of fraud requirements, clearly supporting the measures in new Section 124A inserted by Clause 4.
Amendment 13 further seeks to use the benefits of technology to provide an immutable record—an audit trail—which is tamper-proof for all Section 122 applications. In 2017, I wrote a report on blockchain called Distributed Ledger Technologies for Public Good. At that stage, I wanted to set out not just the potential public use cases but the public value cases in which the distributed ledger and other technologies could assist across the state. My fear was that, if these potential use cases and value cases were not set out, the debate would get stuck and, whenever blockchain was mentioned, it would naturally be assumed that it meant just Bitcoin, which had nothing to say on beneficial provision for operations of the state across potentially all government departments and local authorities. Amendment 13 is therefore one such potential use case or value case, where there could be a clear audit trail, available for all, of use to the department, and indeed the regulator, with the safety, security and knowledge that it is a clear, accurate, immutable record of applications and any potential fraud hearings and investigations that have happened around right to buy.
These three amendments look to deploy the benefits of such potential technologies. I believe they would greatly support the provisions set out in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 4, 6 and 122 in my name now and then come back to close at the end, if that is all right with noble Lords.
The Government clearly set out in our response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy that we would prevent existing property owners or those who have previously benefited from the scheme exercising right to buy unless there are exceptional circumstances. This was supported by 91% of respondents to the consultation, including 86% of social tenants who responded. We have already drawn up the latter part of this commitment through Clause 2 of the Bill and intend to add to this by including a provision in new Clause 2 to prevent existing residential property owners exercising the right to buy. The Committee will appreciate that defining residential property ownership is complex, given the many forms that property ownership can take. Capturing this complexity in legal drafting required additional time, meaning that this clause was not present at introduction. Given that the intent behind the right to buy is to enable tenants of social housing to become home owners, preventing existing property owners using the scheme is a fair and rational approach.
We have set out in this amendment what we think is a reasonable definition of a residential property owner. The new clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured, with exceptions for short-term leases under 21 years, as will joint ownership and any properties owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad. As in Clause 2, exemptions will be made for victims of domestic abuse who have moved from the accommodation that they were occupying for reasons connected to the abuse.
As part of the application process, tenants will be required to declare to the landlord whether they own another property and landlords will be able to check the information that the tenant provides. If tenants are seeking exceptionally to buy under a right-to-buy scheme, where they already own a residential property, because they have been a victim of domestic abuse, they will be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord. Amendment 4 thus follows through on our commitment to exclude existing property owners from using right to buy and is accompanied by Amendments 6 and 122, which are consequential and enable the new clause to operate as intended. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I want to hear from the Minister about government Amendment 4, to try to understand a bit more about cohabitees. There are other legal rulings which have been made and I am led to believe that the Lord Chancellor will be bringing forward legislation about cohabitees, but the definition is not particularly strong. I want to understand how, in practice, the Government intend to put this in place. The new clause is suggesting that it is somebody who lives with somebody else as if they are married, but there are other benefits rulings where that entitlement was brought in only because of children involved. I want to get a better understanding because, in that particular case, the ruling is that you have to have lived with somebody for only a single day. I hear that the Lord Chancellor may be talking about something like three years. I would be grateful if the Minister, in her final wind-up, would elaborate further on how they will determine accurately whether somebody is a cohabitee.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I have just a few words on this group. First of all, I failed to observe the social niceties and would like to say that I am pleased that I have already had conversations and emails with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and I formally welcome her to the Front Bench. Her availability thus far has proved that she is going to be a good colleague to work with. I am also pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on the Front Bench, and I echo the kind words that she missed from the Minister regarding her contribution. The noble Baroness—Jane—was a really positive person to work with and I particularly respected the way she understood and respected political difference, and yet we could still have that cup of tea.
I thank the Minister very much for the email that she sent us recently, containing the appendix which outlined all the things that the Government were doing. I was a bit frustrated and had a meeting with the Minister, asking how this fits here and how that fits there. I was pleased that she responded positively. I still like it in diagram form, I must admit, but it really did help.
I have an anecdote on the eligibility period. When we were losing right to buy quite considerably, I noticed the number of homes that were lost within three to five years. It was significant. It had me questioning how people could afford to get social housing in the first place—do not forget that we are in a pretty high-cost housing area. That led us to look at that and we found that it was to do with the number of children, which seemed to be a main factor rather than any issue about household income and how people could afford to pay. I am pleased that we will look at housing allocation again at some point, because I think there are things to look at.
I can only be awestruck by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I have looked through the whole load that he has tabled and I confess that I do not understand most of them. What I do know is that the House has a real expert and champion, and therefore I look forward to the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord.
To put it briefly, we will not support any amendments that are designed to continue right to buy in its current format, given the present crisis situation. We will agree with amendments designed to restrict eligibility and protect any further loss of stock, and thus we completely understand and support government Amendment 4. If someone owns another property, they should not be eligible for right to buy. It is as simple as that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, it is very convenient that my noble friend Lady Scott is in the Chamber, so I can say many thanks for all that she has done and how she helped me come into the House. It is great following someone who is so good, because there is so much to learn and, fortunately, I am still able to access that learning, so I thank her very much.
My noble friend Lady Eaton rightly raises concerns regarding changes to the qualifying period, removing opportunity for many. What is the Government’s evidence that this will work and why is the change being made from three to 10 years? In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made either a compliment or a back-handed compliment—I am not sure which—it fundamentally comes down to our view that retaining a house with a family in it and not giving them the opportunity to buy it and stay in it, with the proceeds being used to build more social housing, does not remove anyone from the waiting list. Using that resource to build more housing, which could be temporary accommodation, social housing or specialist housing, is an opportunity to reduce the housing waiting list. It is about more homes for more people, and more opportunity.
I will use, if I may, the same pleading as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I do not fully understand what my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is proposing. But, certainly, his expertise is far greater than mine and using things such as digital lifecycle services, better technology and encryption technology to support tenants to provide information and to reduce levels of fraud is, surely, a good idea. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those matters.
We have the same concerns about Clause 1, and we are opposed to it until the Government have outlined sufficient evidence on what impact extending the qualifying period will have, not only on housing stock but on tenants who want to own their own home. To many, this, along with other measures proposed in the Bill, would appear to be a deliberate government strategy to undermine right to buy: death by a thousand cuts, so to speak.
Amendment 5 proposes a mechanism to protect existing tenants, and as a result these changes would not affect those who have entered a secure tenancy before this clause comes into force. There is precedent for retrospective protection in legislation, as was done in the Housing Act 2004 passed by the previous Labour Government. There are tenants currently under the impression that they will have the opportunity to own their own home after three years and we should realise the impact that this will have. Alternatively, Amendments 120, 121 and 123 would delay the commencement of Section 1 by three years, thereby giving tenants who are just now entering secure tenancy the opportunity to exercise their current right to buy should they so wish, rather than suddenly snatching it away.
Amendments 7 and 8 reflect our concerns about Clause 2. These probe whether right to buy should be restricted on the basis that a spouse or civil partner, living or deceased, has exercised it in the past.
Amendment 9 also questions the ability of a landlord to be satisfied that persons not married or in civil partnership were none the less living together in that way. These provisions raise key questions about how the state treats two people living together and whether that should affect their property rights. How do the Government plan to communicate these changes so that tenants are aware how their relationships could affect their right to buy? This is particularly pertinent in relation to the Cohabitation Rights Bill, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the Government’s consultation on reforming inheritance for unmarried couples.
Furthermore, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 6 and 122 to introduce a new clause to prevent the right to buy being exercised if a person, their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee already owns other residential property. There are various scenarios I ask the Government to consider. First, as my noble friend Lady Coffey raised, how are the Government defining a relationship in this instance?
As we have seen recently in Scotland, a wife claimed to be completely unaware of a £125,000 motorhome owned by her husband for three years and parked on her mother-in-law’s drive. In all seriousness, it is an optimistic assumption that all those entering relationships are aware of their partner’s current finances and assets. So, how will the Government be able to justify taking away the right to buy from someone who is unaware of a separate asset that they have no stake in? Do the Government accept that there may be additional and unexpected complexities to this proposal?
It also seems to be a contradictory rationale to ban right to buy for tenants in this situation while simultaneously permitting a lifetime tenancy at below-market rates. That seems slightly puzzling. We are not willing to accept these amendments at this stage, and not until further scrutiny of these proposals has taken place on Report.
Finally, Amendment 35 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance promoting the right-to-buy scheme and financial literacy among young people. People need to be aware of their options and rights, and young people especially need to be given roots to stand on their own two feet. As the Minister herself has previously said, young people need to be more aware of opportunities that are out there for home ownership. Of course, it is not just the case that young people are unaware; they need to be given the financial skills to help navigate the housing market.
I therefore hope the Government will consider our amendments on how we can better support young people to own their own home and look at delaying Clause 4 until such time as this House has had a greater opportunity to scrutinise it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will first refer to Opposition comments about government amendments, as that will probably be the most helpful. Tenants who own another property are, by definition, already homeowners, and the right-to-buy scheme was introduced to support tenants who otherwise would be unlikely to access home ownership. Therefore, they should not be given a discount to buy a second home when so many others have not been given the opportunity to purchase a first home. Existing homeowners can generally not join the housing register for the allocation of social housing, including those who own property outside their local authority or abroad, meaning that the measure to exclude such property ownership aligns with existing allocations guidance.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, there is a very detailed explanation of the exclusion in the amendment itself. I will not read it out, because everyone can look at it in the amendment, but the cohabitee part of the amendment refers to
“the co-habitee of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs; and, for that purpose, one person is the co-habitee of another person if they live together as if they were a married couple or civil partners”.
However, I will reflect on the noble Baroness’s comments if it is not as clear as we hope it is. But, from looking at it again, though, it seems very clear to me in the amendment we have tabled.
I will now tackle the question of whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 increases the minimum tenancy length required for tenants to be eligible for the right-to-buy scheme from three to 10 years. The core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to prevent social homes from being sold off without being replaced. Maintaining the eligibility period at three years would contribute to council homes continuing to be sold off at an unsustainable rate and would reduce the ability of our councils to replace those homes.
Furthermore, increasing the minimum eligibility period has received strong support from stakeholders. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked me about evidence. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of all respondents, of which 62% were tenants, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents, 54%, supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.
This takes me neatly on to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, which seeks to extend the eligibility period under the scheme to five years, instead of the proposed 10. The Government firmly believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing longer-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting our much-needed social housing stock. Increasing the eligibility requirement to 10 years will better support councils to rebuild the stock of council homes and will ensure that it is tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for many years who are able to own their own home through the scheme. Ten years is also the average length of tenancy of someone buying under the scheme currently, meaning that this will not substantially change the average eligibility period of those buying under the scheme.
Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to amend Clause 1 of the Bill so that the provision only applies to secure tenancies entered into after the measure comes into force, which would mean that existing secure tenancies would still be eligible for the right to buy after only three years of tenancy. Excluding existing tenancies from the eligibility change would mean that the existing three years’ eligibility would continue to apply to the vast majority of council housing tenants and that we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy is secured. As set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on these measures, we have been clear that the intention is that this change would apply to both existing and new tenants to protect existing social housing stock. For these reasons, we cannot accept this amendment.
Amendments 120, 121 and 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seek to delay commencement of Clause 1 by three years. It is imperative that we increase the eligibility requirement for right to buy as soon as practicable to ensure we support long-standing tenants in retaining the right to buy, while ensuring that our councils are not losing homes at an unsustainable rate. As such, we intend to bring Clause 1 into force on Royal Assent. This ensures that we act quickly to protect council housing stock and that we prevent a potential spike in sales as a result of these changes. Allowing a three-year lead-in time for Clause 1 would only increase the loss of social homes to the right to buy. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the reasons I have set out and withdraw her amendment, and I commend this clause to the Committee.
I turn now to Clause 2, which has been opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Repeat purchases through the right to buy go against the core aim of the scheme, which is to support tenants into long-term home ownership. It also undermines the objectives of maintaining and expanding social and affordable housing stock. The vast majority of respondents to the government consultation stated they would support preventing someone who has previously benefited from the right to buy from being able to exercise the right to buy again. Clause 2 delivers on this, with exceptions for victims of domestic abuse and in cases of irretrievable relationship breakdown. The terms of these exceptions are set out in the clause and will be reinforced by updated guidance when the Act comes into force. It will be for social landlords to be satisfied that the exceptions apply, for which they will be able to ask for evidence from the applicant as part of the application process. This is something councils are well practised at doing, as under the current rules those who have previously exercised the right to buy have their discount reduced if they seek to exercise the right to buy again.
I now turn to Amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which intend to probe whether the right to buy should be restricted if a spouse or civil partner of tenants have exercised the right to buy before. The Government have carefully considered these restrictions and feel it is appropriate that this policy should include where spouses and civil partners exercised the right to buy in the past, as the household in question can therefore be assessed as having already benefited from the scheme. Allowing repeated purchases within married couples or civil partnerships could lead to the gaming of the system and would undermine the objective of preserving and expanding social housing stock.
Amendment 9 seeks to probe how social landlords could be satisfied that, where a tenant is seeking an exemption to be able exercise the right to buy again due to relationship breakdown, the tenant was not married or in a civil partnership but were living as such—that is, that they were cohabiting. As part of the application process, applicants seeking an exemption will be required to provide evidence of their previous situation. If the landlord is satisfied with that evidence, the right to buy could then be exercised. To reiterate and reassure, we will be providing additional guidance to landlords on Clause 2 and how it will operate. With this explanation, I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments and commend Clause 2 to the Committee.
Amendment 35, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, intends to create a separate piece of guidance for the right to buy specifically aimed at promoting the scheme and financial literacy among young people. I point noble Lords to the existing guide Your Right to Buy Your Home, which is accessible on GOV.UK to all tenants regardless of age. This provides comprehensive guidance on the right-to-buy scheme, including on the costs of home ownership. The guidance will be fully updated in light of the reforms to the scheme. The guidance also includes information on how to access the Money and Pensions Service, which provides free, impartial advice to help people make informed choices about managing their money. This service is accessible to young people. As we do not wish to duplicate any existing guidance, the Government cannot accept this amendment. As I have already alluded to, we will continue to update and promote guidance to tenants on the right to buy through usual channels, notably GOV.UK. We will also share relevant information about the scheme and changes to it with local authorities so that they can disseminate it to their tenants.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 3, 10 and 13. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for these amendments, and for his technical knowledge which enabled him to bring them before the Committee today. They seek to introduce a centralised digital lifecycle service for the right to buy, alongside new requirements for audit and fraud tracking. I recognise the intention behind these proposals—improving transparency, supporting tenants through the process and strengthening safeguards against fraud are all important objectives. However, the Government do not consider that a centrally mandated digital service is the right approach to achieve these aims. The right to buy is fundamentally a landlord-led process. Individual social landlords hold the relevant tenancy information, determine eligibility and manage applications directly with tenants. This reflects the fact that eligibility depends on detailed, case-specific information—such as tenancy history, property type and previous use of the right to buy—which sits with the landlord, not with central government.
These amendments would require a significant shift away from that established model, creating a national service to replicate functions that are already carried out locally. To operate effectively, such a service would depend on the continuous input and standardisation of very large volumes of data from social landlords across the country. That would not be a simple enhancement. It would require the design and delivery of complex digital infrastructure, the resolution of significant data-sharing and governance issues and the ongoing maintenance of accurate, real-time information across a highly diverse sector. In practice, this creates a substantial delivery risk. There is a real danger that such a system could become burdensome, duplicative and inflexible, placing new administrative burdens on landlords while not improving the core experience for tenants.
Similarly, mandating specific technologies, such as a blockchain-based audit trail, risks imposing disproportionate cost and complexity without clear evidence of additional benefit over existing systems. Landlords are already required to maintain accurate records and have processes in place to identify and investigate potential fraud. For these reasons, while I understand the objectives behind these amendments the Government consider that they would introduce unnecessary complexity, cost, and risk into a system that is best administered at the local level. We therefore cannot support these amendments and I kindly ask the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I would like some clarification about government Amendment 4. This is an issue of principle, to some extent. This is an amendment of more than two pages; it is not a small technical correction. As the Minister will have heard from me and my noble friend Lady Coffey, we have some concerns about understanding issues such as what is a cohabitee and when is it defined, and so forth. We genuinely believe that there is a principle here that this House should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise government amendments, and this government amendment has come just after the Bill was published. Why was it not in the original Bill, and why should we not be given the opportunity, given that it is quite a large amendment, to take it to Report, which would give the Government and us the opportunity to clarify some of these issues that have been raised here today?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I set out in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, a clear definition is set out in the new clause. I accept what the noble Lord says. Perhaps, if he would rather reflect on this between now and Report, I will have further discussions with him on that. Is he suggesting that I should not move the amendment at this stage?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Yes; we would be very happy if the noble Baroness did not move the amendment. We would prefer that that amendment is moved on Report after we have had the opportunity for clarification and conversations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Forgive me, but it was my understanding that it had been agreed through the usual channels that we could move this amendment today.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who tabled amendments and provided insight in the debate. It is clear that the changes to right to buy need to be properly and thoroughly thought through, not only to ensure that they are backed by sufficient evidence but so that they consider the real-life consequences. This is certainly true for existing tenants of social housing who may not be aware of upcoming changes and who may have hopes of owning their own home for the first time.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley and my noble friend Lord Jamieson for considering in their amendments in this group how tenants can be better protected, particularly by promoting greater financial literacy and looking in detail at the commencement of the Bill’s provisions.
I also thank the Minister for her answers, but I hope that the Government will look further into the evidence behind extending the qualifying period to properly assess whether 10 years really is the most effective and necessary number. If the differences in predicted outcomes between five- and 10-year periods are marginal, the period should not be extended more than is absolutely necessary. We should not treat people’s aspirations with contempt and restrict their rights purely to undermine a scheme for the sake of it.
More broadly, therefore, I hope the Government will reflect on what these changes mean for existing tenants, whose hopes and dreams of owning a home should not be treated as chess pieces to be moved, or indeed looked down on. At this point, in Committee, however, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
“Exercise of the right to buy by residential property ownersBefore section 121A of the Housing Act 1985 insert—“121ZC Exercise of the right to buy by residential property ownersProhibition on exercise of right to buy(1) The right to buy may not be exercised if any of the following persons owns other residential property—(a) the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs;(b) the spouse or civil partner of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs (if they are living together at the relevant time in relation to the right to buy);(c) the co-habitee of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs;and, for that purpose, one person is the co-habitee of another person if they live together as if they were a married couple or civil partners.(2) But that prohibition does not apply if—(a) the landlord is satisfied that—(i) the person or any of the persons to whom the right to buy belongs (“A”) has at any time within the relevant period been a victim of domestic abuse within the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and(ii) within that period A has for reasons connected to the abuse moved from the accommodation that they were occupying (whether or not more than once), and(b) the right to buy is being exercised by A (whether alone or with other persons).Residential property(3) In this section—(a) “other residential property” means residential property other than the dwelling-house to which the right to buy relates;(b) “residential property” means a building or a part of a building (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) that consists of, or includes, property that—(i) is being used wholly or partly as a dwelling, or(ii) is constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling, but is not being used wholly or partly as a dwelling.Ownership: England, Wales and Northern Ireland(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply for the purpose of determining whether a person owns other residential property that is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.(5) The person owns the other residential property if the person is the beneficial owner, or one of the beneficial owners, of a qualifying interest in the other residential property.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), any of the following is a “qualifying interest”— (a) the freehold;(b) a lease that was originally granted for a term of 21 years or longer.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person (P) is a beneficial owner of a qualifying interest if—(a) the qualifying interest is not held on trust and P holds, or is one of the persons who hold, the qualifying interest, or(b) the qualifying interest is held on trust and P has, or is one of the persons who have, a beneficial interest under the trust;(and accordingly if P holds, or is one of the persons who hold, the qualifying interest on trust, P is not a beneficial owner unless P also has a beneficial interest under the trust).Ownership: Scotland(8) Subsections (9) and (10) apply for the purpose of determining whether a person owns other residential property that is in Scotland.(9) The person owns the other residential property if the person is the owner, or one of the owners, of the other residential property.(10) But where a person (“T”) holds other residential property in trust under the law of Scotland on terms such that, if the trust had effect under the law of England and Wales, one or more persons would be regarded as having an equitable interest in the trust property (the “notional beneficiary or beneficiaries”)—(a) the notional beneficiary or beneficiaries are to be treated as being the owner or owners of the residential property despite no such interest being recognised under the law of Scotland, and(b) T is the owner only if T is a notional beneficiary.Ownership: outside the United Kingdom(11) In determining whether a person owns other residential property outside the United Kingdom, regard must be had to the desirability of producing an effect that is as consistent with the effect produced by subsections (5) to (7) as is practicable (taking into account, in particular, any ways in which the law relating to the other residential property differs from the laws of the United Kingdom).Trusts and trustees: other provision(12) For the purposes of this section—(a) a qualifying interest (in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland), or ownership (in relation to Scotland), is not to be regarded as held on a trust created by a will unless and until the qualifying interest or ownership has been vested in the trustees;(b) a person is not to be regarded as holding a qualifying interest (in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland), or ownership (in relation to Scotland), if they hold it as a trustee in bankruptcy or otherwise in accordance with any legislation of any part of the United Kingdom relating to insolvency.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent the right to buy from being exercised if any person to whom the right belongs, or their spouse, civil partner or co-habitee, already owns other residential property.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I move the amendment formally but I am happy to discuss it further with noble Lords if they have concerns about the definition.
“(1) After section 121ZC of the Housing Act 1985 (inserted by section (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners)) insert—Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the new Clause (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners) in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I outlined in our debate on Amendment 1 why I am opposing all these clauses, specifically Clauses 3 and 4 in this group. My opposition to Clause 2 was because I wanted to go further, not to ensure that there is no double-dipping within households or by individuals. I also make it clear that on Clause 3, I am not opposed to the extension of the period of eligibility and on Clause 4, I am not opposed to anti-fraud measures. There are people opposing these clauses for different reasons, but mine is a desire to stop right to buy altogether.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This replaces the proposed reduction to the right to buy discount to five per cent with a reduction to 20 per cent, from the current rate of 35 per cent for houses and 50 per cent for flats.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the intention of the Government is to change the discount on right to buy, dropping it from the current 35% rate for houses and 50% for flats all the way down to 5%. Taking Amendments 14 and 15 together, I agree with the intention to add percentages as the number of years of accommodation are covered. However, going all the way down to requiring 95% of the market rate to be paid is somewhat strong, recognising how quickly it is intended for this clause to come into effect. I went for a halfway house of 20%—because for other social housing providers the affordable rent is capped at 80% of market rent—thinking that this might prove a sensible way to help people to acquire a home; this 20% discount is similar to the discount that happens for the same property when it comes to rent.
Why is this? Not everybody who lives in social housing is on benefits—quite a high proportion are not. There is an assumption that it does not matter anyway. I appreciate that not everybody who lives in social housing—in a council house or one provided by a housing association—wants to buy where they live. But I fear that this will put a lot of people out. I am very supportive of some of the earlier clauses where we have extended how long somebody needs to have been living in that home. Would the Government consider something that is in parity? The approach to rent should also be the approach on the discount to buy. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in her amendment. I should declare this first time in Committee my interests, as recorded in the register, as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and adviser to other development forums, although all the views I will express will be entirely my own and not attributable to any members of those forums.
We arrived at a position back in 2024 when the Government radically reduced the discount rate for existing tenants. I felt very strongly, as I think my noble friend did, that there were significant legitimate expectations on the part of those who were tenants that they would be saving over a period of time and would have the opportunity to buy at a significant discount. I can see that the Government had the right as an incoming Government to adjust the discount, and they chose to do that, but I think they went too far. I firmly support my noble friend in saying that we want to continue to give tenants the feeling of hope that they will buy and that there has to be a sufficient discount to make it worth their while to do so, especially in many parts of the country where property prices these days are not necessarily increasing. We do not want them to not take the opportunity to buy because they fear that the property they would buy would no longer be of the value they have paid.
The discount that my noble friend is recommending in Amendments 14 and 15 firmly puts us in the right sort of territory for continuing to meet, to some extent, the legitimate expectations of many tenants and is sufficient to make it clear that we are not giving them an undue incentive to buy. When you combine my noble friend’s amendments with some of the Government’s amendments and others, which mean the right to buy is able to be established only over a significant period of time, as we have just recently discussed, that is quite a manageable combination. The Government should be willing to entertain that people who have been tenants for a long time, or are tenants for a long period of time in the future, are given a worthwhile discount of the kind my noble friend proposes.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey and to make the simple point that while the Government seem to be trying to reduce right to buy’s ability to give people an astonishingly important way to invest for their retirements, buy a stake in society, provide security for their family and so forth, the key point has been forgotten. Right to buy, when the receipts are recycled, is a very good way of renewing our social housing stock. For somebody who has been living there a long time to buy an older house—and there are provisions in the Bill to lengthen to 35 years the terms under which a new house may be purchased—acquiring it releases incrementally the funds to improve the stock over many years. This is not a bad thing but a good thing.
The purpose of my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment is to provide a meaningful incentive but not an overly generous one. It balances the rights of the individual, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, to save over a long period of time in the expectation that they may acquire the home, which they have previously rented, with sufficient funds, 80% of the value—which is more or less the cost of producing a replacement. It balances that private interest with the public good, and I strongly support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment. It does the right thing in the right way in the right quantum to ensure that there is a source of funding to upgrade and replace that core housing stock. Otherwise, it will fossilise and get old, and that is not in anybody’s interests.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will stick to my words at the beginning and be as brief as possible and to the point. If the aim is to preserve existing stock, clearly this is a lever you have to pull. We would not disagree with that, even though it is so low, but let us be clear: if the average house price in my area—actually, perhaps the average is not a good way of looking at it, but if the median house price is about £450,000, you are still getting a discount of £90,000. How many of us would say no to that?
The other question we have to ask ourselves is: who pays for the discount? However much detail we want to get into about finances, the bottom line is that a sale does not build another house and that money has to be added. Those are simple reasons why we support this direction in the Bill.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her return to the Front Bench. I declare my interests as vice-president of London Councils—I will be there tomorrow morning—and as a part-owner of a rented property in Bexley. I also put on record that my parents had a right to buy. My dad was a bus conductor, and I am proud of that.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on what is ultimately a question of proportionality. The Government believe that the current level of discounts is too generous and that they need to be reduced. The question raised by these amendments is whether the reductions proposed in the Bill go further than necessary, and hence we have probed the inclusion of Clause 5. My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendments do not seek to preserve the status quo; rather, they offer an alternative approach that would reduce discounts while retaining a meaningful incentive for tenants considering home ownership, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. In that sense, they seek a compromise between the current arrangements and the considerably lower levels proposed by the Government.
Noble Lords have referred to the importance of preserving the viability of the scheme. That is a legitimate concern. If discounts are reduced to the point where the financial advantage of exercising right to buy becomes marginal, there is a risk that the policy ceases to operate as intended. The issue before the Committee is therefore not whether discounts should ever change but whether the Government have adequately justified reductions at the scale proposed in the Bill. Having listened to the debate, I am not yet persuaded that they have. For that reason, I hope the Minister will give further consideration to a more measured approach to better preserve the opportunities that the right-to-buy scheme has offered to many tenants over the years.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Thornhill and Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller. First, I will defend why Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. The right-to-buy scheme continues to provide an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. However, we must ensure that the scheme remains sustainable. This includes ensuring that discounts are set at the right level to enable long-standing tenants to buy under the scheme but without depleting levels of social housing stock.
The Government has already taken action to reduce the maximum cash discounts in November 2024 by returning them to pre-2012 levels. We committed to revising the discounts available as a percentage of the property value so that they align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause 5 delivers on our commitment to do this by reducing the percentage discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value after 10 years of public sector tenancy, with an increase for every extra year of tenancy up to a maximum of 15%.
As is the case now, these percentage discounts will be subject to the cash caps which set out the maximum cash discount that a tenant can receive in their local authority area. Aligning the discounts available as a percentage of the property value with the cash caps ensures that those who have been in their homes the longest benefit the most, while also avoiding disproportionately large discounts in high-value areas. The revised percentage discount levels aim to strike a balance between the responses received during the right to buy consultation, where many respondents supported setting the percentage discounts lower than is proposed by this clause.
We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to houses and flats, making the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants. This clause also extends the discount repayment period to 10 years after the original sale from the current five years, during which a purchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. This measure was supported by 72% of all respondents to our consultation. It will ensure that there is less of an incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme, and will encourage people buying under the scheme to retain the property and discourage some of the profiteering that we have seen. With this explanation, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.
I turn to Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The intention of these amendments—to set the minimum percentage discount at 20% and the maximum at 30%—would undermine the core aims of the clause that I have just set out and would keep the percentage discounts too high. In practice, the lower maximum cash discounts would take effect over the percentage amounts, as the cash cap would often be the lesser of the two discounts and would determine the discount that the tenant would receive. This would also mean that tenants with longer tenancies would be less likely to benefit, because the cash cap would bite sooner on the actual discount received. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I do not think we can base every decision or amendment on exactly where one lives—recognising that there are parts of the country where there are significantly lower costs and low market prices to be had. I also go back partly to what I said at Second Reading; there is a risk that, as people retire, they will start to claim benefits to continue to live in the places where they are currently social housing tenants. I think it would be worth looking at the maths again, but with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I would like to begin this debate by stating our concerns with Clause 6. Perhaps they are the same concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has.
The right of first refusal dictates that, if you bought a property through the right-to-buy scheme and decide to sell it within 10 years, you are required to offer the property back to your former social landlord before putting it on to the open market. The current measure provides an opportunity for previous social landlords to reacquire. However, extending it indefinitely raises a number of potential complexities and practical issues. It also undermines the principle of property ownership. What happens if you leave the property to your children? Does it impact any subsequent sales if the landlord decides not to reacquire it the first time?
Many owners will decide to stay on their properties well beyond the 10 years before they even think of selling, or they may decide, as I mentioned, to pass it on to their children. If the right of first refusal is extended in perpetuity, what happens if a former social housing landlord has changed? A council may have merged with another or split into two—or in some cases three, under the current local government reorganisation—and it is not clear who the former landlord is. The housing association may have closed. Have the Government considered these practicalities and scenarios, and who is responsible in each of them for ensuring that the right of first refusal is upheld? Perhaps that is one for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to consider with technology and blockchain.
Turning to Clause 7, we have several concerns. Amendment 17 in my name probes the necessity of replacing the specific and widely understood term “warden” with the general and less specific term “manager”. I would appreciate the Minister providing some justification for this change.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, on Clause 6, I have a contrary view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I start by reminding the Committee that I have a registered interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council, which directly manages council housing in the borough.
The amendment in my name is related only to Clause 6, which is about social landlords’ right of first refusal to buy back properties. My reason for this amendment is that, first, there is wide agreement that there is a national housing emergency—despite what we have heard in debates on earlier amendments—due to a chronic lack of properties at a social rent. As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Thornhill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the principles underpinning the Bill. Although the primary purpose of the Bill relates to constraining the right to buy, there is, unfortunately, very little ambition to rapidly increase the supply. A rapid increase is desperately needed, given the numbers—over 1 million people on housing waiting lists, the increasing number of people who are homeless, and the absolute scandal of over 170,000 children living in temporary accommodation for long periods.
Clause 6 provides a route by which councils can relatively quickly increase their supply of housing at a social rent. The changes it makes to the right of first refusal are significant. By removing the previous 10-year time limit, the Bill grants local authorities an indefinite right to repurchase former council homes every time they are resold on the open market. That is a powerful mechanism to reclaim lost stock and ensure that these homes return to the social housing sector, where they are so desperately needed.
However, a right is only as effective as the resources available to exercise it. Clause 9 helpfully allows the Secretary of State to let councils retain more of their right to buy receipts by modifying pooling requirements. Although welcome, I am afraid that it is but a drop in the ocean. Retention of receipts alone is not enough. For the following reasons, a dedicated additional funding stream is needed to support Clause 6 repurchases.
The first reason is market value realities. Clause 6 allows councils to buy back homes at market value. Homes sold decades ago have appreciated significantly, meaning that the retained receipts from a limited number of current sales under Clause 9 will be insufficient to buy back a meaningful volume of older stock. In other words, there is not enough cash available.
The second reason is that significant financial savings by both councils and the Government can be achieved by investing in repurchases. Local authorities currently spend £1.7 billion on temporary accommodation every year. That figure, which is from two years ago, has increased by 62% in just five years. Providing additional central funding to buy back permanent social homes would drastically reduce this unsustainable cost to local government.
The third reason is to stop the private transfer of homes. Currently, four in 10 homes sold under right to buy end up in the hands of private landlords, which rather undermines the argument we heard earlier. When they are sold to private landlords, rents inevitably rise significantly and support for tenants is much reduced. Without additional funding beyond the provisions in Clause 9, councils will be forced to watch as these homes are sold to the highest private bidder because they lack the immediate capital to exercise their new indefinite right to first refusal—which we support.
Clause 6 is a positive change, and Clause 9 provides a helpful start for self-funding, but to truly end the housing emergency and deliver the 90,000 new social homes every year that advocates such as Shelter call for—let alone the 150,000 that the Liberal Democrats want—councils must be given access to supplementary grant funding specifically for repurchases. It would be a win-win. Having the funding to buy back former social houses would rapidly increase desperately needed supply and enable families in temporary accommodation to be housed permanently, which both saves expenditure on temporary accommodation and provides families, and especially children, with the stability of a permanent home, which is very important to young people. I hope that the Minister will provide a positive response and open those government purses so that we can achieve a greater number of former council homes being bought back to house folk who desperately need them.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 19, I would like to support my noble friend Lord Jamieson in his promotion of Amendment 25 in respect of rural areas. I have been in enough debates in this House to know how hard it is for the term “rural” to be defined. The lamented right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans entertained us all with a debate about 18 months ago on what rurality meant. There is no definition within the Government or in this country of “rural”. There are a lot of contended assertions that rurality might be this thing or that. So unclear is the term that the Bishop commissioned his own research, and we debated it. I am bound to say that we were no further forward at the end than at the beginning—although last week, in the debate on the rural economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who is in his place, will recall, I advanced the definition of rural as that place where at 11 pm you cannot get an Uber to take you home from the pub, because in the sticks we do things differently. I make this point because if we are to have the term “rural” in Clause 7, it should be much more tightly defined so that we know exactly what we are getting and it goes beyond, “Can you get an Uber or not? Are you in the town or not? Where does the town begin? Where are the suburbs?”, and so forth.
I have made that point, and I now want to dwell on my Amendment 19. I am trying to be helpful here, because later, on Amendment 52 in the next group, I will talk about the concept of locality and recycling the right-to-buy receipts. It has been said that locality is not part of this Bill, but here it is in Clause 7, where the right-to-buy carve-out exists for social homes in national parks. Those places have some of the greatest housing pressures, as well as restrictions on new build, because new homes are restricted in national parks.
My amendment aims to be helpful, because when we had the ministerial drop-in before Second Reading there was a slip of the tongue. The words “national parks” and “national landscapes” were used interchangeably. I have taken that as my cue, because Clause 7 mentions areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am entirely in accordance with those, but there are only 34 areas of outstanding natural beauty, whereas there are 46 national landscapes. Collectively they make up 15% of England, and there are other places in Wales, such as the Gower, and in Northern Ireland there are about half a dozen, including the Antrim Coast and Glens.
I am seeking to avoid confusion between what I believe is the old term—areas of outstanding natural beauty—and the new term, now preferred by government: national landscape. That is why my proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(aa) would make it clear that where there is a national landscape, which includes areas of outstanding natural beauty, covered in new sub-paragraph (1)(b), it really means national landscape. This small amendment seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 7(3) from national parks, to avoid leaving a gap between them and areas of outstanding natural beauty. This should provide the clarity and certainty to make it consistent with the Government’s new nomenclature.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 20. Before I do so, I must refer to my interests for the purposes of this Committee as a retired member of a Somerset farming family which lets some houses on the farm. I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment, notably the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Royall. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who is not in her place, was late with her timing so did not make it to the Marshalled List.
At Second Reading I outlined the affordable housing crisis—I do not think that is overstating the case—that has overtaken many parts of rural England, and how rural housing waiting lists are larger, or are growing faster, than their urban equivalents. I explained that rural communities, rural social networks and even rural services have broken down, while the rural economy is stuttering, with businesses finding it harder to recruit their necessary workforce, and how all this is caused by a lack of affordable housing in the countryside. So it is vital that the local authority housing in rural England is protected from the right to buy.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington, and I declare my various housing interests as in the register. Before considering Amendment 20, perhaps I could extend a word of dissent to the Clause 6 stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. It would remove the proposed extension of the right of first refusal, enabling the obligation to last in perpetuity.
It seems a helpful change to enable the local authority—or, more likely, a nominated housing association—to have a long-lasting opportunity to reacquire a right-to-buy property when it is being sold. The price paid would be the full market value, and it would be determined independently so would involve no loss to the outgoing occupier. Indeed, the vendor could expect a save on fees to estate agents. Although a social landlord buying at full price a home that they previously sold at a substantial discount sounds like a nonsense, this may well be the only or best way of securing the affordable homes that are so badly needed. Indeed, the Government have a fund—the local authority housing fund—specifically to enable councils to buy and modernise existing property.
If, as is likely, the property in question is on an estate or in a block of other homes managed by the local authority or by a housing association, the management and maintenance costs will be more economical for a social landlord than for anyone else. In the case of major upgrades to existing houses or flats on social housing estates, or even their redevelopment, being able to acquire the property will be essential, and the right of first refusal means that they cannot be held to ransom. Extending the right in perpetuity sounds sensible to me.
I added my name to Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. The Bill, in listing exceptions to the right to buy, includes
“an area designated by regulations made by the Secretary of State as a rural area”.
In the past, the areas designated as rural exceptions have covered barely 60% of council homes in rural areas. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to define in a fuller way what a rural area should mean in this context. The case made by my noble friend is twofold: first, that rural areas at large have a particular problem with the right to buy; and, secondly, that for many years those working in rural areas have grappled with an inadequate definition of what comprises a rural area. The amendment makes plain that the exception to the right to buy would cover all sparsely populated areas with populations below 3,000. Clarity on this exemption would be greatly welcome.
I see the case for the widest possible exemption as very necessary. The extraordinary difficulty for the next generation of finding anywhere affordable to live in the rural communities of North Yorkshire, for example, was highlighted at an illuminating event at Ripon Cathedral just last Friday. We learned that social housing comprises 17% of the nation’s homes—and in passing I should make the point that social housing is determined or defined differently in different countries. The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that, in this country, social housing at 17% sounds rather high compared with some European comparators, but in reality in Europe the housing co-operatives and the co-ownership housing schemes—which are subsidised social housing in our sense—are not counted in those same statistics, giving a rather different comparison between us and other countries.
The extraordinary difficulty for the next generation of finding anywhere in North Yorkshire to make their home and remain in an area where they were born, were brought up and now are working was highlighted at this event. We learned that, although social housing comprises 17% of the nation’s homes across the country, in North Yorkshire the figure is only 6.7%. Local people, supported by the excellent rural housing enablers, funded in part by Defra, have struggled to secure a small number of new homes for rent and shared ownership. They have required the bringing together of willing landowners, committed housing associations, the local authority—the combined authority for York and North Yorkshire is behaving in an exemplary fashion—and parish councils. That is no small feat.
The loss of homes for future generations in these projects is not only a bitter blow, after all the work that has gone into their development, but poses an insuperable problem in trying to repeat the exercise to replace the homes that are sold under the right to buy—remembering that 40% of all right-to-buy homes sold are now owned by private landlords, letting at rents of up to three times the previous council social rents. In many rural areas, permanent social housing lettings purchases under the right to buy have gone for Airbnb and other short-term lets.
Where can another site be found to build replacement homes for those that are sold? It may have taken five or even 10 years of persistence to achieve the development for local people. Can this effort be repeated to compensate for the loss of such badly needed accommodation? While there are question marks hanging over the long-term usefulness of homes in these rural developments, how many landowners can be expected to donate sites for them or make land available on very favourable terms?
I strongly support the clarity that we hope this amendment would bring. As I understand it, this chimes with the position of the Minister, who has commented on this issue and whom I have not found so resistant to amendments proposed by noble colleagues.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendments 21, 23 and 24. Amendment 21 is designed to try to understand how the Bill works. It is my understanding that there already are regulations on what is defined as rural, and that they are set out as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to and use the 3,000 population as a base. As far as I am aware, when the population of a parish or village goes over that, it is not automatically removed from being rural—far from it. At the moment, it requires more regulation to be undertaken. That is why I am trying to understand why
“The power under sub-paragraph (2)(b) includes the power … to repeal”
something that is not yet law. I would like to understand how that will work in practice.
Contrary to other noble Lords, I am generally supportive of the right to buy in rural areas. I have heard the arguments multiple times about land, and I do understand that issue. But I am also conscious that the risk is that a lot of villages and small rural places start to become dormitory towns. Thinking about local families, I strongly support seeing what we can do to acquire more land to get more homes, but the issue is often a mixture of where there are jobs and where there are affordability issues in regard to LHA and, frankly, people want to be able to have their family continue in that particular small village or small town. But of course there is no right to pass on council houses or social housing to your children. Would it not be better if we had some way of keeping that character and sense of community by allowing parents—or perhaps a family clubbing together—to buy that social house? There would then be that sense of continuity from generation to generation.
Quite often, it is these same families who volunteer for the RNLI, and I appreciate that there is a technical or operational challenge with people who perhaps are volunteer firefighters. Let us bear in mind that most of the countryside does not have a fire station unless it is manned or staffed by local volunteers, which is quite extraordinary. The constituency I used to represent, of 280 square miles, did not have a single full-time firefighter in it but relied entirely on people who lived and worked locally. It is that lack of continuity of community, and of families who have lived there some time, that I am concerned about. I am concerned that will be lost if somehow there is not this element of being able to try to pass on one property in one family from one generation to the next.
On Amendment 23, quite straightforwardly, thinking of the escalator to home ownership and shared-cost or shared-ownership accommodation, I have never understood why that just stops at 75%. You are given part of the way to home ownership, but it makes you think, “What on earth is the point?”—especially when, quite often, it is pretty difficult to pass on and sell a lot of these homes. People have gone into them thinking that they are their way to get on to the home-ownership ladder, only for the ladder literally to be cut off before they can reach the end. That is also challenging when it comes to getting things such as mortgages and selling on. So I want to understand why we cannot do something more about that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to the clause stand part notices and to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have attached my name. Just for clarity, for the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, his reasons and mine for signing the Clause 6 stand part notice are—I think we can safely say—directly opposed. As I have made clear all the way through, all my clause stand part notices are because I was seeking to end right to buy entirely with Amendment 1. I think that is made obvious by my signing of Amendment 16, a buy-back right to buy. This is also known as “buy the supply”, and my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place has been a particular leader in this area, not surprisingly when you look at Brighton and Hove, which has lost almost a third of its social housing since right to buy came in in 1980.
If you look at the figures across England, by the end of this Parliament we are talking about more than 1.3 million homes lost. What we want to do is get some of those homes back—those homes that were very often built with high-quality build standards, good-sized rooms—a better provision of housing, I dare say, than pretty much anything we are likely to build today. We want to get those homes designed for social housing back into social housing. I note also that my honourable friend—who was previously a London Assembly member, and a member of its housing committee—urged for us to be able to buy back those lost homes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to families in temporary accommodation. Of course, this is a huge issue. It is everywhere, but particularly so in London, where we are seeing often very vulnerable families shipped out of the city very far away to produce huge profits for private landlords in far-flung parts of the country. If London could buy back the supply, that would be potentially transformatory, either for permanent homes or for being able to buy back temporary accommodation. It is also worth noting that my honourable friend—for those noble Lords who have not seen it—has a zine out urging us to buy the supply. It is a lovely, cheerful cartoon publication that noble Lords might like to look up.
I want to make one other comment about the state of where we are now. We have, of course, a struggling housing market. Broadly, the average price of homes in England did not change from March 2025 to March 2026. In fact, there has actually been a decrease in the price to May. I note one market commentator said that we were in the strongest buyer’s market we have seen in years. Surely this is a great time for local councils to be able to be the buyers, to start to reverse some of the damage that has been done. The structure of the amendment reflects the limitations in your Lordships’ House of what we can do in terms of directing the Government to spend money. I will put this on the record here to note that my honourable friend in the other place will be going further, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has given us a very good start.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, indeed I agree that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has given us a very good start, and she was quite passionate in what she was saying. I did tell her there would be a “but”, but it is only a very small one. We absolutely agree in principle that the right of first refusal should apply in perpetuity, but I have concerns about how this would work in reality, and I have raised these with the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, outlined some very serious questions and points that I think we would all appreciate being answered, just about the sheer logistics of how this would actually work for buyers as years go down the line. I am worried that there would be unintended consequences and I am looking forward to the Minister’s answer.
My fear is that in reality this will actually be less effective as a means of getting social housing than we might wish it to be. If a council does have a buy-back fund, there absolutely is no reason why it cannot buy houses on the open market, as indeed I did when I was Mayor of Watford. I just think this one sounds like something that is really going to be good and should happen—and I do believe that; I just think there may be unintended consequences, the logistics might be difficult, and it might not be the silver bullet. But because I believe in retaining social housing stock, I will hope that I am wrong about that.
I want to just pull together a few thoughts about the rural amendments, because one thing I think that we have all noticed in relation to the Bills that we have done—first with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and now with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—rural housing and rural issues do not seem to be given the importance that they absolutely deserve. I am an urbanite but I sit here, time after time, listening to those who know better than me, and colleagues on my own Benches who feel very strongly about this, and I guess my message to the Minister is that the nettle must be grasped on rural issues. I think we would all appreciate seeing a real improvement in that, which is why I found that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Lord, Lord Best—as ever—brought clarity and expertise to this group of amendments that I cannot better.
Amendment 20 is actually a modest, targeted fix to stop the right to buy quietly hollowing out our rural communities, which is happening; but I am also going to be a bit controversial, because one thing that I follow very closely with my housing brief is planning issues, and I note that there are very often major planning disputes. In fact, councils have changed control over rural communities’ campaigning: “Stop the housing development in our village. We do not need this sort of housing”. It is really worrying to me that that is often the case, and it is evidentially the case. The nimbys are absolutely going bananas. There is no doubt about that, and I think that somewhere, we need some leadership around those areas. If you do not have a housing estate that has homes for children, then the local school will undoubtedly die.
There are real issues for regenerating our rural communities, and I think that, unfortunately, they are being hollowed out. I feel very much that the need is greater. Somebody mentioned that phrase in relation to rural communities, but I would also say that the consequences of not doing so are of greater significance; for example, the young people who cannot get to the college in the nearest city or big town. The issues around rurality are huge.
Turning briefly to Amendment 17, I think “warden” is a horrible word. I absolutely agree that the Government should change it. I am not sure about “manager”, because I am not sure of the context, but I absolutely understand why they do not want wardens.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said about the issues around housing in rural areas. I might send her some of the Focus leaflets that I have seen objecting to rural developments.
I begin by focusing on Clause 6 regarding the right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes sold under right to buy. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate on the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a fairly sweeping statement about there being little ambition for increasing supply. I hope that she will have noted both the letter I sent in response to Second Reading and the annexe that was attached to that, which set out in great detail—I mentioned it at the start of Committee today—some of the action that the Government are taking to increase supply.
The first is the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts by councils. That was a big step forward—I campaigned for it for probably 15 years. There is the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation, rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest; a road map for Section 106 delivery, which has been a constant theme of discussions in this House and elsewhere; a complete renewal of the planning framework; £16 billion of National Housing Bank funding; and an ambitious package of support for London. London has been mentioned a couple of times in this debate, and the Government have put in £11.7 billion of funding to support the building of housing in London. I do not consider that a lack of ambition for housing delivery. Of course, we are constrained by the finances available.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
The Minister has provoked me now. All those are positive moves, but how much do they add up to? That is the question. The enormous sum of money that the Government have made available for affordable—I hate that word—and social housing adds up to 180,000 new homes over 10 years, whereas Shelter advocates that 90,000 new social homes to rent are essential every year. That is the scale of the problem, which is why I used the word that I did to criticise the Government for a lack of ambition. We are desperate for increased numbers of social homes. I appreciate what the Government are doing, but I am pretty sure that it does not add up to anywhere near enough.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept to a certain extent what the noble Baroness is saying. No one would be more ambitious than me to deliver more social housing. We are in government and we have to deal with the financial circumstances that we inherited, which included an enormous financial black hole. In that context, the amount of funding that we have allocated for social housing is significant—it is the biggest amount of funding for a generation—as are the other steps that we have taken to move the housing market along, not just in social housing but in other areas as well.
When the economy starts to grow again—we have already seen green shoots—we will be able to put more in, but, for the moment, we have indicated the ambition for increasing supply through what we have done already. We continue to be ambitious, and we will continue to support the growth of affordable and social housing alongside growth right across the housing market, which is really important. I was delighted to see the wraparound on the Metro this morning from Lloyds Bank, talking about how, for the first time since 1996, it has produced a £5,000 starter mortgage for young people. That is brilliant. All the steps that we are taking to increase housing supply across the board show a great deal of ambition, so I wanted to challenge the noble Baroness’s sweeping statement about little ambition for increasing supply.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, proposes to remove Clause 6 entirely from the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendment 16 regarding the resourcing and monitoring of the right of first refusal. Let me start by setting out that the right of first refusal offers an opportunity for social landlords to buy back homes that have been sold under right to buy, at full market value, when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently 10 years after the original sale. Councils have 8 weeks to decide whether to purchase the home when informed by the owner that they are planning to sell, following which the property can be sold on the open market. Under Clause 6, the period will be increased to in perpetuity, so that councils will have the opportunity to buy back the property every time it is resold. This will give councils much more opportunity to buy back future properties sold under the scheme.
The change will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measure comes into force. Homes already sold under right to buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold under the scheme. Where the right of refusal is for 10 years, as it is currently, that will continue to apply. I hope that that clarifies the point. It is for local authorities to decide whether to exercise the right of first refusal, taking into account their local priorities and financial position.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I believe the Minister made a very helpful clarification, and I want to ensure that I heard correctly that it would be up to the local council to have the right of first refusal. Therefore, somebody who owns a right-to-buy house would have to contact only the local council and give it the opportunity of right of first refusal. Just for clarity, I am assuming that, in two-tier areas, it would be the council which has the housing responsibilities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we are moving to single-tier councils across the country, but he is quite correct in his assumption.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for that clarification; it certainly would make it easier that somebody does not have to chase 15 different housing associations that have merged or demerged.
This has been an insightful debate, and I thank noble Lords for the points they have raised. There are evidently some concerns about the Bill’s implications across the Committee, not just about the practicalities but about fairness and things such as definitions of rurality. I am grateful to the Minister for her response to our concerns. However, we still have concerns about extending the right of first refusal in perpetuity and about how this will affect families in the future and former landlords. The clarification addresses some of the complexities, but it is still a basic principle that if you own a house for some period of time, it should truly become yours. I ask the Government to look again.
Clause 7 is certainly controversial, and a number of noble Lords have spoken about the definition of rurality. We have not heard many noble Lords in this Committee saying that they want to give the opportunity to the Secretary of State to define rurality without sufficient parliamentary oversight or without a proposed definition accompanying the Bill. We appreciate that defining rurality is not straightforward—I am pleased with my noble friend Lord Fuller’s definition, “Can you get an Uber?”, and on that basis I am definitely in a rural area. This requires further debate, and I am sure that we will come back to this at a later stage. The point is that, while we recognise the challenges of delivering homes in rural areas, we do not believe that removing the right to buy is fair on those tenants.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that we need to find ways of building new homes in rural areas because the demand is there, and without ensuring that we have a thriving community, the schools, pubs and shops will shut. As an example, in one of my villages, 100 new homes had been built on a new housing estate and when I was knocking on doors—as I do quite regularly—people were saying that the school cannot cope. I had to inform them that the school was half full and that, without that housing estate, it would shut. We are having fewer children per household, and we need to think about having a thriving community, which in some cases needs more houses. We need to think about that more.
On the question of the 35-year restriction for newly built social housing, there is a genuine lack of clarity. I appreciate that the Minister said that 30 to 35 years is often the period over which you recover the full cost of the house. But you are selling the house, and in doing so with the appropriate floor price, you would recover the funding anyway. So it is not clear to me why that is necessary.
Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, raises some interesting questions. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and as a councillor I am all in favour of councils receiving more resources for the good work that they do, but I want to understand the implications of this amendment financially. How many homes would this apply to? What level of resource would it involve? Is it a few million pounds, or could it be billions of pounds a year? There are times when it will be right to buy an existing home. However, at a time when we have a housing shortage and desperately need to build more homes, should we really be focusing limited resources on buying existing homes rather than building new social homes? We need to do more than just think about how we move around the ownership. We need to look at how we increase the number of homes. That is one of the reasons that we are in favour of right to buy: it provides more resources rather than calling on the Government’s limited resources.
I hope that the Government will reflect further on the points raised across the Committee and ensure that these various amendments are duly considered before Report.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. Our amendments are concerned with the governance of capital receipts, and in particular the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 9 to determine their use. As currently drafted, Clause 9 confers a very wide discretion, including the ability to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively. Our concern is not with the principle of having some flexibility but with the balance of power between executive powers and parliamentary scrutiny, and the need to provide certainty to councils which are seeking to build new social homes to replace those sold through right to buy.
We have had discussions earlier in the Bill about the difficulty of getting new social homes built. From my time leading Central Bedfordshire Council, I can attest that setting up a programme to build new council homes is not easy. It involves building a team with the appropriate skills, acquiring sites to build on and generating a pipeline of projects and the financing to fund it. The key to this is a good degree of funding certainty, and that means ensuring the certainty of right-to-buy receipts. Making these potentially subject to the whim of the Secretary of State could fundamentally undermine any such council housebuilding programme. These amendments, therefore, provide that changes to the use of capital receipts should instead be made through regulation rather than through determination. This ensures that changes affecting local authority finances are set out in a transparent framework, subject to appropriate scrutiny and clearly understood by those required to operate within it.
It might have been better for the Government to put their planned level of capital receipt retention in the Bill so we could debate that today. The Government have chosen not to do so, but I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee at what level they intend to set the capital retention. Will local authorities retain 100% of these receipts, or in future will it be set at a lower level, at the whim of the Secretary of State?
Amendment 30 is particularly important. It would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to apply different provisions to different local authorities through determination. Quite clearly, if a council is seeking to build homes in its area and putting in all the effort, and potentially funding, then the last thing that it would want to see is right-to-buy receipts transferred to another authority. While we recognise fully that housing pressures vary across the country, the principle remains that differentiation should be achieved through considered and published frameworks, not through ad hoc determinations decided solely by the Secretary of State. Consistency of framework is the foundation of fairness between authorities.
Amendment 33 introduces a requirement for consultation prior to determination. That reflects a basic principle of good governance: that local authorities, whose financial capacity and housing delivery are directly affected, should have the opportunity to contribute before decisions are made, not simply respond afterwards. Amendment 34 provides for a review of the impact of the Act on home ownership rates. This is a sensible accountability measure: if the policy is intended to support and sustain routes into ownership, Parliament should be able to assess whether it is achieving that objective in practice.
Taken together, these amendments are not about constraining government unnecessarily; they are about ensuring that significant financial decisions in the housing system are taken within a framework that is transparent, consistent and properly accountable to Parliament, and about providing greater certainty for councils seeking to establish their own council housebuilding programme. I look forward to hearing the insights of other noble Lords on this subject. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 52. Before I do so, however, I am sure my noble friend Lord Jamieson misspoke when he referred to Amendment 34, which is actually in the next group.
At Second Reading, I explained that I had a bit of previous in the delivery of social housing; when I was the leader of South Norfolk Council, we consistently delivered more than 1% of the entire national social housing stock in each and every year of the 2010s. We built more affordable homes than the rest of Norfolk put together: it can be done. We were able to do that because I welcomed the way in which receipts received by a council can be recycled by that council in pursuance of the replacement principle. That method—when a home a sold, a new one is built—allows us to refresh the stock of social housing in general.
I have concerns, however, that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one, even if they are in the same housing market assessment area. Let me explain. When my neighbour, Norwich City Council, could not spend its right to buy receipts in time, they were transferred to me, as their neighbour, and new social homes were built in my district, but no more than a mile from the city boundary. My reading of the Bill—and I am quite happy to be corrected on this—is that this desirable substitution behaviour would be left to chance. This is an omission that would see receipts that could really help a local area being grabbed by Ministers instead.
Separately, councils aside, we know that RSLs can allow homes to be acquired but, sometimes, those RSL homes are lost too. My amendment, therefore, would ensure that, for both councils and RSLs, the receipts should be applied to a replacement in the same strategic housing market area, the SHMA, by default. The SHMA is a technical study used by planning authorities to understand current and future housing needs; it evaluates population growth, economic projections and market trends to inform the local plan and housing policies. The SHMA is a thing, and it exists over a housing market area rather than respecting the administrative boundaries of individual councils. SHMAs provide the natural canvas over which people live their lives.
If you are in the housing or planning game, you know what one of these is. Your plan is based on the boundary of the SHMA, not necessarily the administrative boundary of the council, and the numbers for today and tomorrow are predicated on it. I was therefore grateful to the Minister for the drop-in where she explained that it was very difficult to define these territories. I disagree. It is easy: it is in the SHMA. That is how we define housing need. In the previous group, we heard that the Government have defined place-based carve-outs for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, so it is not that hard to define these territories after all.
My amendment would ensure that receipts must be recycled locally by default in a cascade: initially within the council and then between neighbouring councils before being snaffled by the centre; and, in the case of the RSL, within that area. As part of my ward work last week, I was surprised that a home in Brooke in Norfolk, in my ward, where I live, is now managed or directed from Gloucester. The freedom to move receipts from Norfolk to Gloucester within the RSL estate does not really help local people at all. Unless we protect stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it is cheaper, not where it is needed.
So we should recognise that protecting the stock cannot just be a national numbers game and that housing is more local than that. There is a sense that housing is not just part of a place; it defines the place. Ensuring that recycled right to buy receipts are recycled within the place that is defined by the strategic housing market assessment, which all the players in the housing market and planning market know—you can see why my amendment is so important.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
There are a lot of amendments in this group and I do not intend to comment on them all. To me, this group is less about the principle of right to buy and more about what happens to the money raised from it and, more importantly, who controls it. The amendments from the Conservative Benches broadly move in one direction: towards greater transparency, clearer rules through regulations rather than determinations, and more involvement of local authorities and receipts spent locally. Therefore, I hope it is not surprising from these Benches that we have some sympathy with that approach. We particularly sympathise with Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller; his argument about the SHMA is something I would be willing to engage in further.
We believe that decisions about receipts should be transparent and properly scrutinised, and that local authorities should have a meaningful voice in how they are used. These are the principles we would naturally support. However, we are equally clear and would exercise caution in that we should not over-constrain flexibility or make it harder to use receipts effectively to deliver new homes—those of us who have tried to do that know there is many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip and some schemes can take a lot longer to build out than others. We particularly know there is a need for mixed tenure in order to make schemes stack up. Therefore, a degree of flexibility is clearly required.
The real issue to us is not just process; it is about outcome. This is where—spoiler alert—my Amendment 53 speaks directly to this group. It is not enough to argue about how receipts are controlled, although that is important; we must be able to show what they actually deliver. We can refine governance, tighten rules and improve consultation, but unless we can see, year-by-year and authority-by-authority, whether receipts are translating into new social housing, we are still in the dark.
Transparency about process is important, but transparency about outcomes is essential. So, yes, let us discuss how receipts are managed, but we would prefer to have strong checks on whether these receipts actually replace the homes we are losing.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I was not planning to speak in this group, but, after listening to my noble friend and other noble Lords, and after reading Clause 9, it is clear that the Government are intending to take a power to reduce the amount that is payable to the Secretary of State under the regulations. I am not clear why that power is being taken and for what purposes? Under what circumstances would that payment be reduced? Clearly, there is going to be a method for making a determination, but I do not think we know what it is. It would be jolly helpful if we were told what it is.
In particular, it would be helpful to know why the Localism Act insertion into what is currently Section 11(6), which allows the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement with the local authority about this, has been taken out. An agreement of that kind is exactly the sort of way in which the Secretary of State might want to enter into a means of supporting particular use of capital receipts in particular local authorities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
I would like to reassure the House on our intentions behind Clause 9 of the Bill, which relates to the use of receipts from the sale of homes under the right-to-buy scheme. Clause 9 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Every stock-holding authority currently has an agreement with the Secretary of State allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided it spends those receipts on replacement social housing. In practice, this is administratively burdensome for both councils and central government. Currently, whenever the rules on receipts change—for example, permitting councils to combine their receipts with grant funding—the department must reissue all the retention agreements to every stock-holding authority, which is around 160 individual agreements.
Clause 9 replaces this with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to modify these requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements many times over while maintaining oversight. This clause therefore reduces administrative burden, improves responsiveness and supports councils to deliver more homes. The rules on pooling of right-to-buy receipts will continue to be governed by the regulations and any significant changes to those rules will continue to need to be made through a statutory instrument, subject to the negative procedure.
I know it has been a concern of some noble Lords that we may be seeking to use this clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. I reassure noble Lords that this is absolutely not the case. We have committed to allow councils to retain all their right-to-buy receipts indefinitely, and Clause 9 makes it clear that the power of determination cannot be used to increase the amount that local authorities are required to return to the Secretary of State.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for Amendments 26 to 32, which would replace the power Clause 9 introduces for the Secretary of State to make determinations on right-to-buy receipts with a requirement to use regulations in all cases. In July 2024, we were able to act quickly to give local authorities greater flexibility to spend their right-to-buy receipts to accelerate the delivery of new social and affordable homes. Importantly, this included permitting receipts to be combined with Section 106 contributions and removing the cap on the proportion of a new home that can be funded by right-to-buy receipts.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would remove that flexibility and require all changes on right-to-buy receipts to be made through regulations. In practice, this would mean that the existing process would remain in place, with the administrative burden it entails for councils and central government. It would also result in delay and complexity in the system and make it harder to respond to the operational needs or make technical adjustments in a timely way. For these reasons, the Government cannot support these amendments. The current approach strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight.
Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require the Secretary of State to consult local housing authorities before making any determination on the use of capital receipts. I reassure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the importance of engaging with local authorities on these matters. Where changes to rules governing the spending of right-to-buy receipts are proposed, it is standard practice to engage with the sector to ensure those changes are informed by local experience and delivery considerations. Placing a blanket statutory duty to consult in all circumstances would introduce unnecessary rigidity and could delay the implementation of technical or operational changes. It is important that we retain the ability to act flexibly and responsively while continuing to engage with our local authorities in a proportionate and meaningful way.
Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, proposes a new clause be added to the Bill to recycle right-to-buy receipts within the same housing market area before these are returned to the Secretary of State. Under the existing right-to-buy receipts framework, where local authorities are unable to spend the receipts on new affordable housing within the five-year period, the unused receipts must be returned to the Secretary of State. They are then given out as grant to other social housing providers by Homes England, or for receipts in London by the GLA.
Homes England seeks to redistribute those receipts where possible to the same geographical area in which they were generated, and all receipts generated in London are spent in London. Under the framework, local authorities are also able to work with other local authorities on the spending of right-to-buy receipts on new affordable housing and with other local housing providers. The Government are also extending the period in which receipts must be spent to 10 years for receipts generated from 2027-28 onwards, ensuring receipts are retained in the same housing market areas for longer. This is intended to support councils to plan and deliver longer-term and larger projects.
We therefore reject this amendment on the grounds that there is already flexibility with the right-to-buy receipts framework for local authorities to work with other local housing authorities and providers on delivering new affordable homes using those receipts, and that the system for the recycling of receipts already looks to prioritise the spending of the receipts in the area where they were generated.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Much of the discussion has centred on the proper balance between flexibility and accountability. No one disputes that government requires a degree of flexibility in managing housing finance, and for minor technical changes there is reasonable ground for a determination or something similar. There is also no disagreement that local circumstances differ across the country.
However, while I appreciate this is a complex area and some of these things may require a degree of complexity, the basic principle that right-to-buy receipts should be recycled and reused in the area in which they arise is something we feel is important, and it should not be subject to a Secretary of State determination without consultation or some affirmative procedure in the House. That is the key question here. If the Minister is going to bring forward suggestions at a later stage that differentiate between a minor technical change and the principle we are talking about, that would be a much better solution than those we have seen here, which potentially give the Secretary of State much greater powers than many of us would like. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership(1) Within the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among former social tenants.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of this Act on—(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,in the calendar year prior to the review.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 34, I shall speak also to Amendment 74, in both my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson.
Too often, housing legislation is judged by the intentions rather than the results it produces. Yet, it is the outcomes that matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said earlier. Whether we are considering home ownership, social housing provision, affordability, public expenditure or the impact of the policy on different groups within society, Parliament should have access to the evidence necessary to determine whether reforms are working in practice.
To begin on Amendment 34, home ownership remains one of the most important aspirations for many people across this country. The amendment would require a review of the impact of this Act on those very ambitions. The Bill contains a number of significant reforms to a system that has aided home ownership. Thus, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should understand what effect those reforms have on people’s ability to own their own home.
I was also pleased to see Amendment 58A in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. There is a clear connection between her amendment and Amendment 34. If Parliament is to understand the impact of this legislation on home ownership, it should also understand the impact on right to buy and the opportunities available to social tenants who aspire to own their own home.
Amendment 73 would require a fiscal impact assessment of the Act. This is not an onerous request. The measures in the Bill will have implications for housing providers, local authorities, taxpayers and wider public finances. Parliament should be able to assess those impacts in a systematic and transparent manner.
These amendments are not about frustrating the implementation of the Bill. Rather, they are about ensuring that Parliament retains the ability to evaluate its effectiveness. Good policy should not just withstand detailed scrutiny but be rooted in evidence. If the Bill succeeds, the Government should be able to demonstrate that success. If it falls short, Parliament should have the evidence necessary to understand why, and to make improvements. That is the purpose of these amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 95. As is clear, it is a probing amendment, and a permissive amendment that would require the Government to make provision by regulations for requiring social housing providers to publish data and evaluation on policies for developing social rented housing for families. This amendment is clearly in scope, but the important context to remember is that housing is an important part of economic and social policy, and particularly social housing. Getting housing policy right has an impact on population, on public services and on economic growth.
This is an important amendment, and will require debate and discussion within government, because we have a crisis in family formation. The total fertility rate is 1.39 children per woman, compared with the 1960s when it was 2.9 and the 1970s when it was 1.7. It has been declining since 2012. There were 585,396 live births last year, a reduction on the previous years. There are societal reasons for that, principally around childcare costs but also housing costs and other societal issues, including financial uncertainty about delayed parenthood and more women being involved in the labour market than in the 1960s and 1970s. This amendment is saying not that women should have more children per se but that it is good policy for the Government to be in a position to understand their duties and responsibilities in a wider economic sense to collate, collect and analyse information, and to encourage registered social providers and local authorities to help families who want to get into social housing.
For instance, the Government might require local plans and housing needs assessments to track and plan for bedrooms and family-sized homes, not only total dwelling numbers. We know that the experience over the last 10 or 15 years has been a drive, because of affordability issues, in planning policy across local authorities, towards flats and smaller units. This is essentially inimical to families being able to move into social housing accommodation.
We would expect local plans and housing needs assessments to specify an evidence-led bedroom mix in areas with strong demand from young families, and to use policy design codes and public funding levers—particularly in social housing—to secure an adequately supply of three-bedroom homes in both urban and suburban locations. Planning policy should actively favour small and medium-sized schemes, which deliver an above-average share of three-bedroom homes and usable private or shared play space, especially where developments are under 50 units and local impacts are modest. National planning policy and local design codes should encourage mid-rise terraces and mansion block-style flats with shared gardens, courtyards and safe streets, rather than long corridors of single-aspect one-bedroom units.
I do not expect the Minister to respond to this amendment in detail, but it is a good start to enable local authorities and the Government to get a handle on encouraging families to access social housing. That would make a big contribution to a good social and community mix across all communities—rural, suburban and urban. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that this begins a useful debate on an issue that is important to us all, and particularly important to an ageing population with fewer young people in the workforce, and to resolving the significant issues we have around family formation and the provision of social housing.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 58A in this group. I am delighted to support the other amendments in the group about which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has spoken, asking the Government for various assessments of impact.
The Government contend that they want to protect the stock of social housing but also to maintain the right-to-buy scheme, but under the Bill tenants are likely to be discouraged from exercising the right to buy by obstacles, delays and uncertainties posed for a renter aspiring to home ownership. My amendment would require the Government to provide on an annual basis, once the Bill comes into operation, an analysis of the income to the public purse as a result of any change in the number of sales, broken down by the numbers sold, the resulting income and additional income from cost savings from overhead and maintenance when a property is sold and no longer a charge on the council. This should equip the Government to assess the scheme and its costs in the round against competing commitments when establishing an order of priority in spending, as Governments must do, and an overall budget. Councils too would have the essential figures to judge how best to meet their competing commitments and responsibilities.
Indeed, for a democratic system such as the UK, Parliament should also be given the full picture to assess matters and judge how the legislation is operating. Above all, the public, who foot the bills through council tax, rates and general taxation, and who face the highest overall levels of certain taxes—income tax et cetera—since records began in 1948, should also know what impact these changes will have in respect of right-to-buy sales. One of the most popular measures passed by any Government since the 1980s, right to buy has enabled 1.9 million council homes in England alone to be sold to tenants so that they can stand on their own two feet.
There are two deeper reasons for my amendment. First, there is the imperative of obliging any Government to take account of the finances of the country in making policy, and the burdens their policies might place on the economy and on the people and businesses who work and pay taxes. Secondly, there is a need to reduce benefit dependency, yet one of the most effective ways of reducing dependency is to help people to buy their own homes. By contrast, one of the most dangerous ways of encouraging dependency is to put increasing numbers of people in the socially rented sector, where already 25% of households fall into the economically inactive category and other inactive categories. This is excluding people who are retired or have a physical impairment. If the Government are serious about reducing dependency, they should not be putting new obstacles in the way of people who want to buy their council houses.
I hope the Government will accept this modest amendment for an impact statement on the results of the Bill. This would ensure that the Government themselves, the councils and everybody who needs to know has the knowledge of the outcomes of the new arrangements, so that we have the evidence to measure the impact of the Bill on right-to-buy sales and associated finances. On that basis we can review the Bill and, if necessary, make changes.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 101 and 104 in this group, which are in my name. Quite simply, they would impose equality impact assessments and ESG assessments, ensuring that, in this important area of work, local authorities and landlords are doing the right thing by tenants but in a way which is equitable across all protected characteristics for the many vulnerable people they have in their care in the social housing sector.
That is critical as, without an EIA, it is impossible to have the evidence that something is occurring. This would be good not only for tenants and those who want to see that the right thing is being done but for landlords and those with responsibilities. The evidence could be brought to bear that they are operating in a way which is equitable and accessible, and they could prove that point. If the EIA demonstrated that that is not the case, action could be taken to address those inequalities.
On Amendment 104 and the ESG assessment, the environmental case is clear for housing with the energy crisis we currently have. Equally important are the “S” and “G”, which often do not get the same focus. Looking at the composition of housing boards here is critically important as well. Quite simply, the two amendments would fit together to ensure that there is clarity around EIA and ESG when it comes to this important area of work.
Lord Deben (Con)
I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in particular on the ESG framework. The reason is, frankly, that we need better figures about what is happening. I say to the Minister that this is not because I disagree with the Bill—in many ways it is a perfectly reasonable Bill—but because Parliament needs to know more about what happens when we make decisions and what is actually on rather than what we hoped was going to happen. That is why these two amendments are valuable.
I hope the Minister will not be disappointed if I say that I am very much concerned about the protected characteristics. However, I also want to say that I was disappointed that, in her summing up at Second Reading, she did not refer in any way to the problems of rural housing. We talk about protected characteristics, but the way in which this House increasingly ignores what is happening in rural areas is a disgrace. The ESG framework, proposed in Amendment 104, is important here, because there is a particular problem in the countryside with the quality of social housing that is provided. I hope that the Minister will, in future, always think about the particularities and worries of the countryside. Above all, we need to know, because then we can assess whether this is as good a Bill as we hope it will be or whether it will need changes in the future. If we do not have the figures, we cannot possibly make proper statements.
I hope that housing can be more and more understood as something that can be cross-partied agreed, disagreed and argued, and then it will come down to the facts. For far too long we have argued about housing from principles and party-political views and have not got down to where we actually are. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has done the Committee a great service in asking that we get facts and know what is actually happening in order that we can make decisions in the future.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as this group of amendments focuses on the outcomes and impacts of the measures in the Bill, I start by drawing the attention of noble Lords to the economic impact assessment for the Bill, published today on GOV.UK. I know this will be greatly welcomed by many in the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me during Second Reading when it was going to be published, so I am pleased to say that it is now on the Government’s website.
England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through this package of right-to-buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all receipts from sales and reducing cash discounts, alongside the provisions in the Bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period, instead of a loss. That is a 44,000-home turnaround, marking a clear shift towards rebuilding social housing and replenishing depleted stock at scale. This demonstrates the significant impact our Bill will have, in combination with the Government’s wider package of right-to-buy reforms, in turning around decades of social homes being lost and not replaced.
Amendments 34, 58, 58A and 73, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Lawlor, are well intentioned and reflect a shared desire to ensure that the financial and wider impacts of the Bill are properly understood. As I have already set out, the Government have now published our economic impact assessment alongside the Bill’s parliamentary passage. We have established arrangements to monitor the effects of the Bill on the social housing sector and on those affected by it. These three amendments would require additional statutory reporting shortly after commencement and as soon as six months following Royal Assent. However, we know that many of the measures in the Bill will take time to emerge in practice and cannot be meaningfully assessed within that timeframe. A further statutory review would risk duplicating existing analysis, while providing only a partial and potentially misleading picture of the Bill’s true impact.
I point the noble Baronesses to the comprehensive suite of published statistics already available, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, right-to-buy sales and replacements data, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply, all of which are published on GOV.UK. These datasets provide detailed information at local authority level, including applications, completed sales, replacements, discounts and property characteristics, and will continue to offer a clear and transparent overview of the impact of the Bill, including on home ownership, as it comes into force.
We are aligned in wanting a clear understanding of the Bill’s effects, but we differ on whether additional statutory reporting requirements are the best way to achieve that aim. Given the recently published assessment and our ongoing commitment to monitoring and reporting on the impact of the package of right-to-buy reforms and the wider Bill, I hope the noble Baronesses will reflect on these points and agree not to press their amendments.
Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to require local authorities and registered providers to publish annual social housing outcomes broken down by protected characteristics. Although the Government strongly support transparency and the importance of monitoring equalities outcomes, we do not consider the amendment necessary or proportionate. There are already existing statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty, which require local authorities and registered providers to have due regard to equalities impacts in exercising their functions.
In addition, providers are already subject to regulatory oversight and data collection requirements, and we are mindful of the need to avoid imposing duplicative reporting burdens that would divert resources from front-line delivery. The amendment would introduce a prescriptive and potentially rigid framework, including requirements around statistical thresholds and impact assessments, which may not be proportionate in all cases. We therefore consider that the objectives of the amendment are better achieved through existing duties and ongoing work with the regulator, rather than through additional primary legislation, and we ask that the amendment not be pressed.
On Amendment 104, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, while we support the ambition to improve energy efficiency and ensure better outcomes for tenants, we do not consider a statutory ESG framework to be the right approach. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to a warm and safe home, which is why we are introducing new minimum energy-efficiency standards for social housing. As part of the decent homes standard, this will require all social housing landlords to bring new and existing social homes up to reformed standards that will keep homes warmer and help to make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants.
The amendment would introduce a broad and undefined set of obligations under a single framework, which, given that we have already confirmed our new minimum energy-efficiency standards for social housing, risks creating uncertainty for providers about how these requirements would operate in practice and how they would interact with existing standards and investment programmes. The amendment also seeks to combine environmental requirements with equalities reporting in a single legislative framework, which may not be the most effective way to drive progress in either area. These issues are best addressed through targeted policy levers and sector-specific regulation, where expectations can be updated over time to reflect changing evidence and priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to issues around rural housing. I cannot remember whether he was in the Chamber earlier when we had a short debate about rural housing. At Second Reading I was not able to respond to all the points that were made so I wrote to all Members who were present at that debate on 8 June, including a whole paragraph on rural housing. Therefore, I hope that he feels I have not ignored the points that were raised during the debate. We will continue to discuss rural housing in your Lordships’ House.
To return to the amendment on the ESG framework, we do not consider it appropriate to legislate for a new framework in this form.
On Amendments 117A and 119A, the Government are fully committed to considering equalities impacts throughout the development and delivery of policy. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to place a requirement of this breadth in the Bill or to link it directly to commencement. Equalities considerations are already embedded through the public sector equality duty, which requires ongoing, proportionate and responsive assessment rather than a single static exercise covering every provision in detail. This ensures that analysis can evolve in the light of new evidence and real-world implementation, rather than relying on a single static assessment of the entire Act.
By contrast, Amendment 117A would require a full retrospective assessment of the entire Act in a highly prescriptive form. This risks creating a resource-intensive process that may add limited practical value, particularly where impacts are already understood or mitigated through existing safeguards, and could reduce the ability to refine analysis over time. For those reasons, we believe that the equalities impacts are addressed most effectively through the existing framework, which supports continuous, responsive decision-making, rather than through a one-off statutory requirement linked to commencement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his Amendment 95. This seeks to introduce a requirement for social housing providers to assess and report on the impact of changes in planning policy, funding and standards on the availability and affordability of family-sized social rent homes. I agree with the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient availability of social rent homes for young families. However, this amendment is not the right way forward. It risks creating a burdensome new requirement for providers and many of its aims are already achieved through other means. The National Planning Policy Framework already requires local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including families with children and those who require social and affordable housing.
This assessment should be informed by estimates of the current and projected number of households which lack their own housing or cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market, taking into account the number of households in overcrowded housing and those householders currently housed in unsuitable dwellings. I am sure that from his time as a council leader the noble Lord will remember this process very well. Local plans should reflect this assessment in their planning policies, including by specifying the type and mix of affordable housing that should be delivered on new developments to meet identified local needs. The Government already publish statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, showing the gross annual supply of affordable homes. Information on the number of affordable homes delivered under the Homes England affordable housing programmes is also published twice a year.
Social housing providers would cover both private registered providers and local authority registered providers. There are more than 1,300 of the former and more than 200 of the latter. It would be a significant ask to require registered providers to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of planning policy in the way proposed in the amendment. I would therefore have significant concern about the potential burden imposed by such a requirement. The Government are rightly demanding more than ever from our social landlords; in particular, that they deliver the quality homes and services that their tenants deserve and build the social homes that we need so much. Providers need to be able to focus on those priorities and we need to be cautious about imposing additional duties on them that might be better delivered through other means.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has referred a number of times to the publication of the impact assessment. I am not aware that the Minister wrote to Members of this House who spoke at Second Reading or who might be tabling amendments this evening to draw attention to this being published. It is not to be found among the Lords papers on the table outside, so we were not aware of it coming into the House for this purpose. It is not to be found on the parliamentary website. I understand that it is to be found on GOV.UK, but that is not satisfactory. My expectation is that if a Minister at the Dispatch Box refers to a paper, that paper should have been provided to Parliament.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments. I will check why that has not happened, but it is certainly on the GOV.UK website.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I feel duty bound to correct the Minister. She promoted me to being a former leader of a council. I had the honour to be a borough councillor for eight years and a constituency Member of Parliament but never a leader of the council.
Also, the very helpful and comprehensive letter that the Minister sent to noble Lords in the wake of Second Reading was helpful and the best letter that I have received from a Minister. I thank her for that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for the error and thank him for his kind comment.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
It is certainly one to note, is it not?
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for her response. The amendments in this group all seek to understand how we will know whether this legislation has succeeded. My noble friend Lady Lawlor rightly focused on the impact of the right-to-buy scheme and the opportunities for home ownership. I thank her for her work on this.
I was also interested in Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough—who was not a council leader. It raises important questions about the availability of homes delivered and whether the housing stock being provided actually meets the needs of families and communities. Understanding the impact of policy on the availability and affordability of larger social rented homes is certainly worth while.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, raise broader questions about transparency, accountability and how Parliament monitors the impact of housing policy across different communities. Noble Lords may have differing views on the precise mechanisms proposed, but these amendments seek to ensure that the consequences of the policy are properly understood and that disparities are identified where they exist. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points that have been made during this debate, as well as look at the equality impact assessment. However, I hope that the Government will also reflect on the broader principle that sits behind this group; namely, that Parliament should not simply legislate and move on but retain the means to assess whether its legislation is delivering the outcomes that are intended. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Monday 15th June 2026
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (15 Jun 2026)
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, some of which I have co-signed with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford. I think we were probably both approached by the same organisation. There is one I have tabled which he has not co-signed, but I will not steal his thunder, apart from on the one that is in my name, Amendment 39. If necessary, I will come back to other amendments later, as I do not want to talk over what the noble Lord may have already prepared.
I will start straightaway. In the previous debate, I said that rural people should have the right to buy, disagreeing with some of the proposals in the Bill and some of the arguments made by other noble Lords. Amendment 36 is basically saying that housing associations and local housing authorities should not be allowed to sell properties in rural areas. If somebody cannot buy it, why is it that a housing association should be able to sell it to the private market directly? The reason I say this is that, if we are concerned about the housing stock, and that is the reason to not allow a property to be sold to those already living in it and paying rent on it, then I do not understand why other private providers or private buyers should be able to come in, just because they have the money.
Noble Lords may wonder why a housing association would want to sell in a rural area. My experience is that, as housing associations have got larger and larger, people are starting to come from further away. Principally, they have discovered a need to try to build homes quite some distance away. I referred to this at Second Reading, so I will not labour the point, but I have seen it happen in places such as Aldeburgh and Orford, in Suffolk. What has ended up happening is that homes are being built in Essex or in Cambridgeshire, not in the local area. It does not feel right to me that we can now, through this legislation, ban somebody who has been living in a home from buying it but we are not stopping the provider that owns it from selling it.
That links strongly to my Amendment 48B, on the supplementary list, which says let us not have cash purchases; these properties cannot be sold for cash. My experience is that, quite often, a local housing association will try to sell off a dwelling, and there are two ways you can sell in an auction. You can sell for the unconditional auction approach, where you give up 10% of the price straightaway and then have to provide the 90% within 28 days, or you can go for the modern market auction, where you can potentially get a mortgage and you have 56 days to come up with the money. I do not know how many people would necessarily be able to come up with a spare £250,000—as happened in a recent sale—for the initial deposit or be able to come up with the rest of the money within 28 days, but that is the basis on which housing associations are selling property around the country. I do not think that is right.
How is it that some wealthy person—a developer or entrepreneur—can buy such properties? The property I am thinking of could probably have had two or three houses built on it, with the size of the garden, and yet local people and the local council were not in the position to be able to buy that property. My amendment is quite blunt in seeking to prohibit cash purchases. It is done deliberately to provoke a discussion about who is buying when there is this big sell-off.
I can visualise another property: a block of flats traditionally used by older people. Four years after the sale, again as a cash purchase, it is, surprisingly, still sat there; nothing has happened to the property and it is starting to look downgraded. I wonder if the real strategy is that the property becomes so bad that the purchasers end up getting permission to knock it down. The Minister will recall that, in previous legislation, I tried to encourage noble Lords to get to a situation where we could compel the council—this was for assets of community value, which is a slightly different matter—to use its powers to make sure that properties are kept in good nick. In this case, that has not necessarily been the case. I am trying to stop such behaviour and see what can be done with rural housing, if we are not going to allow people who live there to buy it.
I have a series of other amendments. I have already explained that I have co-signed those which the Local Councils Network suggested. They merit debate and, although I do not agree with every single one of them, I thought it was important to discuss some of the wider points. As I said, I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford.
Straightforwardly, Amendment 39 would extend the notification period to eight weeks. The Local Councils Network has suggested that four weeks is simply not enough time for a council or housing association to make a financial decision to purchase a property, which typically requires a formal cabinet decision. It suggests that eight weeks is the minimum needed and that, during that period, if the council or another housing association submits an offer, on the existing use value for social housing, the selling housing association must accept it; if no offer is received, the property could proceed to open market sale, as it does now. I do not know the motive for four weeks, but the case has been reasonably well made for why, if this is intended to allow councils to step in and purchase those properties, eight weeks is more sensible, giving them more time to get their act together.
On Amendment 47, I appreciate we have covered this issue in previous debates. I forgot to mention it earlier, but I had not tabled amendments to those amendments. If I think about areas with populations of about 3,000, for house occupation we are talking, on average, about 1,400 houses. What most people would consider to be rural is probably quite a bit smaller than that, so I have proposed the figure of 1,000, so that we can think that through. I am conscious that we have already had the debate on what rural is, so I do not expect the Minister to respond on Amendment 47. Amendment 46 is still there, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, will not be upset by my tabling an amendment to his amendment.
Having moved Amendment 36, I may come back to some of the other amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, will speak.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my name is on Amendments 37, 38 and 44 in this group, all relating to the disposal of social housing to other buyers—which is quite separate from the right to buy for existing tenants, as they are sales to other purchasers. I have a good deal of sympathy with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Amendment 37 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and would require notification of the proposed sale, by a housing association selling social housing, to the regulator of social housing—as well as to the local authority, as is already in the Bill. Amendment 38 would require the notification to be submitted not four weeks in advance of a disposal, as the Bill specifies, but eight weeks in most areas and 12 weeks in a designated rural area, which I will come back to. I support Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, which he will explain in a moment. Finally, Amendment 44 in my name relates to adaptations made to properties that are going to be sold.
Disposals—sales to any buyer—of social housing have become a bone of contention in a number of places. They mean a loss of accommodation at social rents at a time when there is such a desperate shortage of affordable accommodation. Selling the family silver—even if it needs a good polish—is a short-term solution to the problem of social providers needing to balance the books. Some existing stock is in poor condition, requiring expensive repairs, while some is in places that are at an inconvenient distance from the organisation’s management and maintenance services. Sometimes the social landlord is simply taking the opportunity to sell valuable assets to fund development or major repairs elsewhere.
The Bill’s response to this phenomenon, which has become surprisingly extensive, is to require notification of the plan to sell to be given to the local authority and to local social housing providers. The housing association would be prevented from selling the home for four weeks after it had served notice of its intention. This is a very modest step to discourage loss of stock, which may then be acquired by less scrupulous landlords. Disposals are particularly undesirable where the same local authority may see the property relet by a private landlord at a much higher rent, not least as temporary accommodation. This is not good value for money.
The Chartered Institute of Housing makes the additional point that housing associations need to notify local authorities of a planned sale so that councils’ strategic plans for future development can be determined on the basis of what is happening to the existing stock. But the four-week notice period to be given of a sale presents a very tight timetable for local authorities to find another housing association to purchase the home, to do so themselves or to find funding for the same association to repair and improve the property it owns.
Amendment 37 would require notification to the social housing regulator, as well as to the local authorities, and would enable the social housing regulator to keep a record of what is going on, assess the impact and decide whether changes in its own policy are worth while. The housing associations are complaining that the reason they need to sell property that would otherwise have a decent life is that the regulator is imposing upon them all kinds of additional burdens that they then have to fund: regulatory measures, minimum energy-efficiency standards, building safety costs following the ghastly Grenfell Tower tragedy, and Awaab’s law where housing associations must now complete works on cold and mould in fixed timescales. All these measures are requiring and pressurising housing associations to spend more on their existing stock of property, and that is given as a reason for needing to sell to make up the balances they need. Notifying the social housing regulator is important in informing the regulator of what these pressures mean in real life to the housing associations.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Local Councils Network for its help with the amendments in this group in which I am involved. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her support for a number of them. I am pleased to support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Basically, the thinking behind all these amendments is that with social housing units that are sold off and disposed of, we are always in danger of losing a valuable social asset. So it is important that whenever a social housing unit is coming up for sale, everything is done to make sure that it is used as a unit for social housing, if it can be, and that we do not lose that in the community. I am not dealing with rural areas in my remarks, but I understand the importance of social housing units disappearing in rural areas.
There is also an issue with housing associations becoming larger and across wider geographical areas; they sometimes lose their connection with the localities because of their spread. Therefore, it is essential that where these sales and disposals take place, they are held to account.
I obviously support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made the same point about extending the one month to two months so that the regulator can be informed and there is a proper period of time for whoever could purchase this social housing unit to look at how they can do it. In Amendment 45, we have put in some requirements for information about the housing unit, as to whether it is decent homes-compliant and on its energy performance. It is about getting all the details of the property together at the same time, so that the process does not become overbureaucratic and prolonged and can instead be quite straightforward.
The main amendments I have put forward in this group are Amendments 38, 41 and 42. These go further than just informing the local authority or other local housing association that a property is being disposed of, and would actually put a right to refuse in the hands of a local authority or the local registered provider to obtain the property at existing use value. It would strengthen the mechanism and the incentive for somebody to step in to save this property for social use, rather than allowing it to go out into the private market.
That is why these amendments are important: they would give the right of first refusal both to local authorities and to local housing associations to buy the properties. Social housing is very valuable, and we must keep it as much as we can. Obviously, there will be circumstances where it might not be appropriate, but these amendments are intended to put safeguards in and to give every incentive for a local authority or a housing association to participate and acquire these properties so we do not lose them as social housing units. I hope that the Minister will give very close consideration to accepting some of these improvements.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 46, and I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their support.
As I explained at Second Reading and as we have heard already today, the shortage of affordable housing in rural areas has had, and continues to have, long-term social and economic consequences for our rural communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services, quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional social networks have also collapsed, and recent evidence now suggests—as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said—that the lack of supply caused by low levels of new provision of affordable housing to rent is being exacerbated by registered providers disposing of their rural stock. Very often, this rural stock is old and in need of expensive modernising, particularly the need to achieve energy efficiency and modern EPC targets. Furthermore, to make matters worse, they are often high market value rural homes, whose sale receipts could possibly help pay for larger housing projects in more accessible locations that offer economies of scale without the extra costs and complexities of small rural schemes.
The business case for these disposal decisions is irrefutable, but the evidence suggests that these decisions are not recognising the important role that an affordable home plays in a rural community. The evidence shows that there has been a significant increase in rural disposals over the last five years, particularly by the larger registered providers. Once sold, it is difficult to replace these homes in the affected rural community, as opportunities for new affordable developments are scarce, particularly in high-value landscapes or areas affected by ecological constraints or in coastal areas.
There is a need for both our amendment and the Government’s existing Clause 11. The Bill’s current amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act simply requires registered providers to notify local authorities of a disposal, but with very short notice, as has been noted. It would not prevent such disposals, nor open the opportunity for the registered provider and the local authority to explore other options that would avoid the disposals in rural communities, where these may be the last social housing in a rural area.
My amendment would give the rural local authority early visibility of stock conditions, asset plans and disposal strategies and would enable local authorities to plan for likely losses as well as new supply. It would open opportunities to consider purchase, retrofit, renovation, rural regeneration or other interventions before homes and land are lost permanently. Could local authority funding be available to fund replacements in the communities concerned? Could local authority funding help modernise the property or properties, making a sale unnecessary? Perhaps a package of rural sales and rebuilds could attract Homes England regeneration funding. Or, given the large plots of some of these homes, could everyone get together to redevelop the site to provide more homes?
In effect, this would be a pre-emptive stage before any decision to sell is taken. I hope that this kind of information sharing would also lead to a better partnership working between registered providers, local authorities and community stakeholders. However, I should say that to find the right solutions takes time—hence the need in our amendment for a 12-month notice.
As it stands, the current amendment in Clause 11 is more suited to non-rural areas, where there is more social housing and there are more opportunities for replacement. A disposal in these locations would not be as catastrophic as losing the last affordable home in a village or undermine the local authority’s strategy priority to support rural affordable housing delivery and sustainable communities. The notification of a proposed sale will still be important, giving the local authority some time to consider repurchase or using resources to bring a home up to standard. However, I am very concerned that four weeks is a totally inadequate period for local authorities to master the necessary resources for these actions; even 12 weeks would be pushing it. In rural areas, where a long-term strategic approach is necessary, I believe that constant communication and at least 12 months’ notice of an intention to sell will be the least amount of notice necessary.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will say something about disposals, but as this is the first time I have spoken in the debate, I will make some general comments in support of the Bill.
Social homes are a vital resource for low-income families, and the current system has depleted that stock for decades. I therefore welcome measures in this legislation to protect social housing stock by reforming right to buy. With over 170,000 children currently living in temporary accommodation, it is essential that social homes are protected so that housing associations and councils have the confidence they need to build more social homes at pace. Measures to increase the minimum qualifying period for right to buy to a period of 10 years, reform right to buy discounts and introduce a new 35-year exemption for newly constructed social housing will boost councils’ confidence to build while ensuring that right to buy is more sustainable and better value for taxpayers’ money.
The proposed reforms to right to buy in this legislation have been broadly welcomed by the social housing sector. That is because the current system is not sustainable; it has led to a depletion of social housing stock that is desperately needed, as several others have said. Councils in particular have been unwilling to invest in new social homes that may be quickly sold at a discount.
Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor, seeks to remove right-to-buy eligibility from residents who own other residential property. It is a sensible measure to ensure that a new, reformed right-to-buy system is fair, proportionate and offers value for money.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I wonder if the noble Baroness realises that we covered Amendment 4 earlier.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
I did realise that, which is why I made the point that I just wanted to make some general references because it is the first time that I have spoken. I will continue on to my point. I had wanted also to say something about the impact on rural affordable housing, but I echo so much of what others have said.
I will move on to the point about disposals. Given our acute shortage of social housing, concerns about any social housing being sold by registered providers is understandable. However, a nuanced approach to the issue of disposals and stock management is needed as far as housing associations are concerned.
It is also important to put a limited number of social housing disposals in a wider context. The number of social homes owned by housing associations has consistently grown in recent years, increasing by over 26,000 per year for the last three years, so the sale of housing association homes out of the social rented sector has not resulted in any net loss of social homes.
Some housing associations have a proactive strategy to sell a limited proportion of their homes. It is standard practice as part of wider stock management planning, where the proceeds of sale enable the landlords to invest in building more new, higher-quality homes. One sale often funds the development of more than one home, so a flexible approach to disposals enables housing associations to contribute to the Government’s target of building 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. For example, one mid-sized housing association has a 3:2 disposals programme, where three social homes are built for every two sold. Importantly, all five of these homes are subsequently part of the overall housing mix.
Disposals can be a proportionate, effective and constructive tool used by housing associations as part of their long-term stewardship of social housing. The National Housing Federation has argued that requirements under new Section 171A strike an appropriate balance between a line for effective collaboration between housing associations and local authorities without placing undue restrictions on effective stock management. However, housing associations have emphasised the importance of retaining flexibility to make the best decision for individual properties. Anything which limits this choice risks having a detrimental effect on housing associations’ ability to make prudent decisions about the best way to manage their homes in the long term. A right of first refusal to local authorities, as set out in Amendments 41 and 42, would impose restrictions on this flexibility.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, this has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. I thank noble Lords who have taken the time to table these amendments. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her diligent work.
On Amendment 36, we need to look at where social housing is most effective, but we must also consider legitimate reasons why a sale could be beneficial. With regard to Amendment 47 in her name, and Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, we stated our position in the last group. Defining what counts as a rural area is beyond the scope of this debate and deserves much more scrutiny. That said, we recognise that local authorities and private registered providers should try to work together more closely in the interests of local communities.
Amendments 40 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and my noble friend Lady Coffey seek to give registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rented dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities as existing use value for social housing. Noble Lords have made an interesting case and we need to look at this proposal further. Certainly, I could add some fruity stories from Bexley: the frustration of losing nomination rights and an elderly person’s block being sold at auction and turned into a cannabis factory that was then set light to. There are some things out there that we should be aware of.
Amendment 37 seeks to extend the notification of a proposed sale to cover the regulator of social housing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the appropriateness of this. Amendment 45 adds details to what must be included in a sale notice and Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to add to this list information regarding the accessibility of a dwelling to wheelchair users and people with mobility problems. These are important considerations and it is right that these sale notices are comprehensive, to provide a full picture.
Turning to Amendment 43 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, we felt it important to draw the House’s attention to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers. We must be careful not to infringe on their independence or on property rights to ensure that relationships between private providers and local authorities are based on genuine co-operation and partnerships to deliver better outcomes.
Finally, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group. We do not want uncertainty on the statute book over which resolution procedure applies, and we are pleased that the Government have sought to fix this issue. I once again thank noble Lords for the issues they have raised, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments, which consider a range of issues relating to the operation of the disposals measures in the Bill. The Bill is about supporting the supply of new social housing and to achieve this we must ensure that we are taking steps to protect the existing housing stock. In addition to the right-to-buy reforms we have discussed, the Bill’s new disposal notification requirement will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. That will improve transparency and provide earlier visibility where homes may be lost from the social housing sector, maximising opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.
It is important that this new requirement is balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are still free to take their own responsible decisions about how they manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. In some cases, this means selling homes, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Warwick, which we do not seek to inhibit or restrict with this measure. Rather, this measure aims to strike the right balance, maximising opportunities to keep housing in the social sector while ensuring that registered providers can determine their own responsible approach to asset management.
Amendments 37 and 40 from the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, would add the regulator of social housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring that our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services their tenants deserve. As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I am not persuaded that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable them to better regulate against the standards that they set. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals and that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so that gives them an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would increase the period between notification and when a sale can occur from four weeks to eight weeks generally, and to 12 weeks in designated rural areas. Amendment 39 from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also seeks an extension to eight weeks. I hope noble Lords will appreciate there is no right or wrong period here for the time that must elapse before sale. It is a balance that seeks to ensure that enough time is provided as a minimum for the local authority, or any interested private registered provider, to ask questions and engage in dialogue but avoids unduly delaying the many sales that will continue to proceed.
I should also emphasise that this is the minimum period that must elapse. Where there is serious and active interest from other landlords, I would expect that a private registered provider would wish to engage and be flexible beyond that four-week minimum. However, I absolutely understand the noble Baroness’s point about the short length of time if decisions have to be taken, for example, through a democratic approval process or sometimes through other processes, so I shall reflect on this further.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for Amendment 43, which seeks to ensure that, when exercising the regulation-making power in new Section 171B(6), the Secretary of State
“has regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers”.
I hope I can reassure, and already have reassured, the noble Baroness that the Government fully appreciate that private registered providers are just that: private bodies that should be left to make the decisions that deliver the best outcomes for them and their tenants.
Clause 11 is a light-touch measure to improve transparency and reflect good practice. The measure does not prevent disposal or restrict the means of disposal or to whom a property can be sold. It therefore does not cut across how private registered providers operate or how they legitimately manage their assets. New Section 171B sets out the type of sales that will be exempt from the notification requirement. These include sales to another registered provider and sales of shared ownership homes to the tenant. The regulation-making power that the amendment relates to enables categories of sales that are exempt from the notification provision to be extended. Imposing a constraint on the regulation-making power, as proposed by the amendment, would therefore achieve no benefit for providers. I also reassure the noble Baroness we have no imminent intention of using this regulation-making power. The power future-proofs the provision in Clause 11, allowing other categories of sale to be added in future if necessary—for example, should a new model of affordable housing be developed.
Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require that a notice included information as to whether it was a property that had been adapted to make it accessible for wheelchair users or others with mobility issues. The noble Lord may have predicted that I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment; losing properties from the social sector that have already been adapted to meet particular needs is particularly concerning. I will further consider this issue with the sector and whether that can be achieved without any unintended consequences, and I will work with the noble Lord on that.
Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, would extend further the information that must be required in all notices to include, for example, whether a property complied with the decent homes standard and its EPC rating. Amendment 48A would also require the private registered provider to inform the local authority and the regulator of the outcome of the proposed disposal. However, the particulars that must be included in the notice and contained in new Section 171C(1) are those that will be relevant and always of interest to other providers, such as the address and type of dwelling. Again, we have tried to strike a balance here about what legislation needs to identify as a statutory minimum to minimise burdens on landlords, recognising the ability of individual providers to make further inquiries on matters that might be of particular interest to them. Similarly, we do not wish to impose additional requirements on providers for further notifications post sale.
Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would add additional requirements for disposals in designated rural areas, while Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would restrict the number of areas caught by this measure by reducing the threshold to areas of 1,000 people or fewer—I think she agreed that we debated that part earlier on today. Again, I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment. As the noble Lord has set out, it is intended to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to the possible disposal of affordable housing in sensitive rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. However, I am not entirely persuaded that the best way to achieve that outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal. The provision in the Bill will ensure that a local authority is aware of a potential disposal, and I hope that will provide a local authority, particularly perhaps in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue about particular disposals and, perhaps more strategically, where it is aware of more than one. Requiring statutory consultation on the regeneration of social housing would likely place significant time and administrative costs on both local authority and registered provider and would materially impact the ability of registered providers to make the necessary commercial decisions required to manage their assets effectively and safely.
More broadly, through information published by the Regulator of Social Housing, local authorities can already access information about private registered provider-owned social housing stock within their local authority area, including information relating to whether stock meets the decent homes standard. An annual report on stock condition would be duplicative of these existing rigorous requirements and an unnecessary additional burden on providers. Therefore, while I am entirely sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, I am not sure that legislating in this way is the best way to achieve that goal.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this important debate. As has been said, the main reason for the Government bringing forward this Bill is to try to stop the reduction in social housing stocks. I was genuinely surprised that the Government are happy that, basically, if you are in a rural area and you are poor, you cannot buy the house you have been living in, but if you are rich and have the cash, you can buy somebody else’s house that they have been living in—if the housing association decides to sell it. I am genuinely surprised to hear that coming from a Labour Government.
Going forward, I will think carefully about a number of the amendments. I am sure I will not be the only person considering what to bring back on Report. I think there is some practicality here, and I am glad the Minister said she would reflect on the four weeks to eight weeks idea, thinking of democratic processes. Of course, we all want to make sure people have good housing. We need to be careful about the freedoms we give to social housing providers: that they can sell a property in one place and build 100 miles further afield rather than thinking about the local community. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“171E Blockchain audit trail for disposal notifications(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require each private registered provider to maintain an immutable distributed ledger record (“the disposal audit trail”) in respect of every sale notice given under section 171A.(2) The disposal audit trail must record—(a) the date on which each sale notice was given and to whom;(b) any response received from a local housing authority or other notified person within the period specified in section 171A(3);(c) the outcome of the proposed sale, including whether the dwelling was acquired by a notified person and retained within the social housing sector.(3) The Secretary of State must publish annually an analysis of disposal audit trail data, cross-referenced with local housing need data, identifying areas of net social housing stock loss.(4) Records in the disposal audit trail must be cryptographically secured against retrospective alteration and retained for not less than 12 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires private registered providers to maintain a tamper-proof blockchain audit trail of all section 171A disposal notifications, recording responses and outcomes. It also requires annual publication of disposal data cross-referenced with housing need, identifying areas of net stock loss.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48 and all other amendments in my name in this group. All the amendments in this group, whether they concern AI, data or interoperable systems, are predicated on a number of straightforward questions. Do we believe that, when it comes to social housing, for those providing and maintaining social housing, and for those tenants living in social housing, the considered and thoughtful deployment of AI, data and new technologies could be assistive in those endeavours? If we believe that there is something in that then we should look to the Bill, as currently drafted, and see that it is curiously silent on all these new technologies and data possibilities.
That is important, not just because there is currently nothing in the Bill on those matters but because the Government’s stated position on artificial intelligence is to not have cross-sector AI legislation. There is nothing unusual or party political in this; it is exactly the same position that the previous Government adopted. However, I believe that both Governments have taken a suboptimal and unfortunate approach to AI regulation and legislation in this respect. If we accept the position of the current Government—no cross-sector AI legislation and a domain-by-domain approach—here we have such a domain, social housing, so where are the domain-specific AI provisions in the Bill?
In looking at the amendments I have set out, it is helpful to take a purposive rather than literal approach to their interpretation. This is always a far more productive approach, whether one is doing statutory analysis or Bill consideration. To that effect, on Amendment 48, we can take out the technology blockchain and simply ask whether it would be beneficial to have a system of audit trail in these circumstances that is tamper-proof and immutable, and a record of which everybody has the same view in real time, at any time. Would that be a positive thing to have? Similarly, when it comes to using data, having the right mechanisms and frameworks for sharing data across agencies and departments for the benefit of housing associations, landlords and tenants, with all the right privacies and consents put in place, is at least worth considering.
Amendment 60 is about zero-knowledge proofs. Would it not be worth the Government at least considering whether they could provide—and through their action enable housing associations, landlords and other interested parties to have—a far safer and more secure means of supporting and assisting tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, who are often at the sharpest end of horrific situations in our society? Would not zero-knowledge proofs be worth considering and potentially piloting? We could have credentials which could enable support and assistance to be provided for those vulnerable tenants without any sense of being able to identify who they were.
If we suggest that AI may be of benefit, it would make sense to experiment and look to proof cases across the social housing landscape. If that were the case, would it not be helpful for government to offer flexible support and guidance—not prescriptive but certainly principles-based—to further enable and empower housing associations and landlords to have greater comfort and confidence when they seek to procure and deploy AI and algorithmic systems across their operations?
All these amendments have the potential to support and assist the underlying approaches set out in the Bill and the landlords and housing associations that seek to do best by their tenants, and indeed to empower and enable tenants themselves—yes, to have greater safety, security, privacy and protection, but also to have more empowerment through the considered development, proof case and deployment of certain technologies, including AI, in this space.
If the Government are not going to have cross-sector AI legislation, which they are not, what will the approach be to AI use for social housing, so that tenants can be protected and so that, through the deployment and use of predictive analytics, for example, potential horrific harm situations can be avoided before they even occur? Similarly, predictive analytics could produce a repair schedule that kicks in before the need for any of those repairs becomes acute. Those are but two examples—there are hundreds and thousands more.
How will tenants, landlords, and anyone else across the social housing ecosystem be enabled, empowered and supported, and have the comfort and the confidence to use and to be alongside these new technologies, not least AI, if the Bill stays silent on these important matters?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 114, which is about freedom of information.
I start by commending my noble friend for being forward-thinking in his consideration of AI and the impact it will have. I particularly like his Amendment 99. I appreciate that his explanatory statement says:
“Compliance with the standard is a precondition for any AI deployment in connection with functions under the Act”.
However, the broader point made is simple and straightforward, and would help not only central government but local government and those involved in more regional planning, as is anticipated, with Acts already passed in this Parliament, to have a better grip of what is going on. Having said that, I am surprised by quite how many Answers come back from Ministers—not necessarily the Minister answering today—saying that it would cost too much money to work out an answer to a Question tabled by a Peer. Let us get AI, or indeed data, to help us in this regard.
I turn now to Amendment 114, which again is quite a broad-brush amendment about the Freedom of Information Act. Recognising the special situation that private registered social housing providers are in, I think there is something more that we, the public, should be able to understand about how they operate their business. This is not unique; it is already undertaken in Scotland. In 2019, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act was extended to include registered social landlords. This was done on a limited basis—not the entire range of what the FoI Act does in the rest of the UK, or certainly in England and Wales—but it is there to increase openness and transparency by allowing people to understand how they work, how decisions are taken, how public services are delivered and how they spend their money.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Coffey for their contributions and amendments. We absolutely recognise the need for legislation to keep up to date with changes to the way personal data is processed, especially where it relates to cases of domestic abuse.
My noble friend Lord Holmes is right to point out the potential role of AI in housing allocations and that human oversight is needed, with an accessible appeals mechanism. His Amendment 117B would require the Secretary of State to publish draft guidance on responsible AI procurement, deployment and oversight, and on cyber security standards. The Government should lead the way on these issues without hindering innovation. More national oversight may be required, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the mechanism my noble friend suggests in Amendment 99 is the most suitable approach.
Accountability is crucial when it comes to reliance on technology, so we agree with the intent behind my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment on applying the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to private registered providers, as well as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 117 on giving better oversight over complaints. These are thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, and I hope the Government will give them due consideration.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments on data, digital systems and technology within the social housing framework. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady O’Neill, for contributing.
Amendments 48, 49, 59, 60, 97 to 99, 114, 117 and 117B raise important questions about transparency, security and the effective use of data in delivering housing services. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Amendment 48 sets out the details that the noble Lord would like to be included in a ledger prepared by housing providers. It would require the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of disposal data, cross-referenced with housing need data, that identifies areas of net social housing stock loss.
I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that private registered providers maintain a robust record of their disposal notices. In turn, this supports the analysis he wishes government to undertake each year on disposals, housing need and the net loss of social homes. However, again, I think we must remain alive to avoiding undue requirements on registered providers, and indeed government, and also recognise the information and data already available.
The Regulator of Social Housing already collects and publishes data annually on sales by all large private registered providers. Local authorities already, as part of the plan-making process, publish their assessment of housing need. Finally, the Government already publish on GOV.UK statistics on affordable housing supply in England, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply.
Amendments 59 and 60 seek to place cyber security requirements on landlords when handling data connected to the domestic abuse protections and would require the Secretary of State to establish a pilot programme to test zero-knowledge proof techniques. I must admit, that is not a term I had heard before I got involved in this debate. It is critical that the domestic abuse protection measures work in practice. I welcome the intent of this amendment and recognise the importance of landlords working sensitively and safely with data when considering cases and making a possession claim to the courts.
Social landlords work with tenants on a range of complex issues and can make possession claims on other sensitive issues such as anti-social behaviour. They are therefore very experienced in considering these matters. As the responsible data controllers, we expect landlords to handle tenant data responsibly. Social landlords are required to handle sensitive information securely and lawfully under UK data protection law, including the UK general data protection regulation—GDPR—and the Data Protection Act 2018. These laws are regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
We will be working with landlords and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation in practice. That will include considering whether additional or further guidance or best practice is needed on data protection and confidentiality to support the safeguarding of victims as a result of these reforms. It is right that these considerations are alongside wider implementation, working with the sector. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move his amendments.
Amendments 97 to 99 and 117B, also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to put in place frameworks for data handling and sharing and the use of artificial intelligence in the social housing sector. I recognise and welcome the intent behind the amendments and support the aim of ensuring effective data protections. However, the amendments are not necessary. They would introduce prescriptive frameworks for data usage in social housing decisions, which would not be the right approach to achieving the desired aims. In gathering evidence and making decisions related to social housing, individual social landlords and multi-agency partners are best placed to identify the systems and approaches that best meet their needs. Local housing authorities, registered providers of social housing and government departments must already operate within UK data protection law, and decisions on data protection are taken within that context.
On Amendment 98, AI, if used well, has the potential to make organisations more efficient, effective and innovative. However, social landlords and other agencies should continue to be mindful of their data protection responsibilities and ensure compliance with UK law. When considering whether and how to use artificial intelligence, landlords and multi-agency partners must still consider data protection, including its lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Again, the Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on AI and data protection within this context. The amendments take a significantly prescriptive approach, requiring social landlords and partners to work within centrally set frameworks. We are of the view that the objectives of the amendments are better achieved within the current data protection legislative framework.
Amendment 117B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of artificial intelligence and cyber security governance in social housing provision. I recognise the intention behind this proposal and the importance of ensuring that new technologies are used responsibly and securely. However, I do not consider a specific statutory reporting requirement to be necessary. Social landlords already operate within established data protection and cyber security frameworks, and wider work is under way across government to consider the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in public services. This would be an additional statutory requirement and risks duplication with existing work.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to bring private registered providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We have already taken forward a targeted and proportionate approach to improving transparency for social tenants through the introduction of the social tenant access to information requirements, known as STAIRs. This will ensure that private registered providers proactively publish more information about their activities and share information with their tenants on request.
Following a direction issued to the Regulator of Social Housing in September 2025, this scheme will come into force on a phased basis over the coming year. From October 2026, private registered providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their social housing and, from April 2027, tenants and their representatives will be able to request access to information relating directly to the management of their homes. Unless it is reasonable not to, landlords will be required to fulfil their tenants’ requests for information within set timeframes. These requirements have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have access to the information that matters most to them. With this in mind, the Government’s view is that a targeted, tenant-focused approach through STAIRs is the more appropriate way to deliver meaningful transparency for tenants.
I turn to Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which would require local authorities to publish data on complaints received related to measures in this Bill. I hope that our commitment to introducing STAIRs demonstrates our commitment to transparency, which I share with him. However, we think it is important to look at complaints data in the round, looking at the whole service rather than focusing on specific measures. As such, the Housing Ombudsman publishes annual complaints reviews providing an assessment of complaints received across the whole sector. All registered providers of social housing are also required to collect and publish tenant satisfaction measures annually, including metrics on how satisfied tenants are with their landlord’s approach to complaints handling.
For all the reasons I have set out, while I recognise the important issues raised around data use, transparency and emerging technologies, the Government consider that these matters are best addressed through existing frameworks and ongoing policy development. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for her response. My only comment is on the Minister’s statement that landlords and those in social housing should observe UK law. The difficulty is that, when it comes to so many elements of AI, there is no UK law. If tenants find themselves on the wrong end of an algorithmic decision, for example, there is no current UK law. There are some provisions, as rightly identified, when it comes to data, but not in many of the specific contexts as set out. So, currently, we have a largely analogue Bill in an increasingly digital environment, where much of that digital could be so assistive, not only to landlords and those involved in social housing but, most importantly, to those who are all too often at the sharpest end of some horrific situations where digital and AI could help. Currently, this Bill does not bring forth any of that potential help, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on new Clause (Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedure). That would insert a generally-worded exclusion into section 320(7)(d) HRA 2008, and therefore remove the need for the specific exclusion inserted by clause 11(3)(b).
Lord Lansley
“Large-scale housing stock transfersAfter section 92K of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (fundamental objectives) insert—“92KA Code of Guidance on large-scale housing stock transfers In pursuance of the objective in section 92K(2)(b), the regulator may issue a Code of Guidance on large-scale housing stock transfers, to which registered providers must have regard.””
Lord Lansley (Con)
In my view, this group is focused on what is in some ways the most important question, which is not just how we protect the public housing stock, but how we increase the availability of social homes, particularly social homes for rent. I think pretty much every noble Lord here was present at Second Reading, and they will recall that I spoke to that and, in particular, cited a report I had read from L&G about the capacity for large-scale stock transfer schemes from housing associations into partnership providers remaining within the regulated registered provider regime, but combining housing association stock with institutional investment would have the capacity to bring the latent value of that housing stock into play and enable housing associations, through the substantial receipts that they would generate, to re-enter the market in building more social homes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 86, 87 and 88 in my name address the subject of mayors and their role in social housing delivery. As we know, local authorities have a major role to play in social housing delivery and maintenance. Under this Government, reforms have been pushed to further empower mayors in their areas over ordinary councillors, as we saw in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Therefore, it is only right that we question to what extent existing and future mayors should be held responsible for social housing delivery.
Amendment 86 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of what mechanisms are and should be available to hold mayors to account, specifically in relation to social housing delivery. This review would take place within 12 months of the Bill being passed and it must consider the performance of social housing delivery, the accountability of the mayor to local electors in this regard and what accountability mechanisms exist.
So much work to deliver social housing may take place behind the scenes, and mayors deserve credit where they do well or to be held accountable when they are not doing as much as they could or should do. This will also make it clearer to voters how the social housing system works and how performance can be measured and attributed to different actors. Of course, individual mayors are not all-powerful beings, and their performance can be impacted by other factors, but they are being empowered by this Government and so we need to look again at how they can be held accountable.
Amendment 87 calls for a review of the incentives that are there for mayors to deliver social housing—more carrot, less stick, if you will. This review would look again at performance but also assess what financial incentives there are to perform well, what funding streams and accessibility to grants exist, what savings authorities can make elsewhere when social housing is delivered well, and so on. Social housing delivery needs to be supported by a positive policy environment, and this amendment would give Parliament better oversight of what incentives exist.
Amendment 88 would look at mayoral remuneration as a mechanism for holding mayors accountable. Mayors who are not performing well bring into question how much remuneration they deserve, particularly as we see more mayoral combined authorities rolled out over the coming years through the Government’s reforms. This framework would link a proportion of that remuneration directly to the performance of social housing delivery, taking into account their delivery targets.
This is a probing amendment to explore how the changing role of mayors can be clarified and to ask whether the current mechanisms for accountability are sufficient and appropriate. If the Government want mayors to have more powers, there should be mechanisms of accountability and incentives to reflect that. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this subject and I hope the Minister will take these ideas on board to investigate this further.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak a little bit more briefly than I had intended on this group of amendments and will speak specifically to my Amendment 92. I am shamelessly using the Bill to raise an issue and to correct a problem that we in this House have discussed many times. My Amendment 92 would insert a new clause to ask the Government to publish very clear guidance to distinguish affordable housing from social housing. Why? Because it has real consequences for supply policy, credibility and public trust.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but I believe important debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. Although these amendments address different aspects, there is a key theme to all of them, which is the theme that we believe is the key to addressing the housing crisis that we face: how do we increase the supply of homes, particularly social and affordable homes, in a system that too often struggles to deliver them at the scale required?
Amendment 71 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley raises the importance of prioritising brownfield land, which I know the Minister agrees with. However, as we have discussed before, this needs to be more than words: it needs action. Our amendment seeks to put that aim into action.
Amendment 72 is in a similar vein. It asks the Government to review regulatory blockers to regeneration of existing housing estates. We all know of older housing estates that are somewhat tired and built for a different time, and in many cases they provide the opportunity for additional housing through gentle densification. We have all seen those estates. My friend in the other place, James Cleverly, has highlighted the excellent Kidbrooke Village regeneration in Greenwich, where build quality has improved, and the area, the environment and flood resistance were improved, while adding nearly 3,000 homes.
The debate has rightly touched on a number of barriers to delivery. My noble friend Lord Lansley drew attention to the role that large-scale stock transfers could play in unlocking investment and renewal. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, raised the equally important issue of accountability. If mayors are to be entrusted with significant powers for housing delivery, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should consider how their performance is measured and assessed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also raised the issue that I think we all face: what is social, what is social rent, what is affordable, and so forth? There is confusion, but we have to live with the definitions that we have today.
I believe this is a constructive debate, but the key is: how do we deliver more housing? My noble friend Lord Lansley raised the issue of the impact assessment. I have had the opportunity for a quick scan, but I think we should come back to this on Wednesday when we debate this further, because I think there are some rather interesting figures in it.
With that, I hope the Minister will fret on the issues raised, because each amendment seeks in its own way to address the central challenge that lies at the heart of the Bill: how do we deliver more homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a good place for the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to finish and a good place for me to start, because a central mission of the Government is to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and a core objective of this Bill is to incentivise the building of more social housing.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated and submitted amendments in this group. We have already taken a significant wider step with the significant long-term investment—which I have spoken about many times—of £39 billion to build over 300,000 social homes over the next 10 years. I thank all noble Lords for the range of amendments on how we could further enable new supply and for the constructive debate on these important issues.
To respond to the amendments in turn, I will start with Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which introduces a power for the Regulator of Social Housing to issue guidance relating to the large-scale transfer of stock. In addition to the power for the regulator to issue guidance, the amendment would require providers to have regard to any guidance issued, and the regulator’s guidance would relate to its fundamental economic objective, which includes supporting the supply of new homes and promoting private investment in social housing. The regulator already has a power in Section 195 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to issue codes of practice on matters relating to both its consumer and economic standards. Given that, I do not believe it is necessary to pursue this amendment.
However, I am aware that the aim of the amendment is to place a particular focus on the potential opportunities of large-scale transfers of homes to bolster the capacity of the sector to deliver more new homes. The noble Lord spoke enthusiastically at Second Reading about the need to explore new ways to increase the sector’s capacity to invest. In particular, he said we should be looking at how providers can, using the considerable assets that they own, partner with private investors to address the financial capacity constraints that many often face.
I assure the noble Lord that the Government are open to innovative ideas that meet our core principles, delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality sustainable places for the long term. I understand that the noble Lord had a fruitful meeting last week in relation to the ideas that he has. From those discussions, I hope he is reassured that my department is considering the many ideas that are being generated in this space.
In addition, the Regulator of Social Housing published last week, on 9 June, a discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, focusing on how its model of economic regulation could be updated to respond to a changing social housing sector. I met the Regulator of Social Housing last week to discuss this subject. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is reassured that the Government are alive to the new ideas to bolster supply. Similarly, the regulator has just started an important discussion with the sector about how regulations should adapt to continue to be open to further innovation and change while effectively managing risk.
Turning to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach, including for the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We have expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework and have recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land, including encouraging higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites, and introducing a presumption that development inside settlement should be approved unless any adverse effects would be substantial enough to outweigh the benefits of doing so. In April, the Government committed to making regulations to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. All this demonstrates our strong commitment and continued support for brownfield development. As such, a requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy is unnecessary and duplicative, as the existing policy and relevant development plans already sufficiently achieve this aim.
Amendment 72, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would introduce a new clause for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of regulatory burdens on social housing providers. We are committed to the regulatory system ensuring that landlords deliver quality homes and services while ensuring that providers can simultaneously drive up supply. Our decade of renewal plan, published in July last year, gave the sector much-needed clarity on the regulatory requirements they will need to meet in the coming years and confirmed a number of capacity-boosting measures to support them to do this.
We also engage closely with the sector in developing regulatory measures, with close consideration of the impact on it. We have published impact assessments for new measures that impact landlords. We continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that regulatory requirements are clear and deliverable. In the light of this and the impact assessments that we have already published regarding regulatory requirements, we believe that this amendment would be duplicative and therefore unnecessary.
Amendments 86 to 88 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, would introduce three new clauses for the Secretary of State to conduct reviews into accountability mechanisms and incentives for mayors and to establish a statutory framework to link their pay to performance. I am glad the noble Baroness is considering the role of elected mayors in our mission to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For example, increased provision represents one way in which mayors can demonstrate progress against their integrated settlement objectives for housing and strategic planning, as well as supporting outcomes to reduce homelessness. Mayoral performance against these objectives and outcomes is monitored, with mitigations in place to deal with underperformance. That includes the possibility of direct government intervention, with the reintroduction of delegated funding limits, settlement suspension or funding clawback all options in the most serious cases.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think we are most grateful to the Minister for that very positive response, and I am personally very grateful for that very encouraging response to Amendment 51. It would be great to finish day 1’s proceedings with some violent agreement that we all want to build more social homes. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Wednesday 17th June 2026
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2–II Second marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jun 2026)
Baroness Thornhill
“Local authority registers of social housing stock change(1) Each local housing authority must maintain a register recording—(a) the number of dwellings sold by the authority under the right to buy in each financial year,(b) the number of new social housing dwellings provided by or on behalf of the authority in each financial year, and(c) the net change in the authority's social housing stock resulting from the figures in paragraphs (a) and (b).(2) A local housing authority must publish its register under this section annually and make it available to the public in such manner as the authority considers appropriate.(3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of the information contained in registers under this section across all local housing authorities in England.(4) The summary under subsection (3) must identify authorities where the number of dwellings sold under the right to buy exceeds the number of new social housing dwellings provided in the same period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires local housing authorities to maintain and publish annual registers recording dwellings sold under the right to buy against new social housing provided, enabling public scrutiny of whether authorities are failing to replenish lost stock.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I open this group—which is a considerably better position than we were in on Monday, when I thought I would be closing it—by proposing Amendment 53. This group goes to the heart of the Bill’s central test: whether we are serious about ensuring that right to buy does not continue to deplete our social housing stock faster than we can replace it. Amendment 53 is about the transparency and accountability of that process. It requires annual local authority reporting of homes sold under the right to buy against homes newly provided. We need to look particularly at net loss and net gain. This way both the public—and the public are important—and the Government can see a trend within a local authority over time.
I decided to table this amendment because I was recently asked to speak at a housing conference, and I tried to ascertain information about social homes in Hertfordshire. It was more difficult than it should have been. Data is not easy to obtain, nor is it cumulative, so we cannot see trends. Of course, there is also the dilemma of affordable versus social, which we discussed at length on Monday. If we do not have the quality data that tells us on an authority-by-authority basis what is going on, we cannot know whether a policy is working and, more importantly, the Government cannot determine when it is appropriate to intervene.
It is worth saying that it is very clear that all housing providers are now having to deal with those with far more complex needs, disabilities and mental illness. It is tough having to ration a scarce resource on a daily basis. Housing officers are unsung heroes, in my book.
We went through the statistics at length on Monday, so let us just say that, whichever estimates you look at, we are nowhere near building either the amount or the right type of social housing needed. It is evident that demands for social housing vary considerably from area to area, and that the challenges of meeting those varied needs, with increasing homelessness and families in temporary accommodation, are bringing more councils into a precarious financial position, while others remain relatively unaffected. We believe that the responsibility to meet those needs should be spread fairly, as much as is practically possible, and that every council should take its responsibility seriously. I regret that I do not believe that is the case, which is why Amendment 53 matters. If there is no clear, consistent public record of what is happening locally, it becomes impossible to monitor trends and to direct change.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. While I have some sympathy with Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, I believe it could possibly be unworkable in practice due to land availability, planning delays, and so on—all legitimate reasons for delay—so putting a time limit on it would not be helpful. We would prefer to encourage creative compliance than pinpoint an actual delivery date.
Clearly, Amendment 56 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is almost a duplication of my amendment; likewise their Amendment 58B. It is interesting that across both Committee days we are going to be looking at collective amendments that clamour for more data of one kind or another. Obviously, it is up to Ministers to know whether they have the data they need to inform policy and make judgments on whether or not a policy is working, and we need that same data to be able to scrutinise it. In my heart, I hope the Minister tells me, “Yes, the data’s actually there, Lady Thornhill, you just weren’t looking in the right place”, but if it is available somewhere, it is probably not publicly or easily.
On Amendment 55, I am interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has to say, but I hope the Government are more aspirational than one-for-one replacement, given the scale of need. But I say again that without knowing what each local authority is actually losing and delivering—hence my Amendment 92 on our first day in Committee regarding conflation of the terms “affordable” and “social” housing—we will not know what is happening on the ground. Trends over time are important, not just averages on a national level but over local authority areas, which, as we have also discussed previously, are going to get much larger. Accountability, in our view from these Benches, therefore needs to be stronger in these new mayoral authorities and the larger unitaries. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I was going to say I was grateful to all noble Lords who had spoken in the debate, but I am certainly most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for doing so. She identifies a couple of critical issues: the need for more housing and the need for clarity and information. That is important.
It is important that we keep a sense of perspective here about right to buy. It does not mean that that home disappears, or that the family living in it disappear; they are still in that home, and in many cases they will remain in it for many years, irrespective of whether it is a social home or they actually acquire it. The issue is therefore not about the loss of physical dwellings but about the change in tenure and the availability of social housing for other tenants. That is precisely why the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the amendments that we have tabled address the serious discussion about replacement. We need reliable, current information and data.
Equally, if there is a case for one-for-one replacement which we believe, that should be examined openly and supported by evidence rather than assumptions. We have now had the opportunity to look at the impact assessment for this Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issue of how we can reduce housing lists by increasing supply. If you look at table 4, what is the impact of removing right to buy? After five years or so, when it settles down, it means that over 3,000 fewer houses every year are built. That is 3,000 fewer homes for families and 3,000 more families on the council waiting list every year. We need more homes, and right to buy is an opportunity to increase that.
Think what would happen if the Government were to focus on building more homes rather than stopping families having the opportunity to own their own home. As we seek a minimum of one-for-one replacement, we could be seeing over 5,000 extra homes every year. That is 5,000 more families given the opportunity for a social home and 5,000 fewer people every year on housing waiting lists.
The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill do not seek to prescribe a particular outcome; they seek to ensure that Parliament and the public have the information necessary to assess the effectiveness of the policy and make informed decisions about its future.
I was going to say that this has been a constructive debate—maybe I should say this has been a constructive discussion—but we all recognise the need to increase housing supply and the opportunities for home ownership. I hope the Minister will reflect on the arguments made, the case for greater transparency and the need for more homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak about the Social Housing Bill, may I just wish our team England—well, it is “our team England” for some of us—all success this evening, and I hope we will be finished in time for some of us to see some of it.
I thank everyone for the lively and constructive debate we had on this Bill on Monday; it is a pleasure to be back to continue discussing it. Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require the Secretary of State to reconsider our one-for-one replacement policy. Relatedly, Amendments 55 and 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a report assessing the viability of this requirement. Amendment 53, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would insert a clause requiring reports to the Secretary of State on sales and replacements. Separately, Amendment 58B from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require a report to Parliament within a year on the impact of Clause 5 specifically.
We announced in our response to the consultation on right-to-buy reforms that we are removing the formal one-for-one right-to-buy replacement target. However, and I say this very specifically, this does not mean we are complacent about replacing homes sold. Far from it: we call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the Government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The one-for-one target was introduced in 2012, when the only social and affordable housing delivery that councils were asked to do was to replace homes sold under right to buy.
Our ambition far surpasses this now. We want to see more than one-for-one replacement and do not want a target that limits that ambition. As I set out my letter following Second Reading, this Bill is not the extent of our delivery ambition. Our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the course of the programme, and we are taking decisive action to reinvigorate council housebuilding, including supporting councils in our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We also invested £17 million last year to boost council housebuilding skills, and we have permitted councils now to combine their right-to-buy receipts with grant funding.
The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill forecast that England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through our package of right-to-buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all the receipts from sales—something we have long campaigned for from local government—and reducing cash discounts, alongside the provisions in the Bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period, instead of what would have been a loss.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I ask for some clarification from the Minister? Clearly, table 4 in the impact assessment shows that under the pre-November 2024 baseline, if we take the 2034-35 figures, 4,750 homes would be built from the right-to-buy receipts and, under the new baseline, 1,550 would be built. That is 3,200 fewer homes. The assumption that we are going to have more homes available for social tenants relies on the fact that those tenants who might have bought their home will leave that home anyway. If they stay there, we will have fewer homes for new social tenants.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think the figures stated relate to what happens once we have enacted the Bill. As I have said many times, the ambition to deliver more social homes is not just about the replacement of right-to-buy homes. Right-to-buy sales may go down, but we still anticipate that the measures being taken in the Bill will result in a net increase of 18,000 homes over the period; whereas, because the sales were going up, we would have lost 26,000 homes. With the social and affordable homes programme adding to the overall total and the net increase in homes that we are seeing through the right-to-buy programme, which is 18,000 as opposed to a 26,000 loss, we will see an increase in social housebuilding.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, which was very much as I would have predicted. My main point to make to her was that it was not easy to find that data—on GOV.UK you have to look for a bit here and a bit there. Where is all this information on what is such a major plank for the Government, which we totally agree with? Where is it easy to see who is doing what? Where is the analysis and where is it drawn together? Who are the shirkers and who are the leaders? It is a challenging thing. Without meaningful, accurate and localised reporting, councils cannot be properly scrutinised, which is important, and policy failure is harder to challenge. For example, we actually had net losses last year. Again, you can google that and it will tell you, but it is not easy to see it within the mountain of data. In the meantime, I have to say the magic words: I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley
“Social housing estates: regeneration(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a document setting out proposals to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates.(2) The document under subsection (1) must include proposals relating to—(a) funding to deliver alternative housing for existing tenants during the redevelopment of social housing estates,(b) support for increasing density as part of social housing redevelopment where appropriate,(c) the use of public land and housing assets to facilitate regeneration, and(d) grant funding for energy efficiency improvements as part of redevelopment schemes.(3) In preparing the document under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase overall housing supply within existing urban areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to bring forward proposals within 12 months to support regeneration of social housing estates, including decant funding and densification opportunities.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I add my best wishes to the England team tonight: even if we are not finished in time, we will no doubt get a nice, quiet journey home because everyone will be watching it.
I speak to Amendments 57, 58, 75, 83 and 107 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Much of the debate around housing understandably focuses on building new homes. That is undoubtedly important. However, if we are serious about tackling housing need, we must also focus on how we effectively manage, maintain and utilise the housing stock that already exists. These amendments are intended to probe whether sufficient attention is given to the condition, management and efficient use of existing social housing assets.
Amendment 57 would require the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of social housing estates. Estate regeneration is often difficult, sometimes controversial and takes many years. The noble Lord, Lord John, sitting over there, will know that from pain in Elephant and Castle; I certainly know it from the years dealing with Thamesmead, and I am sure many others in this Chamber will know it too. It takes a long time, but there are opportunities.
Amendment 75 raises the crucial issue of illegal subletting in our social housing system. I note the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, which passed through this House in 2013 under the watch of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It provided important powers to tackle this problem, but it is reasonable to ask whether those powers are being used ineffectively and whether enforcement activity is sufficient. Given the pressure on waiting lists across the country, every property recovered through anti-fraud activity represents an opportunity to house someone who is legitimately entitled to that support. In 2024-25, there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. However, the Tenancy Fraud Forum’s 2023 report, Lost Homes, Lost Hope, estimated that 148,000 social homes were subject to tenancy fraud in 2023. In a separate report in 2025, it estimated that there were 50,000 tenancy frauds in London alone. This is shocking and urgently needs addressing. Rather than curtailing right to buy, this is the issue that the Government should prioritise to bring housing forward quickly.
Amendment 83 would require a national audit of social housing stock. It is difficult to manage assets effectively without a clear understanding of their condition, occupancy, utilisation and future investment requirements before making major policy decisions. Government should have the clearest possible picture of the stock already available. Similarly, Amendment 107 seeks a broader strategy for improving the management of existing social housing stock. Better stock management can often deliver benefits more quickly and at a lower cost than new construction alone.
I should also mention Amendment 117D in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. This is a probing amendment, but it raises an important question about accountability. Across England, elected mayors are being given increasing responsibility for housing, planning and regeneration. If powers are increasingly devolved, it is reasonable to ask how performance should be measured, and how local people can judge whether housing commitments are being delivered.
The country faces substantial housing pressures. There are now around 1.33 million households on local authority waiting lists—the highest figure for a decade. Against that backdrop, transparency regarding housing delivery matters. Noble Lords may have different views on the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, but the broader principle remains that where significant powers are devolved, there should be clear accountability for the outcomes, and that these are the right outcomes.
I would also be interested to hear from the Minister how long social housing properties typically remain vacant between tenancies. Every week that a property sits empty is a week in which a household remains on the waiting list. Understanding void turnaround times is therefore an important part of understanding the efficiency of the system as a whole. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that we make the best possible use of the housing stock we already have, while continuing to build for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers.
Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill.
I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use a property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling the keys to a third party. Between now and Report, I hope we can look into this, and I hope the Minister will give this issue the attention it certainly deserves.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I will speak to Amendment 57, moved by my noble friend. My noble friend started by making a very valid point: if the Government have a firm commitment to build, say, 1.5 million new homes and a certain number of new social houses, there is a real risk that, when looking at the capital programme within the department, that commitment trumps funding for existing estates and the regeneration of existing housing stock. That is why Amendment 57 is important: it would make sure that we do not ignore the needs of the existing housing stock.
I draw attention to housing action trusts—an initiative under the Housing Act 1988 that focused very sharply on the most difficult-to-let estates in the country. This was an initiative from my noble friend Lord Heseltine, and, as one might expect, it was highly interventionist. A housing action trust was a time-limited body that took over the management and redevelopment of a local authority estate. However, before that could happen, there was a vote of the local authority tenants to seek their agreement to that time-limited transfer. Speaking from memory, I think there were seven housing action trusts, including one in Stonebridge, in Brent; one in Tower Hamlets; one in Castle Vale, in Birmingham; one in Liverpool; and one in Hull. They were highly successful, and they transformed those estates.
It was interesting that, at the end, the tenants were given a vote: they could either go back to the local authority or transfer to a resident-run or tenant-run association of their own. Speaking from memory, I think they all decided to stick with the alternative to the local authority. If one is looking at ways of transforming the most challenging estates in the country, it is worth looking at the history of housing action trusts, which, by common consent, were highly successful. They were expensive, but we should not ignore that model when deciding how to take further the regeneration of social housing estates.
Lord Bird (CB)
I will speak to my Amendment 116. The Government are charging us all with getting behind the idea that there will be 1.5 million new houses by the end of the Parliament. I suggest that one way you could achieve that is by being serious about the number of empty homes in the United Kingdom, particularly England. There are 250,000 empty homes in England and, at the same time, 164,000 children and 124,000 families are caught in temporary accommodation. I am not saying it would be easy, but you could be wise and do nationally what Manchester, Plymouth and Wales are trying to do: incorporate empty homes into the fabric of their housing strategies. If that could be done, it would be a real plus.
I was born in Notting Hill, which was full of empty homes in the post-war period, along with Bayswater and that area. The middle classes did not go off to the colonies any more; they went to Bayswater and to Notting Hill, and they started to convert these voids into precious homes. Environmentally and socially, it was wonderful. It got too wonderful: the house that I was born into, which was a slum, would now cost about £20 million—if they have not pulled it down because it was such a slum.
Overall, it would be a good idea for the Government to say that they are going to empty our temporary accommodation and look at new ways of doing that that incorporate buildings that are left empty for over six months. Some 250,000 houses are screaming out, in my opinion, for us to intervene. There would be all sorts of problems because some people would find it inappropriate, but, if the Government were serious about this, those homes could be put to much more use. You could start kicking a hole in that required 1.5 million.
What the noble Lord, Lord Young, said was wonderful. If we spend all the money on new houses, what are we going to do about those failing estates and the voids? What are we going to do about the fact that many local authorities and housing associations cannot afford to convert void houses that are boarded up? This Government have to have a strategy on empty homes. I do not see that in the strategy at the moment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that the regeneration of some of our social estates is a high priority. The last Labour Government spent a lot of money regenerating city centres. I hope that, if they have long enough, this Labour Government will give a similar high priority to the regeneration of some of our social estates.
It has not been easy, and more difficult in some respects, given the right to buy. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, regeneration takes a long time— 10 or 20 years—so it is difficult to see easy or quick returns, and resources are a huge problem. To achieve the regeneration of these estates, often you need partnerships, not just the local authority but housing associations and private developers. There is obviously an important role for mayors in this as well as we progress.
The main experience that I have had is of the Rowner estate, in Gosport, which was a Royal Naval estate. It was in huge dereliction after the Navy left its responsibilities. The regeneration of that estate has taken 30 years, with a genuine partnership that involved quite difficult decisions, such as the decision that to regenerate it would require it to be turned into an estate that was one-third owner-occupied, one-third private rented and one-third social housing. The transformation has been remarkable. There are many estates up and down our land that are neglected and need an initiative from the Government. In the rush to get high numbers of new houses, we must not forget the regeneration of our older estates.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 117D, which I have tabled. This is the first time that I have tabled an amendment in Committee, so it is a momentous occasion, for me at least.
I apologise for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate as I was unavailable. Clearly, I missed something because the debate so far on the Bill has been extremely well informed and knowledgeable. It is a privilege to contribute, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has done so much to help homeless people in London. As a former Deputy Mayor of London, I can say that we are very grateful for the work that he has done over the years. I am not sure whether I support his amendment, but I certainly support his efforts.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Young, who reminded us of the housing action trusts, not least because one of those first trusts was in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. I can well remember the Chingford Hall estate, because it was in my ward, and the trust started its work in my first year as a newly elected councillor in 1990. I stayed in that ward for 12 years, so I was able to see the work continue and conclude. That estate has been transformed. There is clearly a lesson here for all of us.
I move to my amendment. As a former deputy mayor, I understand that housing is a challenging and complex issue for us to deal with, and many factors affect whether a mayor can achieve their targets. My noble friend Lady O’Neill reminded us that there are now 1.3 million households on the social housing waiting list. I am very much aware that the construction industry and the property sector in this country provide an underpinning for general economic activity. If we can get homes being built, we will provide jobs and skills for people, and we will feed more money into the economy. It is vital not just for providing homes for people but for growing the economy.
In London, I am afraid that the story recently has not been so good. In 2022-23, there were 26,000 starts, which was a pretty good performance, but, by 2023-24, that had fallen to just over 3,000. In response, the mayor has reduced the amount of social housing that he requires in developments from 35% to 20%; that will bring some developments within a range where it is profitable for the builders to build them, which was clearly not the case before, so it is a step forward, but even with that concession, London is still struggling. The most recent figures that we have, from the JLL Partners survey that took place earlier this year, was that in the first three months of 2026 only 7% of housing starts were achieved, which leaves London’s government with 93% to complete for the rest of the year, which I think noble Lords will agree is a challenging target.
It is against this background that I am promoting this amendment, which would provide a mechanism to ensure accountability not just for the Mayor of London but for mayors and authorities around the country. At this stage, we are just asking for a feasibility study, but I think the possibilities may range beyond housing targets: the results of the study could be applied to other targets and to democratic accountability for mayors in future. I place the idea before the Committee, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 117D, tabled by my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough, which is about a simple principle: if elected mayors are given strategic housing powers, receive billions in public funding and repeatedly fail to deliver, there must be proper accountability. This is an amendment that challenges the rhetoric.
If you take the basket case which is London, the Mayor of London endlessly talks about housing figures and about delivery, has the cheek to use the word “record” quite regularly, yet has failed to deliver on a spectacular scale, to the point where the Government had to step in and ask him to change his figures on the amount of social housing he would ask for on any given development. That was a good idea by the Government, which is why I support this probing amendment.
The housing need in London is around 88,000 units a year, as determined by the Government, yet in our best year recently we delivered only 31,000 units. The mayor’s own affordable housing target was 52,000 a year and he failed to hit that by a wide mark, getting to only 32,000. The affordable housing target under the current programme was originally 35,000 starts—just starts. Londoners cannot live in a start; a human being cannot live in a start. I think we need to start looking at completions: that is when a house actually becomes a home. The target was 35,000 originally, and that has been lowered to between 17,800 and 19,000, but in 2024-25, there were only 3,991 affordable housing starts. Again, I refer to the point that we need completions, not starts. That is only starts.
Of course, the cost is paid by Londoners, who are living in poor and expensive accommodation. We have over 100,000 children living in temporary accommodation and 210,000 Londoners are actually homeless. I have been homeless. It is an absolute blight on your life. It is impossible to move forward if you are homeless. You need a base to operate from, and that base is commonly known as a home, so when we have mayors who have been given great support by Governments of all colours, they need to be brought before some kind of reckoning if they are not delivering on that.
Again, I refer noble Lords to the basket case that is London. London cannot keep its place as a world-leading city if we cannot afford to house people here. If you are a police officer, a nurse, a factory worker, a youth worker—name any job that keeps this city going—you cannot afford to stay here; you are being pushed out. If you are an international employer, you cannot set up in London, because you know staff cannot afford to live in London. So, of course this amendment needs to be supported.
Accountability must follow power. Amendment 117D asks the fair question: what happens when mayors fail repeatedly to deliver on social housing delivery? At present, the answer is “Not enough”. This amendment would allow the Government to examine proper thresholds on repeated failure over years and the level of required public support for a recall petition.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I acknowledge the cogent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Evans. It was his first contribution, but I hope it will be the first of many, and I mean that sincerely.
In principle, we welcome the intent behind this group of amendments because they speak to something that is all too often overlooked in housing debates: not just how many homes we have to build and targets but the condition and use of the homes that we already have. I will do my best to stick to the amendments in front of us, but I hope Conservative noble Lords will forgive me if I suggest there is a pattern running through this group and others today, and from Monday, which is pushing towards more centralisation and, ultimately, more regulation, which we would be instinctively against.
Take Amendment 57 on regeneration, which makes an important point. It asks the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of estates. There is no doubt that this is vital, but local authorities are already leading regeneration in so many areas, often very successfully. The best examples of those are councils that are not only working with their communities —which is absolutely essential; try doing it without it—but also attracting private sector investment to get a top-notch scheme. I know that it needs both government and local government to undertake such major work, not what is proposed in these amendments.
The regeneration of an older estate is a significant investment and a major project. It can, as the noble Baroness said, take years, and I have experience of that too. However, what I believe it does not need is direction from the centre, with a national strategy or proposal. In my experience, it is usually the other way round: the council saying to government, “Hey, this is what we want to do. We’ve got great plans, we’ve talked to our community, but—help, please”. That help can be with whatever obstacles are in the way, not just money. As I know also from experience, these can be many and varied, and very often local. You need government to act as Dyno-Rod to help you move things forward, as I am sure the Minister will know from her own experience of the regeneration of Stevenage town centre, on which she battled for many years.
Again, in my experience there are significant pots of money for regeneration to access, but they are often in too many different pots, their use is too restricted and nobody is looking holistically at what a council needs to achieve in total. You might get some money for this bit but not for the bit that would really make it add value. I know that work has been done on these aspects so I hope the Minister will update us, because I think the grant applications for regeneration are important.
Likewise, Amendment 83 would require a national audit of existing stock. Noble Lords will know from my other amendments that I believe better data is clearly helpful and necessary, but we should also recognise that councils already have a good understanding of their housing stock, as do registered social providers. They know where the problems lie. The real issue for them is that they have competing priorities at the moment—do they do the safety work? Do they have new build? Do they retrofit or improve existing homes? The real question is: how do we move from knowledge to funded action on the ground? Noble Lords will begin to see the drift of my theme on these and other amendments.
I will say a final word on Amendment 116, on empty homes, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. It is a particularly important issue, and I strongly support the ambition to bring more of these properties back into use. Councils have the powers to deal with this issue; there is no doubt about that. Again, the issue is not the lack of a five-year plan but other barriers to bringing these homes into use. These are well known. They are often around the capacity of the courts and the rights of the home owner, and how they can hold up the process through the courts and make getting one single house back into use take years.
That brings me to a wider point of capacity. After many years of financial pressure, local government is often operating in a space where it has to be reactive rather than proactive. I believe councils and all their partners would universally want to do more on regeneration, empty homes, illegal subletting—very well articulated by the noble Baroness—and enforcement on landlords in general. But that requires the capacity to get ahead of the problem and not just respond to it.
We respect the sincere intention behind these amendments but feel that the actions asked for are not going to make the significant difference that we would all like to see. Local government knows the issues, and it is often other measures that are needed, which are well out of the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of regenerating existing social housing estates and the potential this can have to improve housing quality, energy efficiency and the overall supply of housing. Following Second Reading, I sent a letter to noble Lords outlining the Government’s intentions in this area; I hope noble Lords have had a chance to look at that.
I will respond first to Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. While I appreciate the intention behind her amendment, we do not consider it appropriate to place a requirement of this nature in the Bill. As she will know only too well, estate regeneration is complex and highly place-specific. Decisions about funding, density and redevelopment are best taken through existing programmes and planning frameworks that can respond flexibly to local circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, it is very important that this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis at local level.
The amendment would also cut across existing policy development and spending decisions, including those taken through the spending review process, by mandating the production of proposals within a fixed timeframe, regardless of wider fiscal or delivery considerations. Therefore, while we share the objective of supporting effective and sensitive estate regeneration, we believe it is better taken forward through existing policy levers and funding mechanisms than through a new legislative duty.
I will make two further comments; first, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. The social and affordable housing programme supports regeneration where it delivers a net increase in social homes—which I set out some details of in the letter I sent out—as well as introducing wider reforms to standards, designs and quality. We can definitely support regeneration through that programme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to my efforts around regeneration—the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was incredibly helpful to me during that process, so I recognise his significant expertise in that area.
There was also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the housing action trusts. The noble Lord may be aware of the announcements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on Monday this week, on the right to manage and how we intend to extend it more widely and try to promote it to tenants, so that where a landlord is failing, they can exercise their right to manage. I know the Secretary of State is very keen to promote that. That said, I ask that Amendment 57 be withdrawn.
On Amendment 58 from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government are clear that supported housing has a vital role to play in supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society to live as independently as possible. We want to see the new supply of supported housing grow, which is why the social and affordable homes programme allows flexibility on grant rates, to help support accommodation where design and adaptation can result in higher costs.
In addition, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 places a new statutory duty on local housing authorities to develop supported housing strategies. That will include a delivery plan setting out clear, time-bound actions for implementation. Any new requirement to set out a national strategy on the provision of supported housing will be duplicative of something that—as I see it—sits within the remit of local supported housing strategies. It would lack the detailed understanding that our local authorities have of specific needs in their local areas. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendments 83 and 107, which both seek to improve the understanding, and strengthen the management, of existing social housing stock. On Amendment 83, a substantial amount of data is already published on the condition and use of social housing, including through the English Housing Survey and the Local Authority Housing Statistics, covering many of the issues raised in the amendment. More broadly, and relevant to both amendments, the Government have already launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are managing and making best use of their stock.
In response also to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, this work is examining underoccupation, overcrowding, long term voids, tenant mobility, and how landlords can maximise the use of the homes they manage. The review is already under way, and we will report its outcomes later this year. In light of that, the Government do not consider it appropriate to legislate now for a further national audit or a statutory strategy.
Turning to Amendment 75, I want to be clear that illegal subletting is unacceptable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, rightly said, it deprives those in genuine need of a social home and undermines confidence in the system. Tenants are responsible for fulfilling their obligations and complying with the terms of their tenancy agreement. They are also responsible for making sure that, when they apply for social housing in the first place, the information they give is accurate. Now that social landlords have much more access to online systems for checking applications on registers, I suspect that they are now rejecting far more applications where the information does not match up with the application concerned. Where a tenant has breached a term in their agreement, landlords may seek a possession order from the courts on the basis that there has been a breach of a term of the tenancy agreement, or housing fraud, or where one of the other statutory grounds for possession has been made out.
Where there are concerns about tenancy fraud, councils and landlords already have strong powers to investigate and take action—I believe that the noble Baroness opposite put those in place. We expect social landlords to manage their stock effectively, and anyone with evidence of a fraudulent tenancy should report it to the relevant local authority so that appropriate action can be taken. The Government are looking at this issue as part of the wider stock management review that I referred to. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked me how long properties are left vacant in between tenancies; I do not have that specific information to hand, but I will write to her on that point. We do not think that further legislation is needed here.
I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for Amendment 116 and his powerful advocacy for it. I fully recognise the strength of feeling around the need to bring empty homes back into use. We do not believe that placing a new statutory duty on all local authorities to produce a detailed five year plan on empty homes is the right approach. Local authorities already have powers to identify and acquire empty homes and to bring them back into use. Many are actively doing so through locally tailored strategies that reflect their housing markets and priorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, there are many reasons why that takes longer than it should, and we should look at those obstacles. As the noble Lord said, we should not have empty homes while families live in temporary accommodation, and we are working with our councils to make sure that that does not happen.
However, the amendment would risk duplicating the existing planning and reporting requirements and would impose a significant administrative burden, regardless of whether empty homes are a material issue in a particular area. We are clear that progress on empty homes is best delivered through local flexibility, supported by existing powers and funding, rather than through a one-size-fits-all statutory process.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and, of course, to the Minister for her response. I especially mention my noble friend Lord Evans, as he saw this as an important debate to make his first contribution in.
The discussions highlighted an important point. Although much attention is devoted to increasing housing supply, making best use of the homes that we already have has to be equally important. The amendments in the group have approached the challenge from a number of angles, including regeneration, supported housing, stock management, fraud prevention and the utilisation of vacant properties. Although they focus on different aspects of the system, they all ask whether existing housing assets are being used as effectively as they could be.
I remain particularly concerned that, at a time when housing waiting lists remain high, we should do everything possible in our power to ensure that social housing properties are occupied by those who are entitled to them and that homes do not remain vacant for longer than necessary. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about turnaround times and look forward to seeing that information. Effective management is not an alternative to new supply, but it is certainly an essential component and should not be forgotten.
I was interested in the discussion around regeneration. Done well, regeneration can improve housing quality, strengthen communities and increase housing supply simultaneously. It is therefore important that the Government continue to think strategically about how existing estates can contribute to meeting future housing need. The need may change. It is not easy. We all know that, at the start of a regeneration project, you have decamped people. If you have not got the empty homes, it is difficult to make that happen.
On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, concerning empty homes, I agree that long-term vacant properties can represent a missed opportunity, particularly where housing need is acute. However, I sound a note of caution. Property rights remain an important principle. We should be careful about any approach that assumes that the state should have an ever-expanding role in determining how privately owned homes are used. The challenge is to strike the right balance between encouraging properties back into use and respecting legitimate private ownership. That does not mean that we could not address the empty ones in social housing—about 92,000 homes, according to the House of Lords Library.
I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for her contribution and hope that we can work together ahead of Report to tackle fraud in the social housing system. We need to make use of the powers and encourage others to use those powers. We know that, in a lot of these cases, these are the tenants who are not going to raise their head above the parapet because they are not going to want to be seen. I heard of a case at the weekend in which a key worker thought that they were privately renting a property for £2,000 a month but had a knock on the door from the council. It was actually a council property, costing the council tenant £800 a month. Someone is making a nice amount of money while the wrong person is living in the property. We need to concentrate on this.
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points that were raised in the debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Rather than the noble Baroness waiting for a letter from me, I can give her the answer to her question about the time spent between tenancies now. It is a median of 30 days.
“Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safetyAfter section 86 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) insert—“86ZA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety(1) This section applies where—(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure and assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is— (a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy, and(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—(a) the registered provider,(b) the tenant, or(c) any member of the tenant’s household.(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.””
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 are in my name. Amendment 61 would ensure that social housing providers—councils and housing associations—offer a new secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, including domestic abuse and gang violence, in accordance with police advice.
The amendment has its origins in the debates on the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. It was proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. Helen Hayes’s constituent, known as Georgia, was forced out of her housing association home of nine years when her eldest son was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that her son’s life was at risk and that she should move immediately for his safety. If anyone thinks that the risks in such a case may be exaggerated, they should note that later the younger brother in this case was brutally murdered in a separate unrelated incident. Having moved swiftly to temporary accommodation, as advised by the police, when the moment came to return to a secure tenancy, Georgia found herself at the bottom of the housing waiting list once again, despite paying rent on both her original home and the temporary placement.
Georgia spent a year in dreadful temporary accommodation but then found she had no right of return to a secure home until the housing association finally relented. Amendment 61 seeks to rectify this deficiency in the protection afforded to social housing tenants, giving them a right of return where their move resulted from police advice. The Regulator of Social Housing would ensure that the social landlord granted the displaced tenant a secure tenancy. In the event of the registered provider being unable to do so, the regulator would have to ensure that the social landlord concerned co-operated with other social landlords to ensure an appropriate new, secure tenancy. Although an enlightened housing provider might ignore the administrative niceties and allow a return to a secure home, the amendment makes this obligatory, not a matter of discretion, for the social housing landlord. This would seem to be a matter of righting an injustice in the current system and would seem only fair.
I turn to Amendment 62, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I am grateful for the important work done on this amendment by the Chartered Institute of Housing. Amendment 62 clarifies the legal position for social landlords who need to gain access to their property to carry out safety checks and works. Social landlords must fulfil a widening range of health and statutory duties following the increased regulation of the sector over recent years. However, they are finding increased difficulty in gaining access to some tenants’ homes for checks, particularly the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic electrical safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. If these checks are not done, the occupiers and their neighbours face potential dangers and the landlords themselves can be accused of regulatory failure and may face criminal prosecution.
Amendment 62 aims to clarify the law and provide an acceptable route for forced access where, in a minority of cases, this is necessary. The aim must be to prevent cases being taken to court, as well as to be clear on what happens when this is the only option in no-access cases. In 2025, bodies representing social housing providers, led by the Chartered Institute of Housing, commissioned a consultancy, HQN, to consider these issues. The resulting report, Opening the Door, provides sound advice on good practice for gaining access to tenants’ homes by consent. However, there remains the need for landlords to go to court to obtain permission to enter a tenant’s home in persistent no-access cases.
For forced entry, the social landlord currently relies on the tenancy terms and can seek a county court access injunction. Section 12 of the Housing Act 1988 applies, along with Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985. The problem is that two conflicting county court judgments have created confusion over whether landlords really can force access to a property despite the dangers of not doing so; for example, from faulty gas or electrical installations. The social landlords have no desire to start possession proceedings for eviction, which would represent a disproportionate and unhelpful way of resolving the safety issue. Tenants might be failing to give access because of mental health difficulties, including hoarding behaviours, while others might simply struggle to make appointments. These tenants need help and support, not eviction. Amendment 62 would clarify the law, providing for compulsory access after the issuing of clear notice requirements, prior reasonable engagement and strict safeguards. It is a necessary response to a growing problem. I commend the amendment and I beg to move Amendment 61.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63 in my name. I apologise to the noble Lord: I was just coming through the doors as he rose to his feet. It took me longer to get down the stairs than I was intending. It would have been easier if I had been swimming.
Amendment 63 simply extends the statutory provision to include a wider group of potential beneficiaries. In no sense does it seek to dilute the critical importance of the primary purpose of the intention around those suffering domestic abuse, but it seeks to include other groups who would benefit and whom it seems appropriate to fit within this statutory provision, not least disabled people, those coming out of care situations and those coming out of custodial situations. It seems a logical extension of the statutory provision that does not in any sense dilute the primary purpose but is very much in the spirit, intention and purpose of the Bill.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 65 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, who have supported it. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This is my first time speaking in Committee, so I apologise to noble Lords for having to be prompted to rise to my feet.
This amendment would ensure that domestic abuse survivors were not made ineligible for a social home as a result of debt incurred in the context of abuse. This speech will be short because I do not have criticisms to make of the Bill. I merely hope to strengthen further the very welcome changes that it proposes for survivors of domestic abuse.
As I know noble Lords are aware, and as I saw time and time again as chief executive both of Women’s Aid and Shelter, domestic abuse survivors who manage to leave their abuser are often systematically robbed of their financial independence. The fact that they might become homeless is a threat frequently wielded by perpetrators to maintain control: “If you leave me, you’ll have nowhere to live”. Or even worse: “If you leave me, the children will be homeless”. All too often, the housing system makes these threats come true, preventing victims gaining safety and not allowing survivors and their children the safe space they desperately need to rebuild their lives together.
The Bill as it stands is already life-changing for survivors. It takes important steps towards shifting the system so that it is on the side of the survivor, not the perpetrator. My amendment is one more step in the same direction, which I believe would strengthen the Bill still further.
In just one month in 2023, research found that 1,500 children were trapped living in temporary accommodation as a result of housing-related debt, which according to local authority rules meant their mother could not get a social home. The housing crisis has grown only worse since then and so has the dangerous shortage of refuge accommodation for women fleeing abuse. This is exacerbated when women cannot move on from refuge into a social home and are therefore occupying a space that could literally save another woman’s life.
At Shelter, colleagues working in front-line services and on the helpline saw daily that a gatekeeping culture exists in many local authorities. For a start, survivors are not believed. Then, rules governing housing allocations are used to make the gateway to a social home as narrow as it can possibly be. Yes, there is guidance, and I am aware that the Government believe that statutory guidance can be used to achieve the ends that this amendment would achieve. I am sure that in the best local authorities that is true, but I have seen guidance disregarded many times and colleagues at both Shelter and Women’s Aid having to intervene to get a survivor’s rights upheld. The problem is that a minority of survivors have a powerful advocate on their side; most are struggling on their own. For them, all too often, guidance is not enough.
It is also not urgent enough, nor is it guaranteed. The time and uncertainty of consultation is time and uncertainty that survivors and their children cannot afford. This is especially true in the context of a desperate shortage of funds in local government, an even worse shortage of social homes, the imminent local government reorganisation, and the disruption and local shifts of emphasis following the local elections, not to mention the current political instability, which means timetables can vary. In this context, it is appropriate that priority matters are dealt with urgently by legislation. We are in the middle of a housing emergency, a funding crisis in women’s refuges and major upheaval in local government. Domestic abuse survivors are caught in the eye of this storm.
The truth is that no family should be in temporary accommodation, but that is not the reality we are in. No local authority should be gatekeeping social homes in a way that denies people their rights as enshrined in guidance, but that is not the reality we are in. This Bill, which places domestic abuse survivors at the centre of the social housing system, can be an even bigger opportunity for this House to demonstrate that we believe that domestic abuse survivors and their children, who have been systematically deprived of their financial independence, simply must have every chance to recover and that a safe and secure home is the foundation of that.
I am grateful for the hard work done by the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Shared Health Foundation and researchers from King’s College London and Oxford Brookes University on this amendment, which is supported by Women’s Aid, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse and other expert organisations.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has brought to this amendment her considerable experience in dealing with domestic abuse and homelessness.
It is not that long ago that the expectation was that, when somebody was the victim of domestic abuse, they had to leave their home and the perpetrator could be left in possession of the home. Thankfully, we have, in a number of ways, changed that thinking. Domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices in the Domestic Abuse Act have given powers to ensure that it is the perpetrator who leaves. I welcome Schedule 1 to the Bill and the efforts that the Government are making to provide greater stability and security to the victims of domestic abuse.
It is also not that long ago that we thought that domestic abuse was purely domestic violence and always had a physical violence element. As we know now, there is complexity to domestic abuse, which can include coercive control and economic control. It is in that sense that Amendment 65 is so important. It recognises that there are victims of domestic abuse who may be victims of economic coercive control and find that debt has been racked up by their perpetrator, unbeknown to them. When they are trying to leave, and trying to secure social housing for themselves, they find that that debt is against their name as well, perhaps as having been joint tenants, and find themselves in an impossible situation that has been created because they were a victim of the actions of the perpetrator.
I hope that the Government are going to look favourably on the amendment. An effort is being made by the Government through this Bill to change the scenario for those who are the victims of domestic abuse, but there is this loophole. The Government need to look at this element, given the knowledge we now have of the forms that domestic abuse can take and the greater understanding we have of the circumstances in which people can be left that are nothing to do with their behaviour, but purely because they have been the victim of a perpetrator.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I apologise that I was unable to contribute at Second Reading, but I am pleased to speak now in support of Amendment 65 and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May, who made such a strong case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling the amendment. Given her experience at Shelter and Women’s Aid, I can think of no better person to take up this important issue.
The relationship between homelessness and debt resulting from economic coercion and abuse, which we have just heard about, was brought to my attention last year in a briefing on a book by Professor Katherine Brickell and Dr Mel Nowicki, Debt Trap Nation. This provided evidence on the general problem of domestic abuse survivors unable to qualify for housing because of restrictive housing allocation policies. They found that fewer than one in five local authorities specifically exempts survivors from housing-related debt rules. Indeed, significant housing-related debt is sometimes bracketed with being a perpetrator of domestic abuse under the rubric of unacceptable behaviour that provides grounds for exclusion from housing. Some debt is what the researchers called coerced debt, generated through financial transactions that the victim is told to make or is aware of the abuser making in their name. They cite the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse, which discovered that victims of economic violence were at high risk of having rent arrears. As Brickell and Nowicki note, debt chips away at women’s autonomy to make decisions in their own interests.
Moreover, as the Chartered Institute of Housing points out, children suffer as a result of these exclusionary policies. The researchers observe that adult and child domestic abuse survivors subject to them are, in effect, left in limbo in temporary accommodation until they can reduce or clear rent arrears. The effect on children can be traumatic. Reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation is one of the main aims of the child poverty strategy as well as of the homelessness strategy, so the amendment would contribute to both. The institute explains why it believes action should be taken in this legislation, rather than await the statutory guidance promised in the announced allocations review, as legislation would be more appropriate and there is a strong case for not delaying the matter. This very much accords with the strong argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. A few local authorities already pursue this policy; for example, Bedford Borough Council states:
“A blanket policy will not be operated in relation to housing debt and each case will be considered on its own merits ...Where a housing related debt has arisen as a direct result of a person being a victim of domestic abuse the debt will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the application”.
This is to be applauded, but survivors should not have to rely on the discretion of individual local authorities.
The Bill is so positive when it comes to the position of domestic abuse survivors that it would be a real shame not to include this amendment, or one that achieved the same aim. At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made it clear that this Bill should not be viewed as a Christmas tree Bill. That is understandable, but I believe that this amendment is no bauble to add to the tree but rather that it would strengthen the very roots of the Bill. It is totally consistent with the existing welcome provisions, as the noble Baroness made clear. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will be able to look upon it favourably before Report.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 12 and Schedule 1 introduce important new protections for social housing tenants experiencing domestic abuse. I welcome these measures, which will help ensure that victims can leave unsafe accommodation or remain in their homes safely without losing their tenancy rights. I also support Amendment 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Best, which seeks to guarantee continuity of secure tenancy where a tenant’s safety is at risk. No one should be forced to forfeit their secure tenancy as a result of violence or intimidation.
It is the case that the availability of adequate social housing is often a critical determining factor in cases where a victim of abuse or intimidation is unable to access a new secure tenancy. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and can therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Improving partnership working and best practice between housing associations and local authorities, as well as clear guidance for social housing staff, will be vital for these important new protections to work effectively.
I am also speaking in support of Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Best, relating to access for safety, to which I have added my name. I welcome the broad support for this amendment from the housing sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs. Housing associations are spending more each year to invest in existing homes but report increasing difficulty in securing access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspections, repairs and safety works. This reflects a growing mismatch between duties and powers. Providers rightly face stronger statutory obligations to identify and remedy hazards, yet they lack clear and consistent legal routes to gain access in the small number of cases where residents just do not engage.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, but I am also going to make a few remarks to wind up this group on behalf of our Benches. We are trying hard not to duplicate speakers, aware that everyone is desperate to see the football—all right, not everyone, but most people—and we have an awful lot to get through.
There have been a number of powerful and helpful contributions on this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has huge authority and experience in this area, and it is notable that the sector supports the amendment she has tabled, arguing that it is really needed. The heart of the Bill is around protection for victims of domestic violence, and my concern is that, without an amendment like this, we leave out one hugely important plank—an area that gives abusers the power to continue to exercise control and leave women without access to the protection we want to provide. I remind the Minister that this amendment has cross-party support, and it was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, a former Home Secretary, advocate for it. I hope the Government will take this away and consider how it might be brought forward, perhaps at a later stage. As others have said, without this measure, child maintenance could be withheld—coercive control around money is often at the heart of abusive relationships—so I urge the Government to consider this amendment.
I listened carefully to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, about Amendments 61 and 62. These amendments seem to us to make good points, particularly about access for safety checks. I was going to refer to the legal case the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to— Southern Housing v James Emmanuel in October 2025 —arguing that, without parliamentary action, it is not clear whether housing associations have the power to force access for safety reasons. In the light of so many recent issues around fire, for example, we really have to tackle this issue and make it clear to social housing providers whether they have the power to take such action. We are also supportive of Amendment 61 and urge the Government to think about how we might ensure continuity for secure tenancy in cases where, on police advice, people are forced to leave their homes because of violence.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so thoughtfully to this sensitive and highly important debate. As my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading, we welcome the Government’s efforts to empower landlords and the courts to protect all victims of domestic abuse.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments, which focus on the issues concerning tenants’ safety. His Amendment 61 asks us to consider threats to personal safety due not only to domestic abuse but to escalating disputes with neighbours or targeted youth and gang violence. It is right that we consider how tenants can be protected from those other threats, and Amendment 62 seeks to give providers greater powers to carry out legally required safety checks. I hope the Government will give those amendments their due consideration.
Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to ensure that vulnerable groups such as older tenants, veterans, care leavers, disabled people, those with mental health conditions and families with children in temporary accommodation have the necessary statutory provision. We will also touch on prioritising veterans in another amendment later today, but my noble friend is right that we should consider the specific needs of these groups too, and that we expect local authorities to do so as well.
Amendment 65, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and was responded to by many others, raises a very important issue. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this. Victims of financial abuse should be protected, not prevented from bidding for social housing. I would be interested to hear from the Government how that could be implemented by working together with local authorities, and how we can ensure that such protections are not themselves abused.
Amendment 64, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, seeks to ensure that the court system has the capacity and resources to effectively determine whether domestic abuse has taken place within a household with a social housing tenancy, an issue that a few of the speakers referred to. Court readiness was debated at length in relation to the Renters’ Rights Act, and it is important that the Government ensure that landlords and courts are ready for these changes too, so that victims are protected effectively.
Amendment 108, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, raises the issue of which local authority is responsible for safeguarding needs when a tenant is moved out of an area of one local authority to another. Our amendment suggests that, where a local housing authority secures accommodation for tenants outside its area, that authority retains responsibility for safeguarding oversight and the costs involved. We welcome the insights of other noble Lords on this issue and what scenarios must be taken into account, but I hope the Minister will look into it and how the Bill could address it. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very thoughtful debate on these amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling Amendment 61, which addresses an important issue around the safety and security of tenants facing violence. I am very sympathetic to this amendment’s aims to protect all tenants of social housing providers registered with the Regulator of Social Housing and thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue forward. I want to be clear that tenants should never fear losing their security of tenure if they need to move because of the threat of violence and abuse.
While I am supportive of the intent of the amendment, as drafted it will mean a fundamental shift in the role of the Regulator of Social Housing as currently set out in statute. The regulator’s statutory remit does not include intervening in individual tenancy decisions. The regulator focuses interventions on systemic issues, and this amendment would change this and risk cutting across established principles of regulatory best practice. Furthermore, the consumer standards set by the regulator already place on registered providers several requirements relevant to this amendment, including to work with partners to support victims of domestic abuse and to demonstrate how they deliver the outcomes of these standards.
In addition, there is already legislation in place that seeks to protect people at risk of violence in need of urgent rehousing. If a local authority grants a victim of domestic abuse a new tenancy for reasons connected with the abuse, it is required to give former or existing secure tenants another secure lifetime tenancy rather than a fixed-term tenancy. The social housing allocations framework dictates that where people are homeless or need to move on welfare grounds and apply to be rehoused through a local authority waiting list, they must be given reasonable preference—priority—for social housing. By extension, these protections can also engage private registered providers through the duty to co-operate with their local authority in housing people with priority. Homelessness legislation is also clear that, where appropriate, victims of serious violence are able to access support from homelessness services should they need to relocate, and that a vulnerable victim of domestic violence has priority need for accommodation.
Measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse also seek to achieve a similar aim to this amendment by ensuring that a joint tenant remains housed either in their original home or in suitable alternative accommodation where this is available. While it does not oblige a registered provider to act, it does empower it to do so. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, I recognise that this is an important issue and have asked my officials to consider this matter further. I or my officials or both would be happy to meet the noble Lord before Report to discuss this matter.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 62, which would introduce a new statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to meet statutory safety duties. I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that landlords are able to carry out essential safety checks, including gas and electrical inspections, and to ensure that smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are installed and functioning properly. I also recognise that access to homes is a growing concern. However, I am not persuaded that creating a new statutory access route is necessary to achieve this.
Landlords already have established routes for enabling access to homes. In addition, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1998 imply a right of access to tenancies where landlords are required to meet repairing obligations. Where a tenant refuses access, landlords can seek to remedy this through an injunction from the court. I reassure the Committee that, following a joint consultation with the Ministry of Justice on housing disrepair claims, we are currently analysing the responses to deepen our understanding of how the current process works, including what does not work or is unclear, so we can make sure that that process is as effective as possible.
Extending the needs of landlords to enable them to force access must be balanced, of course, against tenants’ existing rights, including the right to respect their private and family life and their home under Article 8 of the ECHR. Where a landlord has taken appropriate steps and cannot gain access, the Government made it clear in our response to the decent homes standard consultation that guidance will set out steps providers should take, and we will work with the sector and tenants to develop this guidance.
This amendment would introduce a separate, highly prescriptive statutory process alongside the existing routes and work we already have under way to consider access to homes for emergency safety reasons. In particular, the provision to authorise the use of reasonable force raises concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home. The amendment would also impose detailed procedural requirements that could reduce flexibility and delay action where timely access is needed to meet critical safety obligations. However, I recognise that this matter needs further consideration, so I intend to convene interested stakeholders to discuss access in emergency situations and identify the next steps.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly rich group of amendments. I think we have all appreciated the contributions of all noble Lords on these six amendments. Perhaps I could confine my closing remarks to Amendments 61, 62 and 65, on all of which the Minister has expressed not just sympathy but a willingness to do something further.
I know that Amendment 61, on where people have to forfeit the right to a secure tenancy when they have been advised by the police to move out to temporary accommodation, has struck a nerve. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their support for this amendment. All of them also supported Amendment 62, where we are seeking clarification of the law on gaining access for safety checks that are for the benefit of the occupiers, but where access is being denied.
The Minister said that further consideration will be given to both these amendments. It is clear that existing provisions are not working, even if they exist. She has generously agreed not just to meet in relation to the forfeiting of rights to secure tenancies when moved on by the police, where a meeting will be held with myself and colleagues, but to convene a session, on the guidance that is evolving, with the Ministry of Justice on the opportunities to gain access where that is, at the moment, being denied. These are helpful concessions from the Minister, and I am very grateful.
This brings me to Amendment 65 and the very powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I think we are all deeply grateful to her for bringing her lifetime of experience and understanding of these issues to the debate. I am grateful, too, to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for supporting this amendment, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Warwick and Lady Teather. I think the Minister has agreed to take this away and, in considering the updating of guidance, which is clearly out of date on these issues, to have another go and, again, to convene a session at which further debate can take place on this crucial issue, which has been very well explored in the Committee today. It is a tribute to the Committee to have been part of this debate. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 61.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it appears that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, withdrew from this section at a late time so, if it is the Committee’s pleasure, I will listen to the debate and the Minister, and save my comments till the end.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Would it be in order to speak to Amendment 66?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
For clarification, the question before the Committee is that Clause 14 stand part.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Amendment 66 in my name is a probing amendment relating to the paragraph which abolishes the provision in earlier legislation to phase out tenancies for life. It has much in common with Amendments 77 and 78, which are in the names of my noble friends.
There were two speeches at Second Reading which made me think the time had come to review the assumption that life tenancies are the best way to allocate a scarce resource. Neither speech, as it happens, was from these Benches. One was from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and this is what he said:
“Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham ... there we had our own beautiful piece of social housing. In that block of flats were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who were old. It was sociable and socially mixed”.
He went on to say:
“Unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]
The other speech was from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, and this is what he said:
“There are some policies pursued by Governments which are very much of their time. Perhaps regrettably, we do not review those policies sufficiently regularly and they become enshrined in our body politic, but they were the answer to the question of a different era”.
He was talking about the right to buy, but it struck me that the same might be said of security of tenure. It was the right policy at the time, but that does not mean it is the right policy for today. The noble Lord went on to make the point that times had changed, saying:
“Councils have ever-increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation. There is no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let; there is a housing shortage”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 693-4.]
Times have indeed changed. I looked at the speech which Nye Bevan gave on 16 March 1949, when he introduced the Housing Bill. He said:
“We shall, of course, go on providing additional homes until we have reached the position of providing a separate home for every family in the country. The House must reflect that when that is done—and we shall do it before very long—it will be the first time that any nation has done it in the recorded history of mankind”—
would that he had been right about that. But he went on to say that
“we should try to introduce in our modern villages”,
and towns, housing where
“the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street … in ... the living tapestry of a mixed community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/1949; cols. 2124-27.]
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was busy trying to think of counterarguments; the noble Lord, Lord Young, has caught me there. We feel that what unites these amendments is an attempt to drag social housing policy backwards, and to revive a model of insecurity that simply did not work. We have heard this argument before—that fixed-term tenancies somehow make the system fairer or more efficient—but in reality they created uncertainty for tenants, instability for families and churning communities, without coming anywhere close to solving the real problem, which, as we all acknowledge, is a chronic shortage of social housing.
With the exception of Amendment 70, which we have not heard about yet, and while my brain is still thinking about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, these proposals feel less like a serious answer to today’s housing challenges and more like a re-run of policies that were already tested and found wanting. Take Clause 16, the power to give housing providers the right to raise rents as tenants get higher wages. I can imagine the dinner table conversation: “Great news: I’ve been promoted! I’m getting some extra money. We’ll get above ‘just about managing’. It might give us the cushion we need. But wait: won’t they put our rent up if they find out we’re earning more? Perhaps I won’t take that promotion”. We could not support a measure that would dampen self-improvement and aspiration, let alone the logistics of administering it. With regard to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, how does one logistically monitor those sorts of things within a tenancy?
As Liberal Democrats, we took a very different approach from the Conservative Benches in supporting the renters’ rights reform. We believe that people deserve a secure home, not a tenancy that comes with a built-in expiry date and the constant threat of upheaval. It cannot be right that, just as we strengthen security for private renters, we simultaneously ask social tenants—who, as has been amplified, are those in the greatest need of stability—to accept less.
Of course social housing must be used fairly and responsibly, and we are getting into that dialogue now, but fairness is achieved not by making tenancies more precarious but by building more homes and supporting tenants to move when it is right for them. I know that is tricky, but it can be done. One area where it needs to be done most is in the freeing up of family homes. Usually, this means a widow occupying a three-bedroom family house, when she could move down to a nice ground-floor, one-bedroom flat. This can be done, but we must ensure that the system works with people and not against them.
In our view, these amendments would take us in the wrong direction. They would revive a failed approach and undermine the progress that is trying to be made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that the people whom we now house are very different. The statistics support that many people in social housing receive benefits, even though they are working. Therefore, I am not sure about what the noble Lord says with regard to private sector rents and whether people’s lives would improve so much that they could pay them in the same area. The cohorts that we are housing now do not seem to bear that out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond first to the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to oppose Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. I understand that this is a probing amendment seeking more detail on the Government’s rationale for repealing the powers. It is essential that local housing authorities have flexibility to manage their stock in a way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 14 therefore removes provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have forced councils to sell their highest-value council homes whenever they became vacant. I say “would have forced” because these provisions were never implemented.
Even so, the presence of the provisions on the statute book had a very negative effect on local authorities’ spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties. The policy was intended to raise capital to supply new social homes but would ultimately have led to a net loss in social housing. The last Government chose never to implement these measures due to the negative impact they would have had on local authorities. We are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether. That time is now, and Clause 14 fulfils that commitment, so I commend it to the Committee.
I turn to Clause 15 and Amendments 66, 77 and 78. All these relate to the Government’s intention to repeal uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies offered by local authorities to be fixed term. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has just said. The Government fundamentally believe that people, families and communities all benefit from secure homes. That is why we enabled this for private renters through the Renters’ Rights Act. It would be entirely counterintuitive to remove that security from social housing tenants.
The probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, explores alternatives to lifetime tenancies, and Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies. Nothing in the Bill prevents local housing authorities from granting fixed-term tenancies where they consider it to be appropriate—for example, to support time-limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts. The Bill does not change that. Schedule 3, paragraph 1 repeals uncommenced provisions that would have required most new secure tenancies to be granted on a fixed-term basis. Those provisions were never brought into force, and we are removing them to provide clarity. We want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. It is not right to require that most new tenants be offered fixed-term tenancies, as this would reduce their security.
Amendment 78 would require a review of the provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 which would have replaced lifetime secure tenancies with fixed-term tenancies for new tenants. However, as we discussed, those provisions were never commenced, and the Bill repeals them. It is therefore not possible to review the measures. The Government already collect data on new social housing lettings, including tenancy type and length of fixed-term tenancies. We therefore already have an established source of information on how fixed-term tenancies are being used. The stock management review, which we are currently undertaking, is the right place to consider the issues highlighted for proposed review, rather than requiring a separate statutory review of provisions that were never brought into force. For those reasons, I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
Turning to Clause 16, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 80, which would allow higher rents to be charged to higher-income social housing tenants. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has set out her intention to oppose Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. The Government are reviewing both the statutory social housing allocations guidance and how social landlords are making effective use of their existing stock. Taken together, these amendments would, in effect, reintroduce the pay-to-stay policy, which was included in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 but never implemented. In fact, Amendment 80 would go even further than the current provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 by requiring registered providers, as well as local housing authorities, to charge higher rents to higher-income tenants.
As I previously noted, these pay-to-stay provisions were never implemented, and the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections from noble Lords during the passage of that legislation. Indeed, the previous Government chose not to commence them as the costs outweighed the benefits. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants, and it is right to maintain that approach. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said: we want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings, and avoid curtailing their aspirations and ambitions, through this process. For those reasons, these amendments are not necessary. I ask that they be withdrawn, and I commend Clause 16 to the Committee.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 70, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. This would require a social landlord to conduct a tenancy review where a tenant is engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour. During the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, I spoke about the challenges of tackling anti-social behaviour and drew on my 27 years of experience as a local councillor. No tenant should feel unsafe in their home as a result of the behaviour of others. Where behaviour is persistent and has a serious impact on neighbours and communities, landlords must be able to respond quickly and appropriately.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, especially my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I thank the Minister for the response. I hope she realises that these amendments were tabled in view of our previous amendments and in light of trying to make best use of the stock available. However, we accept what the Minister is saying. These amendments are probing ones to explain some of those options, but I accept the Government’s response.
“Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedureIn section 320 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (orders and regulations), in subsection (7)(d), for “sections 70 and 72” substitute “those sections referred to in subsection (3)(d)”.” Member’s explanatory statement
Section 320(3)(d) HRA 2008 applies affirmative procedure to regulations under section 126A of that Act. Section 126A is not expressly excepted from section 320(7)(d) (which applies negative procedure), and so there could be uncertainty about which resolution procedure applies. This amendment would prevent any such doubt.
Lord Jamieson
“Local connection requirements(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 166A(7) and 167(3) of the Housing Act 1996, require that local housing authorities ensure that reasonable preference in allocations policies takes account of local connection.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), local connection includes—(a) residence,(b) employment,(c) family association, or(d) service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on the implementation of subsections (1) and (2).(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen local connection considerations in social housing allocations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84 and 113 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle: social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. As we have heard in previous debates, demand exceeds supply in many parts of the country. It is therefore essential that allocation policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords Library shows that each new social rent home requires a grant of between £80,000 and £100,000 in order to be built. Those figures are for outside of London; I do not have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher.
Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. If we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us. As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. In many cases, that is not the case, but it is the concern. The Minister has related stories of the difficulties she faced from the locals when Stevenage was originated as a new town. Communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to the area are given appropriate consideration. Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring that housing is directed to those with genuine ties to the community in the area.
Amendment 69 concerns eligibility for social housing among those who are not British citizens. Given the pressures that exist on housing waiting lists across the country, it is important that the Government are clear about who is eligible for social housing and that we ask whether reform is needed. Ultimately, this amendment is about the principles that underpin allocation of scarce public resources.
As of March 2023, there were approximately 1.33 million households on the local authority housing registers in England—the highest figures for a decade, and significantly higher than in recent years. Behind those statistics are families, pensioners, young people and vulnerable individuals, all waiting for access to secure and affordable accommodation. At the same time, 431,000 households in social housing had a lead tenant who was a non-UK national, representing around 10% of all social housing households. These figures inevitably raise legitimate questions about eligibility, prioritisation and fairness.
The purpose of this amendment is not to diminish the contribution that many non-citizens make to our country or to ignore the complexity of the individual circumstances. We are not saying that we should not support those who come to this country and contribute—but that does not mean that they should be entitled to potentially a lifetime council house at well below market rent. Indeed, that is why we want to have this debate—an honest and mature debate. When demand substantially exceeds supply, who should social housing be intended to serve? That reflects some of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s comments in the previous debate.
Many members of the public would reasonably expect that access to social housing should be closely linked to contribution, long-term commitment and belonging to this country. At the very least, Parliament and the public should have a clear understanding of who social housing is for. Public confidence in the social housing system depends greatly on the perception of fairness. I refer back to my comments that this requires a substantial upfront subsidy, which is particularly important at a time when waiting lists remain at historically high levels.
Amendment 74 similarly seeks greater clarity regarding the guidance on social housing eligibility in respect of certain foreign public officeholders and associated persons. This amendment arises in part from concerns highlighted by a recent high-profile case involving the First Lady of Sierra Leone. That case raised significant public concern and has rightly received widespread scrutiny. I appreciate that that has now been resolved, but it took 12 months from the public becoming aware. It is not about a single individual or a single country. Rather, where individuals hold senior public office overseas or are closely associated with those who do, is it not reasonable to ask whether existing eligibility rules are sufficiently clear and robust? We seek clarity from the Government on this. Are existing checks and information-sharing arrangements sufficient? Are local authorities equipped to identify circumstances in which an applicant’s position, assets or access to resources overseas may be relevant to eligibility decisions?
Amendment 81 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. It is important that eligibility criteria remain aligned with economic realities and reflect changes in incomes, housing costs and local circumstances. Thresholds that are not regularly reviewed risk becoming detached from the conditions they were designed to address.
Amendments 82 and 84 seek better information. One would require estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration. The other would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. Whatever views noble Lords may take on wider immigration policy, effective public policy depends on understanding demand. Local authorities cannot plan effectively unless they have a clear picture of the pressures affecting housing needs in their areas.
Amendment 113 would require housing register applications to be reviewed periodically to ensure that waiting lists remain accurate and up to date. Given the pressures on social housing supply, it is important that waiting lists reflect genuine and current need.
I was particularly interested in Amendments 93 and 94, concerning prison leavers and former offenders. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his long-standing work on prison reform and rehabilitation. The cost of reoffending both to society and to the public purse is enormous. Amendment 94 is a measured proposal that seeks to improve the sharing of information between prisons and local authorities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.
Together, these amendments seek to ensure that social housing policy is informed by accurate information, fairer eligibility criteria and a clear understanding of housing demand, seeking to get local community support. I beg to move.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 91 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a modest amendment, asking simply that the Secretary of State conduct review of veterans’ access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes or impose new burdens on local authorities; it asks the Government to look and just tell us what they find. I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it is difficult for us to make reasonable judgments about what is working and what is not without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice.
I turn to the case for this amendment. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1,820 to 2,270, according to MHCLG’s homelessness data. The most recent figures, for 2024-25, record over 2,000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help. The ONS veterans survey suggests that the true number may be closer to 7,500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count.
The Government have made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really acknowledge that. The December 2024 regulations removed the five-year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away from a housing register simply for lacking local ties. Updated guidance now explicitly extends additional preference to veterans with service-related mental health conditions, including PTSD. Those are real improvements, and they deserve recognition, but guidance is not the same as accountability. Additional preference does not guarantee placement in the highest band and, in many authorities, even the highest bands involve long waits, because there is just not enough social housing stock. Shelter has noted that the rights veterans hold in practice depend heavily on individual local authority policy and can vary enormously from one area to the next.
There are particular concerns about veterans with service-related disabilities and complex needs. Around 16% of veteran households receiving new social lettings include someone injured or disabled as a result of their service. Specialist adapted accommodation is limited— I spoke about this at Second Reading. I feel particularly passionately about the need to improve the stock of adapted housing because my husband is disabled and we know how difficult it is to find any housing in the private sector or the social sector, which we have not benefited from. If there is simply not enough anywhere, it is difficult for anybody with any disability to do anything other than find themselves waiting for a long time on the social housing waiting list.
Operation Fortitude’s 900 units of veteran supported housing typically run at full capacity. A 2021 review found no new policy introductions for wounded, injured or sick veterans since 2016. The data picture is deeply inadequate. The Government do not publish national figures on how many veterans are on social housing waiting lists. MHCLG’s own lettings statistics acknowledge that between 18% and 44% of local authorities provide complete information on veterans on their registers—that is quite a variation. We cannot evaluate whether the system is working when we cannot see it clearly.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93 in my name and in support of my noble friend Lady Teather on her Amendment 91. My noble friend has made a compelling case for considering access to social housing for former service personnel who have served their country, often in foreign areas, moving from one posting to another. Their personal and home life will have been disrupted and sometimes their relationships have broken down, leaving them without a home to return to at the end of their term of service. Many service personnel will have suffered mental health breakdowns due to the level of stress they experienced in their postings. It is right that those who have served their country with bravery should be able to access a decent home on their discharge. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment.
I turn now to the support required by ex-offenders. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, also has an amendment down to support ex-offenders, and I look forward to his contribution. My amendment is a probing one. On being sentenced and imprisoned, many offenders find that their immediate family and relatives abandon them, sometimes because it is simply too far for them to travel to visit. The expense of a long rail journey and taxi fares at either end are too much for those on limited incomes. Sometimes the length of the sentence can mean that the offender loses all contact with the area they were originally living in. Their rented accommodation is lost, and they have no home to return to. On release, many find that they have nowhere to stay. There are, of course, probation hostels, but these are short term and may not be in a convenient area for those on release.
During the course of their sentence, an offender may have put a tremendous amount of effort into getting the basic grade qualifications in English and maths in readiness for his or her future life. On nearing the end of their sentence, and in preparing for parole, they may have applied for and been successful in getting an offer of employment, perhaps in Asda or another supermarket or outlet. They are essentially set up to be released, to be self-sufficient and to rebuild their life. However, if they have no accommodation, they are at a severe disadvantage. Even if they have a job offer, with no accommodation they are likely to end up sleeping rough, and within a very short period they will be picked up—possibly by criminal gangs, often drug dealers—and offered so-called “safe” accommodation out of the rain in return for what might be trailed as a “minor” drug deal. Within a matter of days of their release, they will be back in prison, with an additional tariff on their sentence. Instead of being able to support themselves and rebuild their lives, they are, despite their best endeavours, continuing to being detained at the taxpayer’s expense. This is a lose-lose scenario that is nothing like the win-win they had been working towards.
Unless statistics are collected on an authority-by-authority basis on how easy or otherwise it is for ex-offenders to access social housing, it will not be possible to be sure that their needs are being met. Ex-offenders, on release, have served their debt to society and help should be provided to allow them to rebuild their lives. Recording statistics will help local authorities and the Government to assess whether they are meeting this need and, thereby, preventing reoffending.
I realise that there are many claims for special treatment to be considered when allocating social housing. However, the category of ex-offenders should receive some consideration. The consequence of being detained, especially for a long sentence, has devastating effects on all involved. Often, those released after such a sentence feel exposed and uncertain about how to cope, and need help to take them forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this group, in particular to Amendments 91, 93 and 94.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I will be following along with her arguments but will speak to my Amendment 94. I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful meeting I had yesterday with her officials.
Amendment 94 does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities working better together to prevent post-release homelessness. This is the point of the amendment. About 10 years ago, I started working with the Ministry of Justice on prison reform, specifically conducting two reviews on how prisoners could maintain family and other key relational ties to prevent their reoffending. I am still involved in the implementation of the recommendations of those reviews, but I am beginning to feel a little like an IPP prisoner with no set date for release.
My amendment would contribute to a collective refocus on offender rehabilitation, which is much needed if we are to have any hope of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs this country £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, and especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any rehabilitation activity they have ever undertaken. Their proven reoffending rate, 76%, is more than twice that for those released from custody into settled accommodation, at 36.4%.
I have been told that existing legislation to prevent homelessness is adequate. However, there appears to be very little accountability regarding local housing authorities’ compliance with that law, which I will touch on briefly. Some are far more effective than others at finding accommodation for ex-prisoners. This is not simply about available housing stock, but the processes they follow and how well they work in partnership with prison and probation. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports, for example, that several London boroughs are frequently problematic, while others with very pressured housing markets are not. Similarly, in 2025, the London Assembly Housing Committee reported inconsistent practice across London boroughs with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and borough housing teams.
My amendment seeks to tighten up the rather loose legal framework, which is not delivering as it should. Ministry of Justice data says that almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. My amendment’s reporting requirements would reveal how local authorities compare with their statistical neighbours. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 introduced a duty on public authorities, including prison and probation, to refer those at threat of homelessness to local authority housing teams, because they would be released within about two months and have nowhere to go. Looking briefly at how that should work, statutory guidance says, rather weakly, that
“Housing authorities are encouraged to … acknowledge receipt of any referral”,
which
“may be in the form of an automatic email reply”.
If that is all the prison is getting and there is no feedback loop, the referral may have simply entered a bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle. Non-statutory guidance says:
“The duty to refer will help to ensure that services are working together effectively to prevent homelessness … It is also anticipated”—
which, again, sounds a little weak—
“that it will encourage local housing authorities and other public authorities to build strong partnerships which enable them to work together to intervene earlier to prevent homelessness through increasingly integrated services”.
However, the local housing authority is merely required to contact the prisoner being referred. The guidance also states merely:
“It is good practice for local housing authorities to go beyond referral procedures and work with other public authorities to prepare a comprehensive assessment of need”
for the prisoner. Where is the grip on local authorities? They are paid from the public purse to obey the law. They are, or should be, accountable for spending and saving public money. Reducing reoffending by just 1% would save £180 million.
My amendment would enable regulations to specify how local housing authorities must respond to referrals. Regulations would specify response times they would need to work to, including when they would need to notify a final decision, and require them to inform the prison or the Probation Service as well as the prisoner. Prisons have a strong legal duty of care towards prisoners and are responsible for pre-release planning. They also need this information and cannot rely on prisoners passing it on to them. The London Assembly Housing Committee found that prisons are not consistently complying with the duty to refer, with late referrals from prison contributing greatly to uncertainty; hence, the regulations are tightening the process at their end as well.
To conclude, currently there are many gaps in the system that we need to close so that soon-to-be-released individuals no longer fall through them. Without accommodation, as we have heard from other noble Lords, they cannot seek work, restructure their lives or take ownership of their rehabilitation. It can be a matter of life or death. Just last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025, a 28% rise since 2021. The primary driver, according to experts, is a rise in prisoners being released into homelessness and falling through “trapdoors to crisis”. The duty to refer was designed to prevent this wherever possible. Almost 10 years on from the Act that introduced it, we must acknowledge that it is not working as it should be for ex-prisoners. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity to fix it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to these amendments, and it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Farmer: he is one of the most indefatigable and persistent champions of the family and of the education and rehabilitation of prisoners, and I commend the work he has done over many years.
As a constituency MP, I had a prison in my constituency. I was once critical of what I thought was the cushy lifestyle of the women’s wing of the prison—it was a coterminous prison, men and women—because it provided aromatherapy in the gym. I criticised this, as the local MP, and of course the Sun put it on the front page, with the immortal headline, “In for a stretch”, which was quite amusing. The serious point is that we can spend very significant amounts of money to make sure that prisoners can read and write, understand civic engagement and have meaningful work, but that is all completely wasted if, when they leave prison, they go back into the clutches of the nefarious and criminal classes, particularly drug dealers.
I commend both noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, will not remember, but we worked together, many moons ago when she was Children’s Minister in the other place, on the rather niche subject of children with Tourette’s syndrome—she did a great job in that role in the coalition Government. Both noble Baronesses are absolutely right that we need to focus. These are permissive amendments to focus on collecting and collating as much data as possible on both ex-offenders and Armed Forces personnel. That is all that these amendments ask for and I heartily concur with all the later amendments in this group.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and I support all the amendments in this group, particularly those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lord Jackson, and those on the Front Bench, which support a review of policy and better information for making policy on politically sensitive matters such as immigration and narrowing the eligibility clause.
In seeking information on accessing social housing and the demand for it, such as that arising from net migration and temporary asylum, we should not forget the context in which these demands are made. It is a question at the centre of our national debate, one which has too often eroded trust in politics and democracies. That is not limited to the UK. Right across stable western systems such as France, Germany and Italy, this question is at the heart of the erosion of trust and the changing shape of democratic stability, which many are worried about. That is the wider context for the immigration amendments. We should not brush this issue, and the pressure it puts on the demand for social housing, under the carpet.
In considering immigration and asylum, we are looking at particularly significant demands, which might, in time, come to outweigh current pressures, if the figures we see today are to lead in any way to a demand for social housing. In the year ending September 2025, 58,148 people were granted protection and leave to remain at the initial decision. Where will they live? Will they add to the pressures and burdens on social housing? We need to know the evidence and the figures and not brush this question under the carpet. In addition, 46,497 illegal migrants were known to have arrived in the year ending December 2025. They may end up being granted leave to remain, given that the Government are trying to process many of them as asylum claims, which will pose additional demands.
Then we have the student visa question. Some 443,000 visas were granted last year. Analysis by a Sky journalist recently showed that, in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of asylum claims by people who had originally come on student visas was 14,800 out of a total of 111,000, meaning that student visa holders have been switching to being asylum seekers. For some, there may be good reason. They may have come from countries in which they would be persecuted and seek asylum when they get here. Having a student visa is the only way to get out. However, for others, such as the Indian nationals this report particularly mentions, a scam operated. In one case, the papers were filled in fraudulently for one member of the family—the lady—and she and her husband came on student visas. However, she had no intention of studying. As a family, they had no money—certainly not the bank account figures that were in the papers. The local authority discussed their case and awarded benefits because they simply could not afford to live, and they have now made their asylum claim.
These kinds of hard-luck stories—and nobody denies that they are hard-luck stories—are pushing up the claims and the demand for social housing. We need evidence so that we can have an open and fair debate. For these reasons, I support the proposed prohibition on granting social housing to anybody but UK citizens, as my noble friends’ various amendments propose.
Before closing, I want to comment on the amendments that seek better information on social housing access for veterans, the case for which was very well argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. I referred on Second Reading to the case of a homeless person at King’s Cross Station who lived hand to mouth and day to day because he was evicted from his council house when his daughter was run over by a cab driver, who was accused and convicted of dangerous driving. She was his sole carer. He had served in the Royal Marines for well over a decade, including in Afghanistan, and because of injuries sustained in serving, he had to be looked after all his life. They were in council housing, and he was evicted after his daughter died because she held the tenancy.
I support the amendments on greater information on offenders, who are some of the saddest cases we have. The literacy levels of as many as 56% of prisoners are less than the reading age of seven, meaning that they are excluded from any kind of literate society. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer’s excellent work for offenders, but I also agree that unless we insist that they be given housing priority, they will go back to a life of crime. As much of the evidence shows, they will go back to crime, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, explained, or to the people who were part of their previous crime network. They have been abandoned by their families—their husbands, wives, children—and others who looked after them. These are very good amendments and I support them.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My noble friends have outlined their cases themselves, so I will just clutch my pearls and resist having a ding-dong with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—which I could, for reasons that will become apparent in my speech.
I will speak carefully on this group, because I have real concerns. I am not going to go into the detail of the individual amendments, but my concerns are the direction and tone that they take when looked at together. Looked at as a whole, they approach access to social housing primarily through restriction and exclusion, with a strong emphasis on immigration status and migration pressures. I understand the political context in which these amendments are being brought forward, but I do not believe this is a helpful or responsible way to address the housing crisis or solve immigration matters. The fundamental driver of pressure on social housing is not who is applying for it; it is the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable homes. Framing access as a competition between groups risks obscuring that reality and diverting attention away from the real task of increasing supply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is about access to and eligibility for social housing. I want to make two opening points. First, it is important that debate on these issues is conducted carefully and respectfully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. Language that stigmatises or mischaracterises people living in or applying for social housing is simply not acceptable. Secondly, I remind noble Lords that there is an extensive review of social housing allocations statutory guidance currently being undertaken, which will consider many of the issues raised as part of this group.
I will address specifically Amendments 69, 74, 82 and 84, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. In 2024-25, 89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals, 4% were European nationals and 8% were from outside the European Economic Area—broadly the same as the previous year. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa prevents access to state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for social housing. Only eligible people can join waiting lists and receive a tenancy. Where foreign nationals are eligible, they will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocation scheme.
On 20 November, the Government announced the biggest reforms to the legal migration system in 50 years. These reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have built their lives here and contributed to our community, the economy and public services. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that I do not think we need to take lessons on asylum from the party opposite, which totally lost control of the system. That is still having an impact on housing and social housing now. We are addressing the system as a whole, which is the right approach, rather than stigmatising those who live in social housing. That is why we oppose Amendment 69. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, the problem here is the lack of available social housing. We cannot blame other people for that —what we need to do is crack on and build some more.
Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance on eligibility for foreign public office holders and associated persons. That power and guidance are unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power under Section 196 of the Housing Act 1996 to issue guidance on social housing allocations. Foreign public office holders and associated persons are already subject to local authority allocation rules. Authorities can apply qualification rules such as local connection and income tests to reflect local priorities. I remember the very same debate in my own authority around the five-year local connection test. There is therefore no need for this power. It would not be appropriate for me to comment here in the Chamber on the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I draw Members’ attention to the statement from Southwark Council on that issue.
Amendments 82 and 84, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would both require assessments that we do not think are necessary. Amendment 82 would require an assessment of social housing demand arising from net migration. Social housing demand depends on many factors and the effect of migration is not direct, so a yearly assessment would not be proportionate. Demand for social housing comes from a multitude of factors that are likely to be correlated, including economic conditions and a range of government policies. It is artificial and potentially misleading to seek to neatly and reliably separate the impact of net migration from other factors.
Amendment 84 would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. It is important to reiterate that asylum seekers are not eligible for social housing, so they will not be adding to demand for social housing. Where an individual is granted refugee status, they may subsequently approach a local authority for housing support. Whether they access social housing will depend on meeting local authority allocation policies, including any local connection or residency tests.
I want to highlight the progress made on sharing asylum pressures more fairly across the country. Since 2022, the Home Office has shifted from a model where asylum accommodation was concentrated in a small number of areas to one where all local authorities share responsibility, with each allocated a defined, evidence-based share of demand.
Much of the data sought in the amendment is already available. My department collects and publishes extensive information on social housing waiting lists and allocations, including data on new lettings and household characteristics. The Home Office regularly publishes a breakdown by local authority of accommodated asylum seekers, and my department publishes the homelessness duties owed to those as a result of leaving asylum support as part of statutory homelessness statistics. With this explanation, I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, does not press these amendments.
Amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seeks to require local housing authorities to take account of local connection when considering if an applicant for social housing should be awarded reasonable preference for an allocation of social housing. Local connection tests help local housing authorities manage social housing stock and are best placed to set the rules to ensure homes meet local housing pressures and that policies take account of the local context. We seem to have a bit of a theme of wanting to centralise these issues, but local authorities can set out in their allocation scheme that they will consider local connection as part of prioritisation. The vast majority, 89%, are choosing to consider it at an earlier stage as part of the qualification for the housing register, and we do not see the need to remove this choice from local housing authorities. I ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
Amendment 113 would require local authorities to review applications on their housing register every three years. I of course support accurate and up-to-date housing registers and expect local authorities to review data regularly. However, it is for local authorities to determine how best to do that as part of how they manage their local social housing allocations schemes. This enables them to design schemes in a way that fits local priorities. A full review of the housing register might not always be the most efficient way to maintain an effective register. An applicant’s eligibility and qualification for social housing will be reassessed at the point of a home being allocated, so having ineligible households on a housing register does not mean that they will get social housing. With that, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Amendments 91 and 93, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces and former offenders respectively. This Government are committed to making sure that those who have served and their families have access to social housing. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections in the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have housing need. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for recognising the work that the Government have done on that. Where local connection or residency tests apply, legislation exempts the Armed Forces community, regardless of when they last served, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. There is also statutory guidance in place on improving access to social housing for members of the Armed Forces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, referred to access to social housing even for those in the highest bands. I understand her point. That is why our Government have placed such a high priority on the delivery of new social housing. It is the lack of housing that prevents people in high bands getting it, not whether they are a priority. I will make further remarks on her valid points on adapted housing when they come up in a later group.
With our review of statutory guidance on social housing allocations already under way, we do not need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the Armed Forces or former offenders, so I kindly ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, not to press their amendments.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to ensure that local housing authorities get the information necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. This amendment focuses on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice are committed to tackling. I spoke to my noble friend Lord Timpson just yesterday about this, and my officials also met with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, yesterday, as he said, to discuss his proposal in more detail. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s work on this issue.
Supporting people into stable accommodation from their first night out of prison is critical to reducing homelessness and reoffending, as those without stable accommodation are more likely to reoffend, as we have heard. I support the intent of this amendment in reducing prison leaver homelessness. All prisons and probation services are already subject to the duty to refer under Section 213B of the Housing Act 1996. This requires them to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice. We continue to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that this process works as effectively as possible. My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison and publishes this annually. Therefore, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his amendment, but my officials remain happy to have further conversations with him, if that would be helpful.
Finally, Amendment 81 seeks to create a new statutory requirement for the Government regularly to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing. As I have made clear, eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process. The Government do not set income eligibility thresholds; they are set by local authorities and private registered providers. This allows them to set thresholds that reflect the local context. I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of those independently set thresholds. The evidence is that it would cost more to implement than it would raise in revenue. A regular review would also penalise tenants for earning more and could lead to incentives to reduce working hours to avoid higher rent.
Income should not be equated with housing need or a lack of housing need. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. This can be the case, even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list. Therefore, I ask that this amendment is not pressed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I would like to go back to one point that the Minister raised on the review of housing waiting lists. She made the perfectly valid point that someone may have registered on the housing waiting list with a certain series of circumstances and that those will be tested at the allocation point. I accept that. However, the point we were trying to make is that the housing waiting list includes data that is used in making a variety of decisions on the prioritisation of what should be built and so on. Our view is that that data needs to be accurate. What can the Minister say on that point?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
In my experience, most local authorities do exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting: they very carefully take account of the information submitted by applicants for the waiting register when they apply for it. I think that those processes are already in place.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am sorry; I must be talking at cross-purposes. My point is that, given the length of time that people will be on the housing register, circumstances will change, and therefore what was put on one or two years ago may no longer be accurate. This is about having up-to-date, accurate data on the housing register, so that the council can make good decisions on policy, not on a particular allocation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Again, I place great trust in our local housing authorities; they regularly assess their applicants. That has been even more the case as the availability of social housing has become more and more scarce. Local authorities take these responsibilities very seriously. If there were a change to a circumstance that had not been recorded, that would certainly appear at the time of the allocation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Can the Minister say whether there is official evidence of when an application is made, and whether the authorities assess official documents supporting a request for housing? Just as a clarification, I certainly did not seek to stigmatise people who were seeking social housing. I asked for further evidence so that we could review the whole question in the round, but not stigmatise anyone.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Local authorities take a great deal of care when people apply for the social housing register, because they need to make sure that they meet their local provisions. That includes local connections, whether they have income eligibility and so on. They take great care in that respect. Most local authorities conduct regular reviews of the information they have—I will not say “all local authorities”, because I do not have the evidence in front of me to suggest that, but I think that nearly all of them do so.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There have been a variety of views, so I will begin on the bits on which I think we generally agree.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for his eloquent contribution, as well as to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. They looked at how we can better support former offenders and those leaving prison. We support the intentions behind both of their amendments, and we believe that local housing authorities should at least be given more information about prison leavers in need of housing.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her strong case on behalf of veterans. We too agree that those who have served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces should be prioritised in social housing allocation processes. She is right to highlight the needs of those with potential disabilities arising from their time serving in uniform. When I first became a councillor, one of the first cases I dealt with was a military family that fell between the cracks of the regulation and the allocation. That was before the Armed Forces covenant, so I was very pleased that we were able to change council policy to have much greater flexibility. That family was then housed to great benefit.
I raise the issue of disabilities. I am very conscious that we do not have enough good-quality social housing for people with high and complex disability needs. One of the points that I made earlier in the debate about right to buy is that it provides the resources to look at new housing. I give the example of Central Bedfordshire: we were using right-to-buy receipts to develop specialist housing. The Minister knows that we were doing that for older people’s housing, but we also did it for disabilities. It was an absolute delight when we went to see families. I know one person who was constrained in a wheelchair and had very little movement. He said that that was the first time he had ever been able to open the front door of his own home, because he had one of those little infrared buzzers. It can be transformational, and we need to look at that.
We are also in agreement, which the previous amendments reflect, that there is a need to look at prioritisation, whether for offenders, military or other groups. That is why we have some of our amendments in the group. We can all say the solution is more social homes, but we need to recognise that, for the moment, demand massively outstrips supply, and therefore, difficult choices will be made. For every family or person who gets a social home, there will be many who will miss out—all with good and deserving cases. We suggest that there needs to be an open and honest discussion on prioritisation.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson asked—and I thank him for his eloquent support, both for my amendments and for the other amendments in the group—where else do non-citizens get priority? Why should UK citizens not be a higher priority? Why should UK military personnel not be a higher priority than a non-UK citizen? This is a debate that we need to have. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“Standards relating to maintenance of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to standards for maintenance of social housing, in line with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include provision relating to—(a) damp and mould,(b) electrical safety,(c) response times for repairs, and(d) tenant complaints procedures.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we seek to increase housing supply, how do we ensure that social housing is not only available but safe, well maintained, accessible and capable of supporting thriving communities? The debate about housing often focuses on numbers, and understandably so, when we face such a shortfall. However, quality matters just as much as quantity. People deserve homes that are safe, healthy and fit for modern living. Equally, they deserve neighbourhoods that are well designed and capable of supporting long-term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe whether the existing guidance is sufficient and whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector.
The importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences when basic maintenance problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Awaab’s law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and that expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is not simply about the condition of a property when it is first built; it is also about how the property is maintained over the many years of occupation. Good maintenance protects tenants, preserves housing stock, and reduces costs in the long term. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond regarding his amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100 and the other amendments in my name. We have the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty, but it is clear that in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations.
In Amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusion by design standard set out in the Bill. Though it appears duplicative at first instance because of the previous legislation I referred to, it would be additive, clarifying, enabling and empowering, not just for disabled people but—by nature of being inclusive by design—for all people. Through that clarity, it would enable and empower the local authority and the landlords, who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country. An inclusion by design standard would be something to rally around and a gleaming light that could focus attention and deliver for disabled people and all people, far more than what the current legislation specific to equalities achieves.
In Amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting accessibility and adaptive housing standards. There are standards that exist in this area currently, but to have something that brings together accessibility and adaptive housing in a clear statutory statement in the Bill would be empowering for all people, not least those who are trying to do their best to deliver on this provision. The amendment suggests a register which would clearly set out the list of adaptive and accessible housing countrywide. I know that the Minister will consider this to be centralisation, but I believe it would be empowering to all local authorities. In a sense, it is something that any other organisation and business would do. It is nothing more than having an asset register—a clear, up-to-date and real-time set of registers of what the provision is. It will enable local authorities to have clarity as to what might be available just across the way in enabling authority. I know that local authorities and landlords work incredibly hard with adjacent authorities and neighbouring organisations, but to have this provision in real time available to them would be assistive in that process. Because of new technologies, it would not need to be expensive, bureaucratic or burdensome. In fact, with some neat coding, it could very much take care of itself once established.
Similarly, on my amendment on accessibility of digital, it is right that local authorities and landlords seek to use digital means wherever they can, but it is critical that all those digital means are accessible to all in our local communities, and indeed that alternative means are always available.
The amendments are not duplicative, because what is more significant than housing? It is about the safety and security of having somewhere you can go, and when you close your front door, you can say, “This is me. This is us”. That provision, safety and security should be available and accessible to everybody across our communities, not least to disabled people. It cannot be right that just by dint of being a disabled person, for lack of accessible and adaptable accommodation, you have a longer wait on a list than a non-disabled person. These amendments would be assistive in that process. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 85 in my name and respond to the other amendments in this group on behalf of these Benches. These amendments collectively address the design and accessibility of social housing. I am grateful to other noble Lords for their amendments in this important and interesting group.
I turn first to my Amendment 85. At Second Reading, I said that I was concerned not so much by what was in the Bill but by what was conspicuously absent. Our climate is changing faster than our policies. The Climate Change Committee’s recent report, A Well-Adapted UK, warns that 92% of existing homes are likely to over- heat by 2050. That is not a fringe projection but the central estimate of the best advice that is available to Parliament.
Social housing tenants are disproportionately elderly, often disabled and often living with chronic illness. They are more likely to live in urban flats that heat quickly and they cannot, in the main, afford air conditioning or to escape the urban heat island effect. In short, we are debating the homes of those most at risk of dying or suffering from extreme heat under a warming planet.
The UKHSA estimated that there were 2,803 excess deaths among people aged 65 and over in England during the summer of 2022 alone. Without action, heat-related deaths could increase sixfold, from around 1,600 a year today to some 10,000 a year by the 2050s. My amendment seeks to create a power requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations ensuring that all new social housing in England is designed and constructed to reduce the risk of overheating. It specifies that those regulations must address ventilation, shading and solar control, and the thermal performance of the building fabric. Critically, the regulations must secure at least equivalent protections to those already required for new residential buildings under the Building Regulations 2010 and be subject to affirmative procedures so that Parliament retains proper oversight.
The Government will point to Part O of the building regulations, and I acknowledge this, but Part O is a design floor, not a statutory duty tied to a social housing programme. It carries no enhanced standard for vulnerable people who disproportionately occupy social housing and it lacks the weight of primary legislation. The warm homes plan is genuinely welcome, but its passive calling commitments remain aspirations rather than duties. A simple provision in this Bill would cost a fraction of the retrofitting that will be needed if we fail to act at the design stage. Every home built today without these standards is a home that will need costly remediation later. I recognise that the Bill is tightly drafted, but these matters are critical. I look forward to the Minister’s response to them today.
Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is on maintenance standards. We are supportive of the intention and recognise the need. Our only question is about the language of the amendment. The requirement that registered providers merely have to “have regard to” guidance needs to be strengthened. Given that some 2 million people in England live in homes with significant damp and mould, this should be an enforceable standard, not merely guidance.
I will introduce Amendment 96, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, as she is unable to be in Committee today. We support this important amendment. It seeks for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision requiring that new social housing developments mandate a minimum level of urban tree canopy cover to sufficiently address environmental health and climate inequalities. The benefits of this amendment would be multiple and directly relevant to the wider debate today. Trees cool urban environments, reduce the urban heat island effect and provide the passive, low-cost climate adaptation that complements the overheating protections in my amendment. They improve mental and physical health, reduce surface water flooding and address the profound environmental injustice that means that tree-poor neighbourhoods are, overwhelmingly, also poor neighbourhoods. The amendment is carefully drafted. It would require regulations on minimum levels of tree- planting, climate resilience, access to green infrastructure within reasonable walking distance and, critically, long-term maintenance, including replacements. We are pleased to support it.
We support Amendment 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on inclusion by design. I thank the noble Lord for how he introduced it. The principle that social housing services, allocation systems and digital tools should be designed from the outset to be accessible and equitable is one that we strongly endorse. However, I once again wonder whether “have regard to” is sufficient. We also support Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Lord, on accessible and adaptive housing design standards. A mandated standard, a national register of accessible properties and requirements for local housing authorities to use that register in allocations decisions is exactly the kind of system that we really need. On Amendments 117C and 119B, again in the name of noble Lord, on digital accessibility standards, we are supportive in principle.
Each amendment in this group seeks for Parliament to do something straightforward: to build homes that are safe, accessible, green and fit for the future that we know is coming.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I start by responding to Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the Government have already published guidance for social landlords on timeframes for repairs in the social rented sector, covering the first phase of Awaab’s law that came into force on 27 October 2025. This guidance includes information in relation to damp and mould hazards. This will be updated to include other hazards ahead of further phases of Awaab’s law coming into force. Guidance on implementing the revised decent homes standard will be published shortly; this will include further information about meeting a new damp and mould standard. Guidance on electrical safety was published in November 2025 and we have produced guidance that covers the operation and enforcement of the housing health and safety rating system. That guidance will be published this summer. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out best practice that landlords are expected to follow to handle resident complaints effectively. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are reassured that work is under way to address each of the issues in their amendment and are content to withdraw it.
Amendment 85 was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and he knew that I would mention Part O. Part O of Schedule 1 to the building regulations requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating, protecting everyone, including the most vulnerable, the elderly and the very young. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation, regardless of their tenure type. The noble Earl made an important point on that, but it is clear that building regulations apply across tenures. A separate additional regulatory standard on top of this would be likely to add unhelpful duplication and complexity to the design and delivery of new social homes. Therefore, the Government cannot support this amendment. I kindly ask the noble Earl not to press it.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in relation to accessibility. First, Amendment 100 would introduce a new statutory “inclusion by design” principle. Tenants must be at the heart of our social housing system and, to achieve this, landlords must actively engage with tenants and provide a range of opportunities for them to influence and scrutinise decisions.
To support the accessibility of services for all, first, I note that all social landlords are already subject to existing duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty where it applies. In addition, the social housing regulatory framework already places clear expectations on registered providers that their services must be inclusive for all tenants. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard specifies that registered providers must take action to deliver fair access to, and equitable outcomes from, housing and landlord services for all tenants. They must also provide accessible support that meets the diverse needs of tenants.
The concern with this amendment is that it would create a broad new statutory duty across the whole Act, without clearly defining how it would interact with those existing equality, regulatory and housing duties. That would risk duplication and uncertainty, as well as additional administrative burdens, without necessarily improving outcomes for tenants. We also do not think it is necessary to require guidance to be published and reviewed on a fixed statutory timetable.
Formal work has already begun that will evaluate the effectiveness of the new regulatory regime by 2028, to make sure that it is delivering the improvements needed to fundamentally shift how residents are treated and to create a transparent and trustworthy system with residents’ views and needs at its heart. I am responsible for working with the Regulator of Social Housing as part of my ministerial responsibilities and I have spoken to it specifically on the issue of tenant engagement; I take it very seriously. For those reasons, I do not believe the amendment is needed.
On Amendment 102, the Government believe that everyone should be able to live in a home that is suitable for their needs. Building regulations are already in place, specifying the standards to which new or materially refurbished homes must adhere. Regarding accessibility, the existing M4(1) standard is the default, ensuring reasonable provision for access to and use of a dwelling and its facilities. The enhanced, optional M4(2) standard relates to housing meeting the different needs of occupants, including disabled individuals, and allowing adaptation to meet the changing needs of occupants over time. The M4(3) standard relates to requirements for wheelchair users, where provision must be made to allow simple adaptation of the dwelling for their needs.
These regulations, and the statutory guidance accompanying them, already apply to new building work or refurbishment work. I had a meeting with Minister Kinnock from the Department of Health and Social Care to consider what more we need to do in relation to this. We propose to go even further. The Government have recently consulted on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework that will require local plans to set out the proportion of new M4(2) and M4(3) housing that must be delivered in new developments, to meet or exceed identified needs. In relation to M4(2), we propose to make it clear that these requirements should never be lower than 40%.
On the provision of an accessible housing register, we will be considering this further as we update the allocations guidance. I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, but we believe that our existing building regulations will help ensure the accessibility of new and materially refurbished homes, and any new standard risks duplication. For homes and households that require heightened adaptations, local authorities are best placed to understand and cater for the needs of people in their local area. Therefore, we cannot support this amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for Amendments 117C and 119B. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that services are accessible, inclusive and easy to use, and the Government are clear that tenants should be able to engage with their landlords through channels that meet their needs. To this end, there are already well-established accessibility requirements, including existing standards and legal duties, which apply to digital services and ensure that providers consider accessibility as part of service design.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this group. This debate has focused on the fundamental point that housing policy is not simply about providing a roof over someone’s head; it is about ensuring that people live in homes that are safe, healthy, accessible and capable of supporting a good quality of life.
The debate has also highlighted broader questions about design, accessibility and the environments in which people live. As we consider these issues, it is important to continue to focus on the creation of mixed, sustainable communities. Good design should not be reserved for one tenure or another. The aim should be to create places where people want to live, regardless of whether they are tenants, shared owners or owner-occupiers. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points raised during the debate. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“Shared ownership strategy(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for increasing opportunities for shared ownership.(2) The strategy must include proposals relating to—(a) first-time buyers,(b) key workers,(c) housing association provision, and(d) staircasing arrangements.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.
While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership—including management fees, lease fees and so forth—tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity.
In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs. Rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats. But we are talking about affordable housing for people who do not have much money and cannot afford to pay a sudden lump of money.
Some landlords raise additional administrative charges. When we look at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when they are looking to buy and sell, we need to recognise that these people are often in chains and that the response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale.
Right now, many people who are aiming for 100% ownership through staircasing face too many obstacles. For example, in designated protected areas you may be able to buy only up to 80%. We have to start shifting the balance. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a handout: people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder in their communities, for the security of their future and that of their family. We need to change the balance so that the shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.
Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the Government’s ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead? If so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness?
Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier. We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charges, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats. Before expanding the model further, it is important that we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed.
Amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers and the differences in legal documentation. Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model.
These are probing amendments, intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities.
The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three.
I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership.
The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the NAO concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain.
The HCLG report was more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. It found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable and many shared owners never reach full ownership. It questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.
Then we have the ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, jumping from 324 cases in 2020 to 1,564 complaints more recently. That sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling.
The ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restore defects such as cladding or fire safety issues after they are raised. On the sales process, he found incorrect charges at the point of moving in, miscommunication regarding staircasing—buying larger shares of the property—and general delays from solicitors.
The ombudsman summed up the problems by saying that there is a “mismatch” between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord. He concluded that the Government should address the
“fundamental inequities in the way in which shared ownership is designed”—
a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.
Bringing all that together may explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, and the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate—frequently below 30%. Any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council, Shared Ownership Resources, which has produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and has first-hand evidence of existing pinch points. I very much hope that the Government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the talent and the landlord.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young-of Cookham, and also the sense behind Amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in shared ownership—all the costs but only half the uplift, if there is one. The risks include very large unexpected costs, which my noble friend raised and I do not intend to repeat. There is 100% of the costs, but only half the capital.
This has been sold to people who one might say, without patronising, are less financially sophisticated, as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs on the whole would be less than the rent they are paying on the half. It is not necessarily low cost at all; one might go far as to suggest that there has been a degree of mis-selling here.
So, I support Amendment 105, which calls for a review. We cannot carry on as we are. My experience in my own council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down. There is now very low take-up. It is possibly a tenure whose time has passed. But the review could reinvigorate it. There is a case for low-cost housing for people to establish and build capital in their society. With this review, which I support entirely, there is the opportunity to try to get it back on track.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, because the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young of Cookham, have done such a brilliant job of talking about shared ownership, I will scrap most of my speech. We on these Benches have brought up the vexed subject of shared ownership many times, and I know that the Minister understands and absolutely appreciates that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has been a stalwart campaigner for reform. That deserves to be recognised.
If shared ownership is a pathway to home ownership, it is a very rocky one. It is definitely a home owner’s dream that turned into their worst nightmare. I could wax lyrical about automated 1% staircasing, proportional maintenance and a 15% valuation cushion, but I will not. But I am interested in what the Minister has to say, because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I do not believe that this is something that has passed; in high-cost areas, it is essential. Therefore, we would really like to hear something about reform or at least a vision of how it might be reformed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for her amendments on shared ownership and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving them.
Shared ownership has an important role to play in supporting households into home ownership who would otherwise struggle to purchase a suitable property. We had extensive debates on this during the Renters’ Rights Bill and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work on this. That is why we have committed to continue supporting the delivery of shared ownership via the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Through the launch of the programme, we have introduced new measures to support the delivery of shared ownership and to set clear expectations for providers to improve the customer experience that we have heard about this evening.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s vast knowledge and the amount of work that he has done on this. I also appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has also raised this issue many times. I think there is universal acceptance on this side of the Committee that something needs to be done. It is a little bit more fundamental than looking at the “customer experience”, which, if I may say so, feels like a glib marketing throwaway, although I know the Minister does not mean it as that.
The purpose of these amendments has been to explore whether the current arrangements are delivering. Quite clearly, we have the National Audit Office and so forth saying that they are not delivering. I do not think that we can be satisfied with, “We are looking at it”; I think this needs a fundamental review. The Minister said that it is a widely understood scheme. I think conceptually it is widely understood, but I do not think that the consequences of being a shared owner, particularly of a flat, are widely understood. The potential financial ramifications, where the risk lies and the risk-sharing between the equity owner and the landlord are not appreciated. I think many of the complaints that we have seen out of this are because people did not understand what they were letting themselves in for, particularly for flats. I press the Minister to think again between now and Report and to look at how we can formally come up with a thorough review that looks at all aspects of this.
I would be interested to understand a bit more about what the Minister said about model clauses. Some model clauses and a thorough template are quite different. I would like to take up the Minister’s offer of discussions on this. This is an area where we need to make significant improvements because it is a real opportunity, when done right, to get people on the housing ladder, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, in more expensive areas, who otherwise may not have that opportunity, but that is going to work only if we have a scheme that works. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fuller
“Protections for adapted social housing(1) This section applies where—(a) a dwelling owned by the local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing has been substantially adapted for occupation by a person with a disability or support need, or(b) a Disabled Facilities Grant has been used to fund substantial adaptations to that dwelling.(2) Before such a dwelling is allocated through the general housing allocation process, the landlord must take reasonable steps to offer the dwelling to a person whose needs would substantially benefit from those adaptations.(3) In this section, “substantially adapted” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instruments.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require social landlords to protect the pool of adapted housing by giving preference to applicants who could benefit from existing adaptations before allocating adapted homes through the general housing allocation process.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new affordable homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of homes, particularly adapted homes. We are an ageing nation, we are getting fatter and nowadays many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. As a council leader, I spend about £1.5 million a year adapting homes for this ageing and impaired population. I remember that, when devising our local plan, there was a need for 3,500 adapted homes and supported living units; it was about 10% of the total housing need. It is an important issue, but not one you would gather from this Bill. At Second Reading, I explained how councils might install an adaptation so that a resident with an impairment could live comfortably. I explained that it might be a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, in my council, we spent £75,000 on a complete extension that was required to enable that family to live decently.
In preparation for this debate, and in pursuance of that simple truth, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He tells me that about half the improvements relate to wet rooms. That is important, because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it keeps our hospital wards clean. Half the wet room adaptations are combined with wider doors so that someone in a wheelchair can shower hygienically. Together, cleaning and better access represent half the improvements for disabled facilities, grants and aids and adaptations.
Other examples might be a kitchen with low-level worktops—again, suitable for wheelchair use. Typically, it takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation: directionally two to three months for the assessment and the report by the occupational therapist, then a couple of months for the specification contracting and then the construction itself. In my experience, our district council delivered about 150 such projects a year at an average cost of about £10,000 each. I would say that one of my best interventions as a councillor was to ensure that a widow who lived in Mill Road in Seething was able to keep herself clean, by expediting the process of creating a wet room in her social home.
I feel that I have laboured the point, but I tell that story with pride because the simple truth is that we just do not have enough of these adapted homes, and that is why the state invests in them. MHCLG distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities, and some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs top up that allocation still further. I ensured that we reinvested all the profits from our trading activities to top up that money. So, in total, it adds up to about £1 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change, ensuring that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and on with, maintaining personal pride and hygiene.
Here is the problem that my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. A new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money, it reduces the pool of adapted homes, and it is bad for everyone, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice: once to put it in and once to take it out. I recall one example where we had built a brand new accessible home with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for a wheelchair-bound resident. As it happened, the first tenant was really tall, and by and by he tired of bending down to move the pots and pans around the hob, so the council was obliged by law to rip out that kitchen and put in a normal one—oh dear. That is absurd. It should have been let to a wheelchair user in the first place. So I ask the Minister directly: where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of and investments in adapted homes for the ageing population? Why can we not offer rights of first refusal to those who need help to keep themselves clean down there?
I have heard it said, “Well, this is an allocations issue and we’re not going there in this limited Bill”. I profoundly disagree with that. That is why I asked for this debate to be de-grouped so it could have the importance it deserves without being clouded by other issues. My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock. It is about protecting a £1 billion investment— a significant sum that should not be lightly discarded— and it is about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. So I do not see this as an allocations issue, in the sense that preference should be given to an individual veteran or a certain type of local person. This is about protecting the pool of adapted homes, not least because we are all getting older. It is about ensuring that the wider cohort who carry an impairment have sufficient protected stock for them to have a go at, where they get preference, to make the best of their lives and to make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that, what is it for? Casually dismissing this as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection.
We must grab this sufficiency issue now. We are in Committee. I want to probe the matter more deeply between now and Report. Unless we make some progress, I anticipate that this is an issue on which I will seek to divide the House on Report, on the grounds that the Bill aims to protect the social stock for those in need, and my amendment seeks to achieve precisely that.
I have nearly said enough but I want to give Kevin Philcox, my expert on the ground, who has been around a long time in this space, the final word. He told me that, among the dedicated housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way that I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country—it is number one on the wish list. That is quite a statement.
The opportunity to protect that £1 billion a year investment and look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society is before us here and now. If we fail to take it, there is no one else to do it in our place. As it is, there are no powers to protect those adaptations or to give those in need first refusal, but there should be. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the important subject of adapted social housing. As we have argued throughout this day of Committee, we must improve how we manage the existing stock of social housing by making better use of what we have and what is being built. It strikes us as entirely sensible that, where possible and appropriate, homes that have been adapted are then given to applicants who would also benefit from those adaptations. That would save social housing providers money and ensure that we made the best use of resources and housing stock. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any details that she might be able to give us on how it might be implemented.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we seem to have wandered a long way this evening from the straightforward purpose of the Bill: to adjust right to buy, to give confidence to local authorities to deliver social housing, and to protect domestic abuse victims. Anyway, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. He says he is disappointed. I have probably been disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for most of the last 15 or so years that we have known each other, so I am just carrying on in that vein, I am afraid.
We recognise how important home adaptations are in enabling disabled people to live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. Disabled facilities grant funding helps adapt over 55,000 homes annually, helping disabled people and their families live independently, reducing demand for health and social care support. It is also important that local authorities make the best use of the homes they have available, particularly any adapted properties.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments—I will consider them carefully. Perhaps we could have a meeting between now and Report. All I would say is that I do not think things are quite as clear or clear-cut as she makes them out to be, not least because the problem can arise when someone has been allocated housing and has not necessarily made a full disclosure of their needs, and then, once they are in, they can move things out. I think there is a requirement.
I accept the point about statutory guidance, and I will, I hope, talk to the Minister or officials between now and Report, and consider my position. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Fuller
“Social purpose of registered providers of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the social purpose of registered providers of social housing.(2) The guidance must include—(a) promoting tenant wellbeing;(b) effective state management; (c) the prevention and reduction of antisocial behaviour;(d) community engagement;(e) the provision and maintenance of safe and sustainable neighbourhoods;(f) the balance between development activity and social responsibilities of registered providers.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the guidance before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the social purpose of registered providers of social housing and the wider responsibilities expected of them beyond housing development.
Lord Fuller (Con)
As part of my ward work last month, I was surprised that a home in Brooke, in my ward where I live, under the Victory Housing banner, is actually owned by part of a much larger RSL headquartered in Gloucestershire. I mentioned it at Second Reading, and since then it has reached out to me to explain that it actually has a local team to manage these properties. That is reassuring, but the truth remains that the shots are called from miles away. It is a close-to-home example of the way in which the RSL landscape has consolidated, as small RSLs have bought up others and then in turn been taken over still further in the name of economies of scale.
I can understand why this has happened, but scale has not been good for tenants. Tenant reps have been excised from the landscape. There is a lack of local accountability, with national RSLs populating their boards with the great and good from out of town, the consequences being that a focus on local matters such as anti-social behaviour has been relegated to the subs’ bench—and I am conscious that the football starts in a minute.
At Second Reading, I suggested that the Bill could be stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of law-abiding residents, but it is not. That is one of the reasons that have prompted me to introduce Amendment 90 to mandate that and other desirable traits so that the social purpose of social providers is enshrined in law.
I explained how there has been a consolidation of actors in this space, but one of the reasons for liberalising certain financial powers in the Bill—which I do not oppose—is that it will drive financial engineering to new heights. It is the intended consequence of the Bill, but the liberalisation must come with strings attached. It should not be necessary, but it now has become so, to state what the social purpose of RSLs is, not least because there is £35 billion burning a hole in the Government’s pocket. Our job, it seems to me, is to ensure that there is conditionality attached to that largesse if RSLs are to be favoured with cheap money and government underwriting in a way that Berkeley, Norfolk Homes or Redrow—others are available—are not.
In too many cases, RSLs just do not grip the anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of neighbours. I know, because I have seen it myself, that others look away when the criminality is committed. We have the nonsense of community gardens left ungrown and untidy in the name of “No Mow May”, which lasts all year. It is lazy and slovenly, and impacts families miles away from the out-of-towners who sit on these boards.
It is telling that in a briefing on the Bill by the National Housing Federation, which explained that it runs more than 2.5 million homes, supporting 6 million people living in 62% of all the social homes in England, there was not a single mention of social purpose, save to say that the federation was driven by it without explaining what it means. Front and centre it certainly was not.
I know why this has happened. Candidly, among RSLs in particular, there has been far too great a focus on development. That has led to the loss of social purpose. The truth is that as RSLs have become overleveraged, they have been caught out by increases in build, finance and land costs, and there is no financial space for the social purpose—an omission the Bill should correct.
We are in Committee, so I have had a stab at defining what the social purpose could be. It is duplicated in Amendment 110. For those organisations that want to take the Government’s shilling in a way that is not available to other private developers, we need to look at the strings attached. My amendment would enshrine six key principles—I will not list them, in the interests of time, but they are there in the amendment—and regulations to codify them, along with success factors, would follow.
Too many RSLs have taken the wrong path. They have strayed from their original purpose. They have lost sight of the social purpose. Instead, they have been hooked on speculation and property development, on the back of cheap government finance, so we need to bring them back on track. If you take the money, my amendment would provide the hair on the deal. It is not too much to ask. If they want to take the cash in a way that is not available to private operators, they need to take their social responsibilities seriously—and if they cannot, they can go to Barclays, NatWest or Lloyds, or any other bank, just like the others. I beg to move.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I am going to speak very briefly—there are matters of life and death about to start in 10 minutes, and I am not going to stand in the way of that—but I am surprised by these amendments. They have been tabled by Conservative Peers going for centralisation and more regulation. We want better people running housing associations; we want good chairs, good chief executives and effective boards. I have to ask: do you want social entrepreneurial spirit, creative drive and a commitment to efficiency in customer services to be suffocated by overregulation, interference and process? We need a balance. I do not believe these probing amendments aim to provide a balance.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this group. Amendment 90, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks guidance on the social responsibilities and purposes of social housing providers. As we argued in our Amendment 108, we need to understand the other responsibilities that providers have towards tenants and the boundaries that exist. My noble friend’s amendment is very similar to our Amendment 109; it is clear that we are united in our priorities, but we can look at the drafting more closely ahead of Report.
Community engagement brings me to Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which proposes tenant board representation of at least one-fifth, as well as mandatory tenant advisory panels for the codesign of allocation policies and a requirement to publish complaints data by protected characteristic. We agree that tenant voices should be heard, with their dreams and aspirations for the places and communities in which they live. That is admirable and we welcome the intention behind the amendment.
I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Amendment 110 seeks a wider review of governance arrangements for social housing providers. This includes board composition, tenant representation and the role of elected councillors, but also their accountability to local communities, scrutiny arrangements and performance information. This is crucial. Community engagement should not be a box-ticking exercise or tokenistic; it should be rooted in existing democratic structures.
Amendment 111 would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. In my experience, I could always rely on my good relationships with local housing association representatives, but we realise this is not the case for everyone. Although we have argued for the independence of housing associations to be recognised, this should not prevent associations being held accountable to local elected representatives and having constructive conversations.
Amendment 112 would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including performance in relation to repairs, complaints, tackling anti-social behaviour, tenant satisfaction and void properties. This would be useful both for tenants and for local authorities, and for the associations themselves to help focus on areas for improvement.
Finally, Amendment 115 would empower social housing tenants to request an inspection from the Regulator of Social Housing. The Secretary of State could make regulations outlining the grounds on which this could be requested, including how many tenants would be required to support such a request and in what circumstances a request could be refused. We believe this is a balanced approach but one that is tenant-led. We hope that we can work together with noble Lords to finalise amendments to be brought forward on Report. I would be interested to hear the response of the Minister to those amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns a range of mechanisms to strengthen the tenant voice and engagement across the social housing sector. It is a bit odd, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, to be in this parallel universe where the Conservative Benches are arguing for more regulation—I find that a bit strange.
Matters relating to tenant voice and engagement are already central to the Regulator of Social Housing’s existing consumer standards. The regulator’s approach is proactive and outcomes-based, setting clear standards that providers must deliver, while allowing flexibility on how those outcomes are achieved. On that basis, my concern is that a number of these amendments would introduce new statutory requirements that would duplicate or cut across the existing regulatory framework. This would result in unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and potential confusion for the sector, without materially improving outcomes for tenants or communities.
I turn briefly to Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and Amendment 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am not persuaded that additional statutory guidance from the Secretary of State is necessary. Core elements of these amendments and any subsequent guidance are already central to the regulator’s regulatory standards.
The consumer standards require providers to deliver safe and well-managed homes, to engage with tenants and take their views into account, to work with partners to tackle anti-social behaviour, and to support the well- being of the communities in which they operate. The regulator already has the power, through Section 195 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, to issue codes of practice on matters relating to its consumer and economic standards. These can be used to amplify requirements that registered providers must deliver, and the regulator exercised this power in 2024 in relation to consumer standards.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raises the question of the balance between the development of new supply and the social responsibilities of registered providers. If he has not been notified of this, on 9 June, the regulator published a discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, which explores how the regulatory framework can be adapted to support the delivery of more and better social housing. I hope the noble Lord is reassured that the objectives behind the amendments are already central to requirements placed on registered providers by the regulatory standards and is content to withdraw.
On Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I recognise the importance of governance underpinning effective services for tenants. However, as I said, the regulator already has a proactive role in assessing how far providers perform for their tenants, including through the regulation of consumer standards and routine inspections. The areas identified in the amendment, including tenant voice, accountability, transparency and performance, are already core components of the framework.
I turn to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. While oversight of registered social housing providers is important, it would be disproportionate to require a senior officer of a registered social housing provider to attend a local authorities’ overview and scrutiny committee. However, the Government will keep this under review, as part of the conversations we are having on local scrutiny committees, given their larger geographical footprint. It is important to establish scrutiny at the appropriate level. Imposing a statutory duty at local authority level, when a similar and more flexible function is being introduced at mayoral level, would be duplicative and may be unnecessary.
On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I recognise the importance of landlords being transparent and accountable to their tenants in supporting tenant voice and accountability. To that end, registered providers are already required to publish information through the tenant satisfaction measures. These measures have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have the information they need to hold their landlords to account, and to ensure consistency across the sector while balancing the burden on landlords. In addition, private registered providers already submit data to the regulator through the annual statistical data return, and local authorities provide that information through the local authority housing statistics. We do not consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate the publication of quarterly void property performance metrics. This would introduce additional reporting burdens without any clear benefits to tenants.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to the guidance published on 9 June. I was not aware of it, and I will look at it closely. However, the title was all about how you deliver more houses. My amendment is not about the number of houses; it is about the social behaviours, because they are not working at the moment. By following the money, we see that, without strings, too many RSLs are focusing too much on development and not enough on doing the right thing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, enumerated a number of things. I could not write them down fast enough, but customer focus, innovation and other things were all there. However, left alone, these things are not happening.
I want a light touch, but, ultimately, I want to establish the principle of the deal: if the RSLs want cheap government money to expand their estates, there need to be strings attached, and those strings go with a rededication of RSLs to the social purpose, rather than focusing on financial engineering, because that is not in tenants’ best interests. On the ground, we are seeing that, when tenants do have genuine concerns, they are not being addressed promptly. The well-being of the estates is not at the forefront of the mind, and that is not good for anybody. So, if you want the money, you can have the hair on the deal; otherwise, go to Barclays. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential power to amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same session as, this Act by regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this final group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Clause 17(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to
“amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.
Amendment 118 would remove this power.
Amendment 119 would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for any regulations made under Clause 17. This would give Parliament stronger oversight of secondary legislation.
The theme of both amendments is to give Parliament stronger oversight of the Secretary of State’s powers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why these powers were included in the first place and how the Government intend to use them in the future if this Bill is passed as currently drafted. The House deserves to know to properly consider these provisions, so I look forward to an answer from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for the amendments on powers in Clause 17. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded:
“There is nothing in this Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”.
That conclusion gives important context for these amendments.
On Amendment 118, this is a standard consequential power that is found in many Bills and is limited to making a provision that is consequential on the Act. It cannot be used to introduce new policy; its purpose is to ensure that the legislation operates coherently once enacted, including by making any necessary technical changes to existing legislation. The Bill already provides an important safeguard where regulations under Clause 17 amend or repeal primary legislation. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses must actively approve them. Removing the power entirely could leave technical inconsistencies or gaps on the statute book and make implementation less effective. It would mean that even minor consequential amendments to primary legislation would require further primary legislation. For those reasons, we consider the power necessary, proportionate and appropriately safeguarded.
On Amendment 119, the Bill already ensures enhanced scrutiny where regulations amend primary legislation. Applying the affirmative procedure to all consequential regulations would be disproportionate. Additionally, the power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act, and it is intended to be used only to ensure the effective implementation of the Act and to maintain a coherent legislative framework. I believe that the existing approach strikes the right balance. I hope the points I have made have provided some comfort to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I ask them to withdraw their amendment—and come on, England!
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply and her brevity, such that we can go and say, “Come on, England”. We still have concern about giving the Secretary of State powers without, in our view, proper parliamentary scrutiny, so we will continue to scrutinise the Bill in relation to secondary legislation and making provision for the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This is to protect the balance of power and to ensure that noble Lords continue to have oversight of changes made after this Bill becomes law.
We will review Hansard, and I thank the Minister again for her answers throughout Committee. We have had an insightful and worthwhile debate about this Bill’s provisions, and I look forward to working together with noble Lords ahead of Report.
As we close Committee, I would like to reflect on our key concerns. Our focus should be on building more homes, not restricting opportunity. We believe that right to buy not only provides an opportunity for families to own their homes but provides the resources to build more homes. This Bill not only denies the opportunity for families to move on in life but risks tens of thousands more families languishing on council housing waiting lists. We have also sought amendments to make housing allocations fairer and more transparent, to address issues with shared ownership, and to ensure better performance of registered providers. I beg to leave to withdraw our amendment.
“(za) section (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners) (right to buy: residential property owners);”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for the new Clause (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners) in my name to commence two months after Royal Assent.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Monday 20th July 2026
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 33-I Marshalled list for Report - (16 Jul 2026)
16:52 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
18:21 - Division on Amendment 25 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 146 - Amendment 25 agreed.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we begin with the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we discussed in Committee, the right to buy has brought transformational benefits for 2 million families across the country. I do not wish to focus on the benefits to those who access right to buy, as I believe that case is inarguable, but rather I wish to debunk the argument against right to buy, which has focused on the loss of social housing.
Let me first be clear that we believe in one-for-one replacement or better, which was why I was pleased that the last Conservative Government introduced 100% retention of right-to-buy proceeds, which enabled councils, including my own, Central Bedfordshire, to deliver more council housing than was lost through right to buy. If this could spread across the country, there would be no loss of social housing. This should be the focus of the Government: delivering one-for-one replacement, not seeking to deny the opportunity to some of our most disadvantaged families to own their own home, which has proven to be one of the greatest mechanisms for social mobility in this country.
I turn to why right to buy can increase access to social housing. Some might find this counterintuitive, so forgive me if I get a little into the weeds. I refer to the Government’s impact statement, in particular to table four on page 24, which shows that, in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales supporting some 5,450 replacement homes. That is the “do nothing” scenario. It also shows that, once the restrictions are fully in place from this Bill and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales are projected to fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes.
I applaud the Government’s ambition for one-for-one replacement—in fact, rather better than that—but, despite that, by the Government’s own analysis, there will be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year, or 6,600 if there were a one-for-one replacement. The Minister has argued that more social homes will be retained and, yes, there will be around 3,000 per year. Notwithstanding that this assumes a failure to deliver one-for-one replacement, I would like to examine the impact of this figure, because it ignores a critical factor. Retaining a social home does not mean that it is available for a new tenant. The family still live there; it is just that they have been denied the opportunity to own their own home.
Based on figures from the House of Lords Library, around a net 3% of social homes become available each year for new tenancies, so, of the 3,000 additional homes that are retained, only around 90 would be available each year for a new tenant. Compare that with the 4,000 new social homes if the current right to buy were to continue. The cumulative impact over 10 years would be 35,000 fewer families having the opportunity to own their own social home and, if the Government focused on one-for-one replacement, 65,000 families. As we discussed in Committee, when we are having a housing crisis, this will result in 4,000 fewer homes being delivered every year. Can the Minister explain how denying a home to 4,000 families a year fits with the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon about eliminating homelessness?
That is why we have tabled amendments which seek to retain important features of the existing framework, including qualifying arrangements, discount provisions and other safeguards that have formed part of the scheme for many years. Amendments 1 and 2 would protect those who are already secure tenants when the legislation comes into force. The principle is straightforward: existing tenants accepted their tenancy with a legitimate expectation that, after three years, they would become eligible for right to buy under current arrangements. It is one thing to change arrangements for future tenants; it is quite another to make retrospective changes for existing tenants. This is about fairness and a fair transition.
Finally, Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. The Government are proposing to retain a right of first refusal in perpetuity for the local council whenever a right-to-buy property is sold by the owner. The current position is 10 years, which seems proportionate. Perpetuity is a very long time. This raises multiple questions about inheritance, redevelopment, long-term blight and evidencing many years after the event that you actually did offer it. This is bad law and risks inevitable problems for the future.
There is a simple choice before us. Do we support aspiration? Do we support the opportunity for families to own their own home? Do we support increasing the availability of social housing for those on council waiting lists? Do we support building more homes in a period of housing crisis? Or, for ideological reasons, will the Members opposite deny tenants the opportunity of home ownership? Will they deny those on council waiting lists the opportunity of a secure and affordable social home, while cutting housebuilding? We should not seek to stop right to buy. The better approach would be to strengthen replacement, reinvestment and local delivery. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and must once again refer to my interests as a retired member of a Somerset farming family which lets some houses on the farm.
During the passage of this Bill, I have explained how the shortage of affordable housing to rent in rural areas has had and continues to have long-term social and economic consequences for our communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services—quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional family and social networks have collapsed, and all this has been caused by a lack of affordable housing to rent in our countryside. We must protect this stock, both where it remains and where, hopefully, it is soon to be added to. I will not say any more about all this because your Lordships have heard it all before and I have had support from noble Lords on all sides of the House.
I thank the Minister and her team for meeting to discuss our concerns about how the strict interpretation in how Section 157 of the 1985 Housing Act was implemented resulted in over 60% of rural parishes being excluded from the exemption to the right to buy. Thus 60% of all rural parishes remained exposed to the near certainty of losing their council houses—and they did. We must not let this happen again. The problem was, and remains, that in the 1985 Act, Section 157 regulations require that local authorities apply to the Secretary of State for rural area designation of their rural parishes: that is, parishes that have a population below 3,000, with less than two persons per hectare. The problem was and is that few local authorities applied. Most local authorities did not realise that this was a requirement, had transferred their stock to a registered provider or did not have the resources to put together the necessary evidence. The point is that they did not apply and therefore we lost 60% of conforming rural parishes.
At our meeting with the Minister and her team, we all agreed that this must not happen again—hence my amendment, which I tabled in Committee and repeat here. We also agreed that it was not strictly necessary for the definition of a designated rural area to be in the Bill. Therefore, I agreed not to press my amendment to a vote, provided we had some sort of undertaking that, at least in the short term, all parishes that fitted the criteria could be included, whether or not their local authority had made an application following the 1985 Act. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the Government merely rolled over the post-1985 list of parishes with designated rural area status. I am counting on the Minister to reassure me on that point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendment 9 asks for information that is necessary to understand the full situation. I had better declare that I rent a flat in a social housing block, which was presumably bought under right to buy.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bennett argued that the most effective way to protect our social housing stock is to abolish the right to buy. I also support that. Scotland abolished the policy in 2016 and Wales followed in 2019; neither has chosen to bring it back. Both Governments concluded that, in the middle of a housing crisis, preserving social housing for the future was more important than continuing a policy that reduced its supply.
I appreciate that the Government are not prepared to take that step in this Bill but, if that is the case, the very least Parliament should expect is a clear picture of how the policy is operating and what impact the changes it will make are having. The amendment would require the Secretary of State—whoever it is—to lay an annual report before Parliament setting out how many homes have been sold under right to buy, the receipts received by local authorities, how those receipts have been used and an assessment of the impact on the availability of social housing in each local authority. The reality is that, for decades, we have been selling social homes more quickly than we have been replacing them. Every home lost is one fewer home available for the next family on the waiting list.
Social housing should be seen as a long-term public asset, not simply a resource to be steadily diminished while demand continues to grow. Between 1980 and the abolition of right to buy in Scotland, almost half a million social homes were sold. The Scottish Government estimated that ending the policy would protect around 15,500 homes over the following decade. In Wales, Ministers similarly concluded that ending right to buy would help preserve affordable housing and give councils and housing associations greater confidence to invest in new homes. We may disagree on whether England should follow that path, but we can surely agree that Parliament should have the information needed to judge whether these reforms are having their intended effect.
I also welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which would extend reporting requirements to include the right to acquire. If we are assessing the impact of policies that reduce the stock of affordable housing, it is sensible that the report should capture information from both schemes.
I acknowledge that some figures on right to buy are already published, including the total sales receipts. However, the Government do not publish the amount of those receipts retained by local authorities, nor does Parliament receive a single annual report bringing together sales, receipts, how those receipts have been used and the overall impact on the availability of social housing. This amendment would bring that information together in a single annual report laid before Parliament, enabling both Houses to scrutinise the real impact of these reforms and judge whether they are delivering their intended objectives.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I co-signed Amendment 9 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I thought it was very sensible. If it is not taken up by the Government today, bearing in mind that we do not yet have a Secretary of State for the department sponsoring this Bill, I would have thought that this would be right up the new Prime Minister’s street—being open and transparent and showing a duty of candour. I hope that, if the Government reject the amendment today, he will consider it in the Commons.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for accepting the amendments to include the other scheme, because this is just about trying to get an understanding of the picture. For what it is worth, I do not agree with what she just said about ending right to buy. I am a strong supporter of it, as are many current and former Cabinet Ministers of this Labour Government, who have taken advantage of it personally—or their families have. I do not criticise them for that; it was a very wise thing to do. However, this would just show that it has not had quite the impact that everybody thinks. In fact, it ties up or reduces the amount of capital available to build more social housing.
If the noble Baroness were minded to put her amendment to the vote, I would support her, but I appreciate that she has not indicated that in advance. Nevertheless, if the Government do not accept her amendment today, I hope that the Office for National Statistics takes it up as a project in order to improve reporting.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on Amendment 7. It is important that rural social housing stands apart from the generality of the pool of this valuable resource.
My Amendment 24 is a repeat of an amendment I tabled in Committee. Quite simply, it seeks to ensure that, when a social home is sold, the proceeds are recycled locally within the same strategic housing market area. When I was the leader of a council for nearly 20 years, every single home lost to right to buy was replaced and more. It can be done if you are organised about it. We recycled all the proceeds of right to buy into new homes by adding extra money alongside. Social housing is not the finite resource that some people would tell you it is. One of its features is that it permits a mechanism to renew over time the stock of social homes. As one house is acquired and replaced, it modernises the pool and provides affordable homes for new families. It keeps the system up to date.
I welcome the principle set out in the Bill that the receipts received by a council can be recycled by that council in pursuance of that replacement principle, but I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one even if they are in the same housing market assessment area. In Committee, the Minister explained that it would be very difficult to define such areas, but I disagree. We have both been council leaders. When local councils, either individually or with their neighbours, plan for new homes under a local plan, there is a statutory duty to define the housing market area on which the plan will operate.
I remember very clearly devising a plan with two of our neighbours. Collectively, we set the target for how many social homes were required and that number was judged to be sound by an independent inspector. This is not something you just pluck out of the air. Later, when our neighbours in Norwich could not spend their right-to-buy receipts fast enough, they gave the money to us and we built new homes no more than a mile from the city boundary. It benefited everybody.
With that in mind, noble Lords might ask why we need my amendment. The answer is that we had to go through the rigmarole of applying for special dispensation from Norwich to lend or give the money to us to build a house no more than a mile from its boundary. That was crazy. If we are to devolve powers to local government, as the new Government installed only today intend, my amendment would speed that up and deliver more homes, more quickly.
I have spoken about councils. I now want to talk about RSLs, which are a significant part of the mix. They sit apart from councils and there is a whole panoply of RSLs that, having started small, are now in many cases huge concerns. In Committee, I explained that a local Victory Housing association close to where I live, which was originally spun out of North Norfolk District Council some 15 years ago, is now part of a huge combine where the shots are called in Gloucester, 200 miles away. The effect of my amendment would be to ensure that, if one of the old Victory homes was sold in Norfolk under right to buy, Victory would be compelled to replace that home close by rather than in other parts of the country. We must remember the principle that organisations such as Victory, now absorbed into Flagship, received those houses in trust from their predecessor bodies—for the most part, our councils. My amendment would ensure that the proceeds were recycled within the same area from which the home was originally seeded by those predecessor bodies.
We have a Social Housing Bill that purports to maintain the supply of local social housing. My amendment would give legal weight to that. Accepting it would mean that RSLs are required to replace the right to buys close by, not in other parts of the country miles away—in other counties or regions or even on the other side of the country where houses are possibly much cheaper to build but where the need is not necessarily there. It is as simple as that. My amendment recognises that the stock is not just a national numbers game; it is more local than that. If we accept it, it will make the Government’s stated objective of delivering more social homes much easier than it otherwise would be. I invite the Minister to agree.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in winding for these Benches on these amendments, I start by saying that I do not intend to give long speeches opposing amendments we do not agree with; I believe that is the Minister’s job. I intend to be concise when setting out where we stand on each group, partly because, as noble Lords can hear, I have a little bit of a throat.
In the view of these Benches, these amendments largely seek to turn back the clock on reforms to right to buy. At a time when thousands of families are waiting for a secure, affordable home, the answer is not to make it easier to lose social housing stock faster. That sums up our view.
We believe that Amendments 1 to 6 would dilute or remove these important reforms. On Amendment 7, I have some sympathy with the perseverance the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has shown throughout on rural issues. I believe his intentions with regard to social housing are genuine, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. But these amendments could weaken protections for newly built social homes by reducing the period during which they remain protected from sale, and that risks repeating one of the great mistakes of past housing policy: selling homes without replacing them. Two noble Lords have made much of how wonderful they were at replacing one for one and more, but we all know that that was not the reality and we do not want to repeat that.
On Amendments 9 to 12, of course we welcome transparency, but reports and reviews do not build houses. Our support is squarely behind the Government in increasing the supply of affordable, especially social homes, not creating additional reporting requirements. There are numerous amendments on Report that ask for more data and more reviews. I was grateful to the Minister for her letter this morning, albeit at the eleventh hour. There is a wealth of data there. It is sometimes difficult to pull it all together, but it is particularly informative.
Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is described as a probing amendment. I have some sympathy with it, but when I thought about it, I realised it would impose unnecessary restrictions on how receipts are recycled. I was left questioning how big a problem this is. How many councils have trouble spending their receipts? If they know they are running into danger with that, do they not chat to their neighbours and say, “This is going to happen. Can we spend this between us?”
Lord Fuller (Con)
I do not deny that we talk about it neighbour to neighbour, but the example I gave showed that in order to give effect to the desirable outcome I think we both seek, we had to have special dispensation. That was a waste of time, it added cost, it imposed delay and it increased risk. My amendment would sweep away all those impediments and let us get on with building the social homes we need more quickly without interference from the Government, who, if they are in their right minds, would say yes anyway.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am not sure that it is quite as big, difficult and dramatic as that—we just did it.
We believe that the priority must be more social housing. We believe in better protections for existing stock and a housing system that works for those who need it most. We do not believe that these amendments help us to achieve that. I completely respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and his team on this. I believe this is a legitimate political difference and we are just not going to agree on it, hence my short but sweet contribution. I hope to continue in that vein throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening—but not too late into the evening, I hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, it is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for thanking our Secretary of State, Steve Reed, for his service to housing, local government and communities. He has worked tirelessly in his time to ensure that our places and the people in them can achieve their full potential. I wish him well for the future. I know he will continue to serve from the Back Benches, or wherever else he ends up in government. Thank you very much, Steve.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Report stage of the Social Housing Bill before the House today. My town was built to house people from war-torn London in 1946, and my passionate belief that good homes are the foundation for people and places achieving their potential comes from that. Our Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. In July 2025 we set out a plan for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing, including a reinvigoration of council house building, and we have since launched a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, with a focus on maximising delivery and increasing the supply of social rent homes.
The Bill supports councils to build more homes, alongside funding through the Council Housebuilding Support Fund, allowing councils to combine right to buy receipts with a social and affordable homes programme, extending preferential public works loan board borrowing and providing a 10-year rent settlement to give councils and providers greater certainty to invest in supply. Our new Prime Minister recently wrote:
“If you do not give people a good home, what chance have they got of having a good life?”,
which I agree with. His pledge this morning was not to end homelessness—although I am sure that is his ambition too—but to end rough sleeping, and I absolutely support that wish.
In Committee I stressed the narrow focus of the Bill on the three key issues that are its purpose: enabling local government to build new social housing while keeping alive the aspiration for those tenants who wish to do so to buy their home; supporting domestic abuse victims so that they are not re-victimised by the housing system; and removing some former social housing provisions that have never been enacted. I am grateful to noble Lords for discussions that have been broad and constructive, and, in order to assist your Lordships, I have provided details of two parallel pieces of work that I hope have assisted with the wider issues raised by Peers: the thoroughgoing review of statutory guidance on allocations, and the comprehensive review of stock management. I have also asked today for all sources of data on social housing to be circulated, which I understand has been done; I hope that those will be helpful.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, repeat amendments already made in Committee. As such, I have already set out the rationale for increasing the minimum eligibility period for right to buy and made it clear that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I have also confirmed that we have no intention of applying this clause only to new tenancies. These amendments would undermine the chief aim of our right to buy reforms, which is to preserve existing social housing stock while ensuring that long-standing tenants continue to be able to buy their homes.
Three years hardly represents a significant period of investing in a property through rental payments. In consultation there was strong support—from 81% of respondents—for increasing the eligibility period, and indeed 10 years is the average tenancy length for someone buying under the scheme currently. Excluding existing tenancies would mean that the existing rules continued to apply to the great majority of council housing tenants, and we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy was secured.
To respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about numbers, the reduced maximum cash discount levels still offer tenants significant financial support to buy their own home. Updated modelling suggests that a long-run average of around 1,500 council tenants annually will be able to buy their homes under the new discounts. Under the previous baseline, the system was projected to deliver a loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036. By contrast, following the reduction in maximum cash discounts in November 2024 and the implementation of the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same period. Taken together, this approach ensures that the scheme remains accessible and fair and delivers better value for the public while supporting tenants into home ownership. For these reasons, we oppose those amendments.
Amendment 4 seeks to retain the existing statutory timescales for processing right to buy applications by removing Clause 4 from the Bill. The Government do not support that. We have heard from social landlords that additional time is needed to process more complex cases—for example, in relation to valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Additional time will also help landlords to undertake appropriate checks and identify cases that may require further investigation before a sale can proceed. Importantly, these revised timescales are maximum periods, not targets. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as possible, and tenants will continue to benefit from the existing statutory protections where delays occur.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I should have declared at the outset that I am still a council member in Central Bedfordshire.
This debate has highlighted a number of important issues concerning the future of right to buy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for raising the issue of access to rural housing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for raising the issue of transparency, which is important, and my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the issue of retention of local receipts.
However, I return to my main theme, which I discussed earlier. Right to buy and recycling the receipts from it gives an opportunity for people to own their own home. It enables the building of more social housing and reduces the housing list, because a new home is 100% available: you do not have to wait, on average, 30 years for that house to become available. It also increases the housing stock of this country. That is win-win-win. Stopping right to buy is lose-lose-lose. It stops aspiration. It will mean longer council housing waiting lists and fewer homes being built. It is particularly egregious that those who are already secure tenants will be denied the opportunity to buy their own home after three years, something that they could reasonably expect to do.
I am therefore still minded to press my Amendment 1 and its consequential Amendment 2, because this is about fairness and opportunity. On these Benches, we think this is an important issue and we wish to protect it. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
As Amendment 9 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 10 to 12.
Clause 12: Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers
Amendment 13
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the advice of the Local Councils Network on a number of amendments that I have tabled in this group, and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and, on one amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Bill’s objective is to provide more social housing and protect our existing stock from ongoing dilution. The previous Government built roughly 130,000 new affordable homes in their five-year period. However, during that period, 28,000 social houses were disposed of. In the first year of this Government, 28,000 affordable homes are being built, but 5,806 have been lost from the social housing stock through disposal.
The first group that we looked at this afternoon dealt with the right to buy. These amendments concentrate on three things. First, they address other leaks in the bucket where social rent homes are being disposed of through sale. The exact figures are not known, but we estimate that there are 5,000 a year. Secondly, they would strengthen the provision where social houses are disposed of, so that proceeds are used to provide replacement social rent housing. Thirdly, they try to improve information on what exactly is going on here by requiring the collection of relevant data so that affordable housing is distinguished from social rent housing—we do not do that currently.
In Committee, the Minister was concerned about my amendment compromising the categorisation of private registered housing providers with government debt. Therefore, on Report, I have abandoned giving local authorities the right of first refusal at existing use value when social rent housing is being disposed of. However, in Amendment 15, we have maintained the right of private registered providers to be informed of disposals, as well as local authority housing, which is already provided in the Bill.
I am worried about overregulation and bureaucracy—I suspect that the Minister might be as well—and the feasibility of how every housing provider can be informed in a local situation. That is why my Amendment 21 proposes that a national disposal register, with access to local authorities and housing associations, should be provided. It should not be difficult to do this, and it needs to be done anyway for local authorities. It can then be accessible to housing association private registered providers.
We are supportive of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I hope very much that the Government will respond positively to the concept that the time for notification should be increased from four to eight weeks when a housing sale is being contemplated. The local authority could then have a proper period to consider whether it could intervene to purchase the housing. I hope very much that the Government will accept that amendment.
My Amendment 17 would provide for notification content to assist decision-making, so that people can make decisions in a fairly limited period—even eight weeks is fairly limited. Therefore, it would require that tenure, EPC ratings, housing compliance, stock condition survey findings, accessibility adaptations, general funding data and compliance certifications should be included in every sale notice. Following discussions with the National Housing Federation, this amendment has been designed to remove anything that the providers do not already hold. They would therefore not need to commission anything specifically. It is not designed to create an additional burden; it would just ease the process of information so that decisions can be appropriately made about whether a local authority or registered provider could get involved in purchasing the property.
Since Committee, I have tabled two new amendments dealing with the Homes England funding framework. Currently, Homes England will be asked to develop a code of responsible development disposal practice to protect social housing, in consultation with the regulator and the sector. Compliance with it will be a condition of accessing funding. The code would recognise that not all disposals are irresponsible, and we do not want to deter appropriate regeneration.
Amendment 27 addresses a significant gap in the current framework. When a provider sells a grant-funded social home on the open market, it can comply by choosing to repay any grant to Homes England and then walk away with no obligation to provide any replacement house anywhere. The amendment would require that where a social rent home disposal involves public money, it should be invested in a replacement home in the same local authority area, with a slightly more flexible requirement for affordable rent disposals. The provider would still be allowed complete commercial freedom on the disposal itself.
Finally, Amendment 21 and a similar amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, Amendment 22, concern registered providers. At the moment, they already notify the regulator following the completion of the disposal, but the tenure is not currently included in that return, and the regulator has never published the resulting data that would tell us whether it is affordable or social and where the local authority is losing social housing. We simply do not know how many social rent homes are lost through disposal and where.
These amendments attempt to underline the fact that there is a huge disparity between social and affordable rents, and therefore we must do all we can to prevent any reduction in the stock of social rented housing. The amendments seek to protect against inappropriate disposals without reinvestment and to improve information so that we can determine what exactly is happening.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and shall speak to my own Amendments 14 and 16 in this group. I declare my housing interests as on the register, not least as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, to which I am grateful for its help with this amendment.
The sale of social housing properties that have become expensive to repair and maintain, or are simply situated in an inconvenient location, has become a contentious issue for the housing association sector. The LGA has calculated that in 2024-25 alone, 5,250 social housing homes were sold to private buyers, often at auction and no doubt often to private landlords who will be less scrupulous about letting them in poor condition. These homes are lost to the social housing stock even where the properties may be among the only remaining social rented accommodation for less affluent people in the area. The financial case for these disposals may be clear, but disposals of hard-to-replace social housing are seldom in the public interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, noted, the Government recognise this issue, to the extent that the Bill introduces a requirement for a social landlord to notify the relevant council of their intentions to sell four weeks in advance. This provides at least a fleeting opportunity for intervention that could save the property from leaving the social housing sector. A local authority keen to preserve the accommodation as social housing could try to negotiate its retention, perhaps by making a grant towards its repairs, or even by the council making a bid for the property. However, this represents a somewhat lightweight response to what is becoming a major drain on much-needed stock: 28,585 homes have been sold out of the social housing sector in the last eight years. The response of a four-week window when councils will be notified is surely inadequate; this is too short a time for sensible decision-making, so my Amendment 14 seeks to improve this notification requirement by extending the timescale from four weeks in advance of a disposal, as the Bill specifies, to eight weeks generally, and to 12 weeks in designated rural areas, where there are special difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron will explain. These changes would provide a wider window of opportunity for action to preserve the social housing.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, as heralded, I support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. As he said, I am particularly interested in the 12-week delay proposed here for rural properties. I will not explain again the vital importance of affordable housing to virtually every rural community or how vital it is that we retain each and every house, wherever and whenever we can—I have already been through all that. But once sold, it is difficult to replace those houses, as land and opportunities for new, affordable development are often scarce in the affected rural community, particularly where the landscape might be protected or where the adequacy of the local infrastructure, such as power, water and drains, is a restricting factor.
The problem is that, very often, such rural stock is old and in need of expensive modernising, particularly with the need to achieve energy efficiency and EPC targets. To make matters worse, virtually all rural homes have high market values, which, if they are sold, could pay for larger housing projects elsewhere. Incidentally, these higher market values are why we desperately need more affordable homes to rent in rural communities. The point is that the registered provider’s business case for these disposal decisions is quite hard to argue against; as a result, the evidence shows, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, that there has been a significant increase in rural disposals over the last five years, particularly by larger registered providers.
If it was compulsory to delay and discuss the overall problems with the local housing authority, solutions might be found, as has already been mentioned. Could local authority funding help modernise the property or properties? Could local authority funding help build a replacement in the community itself? Maybe a package could be devised to attract Homes England regeneration funding? Given the large plots of some of these houses, perhaps everyone could get together to redevelop the site to provide more homes? The point is that such discussions and solutions are bound to take time; hence the demand in this amendment for a minimum of 12 weeks’ notice for these rural homes.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in my name and add my voice to the amendments I co-signed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford. He has already set out very clearly why we want this further information. Although we debated Amendment 24 in the last group, it is the same process—as has just been set out to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington—that, once these houses go out of the social housing market to whoever, then we have a problem. That is why I am concerned about how the disposal is done.
In Committee, I suggested that we should not have any cash purchase at all. This time, in Amendment 18, I have suggested that, where there is an auction, it should be possible for someone to be able to buy it who is not a cash buyer. It genuinely astonished me in Committee that the Labour Government did not want to do that; they wanted only cash buyers and did not care that people who are unable to apply for a mortgage might not have a quarter of a million or more to spend when they try to buy a home in the village they live in. I hope the Government have reflected on trying to make sure that local housing is open to local people.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, discussed the situation with big plots, and that is exactly what happened in Orford. Somehow, the housing association did not notice when its tenant had started rebuilding—or rather, destroying—parts of the house. There was a big garden; if it had been a commercial enterprise, there could have been probably three houses to fill the space and replace the original one after knocking it down. But, no, it was sold for cash. Nobody was able to buy it if they did not have several hundred thousands of pounds in their pocket. That is why I feel strongly about Amendment 18.
I also add my voice to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I tabled something similar in Committee and thought I heard positive noises from the Government that recognised the cycle of council meetings and cabinet meetings in local authorities. I had hoped we would get an amendment from the Government at this point; if we do not get it here, I hope we get it in the Commons.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22, which again is about transparency. I am sure the Minister is going to say again that all the information is out there, but this is actually about collating it, so that we do not have to hunt for it, and it is easy to read. I am grateful to the Local Councils Network for highlighting this issue and the gap in current reporting arrangements. This amendment would require post-disposal reporting to distinguish between homes let at social rent and those let at affordable rent. It would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish annual data in a form that allows useful analysis over time.
This is important as, although both tenures fall within the broad category of affordable housing, they are not the same. Social rent remains the only tenure that is genuinely affordable for many households on the lowest income, while affordable rent can be set at up to 80% of market rent. If social rent homes are being sold and replaced by homes at affordable rent, it represents a significant change in the nature of our social housing stock. At present, Parliament has no way of assessing whether that is actually happening.
The Regulator of Social Housing has confirmed that it has collected disposal data since 2017 but has never published any analysis of it. As a result, although we know that more than 28,000 homes have been permanently sold out of the social housing sector since 2018-19 through disposals, we cannot establish just how many of those had been at social rent and how many had been at affordable rent. Without that information, it is impossible to judge whether we are losing the homes that are most affordable for those who need them most or whether they are being replaced on a like-for-like basis.
The regulator already collects the information that this amendment asks for, but we need the data published in a way that enables Parliament, local authorities, housing providers and the public to understand what is actually happening to our social housing stock over time. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House whether the Government see any objection in principle to the regulator publishing this information annually. If the data is already being collected, what is preventing it from being published in a way that enables proper parliamentary scrutiny?
This is quite an interesting group, and I support quite a lot of these amendments, including Amendments 17, 21, 26 and 27, which are all good. I will support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young—he is not listening to me. I think he might divide the House, and I will be supporting him on Amendments 23 or 25.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I will continue with the brevity. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate. Given it is my first time speaking this afternoon, I remind your Lordships of my interest as a part-owner of a rental property in Bexley and as a vice-president of London Councils.
We have heard a range of important contributions on how the disposal of social housing should be managed, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey and to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward these amendments for consideration.
First, there is the importance of transparency. Whether through the provision of additional information on sales notices, the establishment of a national register or post-disposal reporting requirements, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the need for greater visibility of what is being sold, to whom, and with what consequences for local housing provision.
Secondly, there has been a strong focus on ensuring that social housing assets remain within the sector, wherever reasonably practicable. Amendments concerning notification periods, opportunities for other registered providers to purchase properties and the development of a code of responsible disposal practice all seek to address that objective.
Thirdly, several amendments have recognised that not all social housing is the same. Homes adapted for people with disabilities, homes in rural communities and homes let at social rent all make a particularly valuable contribution to meeting local housing need. It is understandable that noble Lords wish to ensure that such properties are not lost without proper consideration of the consequences.
We have also heard persuasive arguments regarding the recycling of capital grant and the importance of replacing homes within communities from which they are lost, wherever possible. As housing pressures continue to be felt across the country, there is clear merit in ensuring that local areas benefit from local reinvestment. From these Benches, we believe that housing providers should have the flexibility to manage their stock effectively, but that must be balanced against the equally important objective of maintaining the supply of social housing and ensuring confidence in disposal decisions.
This has been a valuable debate which has explored how that balance might best be struck. I once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. I will now address those amendments relating to the operation of the disposals measure in the Bill. This measure is simple: it will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. In doing so, we hope it will do what we all want it to do, which is to maximise opportunities for other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.
The new requirement must of course be balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are free to make their own responsible decisions about how to manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. I am pleased that noble Lords are largely supportive of the measure, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues raised in Committee with noble Lords ahead of this debate.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I do not see a particular need to wind up on these amendments. The concession that the Minister has made on Amendment 14 is pretty acceptable, given what is being asked. I was disappointed by her not moving on rural housing, but those are not really my amendments.
Generally, I can see why the Minister is worried about delay and overbureaucratisation, but I am disappointed that she has not been prepared to go further, particularly on the provision of information. Although the information is there, certain aspects are not being collected and it is not being publicised. The Government should have an interest in knowing exactly what is going on here and following through on it. However, having heard the Minister’s response, certainly to my amendments, I do not propose to press them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The point I was trying to make was that the Regulator of Social Housing is undergoing a complete review of that subject at the moment. I think it is appropriate for us to feed all that into the regulator’s review and let it work out with the sector what information is appropriate.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for suggesting that, certainly on Amendment 21. In other respects, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Shared ownership homes: buybacks, affordability and stock retention(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme, or any successor programme, to support the acquisition or buyback of shared ownership homes which are unsellable or unmortgageable, to prevent the loss of affordable housing stock through open market sale.(2) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of those arrangements within six months of the passing of this Act.(3) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on shared ownership homes which leave the affordable housing sector through open market sale. (4) The data published under subsection (3) must be disaggregated by the primary reason for sale, where known, including—(a) financial hardship or affordability pressures experienced by the shared owner;(b) repossession;(c) mortgageability issues as a result of building safety defects, remediation liabilities or associated costs;(d) lease length, lease terms or other lease-related restrictions;(e) simultaneous staircasing to 100% and resale;(f) such other categories as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must publish annually a summary analysis of the data collected under subsections (3) and (4), including an assessment of the extent to which sales are attributable to affordability pressures, mortgageability issues, or other structural features of the shared ownership model.(6) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on—(a) the number of shared ownership homes identified as unsellable or unmortgageable;(b) the number of such homes acquired or bought back by registered providers of social housing or local housing authorities;(c) the number of such acquisitions supported through the Social and Affordable Homes Programme or any successor programme, Recycled Capital Grant Funding, or registered providers’ own funds;(d) the number of such homes converted to social rent or other affordable housing tenures;(e) the proportion of shared ownership households whose housing costs exceed 40% of net household income.(7) The Secretary of State must publish annually—(a) the number of registered providers of social housing operating a shared ownership buyback policy,(b) the number of buybacks completed under such policies,(c) whether such policies are publicly available, and(d) the total number of shared ownership homes retained as social housing stock as a result of buybacks under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme or any successor programme, Recycled Capital Grant Funding, or registered providers’ own funds.(8) In this section—“housing costs” includes mortgage payments, rent, service charges, ground rent, and any other mandatory charges payable under a shared ownership lease;“unsellable or unmortgageable” means a shared ownership home in respect of which there is no reasonable prospect of sale, staircasing or mortgage lending on normal market terms due to affordability pressures, building safety issues, lease-related restrictions, valuation issues, or other material barriers.”
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 25 in this group, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, which calls for a review of shared ownership, before I move back to the more specific but related Amendment 23, which focuses on the need for buybacks.
We had an extensive debate in Committee about the problems facing shared owners. I will not repeat them but I can briefly summarise the main themes, which have since been reinforced by organisations representing shared owners, in particular Shared Ownership Resources and the Shared Owners’ Network. I am grateful to Sue Phillips and Carine Marzin for their help. The problems facing shared owners are basically ongoing affordability, service charges, fees, problems with staircasing and lease extension and, finally, barriers to sale and, crucially, the absence of buyback when misfortune strikes.
Concerns about shared ownership have been raised not simply by the media, individual owners or campaigners. They have also been identified by two separate Select Committee inquiries, questioning the degree to which shared ownership, as currently constituted, remains affordable for households once they have entered the scheme. Following our debate in Committee, the Minister kindly held a meeting with me and colleagues—she has always been very generous with her time. She agreed to reflect on what we said. True to her word, she then wrote to us on 13 July. It is a detailed letter, seven pages long, for which I am most grateful. At the outset, the Minister recognised that there is an issue here. Of the problems we raise, she says:
“These are practical concerns which can have a real impact on shared owners experience and I fully recognise the importance of addressing them”.
Later on, she says:
“The Government accepts that shared ownership needs to work better for shared owners”.
So we start in agreement that there is an issue here.
She then makes the point that the existing programme of work going on in her department largely covers these issues. That means that the review we propose will not start from scratch but can build on work in progress—but, crucially, much of the work in her department so far focuses on changes for new buyers and planned work. It does nothing for existing owners, because lease-based features will not be retrospectively amended. The gap between us is, first, that we specify a timescale, publication and proposed action, pinpointing six particular issues that we believe need clarification or amendment, whereas the internal review does none of that.
Crucially, the Minister’s letter makes it clear that some of the key issues that need addressing are not for discussion, principally the model of shared ownership and the division of responsibility between shared owners and landlord, and the need for radical change in the provisions for buyback. On the first, the model, where a shared owner with as little as 10% of the equity is still exposed to 100% of all the associated costs, often unknown at the time, she argues that looking at this would create uncertainty for providers and investors and that the risks of a review outweigh its potential benefits. Our view is that the uncertainty and inequity are already there, with associated risks primarily borne by shared owners. A review could put shared ownership on a more equitable and sustainable basis.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the shared ownership review proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, who have added their names.
In Committee, I drew attention to the asymmetry of powers and the imbalance in negotiating strength between the landlord and tenant in the case of shared ownership. I trod carefully when I characterised those who entered into these arrangements as financially unsophisticated, but the truth is that, in their natural desire to own at least part of their home, they have signed up to a situation with the certainty of all the costs but only the possibility of some of the uplifts if they happen. The terms of trade are stacked against them.
My noble friend Lord Young has raised several issues specific to shared ownership, which I will not repeat. Each is important in its own way. The Government feel that they are all independent of each other. The Government want to deal with them one at a time rather than all together, which is wrong. My noble friend concludes that the issues are harming, possibly irreparably, the case of shared ownership. I agree.
I am speaking in this debate because, after Committee, I was contacted by a shared ownership tenant, Lucy Hassall, who had heard what I had to say. She is sitting below the Bar of the House today. I want to use her case to prove the need for a fundamental review to reinvigorate the case for a fair and reasonable shared ownership system that works for families and helps them to build a stake in society.
Let us break down Lucy’s case to demonstrate why a fundamental review is needed. She spent a sum of money on a 99-year lease on a two-bed flat in 2005. Now, 20 years later, it is worth a little bit less—it happens. Last year, she wanted to move and inquired of her RSL about the process to sell. The landlord replied, stating that there were about 80 years left. In fact, there were under 80 years left. At that stage, they could have entered into a lease extension at no marriage value charge at all. The RSL manager, whom I will not name but who styled herself as an adviser, did not disclose that any delay could crystallise that marriage value. That was sharp practice and far from the social purpose that the National Housing Federation tells us is the golden thread that runs through all RSLs. Time apparently was not of the essence when indeed it was. Quite simply, Lucy and her husband were misadvised by their landlord, who was acting as a privateer, advancing their own pecuniary interests over the interests of their tenant.
A year later, Lucy inquired again about selling and was quoted £12,000 for the marriage value, plus £600 to confirm the cost of the leasehold extension, another £800 to cover some legal fees—her own legal fees—and another grand for the RICS to do an independent property value. This was all plus VAT—let us say £16,000 out of taxed income for a system that is available by law only to people on limited incomes. This was all in addition to the service charges and estate charges that were referred to by my noble friend Lord Young. I have received the same pleas from members of the public. This morning, a lady wrote to me saying that if only she could give away her 50% share in her shared ownership home for nothing she would be satisfied, but even at zero cost the landlord will not take it back. Why did the Hassalls’ RSL not write proactively to warn them of the marriage value jeopardy as the line approached? They did the reverse.
Now I look at the marriage value claim of £12,000. There is a helpful GOV.UK web page that helps people to assess what the marriage value might be. It is £11,000 to £12,000, but that is for 100% of the value and the Hassalls have only 50%. Had they been correctly advised 12 months ago, they would have owed nothing. This is a case of gross overcharging and further sharp practice. If shared ownership is to be the joint enterprise that it purports to be and that Parliament intended then there should be a degree of equity in the apportionment of these charges. The basic terms of these agreements are unfair. The tenant cops the lot and the landlord gets off scot free. That is not fair to people earning less than £80,000 a year, who are the only people who qualify for this. It is an abuse.
I have not tabled my social purpose amendment on Report, as I did in Committee, but perhaps I should have done. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me about the issues in the Hassall case. I do not blame her for the disappointing reply. She just stated the law as it is. However, it proves that the law needs to change. She explained that the issue is down to the Hassalls because they have chosen to move.
Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government purport to support the victims of the social housing system. However, the Minister’s letter just perpetuates victim-blaming of those people who have purchased a shared ownership home and were suckered in on unfair terms that I will not repeat. We must have this review to correct the asymmetry of risk and reward and of market and pricing power, and to constrain the RSLs that are acting with a predatory and pecuniary advantage and obvious conflicts of interest. We must review the cost apportionment between the landlord and tenant, and ensure that there is proactive information for people who have been financially unsophisticated and suckered into these basic terms. I concede that the Minister has advised us on the selling of 99-year leases that it will be 990 years in future, but the marriage value is a further punch in the guts. That is the reality of the situation.
Lucy says that she has been left with an unsellable property and considers herself misadvised and mis-sold. I agree. A review is essential, otherwise shared ownership as a tenure is finished. That would be a shame, for it should be part of the mix. This Bill is before us. The moment to sort it out is now.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the joys of following the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller; I will be less hyperbolic but sincere and completely agree with what has been said.
The Minister will not be surprised that we on these Benches strongly support these amendments. She has been very generous with her time and commitment to this issue. However, we have reached a crunch point, which is why we will support these amendments and why we were pleased that they have been brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has outlined everything clearly. I would go so far as to say that I do not really want another review; the facts are already known. Much work has already been done and some of the things that are wrong need urgent remediation, not waiting and waiting for a review, an outcome and the rest of it, but we are where we are.
Buyback and staircasing are the two main issue. Just imagine the horror. It is Kafkaesque to be unsellable and unmortgaged. Just think about that. I am certain that this would prey on anybody’s mental health. We need urgent action. Shared ownership is supposed to provide a route into homeownership. We on these Benches believe that it is a legitimate route for those who cannot afford to buy outright, especially in areas with high housing costs. We have all been contacted by very real people in very real circumstances; you do not want to be there. There does not seem to be a way out. I found the Minister’s letter very clear and compassionate, but it felt like she too was trapped, like the many people whom we are talking about.
This happens to people through no fault of their own. They have spent years being unable to sell or remortgage because of building safety. I would be really interested to know where we were on that—especially the failure of the external wall standard and being unable to staircase to 100% ownership due to rising property values, higher mortgage costs and additional fears. Many people who are unable to move on have become accidental landlords. We had one case where someone said that it is costing them hundreds of pounds a month to be an accidental landlord. When you are on low incomes, which you must be to be in this model, that is a hell of a lot of money every month. How do you deal with that? It is not what the scheme was designed to deliver and not what we would hope for it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made such comprehensive cases for Amendments 23 and 25. I have added my name to Amendment 25.
I declare my interests as a former non-executive on both Southern and Aster housing association boards and as the current chair of Look Ahead, which does not own any shared ownership homes but, I am pleased to tell your Lordships, works with rough sleepers—so I welcome the new Prime Minister’s remarks today.
Shared Ownership Resources is a charity that has sent information to me and other noble Lords regarding the urgent need to undertake a programme of improvements, exit mechanisms and buyback options to improve the situation of some shared owners, who appear to be trapped with spiralling service charges and the need for essential maintenance and upgrades to the buildings in which they live. These problems are in part a result of recommendations for fire cladding standards associated with the Grenfell fire.
I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in trying to improve the lot of shared owners, which will make the situation much better for many in the future. Problems, however, are of long standing, particularly for shared owners of flats in modern blocks who purchased prior to the Grenfell tragedy. I stand here as the mother of a teacher who was in a shared ownership property in Brixon—a converted Victorian flat—that was highly successful for her. She managed to sell it and now lives in a home in Bristol, so I am not anti-shared ownership.
There is clearly a need to review the situation for those who purchased a share in a property, one of these modern flats, early in the scheme. Some owners are trapped in circumstances that arise from the inherent characteristics of model shared ownership leases and other aspects of the scheme from the early 2000s. Many would like a system of buyback to be funded through a government grant mechanism; such homes would then become social rented units, reducing temporary housing options for many currently in bed and breakfast.
The problems have been described by many shared owners, who have written to me and other noble Lords. Aleksandra, who lives in a Peabody home in Croydon, says, “I have no control over my life anymore, trying to survive the ever-increasing costs of the scheme. I am unable to sell due to the building safety crisis and my housing association does not offer a buyback option”. Secondly, Quay, who lives in an L&Q unit in Tower Hamlets, has been granted permission to sublet but is unable to sell and is making a loss through subletting. However, he has been able to move.
The problems are not just London based. Eddie is in Southend-on-Sea and he says that, because of building safety issues, his home is, in effect, impossible to sell. There is no confirmed timetable for the remedial work necessary. He states that Moat housing association could convert properties into much-needed socially rented homes, but there is no realistic buyback option.
Rebecca bought her property in 2005 and has asked Hyde housing association if it will take back the 35% of the property that she owns. She reports that she would hand it over at no cost, as she has since met a partner and does not need the flat any more. She is currently subletting with the housing association’s agreement but is making a significant loss on rental income due to what she describes as “extortionate” service charges.
The final example is from the north of England. Holly purchased a shared ownership flat in Leeds in 2007. It was advertised as an affordable option for people on lower incomes. Nineteen years later, her home is, in effect, unsellable due to unresolved cladding and building issues. She has asked Together Housing to buy back her share, but it has refused because it has no funding available to do so. However, she reports that the association has acknowledged that the service charges have become unaffordable. She considers herself trapped with no viable exit route.
All these correspondents report the negative effects that such housing problems are putting on their health and well-being. As a mental health nurse, I firmly believe that to be true. For these residents and others in similar situations, these amendments are necessary so that the problems can be properly assessed and potential solutions identified in this Parliament. Other solutions may be identified, but central funding for buyback options should be seriously considered, particularly as such an approach would increase the number of social housing homes for rent. I hope that the Minister is in a position to report that the Government will accept at least one of these amendments, so that historical government-backed schemes can be reconsidered in the light of the powerful information provided by the charities and individuals that have outlined their issues to many in this House.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 25 in this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill. This amendment calls for a review of shared ownership. I emphasise that this proposed review should cover the special circumstances of shared ownership for older people.
Fortunately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I have the honour to chair, produced an excellent analysis of the key issues back in 2023 from our inquiry into shared ownership for an ageing population. A large section of our ageing population cannot afford to downsize to more manageable, accessible homes but will never be eligible for social housing. This squeezed middle can benefit in later life from the opportunity to move from family-sized accommodation to somewhere more compact, starting a chain of sales that help young and old alike. Savings accrue to the NHS and social care, alongside the direct benefits to the older person, but it has been a struggle to find a form of shared ownership that can be provided on an affordable basis for the less affluent home owner. The right shared ownership model could achieve this.
Homes England has devised its own older people’s shared ownership model—OPSO. The trouble is that this product currently involves an anomalous form of grant aid, which needs fixing. The OPSO grant means that, if potential occupiers can afford a 75% share, they will not be charged any rent on the 25% that remains in the ownership of the provider. This is very helpful, but the OPSO terms then stipulate that, if the shared owner can afford only 70% or less, they must pay full rent on the remaining 30% or corresponding share of the going rent. Someone who can afford only a 50% share must pay 50% rent; the combination of a 50% rent plus a significant service charge could be just too expensive for owners of middle-value homes.
Amendment 25, in its call for a review of shared ownership, needs to include the specific circumstances of older people and sort out the rather weird offering currently available from Homes England. The amendment could trigger a review that leads not just to an improvement in the amount of shared ownership housing for older people but that also means more sensible terms for the product itself—an excellent opportunity for a reset of a tenure that has much unrealised potential for young and old alike.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. They have brought forward these amendments and highlighted the very real challenges faced by many shared owners. I thank Lucy and the many others who have shared their examples with us that have brought this to light.
This has been a valuable debate on an area of housing policy which was intended to provide a bridge to home ownership but which, for some households, has been increasingly difficult to navigate. We have heard concerns about affordability, rising service charges, the costs associated with staircasing and the difficulties faced by leaseholders whose homes may be difficult to sell or mortgage. We have also heard concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock, where shared ownership properties leave the sector altogether.
The amendments before us seek above all to shine a light on these issues. Amendment 23 focuses on gathering better evidence about unsaleable and unmortgageable homes and on understanding the extent to which affordable housing stock is being lost. Amendment 25 asks the Government to undertake a broader review of whether the shared ownership model is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve.
From these Benches, we continue to support the principle of shared ownership as a route into home ownership for those who might otherwise be excluded from the housing market. However, support for the principle should not prevent us from examining how the scheme operates in practice and where improvements are needed. A review of the sort proposed by my noble friend Lord Young would provide an opportunity to assess the evidence, understand the experiences of shared owners and identify any barriers preventing the scheme from fulfilling its original purpose. If my noble friend is minded to move his amendment, we shall support him. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling Amendments 23 and 25, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill, for their support. I recognise the constructive and persistent way in which the noble Lord has raised issues relating to shared ownership throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, in previous Bills. In my responses, I in no way want to undermine the difficulties of shared owners, which I understand have caused great anxiety and for which I am deeply sympathetic. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the department is doing to provide support for some of the issues the noble Lord raised.
I turn first to Amendment 23. Shared ownership landlords are independent bodies and decisions about the repurchase of individual homes sit with them. However, landlords already have the option to buy back homes, including where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues. Landlords can already use their recycled capital grant funding to cover up to 100% of the cost of that.
Furthermore, allocating social and affordable homes programme grant funding for use on shared ownership buybacks would not be conducive to the core strategic objective of that new programme, which is to maximise supply, particularly of social rent homes. We expect landlords to set out any buyback policies, or confirm if they do not have one, on their websites. Ultimately, the solution for those struggling to sell their homes due to building safety issues is the remediation of unsafe buildings.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate—my noble friend Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady O’Neill on the Front Bench. There is agreement that shared ownership is a useful stepping stone to home ownership. The trouble is that, at the moment, for far too many people, the stepping stones do not reach the other bank.
I listened to what the Minister said, but she basically repeated what was in her letter and did not go as far as I would have liked. For example, she said that social landlords could buy and could implement buyback, but we have had email after email over the weekend explaining that the social landlords are not buying back. She went on to say that the answer is remediation, but remediation will not be complete until 2031 at the earliest. These people simply cannot wait.
The Minister also made it clear that she is not prepared to review the model of shared ownership, for the reasons she gave. I had hoped that she would produce a rabbit out of a hat. She produced a hat, but sadly there was no rabbit in it. It would be greedy of me to test the patience of the House by voting on both Amendment 23 and Amendment 25. My view is that Amendment 25 picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and that paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (2) cover the key point about buyback. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23 and, when the time comes, I will move Amendment 25 formally.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Review of shared ownership and staircasing(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of the shared ownership scheme in England.(2) The review must consider in particular—(a) the affordability of shared ownership for leaseholders;(b) the extent to which shared ownership provides a viable route to full home ownership; (c) the operation of staircasing arrangements, including the costs, fees and valuation requirements associated with the purchase of additional shares;(d) barriers faced by shared ownership leaseholders in staircasing to higher levels of ownership or to full ownership;(e) the impact of service charges, repairs obligations and other housing costs on shared ownership leaseholders;(f) whether legislative or regulatory changes are required to improve transparency, affordability and access to full ownership.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”
Lord Best
“Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safetyAfter section 86 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term), insert—“86ZA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety(1) This section applies where—(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure and assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.(2) When subsection (1) applies, the registered provider must grant the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy, and(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—(a) the registered provider,(b) the tenant, or(c) any member of the tenant’s household.(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the registered provider concerned must co-operate with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.””Member's explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure social housing providers offer a return to a secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, in accordance with police advice.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments begins with Amendment 28, in my name, and covers a range of different but vital issues. The concluding Amendment 76 in the group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, addresses the treatment of abuse victims who get into debt while living in temporary accommodation and lose their entitlement to a secure home. As I am sure the noble Baroness will explain, that is a vital amendment. I greatly welcome the wider definition of domestic abuse announced by the Minister in her letter to Peers of 14 July and encapsulated in the 46 government amendments in this group.
Amendment 28 picks up on a separate but related issue. It would ensure that social housing providers offered a new secure tenancy to a tenant who had been forced out of their social housing by threats of targeted youth or gang violence following police advice. This change was first proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. A constituent of hers, as instructed by the police, left her social rent home but thereby lost access to secure accommodation and was trapped in miserable temporary accommodation, with no right of return. She was penalised because one of her children had been threatened with serious violence by gang members, not because she or any member of her family had done anything wrong. Frighteningly, these cases of gang violence are not rare in some of our inner-city areas. The family of Helen Hayes’s constituent subsequently suffered the tragic death of a teenage son in a separate gang-related incident. The threats to life can be very real.
Amendment 28 would ensure that, in future cases, the fleeing household would not lose the right to return to a secure tenancy where the move was on the basis of police advice. I understand that the Government will be strengthening guidance to social landlords. What is needed is a firm obligation on the housing association to restore the household security of tenure in a decent property after a temporary emergency move.
Amendment 29 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I thank the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, the National Federation of ALMOs and the LGA for their work on this issue. Amendment 29 seeks to end the current legal anomaly whereby, on the one hand, social landlords are required to make checks of tenants’ homes for safety reasons while, on the other hand, the tenant may deny access. A recent court judgment has ruled that social landlords do not have a right of access in these cases. The social landlord can be penalised for failing to carry out safety checks, can be accused of regulatory failure and can face criminal prosecution, but they cannot fulfil the requirements on them because the tenant is denying access and the courts will not support the social landlord taking action to enter the premises.
Quite properly, the Government have been bringing pressure to bear on social landlords to improve their management and maintenance services, including by carrying out more safety checks and works. There is the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. However, the social landlord may make comprehensive and repeated attempts to secure entry to carry out these statutory checks but is still denied access. The tenant may have mental health difficulties, they may be hoarders or they may simply lead a chaotic lifestyle that makes appointments hard to keep, but taking the tenant to court as a last resort has revealed an ambiguity in the law, with a judgment last October that courts cannot grant access unless Parliament has clearly conferred such a power.
There is an urgent need to sort out the legal position. I know that MHCLG has been in helpful negotiations with all the representative bodies to bring together statutory guidance that would ensure good practice by social landlords and avoid accusations of trampling on tenants’ human rights. However, the blockage encountered in the courts suggests that social landlords need more than this important guidance. It seems that new legal powers are required.
I know the Minister has been pursuing this matter within MHCLG and with the other relevant government departments to resolve this legal dilemma. I was grateful to the Minister, as on so many occasions, for her willingness to meet and discuss the issue and for her subsequent letter in which she recognises the strength of the case and says: “I agree that the ability of landlords to access homes for essential safety checks is an important issue that we must take seriously. The early evidence suggests that there is an issue for government to resolve, and I am sympathetic to your amendment”.
Without a solution, the housing associations, councils and ALMOs are left in an impossible position. As always, the hard work behind the scenes by the Minister is much appreciated, and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, and I am delighted to see that it is grouped with the Government’s amendments extending protections for victims of domestic abuse, which I certainly support.
I was grateful for the Minister’s constructive response to this amendment in Committee, especially her recognition that the matter needs further consideration and her commitment to convene interested stakeholders to explore a way forward. I know that representative bodies from across the social housing sector have been working with officials on the best way to solve the issue of access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspection repairs and safety works. In Committee, the Minister raised important concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home, and I agree that that is extremely important in safeguarding a tenant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. However, the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ask simply: are existing routes for access clear, consistent and fast enough when tenants and residents do not engage and clear safety risks are posed? I am convinced that the answer to this is no.
We know that housing associations and councils increasingly report difficulties in gaining access to residents’ homes to carry out statutory safety inspections. Recent HQN research found that 60% of surveyed social landlords had growing or considerable concerns about access issues. The primary concern here must be the safety of residents and social housing staff. If gas safety checks or emergency repairs cannot be conducted, issues can be left unidentified or unresolved that pose significant and imminent danger not just to the resident in that property but to people in neighbouring homes as well.
Legal action is typically taken as a last resort after steps to engage directly with residents have proven unsuccessful, but even this has become more challenging. Housing associations have observed a shift in decisions from judges over the last 12 months, with judges seemingly less willing to approve requests for injunctions, particularly for matters other than gas safety. As I mentioned in Committee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just mentioned it too, a court judgment from October 2025 demonstrated that Parliament’s intention on forced entry is currently unclear.
Alongside the obvious risk to safety, there is the financial cost of inaction. In a 2026 White Paper, the Association of Safety and Compliance Professionals estimated that repeated access attempts cost the social housing sector more than £175 million annually in direct operational terms, with the figure rising to between £200 million and £245 million with legal escalation included. I urge that this money could be better directed towards work that will improve the conditions of residents’ homes or to building much-needed new social housing.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s approach so far. Whether through this amendment or another mechanism to clarify the process for securing access, I know that both she and social housing bodies want to work in partnership to develop a workable system with tenant safety at its heart.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 76 standing in my name, and I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This amendment would mean that landlords could not prevent domestic abuse survivors accessing social housing on the basis of debt incurred under coercive control or economic abuse. Research by Katherine Brickell of King’s College London and Mel Nowicki of Oxford Brookes University found that the allocations policies of only one in five local authorities in England currently exempt domestic abuse survivors from debt-related rules on social housing.
During my periods as CEO of Shelter and before that Women’s Aid, I saw the desperate impact of these rules on women and children who ended up homeless in temporary accommodation. Let us be clear what this means. Temporary accommodation is often just one room in a B&B, a converted office block or a hotel. Laying the table for tea often means laying the bed for tea. I have seen a GCSE student with nowhere to work but sitting on the toilet. I have seen a baby who could not be put down to crawl because there was no space between the beds. I have seen families having to live on unhealthy and expensive takeaways because they have no cooking facilities. Add all these challenges to the unimaginable trauma of domestic abuse followed by homelessness and you can easily see why many women literally risk their lives by staying with the perpetrator to spare their children from homelessness.
It was heartening today to hear the new Prime Minister prioritising the end of rough sleeping and, even more importantly, reiterating the commitment to a major programme of social and council housebuilding. The Prime Minister cited the model of Everyone In used during the Covid-19 pandemic but, while this was a great example of partnership and co-ordination, it is not a model for ensuring homeless people find safe and secure homes for the long term and not temporary accommodation in hotels. This is important context for this amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has made a very powerful case indeed, and I will not repeat what she has said. She emphasised that my noble friend the Minister is extremely sympathetic—she made that clear in Committee. She also said that she thought statutory guidance was the answer but that if it proved not to be sufficient, then, in effect, we have the necessary primary powers to take action.
I simply want to ask my noble friend whether she could give an assurance that, in the event that the guidance proves insufficient as the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has warned it might do, the Government will use those powers. Can she say what steps will be taken to monitor compliance with the guidance? What does she consider a reasonable period to assess the effectiveness of the guidance? Can she also say—and this echoes the noble Baroness—what steps will be taken to ensure local authorities are aware of the guidance and what is expected of them under it?
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is.
I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse.
Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing what she says on how she will meet the requests of housing associations there.
Finally, we welcome the expansion of scope in laying out and making sure that these provisions apply to other forms of abuse including, for example, sibling abuse or child-to-parent abuse. These are made available by the amendments that the Government have tabled here. We really welcome that change.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims.
It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition.
During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle.
We have also heard valuable contributions on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The proposed duty to ensure continuity of tenancy for those forced to move because of threats of targeted youth or gang violence raises an important issue. Nobody should face the prospect of losing the security of their tenancy because they are compelled to move for the safety of their family.
Likewise, the amendment concerning access for registered providers to undertake essential safety inspections addresses a long-standing and very practical problem. Social landlords have a significant statutory duty in relation to gas safety, electrical safety and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Where access cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, there needs to be a proportionate mechanism that can protect both the rights of tenants and the safety of the residents. This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for achieving that balance.
This debate is therefore united by a common theme of ensuring that the law provides appropriate protection, whether for victims of domestic abuse, tenants facing serious threats to their safety or residents whose well-being depends upon essential safety checks being carried out. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her engagement on these issues.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Neate, Lady Lister, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill. I will be moving government Amendments 30 to 75; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will move them en bloc and not one at a time.
This Bill introduces important changes to give greater security and stability to social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse while giving landlords stronger powers to take action against perpetrators. While these protections have been warmly welcomed, we have listened closely to the legitimate concerns raised that the Bill’s protections, which focused on abuse involving a resident partner or that partner’s resident family member, are too narrow. They risk excluding victims of familial abuse in non-partner relationships, such as abuse between adult parents and adult children, siblings or other relatives. The government amendments close that gap. I especially thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for her engagement on this issue.
The amendments align the Bill’s provisions more closely with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. by focusing on the victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and who occupies the home or has had to leave because of the abuse. They additionally make a number of consequential changes to who the court should consider when examining reasonableness under the discretionary ground or approving suitable alternative accommodation in joint tenancy cases. These amendments will deliver a fairer outcome for victims of familial domestic abuse. They demonstrate our Government’s commitment to engaging with the House and stakeholders, and to strengthening the Bill where there is a clear case to do so.
Commenting now on Amendment 28, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling this amendment. It raises the serious issue of how the housing system responds when an existing social housing tenant needs to move urgently for their or their household’s safety. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement with me on this issue. I also thank Helen Hayes MP; it was truly shocking to hear of the circumstances of her constituent, Georgia, and the shocking murder of Georgia’s son, Damarie Roye.
I agree that social housing tenants should not have to choose between their personal safety and the security of their home. There are existing protections: the social housing allocations framework requires that, where people need to move on welfare grounds, they must be given reasonable preference for social housing. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to give additional preference to those fleeing violence. The Renters’ Rights Act will strengthen security of tenure for social housing tenants on assured tenancies from October 2027. However, I recognise the importance of considering whether we can go further to ensure that those who need to move for safety do not lose the security and associated benefits of their tenancy, which may have been built up over a number of years.
We need to consider carefully how any new duties on landlords would operate, particularly in assessing whether there is a threat to safety and where a landlord does not have suitable accommodation. We believe that further work is needed before any solution to this policy issue can be put forward. I have asked officials to explore this matter at pace, and we are keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and stakeholders on possible solutions, ahead of the Bill moving to the other place. I hope the noble Lord will understand how committed I am to ensuring that nobody should have to choose between their safety and their tenancy.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 29, which seeks to introduce a statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to fulfil their statutory safety duties. Since he last introduced this amendment, we have had a helpful discussion about these issues and my officials have been working closely with sector bodies. I recognise that there is growing concern from the sector that a lack of legal clarity leaves it unable to conduct necessary tests and repairs, and risks tenant safety.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, it was a good debate, with approval from all sides for all the amendments in the group. It was good to hear the details of the 46 government amendments that will widen the definition of domestic abuse. Once again, it has been invaluable to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Teather, and to understand the Government’s sincere efforts to remedy the inherent injustices in the current arrangements for domestic abuse survivors through enhanced guidance. I thank the Minister for her very full and helpful response and for her firm commitment to take further action if guidance proves insufficient to protect victims of domestic abuse.
On dangers from crimes of violence where the police have strongly advised a move, it is important to note the Minister’s commitment to strengthening the guidance to social landlords, now in preparation. This will, I hope, make a significant difference.
When it comes to the no-access problem, we must await further action by government on the need for a change in the law for a statutory right of access, but I am greatly heartened by the willingness of the Minister to find a lasting solution. With these comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
“(c) the victim, or a victim, of the offence—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.” Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of the absolute ground for possession in new section 84B. The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
“(b) the victim, or a victim, of the breach—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of the ground for possession in new section 84B. The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to—(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour of the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines terms used in other amendments of new section 84B in my name.
(i) the victim mentioned in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim mentioned in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
(i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim mentioned in that section, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
“The following conditions are met in relation to a dwelling-house.Condition 1 is that there has been abusive behaviour by a person who is a tenant of the dwelling-house (“A”) towards a person (the “victim”) who—.(a) is personally connected to A, and(b) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.Condition 2 is that—”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 2A). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
(i) the victim, or(ii) a member of the victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
““abusive” has the meaning given in section 1(3) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to—(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour of the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines terms used in other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
(i) the victim who is referred to in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim who is referred to in the relevant ground, or (ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
(i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
“(d) the victim, or a victim, of the offence—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.” Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 7AA). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
“(c) the victim, or a victim, of the breach—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 7AA). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to—(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour towards them by the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines terms used in other amendments of new Ground 7AA in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 7AA in my name.
(a) is personally connected to the tenant, and(b) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 14A). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
(i) the victim, or(ii) a member of the victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to the domestic abuse;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines a term used in another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
““personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines a term used in another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 14A in my name.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Review of lifetime secure tenancies(1) A local housing authority must review each lifetime secure tenancy at intervals of no more than five years.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) whether the tenant continues to require the accommodation having regard to their housing needs,(b) whether the accommodation remains suitable having regard to the size and composition of the tenant’s household,(c) whether the tenant has developed a local connection with another local housing authority area,(d) whether the tenant requires support to move to more suitable accommodation, and(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Following a review under this section, the local housing authority may—(a) confirm the continuation of the tenancy,(b) offer alternative suitable accommodation, or(c) take such other action as may be provided for by regulations.(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local housing authorities on the conduct of reviews under this section.(5) Local housing authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs and that existing stock is being used effectively.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77, in my name, is similar to Amendment 66, which we debated in Committee. It would require local authorities to review secure tenancies every five years to see whether there are other options available to the tenant which might free up social housing for others in desperate need. After inflicting the first defeat on the new Burnham Administration with my Amendment 25, I do not propose to try again.
The case for this amendment was actually made by the Minister in the letter she sent to all of us on 14 May when she introduced the Bill. She said:
“Yet too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists”.
She was right. At the end of last year, there were more than 175,000 children living in temporary accommodation, with the figure going up for each of the last three years. Some 20% have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years. This is no way to spend one’s childhood.
Building more social rented homes is part of the answer, but that programme is behind target. Last year, just over 12,000 new social rent homes were built, but—and this goes to the heart of my amendment—there were a quarter of a million social housing re-lets. On those figures, those on the waiting list are 20 times more likely to get a social home through a re-let rather than through a new build—hence the imperative to see what might be done through generating more re-lets, at a fraction of the time and cost of new builds.
I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Bird, previously. He said of social housing that
“the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]
Access to social housing has now become a safety net, and a safety net of limited capacity. Just look at the guidance issued by the Government on 10 July 2025:
“The government has made clear that we expect social homes to go to people who genuinely need and deserve them … priority for social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need”.
Today, the “greatest housing need” probably means the statutory duty to rehouse a family in emergency accommodation—for instance, in a bed and breakfast—or a family granted asylum who are now living in a hotel. It could be a mother and children fleeing domestic violence or a family whose illegal HMO has been cancelled by the local authority and closed. There is not enough social housing even for all of them.
You get social housing today because you are in the greatest need, to quote the government circular. The question then arises about what happens if you are allocated a tenancy because you were in the greatest need and then, with the help of that tenancy and perhaps wider support, you put your life together and have the ability to move on. Should you not then make way for someone who is now in the same desperate position as you were and give them the opportunity to rebuild their life in the same way? That is the question behind my amendment. It should be seriously considered by any party that claims to look after the most vulnerable.
The point was well made in an article in the Times on Saturday, headed:
“More than 100,000 households in social housing are in richest 20%”.
It went on to say:
“Andy Burnham’s promise to embark on the biggest expansion of social housing for a generation will not solve the housing crisis unless the politically toxic question of who should be entitled to subsidised homes is tackled, experts say”.
It pointed out that 389,000 social tenancies were
“under-occupying their homes by at least two bedrooms”.
So, today, you currently get a lifelong tenancy because of your vulnerability at one point in time, and, crucially, it is never reassessed. Tackling homelessness is not just about increasing supply; it has to be about allocation if it is to be serious. My amendment encourages a dialogue between the tenant and landlord to outline the options once it is clear that a family can afford to move. They may include shared ownership, help with a deposit, or help with the cost of moving.
I do not think the Minister, in her response to my amendment in Committee, did justice to the case I made or the seriousness of the current position. She said:
“Nothing in the Bill prevents local housing authorities from granting fixed-term tenancies where they consider it to be appropriate—for example, to support time-limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts”.
But my amendment is not about fixed-term tenancies in certain limited circumstances; it is about reviewing a secure tenancy every five years to see whether it is still appropriate. Further, as proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment makes clear, the secure tenancy can be confirmed.
The Minister went on to say:
“We want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. It is not right to require that most new tenants be offered fixed-term tenancies, as this would reduce their security”.—[Official Report, 17/6/26; cols. 292-93.]
But that is to duck the tough decision that Housing Ministers should now take: weighing the need for security and stability for one tenant, who may well be able to replicate that security and stability with another form of tenure, against the need for a decent home for someone in a bed and breakfast, who deserves the same chance that the first tenant had a few years ago. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am very disappointed to say that we oppose Amendments 77 and 78, but those who heard my comments in Committee will not be surprised. I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concerns and analysis, but I disagree with his solution. We believe that these amendments send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration. Social housing should be a foundation for opportunity, not a ceiling on ambition. Families should not have to think twice about taking on extra hours, accepting a promotion or starting a small business because they fear it could jeopardise the security of their home. Many social housing tenants are in receipt of some sort of benefit, which indicates that they would not be able to leap forward into other forms of housing.
Let us not ignore the sheer bureaucracy of these proposals. Frankly, they would be quite unworkable. Who is going to monitor the incomes, carry out the reviews, process the appeals and reassess thousands of tenancies? Housing officers are already stretched to breaking point; in the middle of a housing crisis, should they be helping people into homes or policing pay rises? It is obvious which we would prefer. Let us also be clear that the housing crisis is not caused by social tenants doing a bit better than when they went into the social home; it is caused by decades of failing to build enough homes. The answer is more social housing, not more scrutiny of the lives of the people who live in it.
We believe that a secure home should give people the confidence to get on in life. We should be building opportunity, not bureaucracy, and rewarding ambition, not regulating it. These amendments do the opposite. For that reason, we cannot support them.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, for once I rise to oppose—at least in part—an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: Amendment 77. I want to defend the concept of providing secure social housing tenancies for life. The review proposed in Amendment 77 envisages five-yearly reviews of whether a tenancy should continue, with the possibility of a consequent requirement for a tenant to move elsewhere if their circumstances have changed sufficiently. This would engender a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity for every social housing tenant.
Apart from the administrative overload, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has drawn attention, I suggest there are some powerful reasons why denying social housing tenants a secure lifetime tenancy is likely to have undesirable consequences. First, the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that has not been introduced to date, and which the Bill intends to repeal, would have required social housing tenants to pay a higher rent if their income improves. In theory, this would pressurise tenants to move on into the private rented sector or, less probably, to buy their own home elsewhere. I maintain that no regime should penalise tenants in social housing who improve their position in life by working hard and earning more. They should not be expected to pay for their success by facing higher rents. A system of rising rents for rising incomes brings disincentives to work longer hours, or even to work at all.
Secondly, if a tenant leaves subsidised housing because their improved financial position has meant a penalty in their rent, what happens if they have a reversal of their fortunes? The PRS property to which they have moved will no longer be affordable on their now reduced income, but it would be virtually impossible for them to regain a social home lost in this way.
Thirdly, if tenants are pressurised to move out of social housing and into private renting when their personal circumstances improve, they are likely to encounter the problem that their income will drop on retirement. A market rent that was affordable when they were working can swiftly become unaffordable when they are retired. The taxpayer will then get lumbered with a further increase in the housing benefit bill.
Fourthly, keeping households on an estate of social rented housing, despite their circumstances improving, has social and community advantages. A mixed-income estate that includes some tenants on rather higher incomes means successful neighbours providing role models for other families, often demonstrating community leadership for resident-led activity.
Fifthly, if tenants are encouraged or compelled to move out when they do well, those who remain could be stigmatised as losers and failures. This stigma can seriously affect children’s life chances, as American research into concentrated poverty has revealed.
Finally, there is the argument that tenants should be compelled to move on if they no longer need the space they are occupying—for example, if they have a spare bedroom. For this, the bedroom tax presents a case study. This reduction in housing benefit was intended to incentivise underoccupying tenants to move out but, in reality, very few of those facing the bedroom tax proved willing or able to move. Rather, the withdrawal of benefit from those with a spare room has served only to reduce the incomes of those affected. It has seldom been possible for the downsizing tenant to find a suitable home elsewhere. They have simply been made poorer through losing some of the housing benefit that previously covered their rent.
Instead, carrots rather than sticks have been shown to work in persuading older tenants to downsize into later living homes, such as a cluster of smart new apartments that replaced redundant garages on a council estate. Rather than pressurising elderly tenants to downsize, the incentive of a more suitable home—nearby accommodation that is more accessible and manageable —produces better results for everyone.
For all these reasons, I caution against a review that considers alternatives to secure-for-life social housing tenancies. These alternatives are likely to diminish the quality of life for tenants, especially measures that pressurise tenants unwillingly into an enforced move. Like most of us who are home owners, tenants in social housing thrive on the knowledge that they are secure in their own homes for as long as they choose.
On Amendment 78, I do not support the unhelpful provision in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to terminate fixed-term secure tenancies, which has never been implemented. This Bill is right to repeal that measure and preserve long-term security of tenure for social housing renters.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will not seek to elaborate on the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case that, where we have an asset with a finite supply and excessive demand, we need to look at how we can use it effectively.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke about the impact on the tenant: what about that person who is not able to access social housing because it is occupied by somebody who could comfortably afford their own private rented home or could afford a higher rent? I am not suggesting that everyone can but, where we have a finite resource, we need to use it efficiently. Ultimately, that is about fairness, not just to the existing tenant but to families, often in difficult circumstances, for whom the opportunity of a social home could turn their lives around—as it has turned around the life of somebody who has moved on and been successful. It is also about fairness to taxpayers. Why should someone who is struggling to pay their private rent see their taxes fund a subsidised home for someone earning more than they are? Again, I am not saying that they all are. This is about moving on.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of incentives and carrots, so I was surprised that, earlier on, he did not support the incentive of the ability to buy your own home under the right to buy. Surely that is a tremendous incentive for anyone who could afford to do it, thereby creating, through building, another social home for somebody in tremendous need.
With that, I very much support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment and the retention of the previous Conservative measure, because it is about fairness. It is about using stock wisely and about ensuring that it does the maximum amount of good for the maximum number of people.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 77. I recognise that the intention is to ensure that social housing stock is being used as effectively as possible by requiring local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies at least every five years. But the Government’s position is clear: we support secure tenancies because they provide stability and certainty for social housing tenants in the long term, and for the communities in which they live. This is especially important for families, older people, disabled people and other vulnerable households, who need a stable and secure home and the ability to put down roots in their communities that comes with the certainty that lifetime secure tenancies offer.
Local housing authorities already have tools to manage their housing stock and to support tenants who wish to move to accommodation that better meets their needs. Local authorities can carry out checks to assure themselves that tenants are meeting the terms of their tenancies. I agree that social homes should be used as effectively as possible to support housing need and that we should support landlords to ensure that this is the case. That is why the Government have launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are using their properties. This work is considering how landlords understand tenants’ changing needs and support tenant movement, including where changes result in tenants underoccupying homes. I wrote to all noble Lords ahead of Report with further details of this review. It will report later this year and will be used to help inform future policy development. It is important that we let this work conclude to better understand current practices and challenges before taking action.
On the extensive social housebuilding programme, the answer to lack of supply and to the people on the waiting list is: build more social housing. We have an extensive social housebuilding programme. Inevitably, it had a lead-in time but, now that funding is being allocated, it will quickly accelerate—and I suspect it might accelerate even more quickly now we have new management in place, but that is to be seen later.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I feel it is important to comment on that. That programme was announced over a year ago—I am pleased that the Minister has told me now that the allocations are available—and it will be interesting to see when the cash is out of the door. It will not deliver housing for at least another 18 months to two years. That is not making the step change that we need now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings.
Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they will retain this flexibility. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this relatively short debate. I recognise that my proposition on Amendment 77 has not commanded the breadth of support needed to convince your Lordships to change the law. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the bedroom tax. I remember the hostility from the Labour Party when the coalition Government introduced what Steven Webb called the “spare room subsidy”. I note, however, that there are no plans to change it at all from the incoming Labour Government.
I will say a word in defence of Amendment 77, which did not propose that somebody’s rent should go up if their income went up—that is Amendment 78. It would also not be my proposition that, if somebody is on benefits, they should be made to forgo their tenancy. The gap between my proposition and what the Minister has just said is relatively small. I wanted a dialogue, with no compulsion, outlining the options available to somebody whose circumstances had improved, perhaps offering some help with a deposit or, as I said, with shared ownership. In response, the Minister said that social landlords can already do this.
You can give lifetime tenancies, but there are consequences: people in real need will not get access to a secure tenancy as fast as they might if there were more mobility through the social housing sector. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.