Monday 1st June 2026
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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.
Monday 15th June 2026
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (15 Jun 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
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.
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.
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.
“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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Monday 15th June 2026
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (15 Jun 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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 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.
Wednesday 17th June 2026
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2–II Second marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jun 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Monday 20th July 2026
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday 1st September 2026
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 33-I Marshalled list for Report - (16 Jul 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I give my sincere thanks to noble Lords across the House for the care, expertise and constructive challenge they have brought to this important piece of legislation. As someone for whom social housing—council housing—provided a secure, safe and affordable foundation as I was growing up, this is an issue very close to my heart, and I have heard that from many Members across the Chamber as well.
I thank the Opposition Front Benches for their thoughtful and robust challenge of the Bill and their constructive engagement. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who started the Bill off with me, as she has done with so many Bills over the past couple of years; the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for the very constructive and courteous work that we have done together as we have gone through the Bill; and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, for their very significant contributions to the Bill and for their support for much of what we have been trying to do.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his long-held passion for and dedication to achieving long-term solutions to homelessness; and the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and my noble friend Lady Hyde for their advocacy for victims of violence against women and girls throughout the Bill’s passage. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in particular, for his thoughtful and constructive contributions on shared ownership. I know many will welcome the attention he has brought to the challenges that some shared owners face.
I am also grateful to those across the House who have been particularly engaged with matters relating to the Bill. Their contributions have illuminated the issues that the Bill aims to tackle and helped us improve the legislation itself. This is reflected in the planned Commons amendments relating to strengthening protections for victims of domestic abuse, right-to-buy rural criteria, and the disposals notification period. We are also undertaking rapid work on exploring policy options for access for safety checks and for security of tenure for those fleeing violence.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I trust that everyone has had the opportunity to recharge their batteries over the summer, as I see that we have a rather busy schedule over the coming few months. The Recess provided an opportunity to reflect on the Bill. As mentioned by my friends in the Liberal Democrats, despite being named the Social Housing Bill, its real focus has been to restrict tenants’ rights to buy their own homes. We oppose that approach.
Right to buy has been one of the greatest drivers of social mobility this country has ever seen, enabling millions of families to build capital and stand on their own two feet. We are the party of opportunity, while it seems the party opposite and others favour increased state dependency. We on these Benches believe that combining right to buy with a one-for-one replacement policy with 100% retention of sale proceeds, as introduced by the last Conservative Government, would see increased availability of social homes and deliver the new homes that we all want to see.
With 1.34 million people on council housing waiting lists, we have also sought to address how the current stock of 5.3 million social homes is managed—cracking down on fraud, reducing underoccupation, encouraging those who can afford it to move on and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, looking at greater transparency. This move could free up hundreds of thousands of social homes for those British citizens truly in need.
We pursued amendments to address the problems within shared ownership. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for his work in this area. We appreciate the Minister’s commitment to look at this, but I am at one with my noble friend in saying that more needs to be done. This is a key area.
We strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling the issues that domestic abuse victims face in the social housing system. This House discussed its practical implementation.
Finally, I place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for the time she has taken to engage outside the Chamber and for the considerable work she has done in steering the Bill through the House. Her professionalism has been greatly appreciated across your Lordships’ House. I thank my noble friends for their support over the many hours in this Chamber and all noble Lords who have engaged generously throughout. In particular, I thank my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I also thank those not in the Chamber—Amrita, Richard, Hannah and Henry—who all provided considerable help. I thank all the staff and doorkeepers. Fortunately, this Bill was not quite as long and strenuous as some of the other Bills we have debated.
The Bill may not deliver the housing that our country needs, but our debates have shown that your Lordships’ House remains committed to addressing this issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in welcoming everyone back to the House. I omitted to do that when I stood up earlier. It is great to be back here. If the noble Lord thinks this Bill has been a bit less painful, I remind him that we have the elections Bill next; I look forward to those debates.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments. She is quite right that this is a very narrowly scoped Bill. The title might perhaps suggest otherwise, but the reason it has been so narrowly focused is that there is a complete review of the allocations process going on simultaneously, and those things can be changed without going through a primary legislation route.
The noble Baroness was right to refer to both shared ownership and rural issues; both are things that we are still debating. The noble Lord, Lord Young, also raised the issue of shared ownership. The department looks forward to further discussions with him as the Bill makes its progress through the Commons. I will be happy to meet him at any time to try to move this on.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all the work he did during the passage of the Bill, particularly around access for safety issues. It is key that our housing providers are able to access. We put a lot of stress on them in insisting that their properties are safe, and they need support to do that. There is more work to be done before we can move that forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I have fundamental differences about the purpose of this Bill. Our Government are not withdrawing right to buy—we do not think that is the right thing to do—but the fatal flaw in the right-to-buy process was not replacing those properties. There are towns such as mine where we went down from over 30,000 council homes to 8,000; that has been a big generator of some of the housing issues that we have seen over the years. This Bill aims to make sure that we get the balance right in giving people the opportunity to buy their own home without impacting unnecessarily on that housing supply. The issues around fraud and underoccupation that the noble Lord mentioned can be dealt with outside legislation; I know that councils are looking at that all the time as well. I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made.
Thursday 10th September 2026
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 33-I Marshalled list for Report - (16 Jul 2026)
16:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Good housing is the foundation of a flourishing life. Decent, safe, secure and affordable homes provide a platform for families to live, grow and build a better life. They make for stronger, healthier and happier communities. Everyone—and I mean everyone—deserves to have one. Yet, as we all know, far too many families in need across the country are languishing on social housing waiting lists, struggling in the private rented sector or in expensive temporary accommodation as a result, and driving up rents and the housing benefit bill in the process. At the same time, the ability and willingness of councils to invest in the building of new social rented homes has been undermined by the steady and significant loss of existing stock through the right to buy scheme.
It was for those reasons that the Government committed in our manifesto to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, prioritising the building of new social rented homes, enhancing protections for existing and new build social housing, and supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply. In the 26 months we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments, making the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, vigorously prioritising social rented housing, rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, reinvigorating council house building, and taking initial steps to better protect existing stock.
The Bill supplements those efforts. It builds on the funding and regulatory certainty that we have already given the sector, and it supports the five-step plan we published last summer to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister starts strongly by highlighting the real reason behind the Bill. He is absolutely right: for many families, social housing is the only option to achieve dignity, security and stability. In my community, 25,000 adults are waiting for social housing, so I welcome the Government’s ambition for £39 billion to be spent on social and affordable housing over the next 10 years. The Minister alluded to this in his earlier submissions, but will he make it clear that all resources and flexibility will be available to local councils to deliver on that pledge?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: we absolutely need to give local councils flexibility. We have already helped councils to build their capacity. We have, as I will mention later, allowed them to keep 100% of right to buy receipts. We are considering everything we need to do to move the dial when it comes to house building, to build on the steps that we have already taken.
The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. Let me provide further detail on each objective in turn, starting with the measures designed to better protect existing social housing stock and incentivise the building of more social homes.
At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. In addressing them, I emphasise that we are not abolishing the right to buy—I know and respect the fact that some right hon. and hon. Members object to that decision on principle—but the Government remain firmly of the view that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, we need to radically reform the right to buy in order to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to build, and to attract broader investment in council housing.
As hon. Members will know, we have already acted to reduce maximum right to buy cash discounts, to increase the cost floor protection period, to ensure—as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain)—that councils keep 100% of right to buy receipts, and to allow council to combine those receipts with developer contributions and grant funding. The Bill delivers the broader set of reforms necessary to put in place a fair and sustainable right to buy scheme for the future, informed by the feedback we received in the public consultation that ran from November 2024 to January 2025.
Key measures in the Bill include increasing the right to buy eligibility requirement from three to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum cash discounts so that long-standing tenants benefit from the largest reductions, and exempting newly built social homes from sale under right to buy for 30 years. The Bill also exempts homes from sale under right to buy in areas designated as rural, given that homes in those areas are extremely difficult and expensive to replace. In the other place, peers sought to persuade the Government to set criteria for rural designation in regulations, and we have committed to amending the Bill to enable that.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister will know that clause 12 includes provision restricting housing associations from disposing of stock, including, for example, housing for which it is expensive to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of C. My area is haemorrhaging larger numbers of social homes because of that rather than because of right to buy. Will he ensure that rural communities, where there is a scarcity of social housing, are protected and supported in retaining those properties?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure that we will have ongoing discussions about that and other issues. The hon. Gentleman may wish to hone his private Member’s Bill—the Homes and Planning Bill—so that it focuses on this issue among others. As I said at oral questions on Monday, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on disposals. I want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to retain homes in the social housing sector.
The new disposal notification requirements in the Bill, which I will address later, will maximise opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes, but housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. Yes, we are looking at what more we can do to protect much-needed social housing stock, but there are limits to the extent to which we can go. Further to that point, we are also taking equally important steps to ensure that councils are in a better position to buy any disposals—by raising the gap on grant funding for acquisitions, for example.
Taken together, those measures will fundamentally alter the trajectory of social housing supply. Between April 2012 and March 2024, there were over 124,000 council right to buy sales, with fewer than 48,000 homes replaced in the same period. Under the previous, pre-reform baseline, we could have expected to see an approximate net loss of another 26,000 council homes between 2026 and 2036. Following the implementation of this Government’s right to buy reform package, including the measures in the Bill, we instead expect to realise a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same 10-year period. To put it more simply, instead of vainly watching the loss of precious social homes massively outpace their building, we will, for the first time in decades, build considerably more than we are losing thanks to this Labour Government and this Bill.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Bill rightly prioritises the building of social rented homes. Back in 2003, however, Rushcliffe borough council transferred all its council housing stock away and has built none since, yet it has praised itself repeatedly for being debt free, despite being much poorer asset wise as a result of that decision. Does the Minister agree that, if the Bill is to succeed, we cannot treat stock transfer as virtuous and that we have to get to the point where housing revenue accounts are not treated and talked about as being traditional debt for local authorities?
Matthew Pennycook
There is lots I agree with in what my hon. Friend said. We want to see councils once again directly delivering homes at scale. We also want councils working in far closer partnership with housing associations to increase the number of homes that are built and managed by local authorities. The point my hon. Friend made about his local authority is on the record for people in his area to see.
In addition to introducing comprehensive reforms to the right to buy, the Bill will require private providers of social housing to notify the relevant local authority and other social housing providers in their area before they sell a social home, which is relevant to the point the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made. There can be good reasons why private registered providers sometimes choose to dispose of social rented homes, and we do not propose to prevent them from doing so, but when a social home is to be sold, councils and other social housing providers should have the opportunity to consider whether they are interested in purchasing it. Legislation to provide them with that opportunity will prevent homes from being lost to the private market when they do not need to be.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Some 27 years ago, my local authority, the London Borough of Bexley, sold all its council housing stock to Orbit and L&Q. L&Q now routinely sells those former council homes at auction. Will the Minister commit to looking further at how we can ensure homes remain social housing, because the council has no intention of buying those homes back?
Matthew Pennycook
It is disappointing to hear that my hon. Friend’s local authority is not interested in any way in trying to bring those homes back under local authority control. As I said, there are limits to what we can do. Housing associations remain independent organisations. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the risks concerned with the steps the Government might take on reclassification, but we are exploring what more can be done to protect much needed social housing stock. As I said, it is just as important that we ensure that those councils and other providers that do want to buy—there are plenty of them—are in a position to do so.
On the issue of disposals, having listened carefully to the debate in the other place on this matter, we have committed to introducing an amendment to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property to give councils and other providers more time to consider whether homes can be purchased and retained in the social housing sector, which we want to see.
Andrew George
Will the Minister also consider extending the option to consult community groups, community land trusts and housing co-ops? They could take on these properties, rather than their leaking out into the private sector. In areas like mine, if properties leak into the private sector, they will most likely become second homes.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. That is precisely why we are introducing the notification window: we want to give local authorities and other providers the maximum opportunity to bring those homes back under their control. It is just as important that they are able to do so in practice. There are other issues affecting local authorities. A number of my hon. Friends in oral questions at the start of the week spoke about pressures on housing revenue accounts. All those issues are bearing down on the ability of councils to buy homes. We are looking at reforms to this area, not least the cap on acquisitions.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a bit of progress, because there are a lot of Members who want to speak, but I will come back to my hon. Friend later.
I now turn to the Bill’s second core objective: increasing protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. No one should be forced to remain in an unsafe situation because they fear becoming homeless, yet last year about 15,000 households in England had to find a new social home as a result of domestic abuse. Existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators, but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that all too often victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their home. This is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs, and through the Bill, we will end it, as part of our Department’s ongoing efforts to deliver the Government’s unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill to support victims of violence, who far too often have to be evicted or leave while the perpetrator stays with the tenancy, as the Minister said. Rent arrears also prevent victims from gaining a tenancy or moving out of temporary accommodation into settled accommodation. Requirements that prevent those with rent arrears from getting a new tenancy do not take into account whether someone has been a victim of domestic violence. I know that the Department is looking at consulting and guidance on that. Could the Bill be a key mechanism for changing that across the country?
Matthew Pennycook
I know that there is interest in this issue in the Chamber. There is certainly interest in the other place about it. I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate fully that survivors of domestic abuse with debt can face barriers when applying for social housing. We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, but we have been clear in the other place, and I am happy to reiterate it in this Chamber, that if that guidance proves insufficient, we do have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
It is very good to hear the Minister commit to checking whether guidance is enough. Many of us who have tried to rehouse victims of domestic abuse, even after great laws have been written into legislation in this place, will know that getting them the priority need status under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 still takes a huge amount of advocacy. I therefore really welcome the commitment that, if guidance alone does not work, the Government will look at legislation. I offer to work with the Department to ensure that we assess whether the policy is working not from Whitehall but from the frontline.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend knows that I have the utmost respect for her and all that she has done to make women and girls safe. In response to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), the Government have committed in our national plan to end homelessness to address this issue. There is consensus on that point. I am more than happy to make it clear that, if the guidance is not effective and does not have the intended effects that we all want to see, we will not hesitate to pursue changes through regulations. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way. Madam Deputy Speaker is glaring at me because I am taking too much time. I know that many Members want to speak. I will try to come back to colleagues as I progress through my remarks.
To ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access safe and secure housing, the Bill provides for stronger legal mechanisms to remove a perpetrator from a social housing tenancy and enable victims to stay in their home or move to alternative accommodation as a sole tenant. In response to constructive debate on the subject in the other place, we intend to bolster the discretionary possession ground so that the existence of a relevant protective order can provide the basis for proceedings, rather than evidence that the order has already been breached being required. The new powers will apply where the victim is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and is a current or former occupant of the property. By aligning the approach with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Bill will cover a broader range of relationships, including partners, former partners and family members.
The Bill’s third core objective is reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and providing regulatory clarity so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. The Housing and Planning Act 2016—incidentally, the Bill Committee of which I happened to serve on as a young Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then shadow Housing Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—contains a series of social housing provisions that have never been brought into force. The Bill will repeal the following measures to clarify the statute book and provide the sector with certainty that they will never be implemented. First, this Government have no intention of implementing provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants, also known as mandatory pay to stay. The policy could have incentivised tenants to reduce work hours to avoid higher rent, so we are removing it from the statute book.
Secondly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to grant fixed-term tenancies of between two years and 10 years generally to all new tenants. This Government will continue to encourage landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need, but we have no intention of prohibiting lifetime secure tenancies, which provide much-needed security for many households and support social mobility, and so we are removing that policy from the statute book.
Thirdly, the Bill will repeal provisions that would have required councils to sell off higher-value vacant housing stock and make annual payments in respect of expected sales to the Treasury. This Government have no intention of implementing this policy and want to see these assets remain for councils to manage and use as they see fit, so we are removing it from the statute book.
As well as repealing provisions from the 2016 Act, the Bill reforms the outdated housing consents regime, which can be time consuming and resource intensive for councils and often leads to delays in delivering new social and affordable housing. The Bill will streamline the consents process to empower councils and remove bureaucratic impediments that restrict councils’ flexibility in managing their housing stock, while retaining checks and protections where appropriate.
Did my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) want to intervene?
Matthew Pennycook
Or have I caught him unprepared? I was going to give him a chance there.
To conclude, after years of marginalisation, this Government have emphatically and unashamedly asserted the necessity and value of social rented homes. They are a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain. This Bill will protect precious social homes for future generations and incentivise the building of many more of them. It will give social housing providers the confidence they need to invest in new social and affordable homes, and it will support social tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
There is part of the Bill that the Minister has not referred to: part 2 on a review of shared ownership. Shared ownership is a tenure that provides a great opportunity to get into home ownership for many people, yet far too many people find themselves indebted and in a difficult position because of the service charges imposed on them and the quality of shared ownership. I am particularly interested in the different models of shared ownership that come forward. I am interested to know what this review will cover and how its outcomes might be reflected in any future investment in genuinely affordable homes.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents and others around the country on housing issues generally. On shared ownership, I know the pressures that shared owners face; I see them in my own constituency postbag on a daily basis. We have already taken positive steps to improve the shared ownership model such as introducing new expectations for landlords who bid for shared ownership grant funding to improve fairness and transparency. We are supporting shared owners affected by specific challenges, such as building safety issues. Clause 13, which hon. Members might be aware was added to the Bill in the other place, requires a review of the shared ownership model to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill passing. We do not believe a review is necessary as we are already actively considering specific issues that have been raised in debates, including data and long-term affordability for customers, and we will of course consider what more we can do to act on those issues within our wider programme to improve shared ownership.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress.
I am immensely grateful to my noble Friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for the customary skill with which she oversaw the passage of the Bill through the other place and for the extensive engagement she undertook with peers throughout the initial Lords stages. A number of important issues were raised during the debates in the other place and, as a result, my Department is undertaking rapid policy work to determine whether there is a case for strengthening the Bill further in a series of areas.
For example, in response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the noble Lord Best, we are giving serious consideration to what more might be done to provide greater security of tenure for social tenants who are fleeing violence, including serious youth violence. We are also considering what more can be done to bolster public control of social housing to ensure that it serves and supports those who need it most.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not; I am just about to conclude—apologies to my hon. Friend.
I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in relation to these and other matters as we look to improve the Bill further, and I commend it to the House.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Safe and secure housing is the foundation of a good life, and the availability of social and affordable housing plays an important part in the provision of housing in this country, in what should be a mixed housing picture.
I would like to begin by talking about the right to buy. Between 2012 and 2024, 124,000 right-to-buy sales took place, but fewer than 50,000 of those properties were replaced in the same period. The maths alone demonstrate what is happening to social housing. I therefore particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming right to buy, including measures to exempt newly built affordable and social housing from sale under the right-to-buy scheme for 35 years. I also welcome 100% of right-to-buy receipts being left to local authorities. As an ex-council leader, I recall the frustration I felt about being unable to plough that money back into affordable homes. Councils will now be able to combine that money with developer contributions and grant funding; it will mean that councils that are committed to affordable and social housing can build more.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and it is good to see her in the Chamber. She mentioned her frustration, when she was council leader, at not being able to use 100% of right-to-buy receipts. Seeing as the last Conservative Government gave her the power to do that, why did she not?
Nesil Caliskan
There were a number of reasons hindering us from delivering affordable homes. The Conservatives’ measure did not go as far as the proposals that the Government are setting out today. The other reasons included record interest rates, which completely decimated housing revenue accounts for councils up and down the country.
In my constituency of Barking, rising rents and bills take a bigger piece of people’s household spending each month. That is the result of a housing crisis in this country that has got progressively worse because building simply is not keeping up with demand. Every week, I speak to constituents who tell me about their experience of the housing crisis, which leaves them with anxiety that they may be left without a roof over their head at any moment—and that is in a local authority that is building at a record rate.
I would also like to speak about the new powers to support domestic violence victims. Like many Members in this place, I speak to constituents who tell me about their fear of being left homeless, should they speak out and leave their secure home. I very much welcome the changes in the Bill, which will mean that women and children can sleep safer.
Katrina Murray
One of the issues that we discussed at my constituency women’s safety summit back in January was the gender debt gap and economic abuse, and particularly how it affects rent arrears. As a result of that, North Lanarkshire council, Aberlour Children’s Charity, the violence against women and girls sector and registered social landlords in North Lanarkshire are adopting an authority-wide common approach to supporting women. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent example of voluntary action for the Minister to take forward?
Nesil Caliskan
There are excellent examples up and down the country of local authorities doing very good work. With the backing of a Labour Government, we can see real progress in supporting women who are the victims of domestic violence, and their children.
Part 2 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Barking has a significant number of shared ownership properties, and I speak to constituents who tell me that a move that was full of hope is quickly turning into a nightmare. Many constituents have told me about the increase in their charges, in some cases from £2,000 to £4,000, and some are paying up to £6,000 in charges for a three-bedroom property. Simply put, a shared ownership property that is categorised as affordable has become unaffordable for many of my constituents. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing this, to ensure that affordable means affordable. Where charges mean that properties become unaffordable, my constituents should not feel as though they are trapped in them.
Housing and the provision of decent homes, including social and affordable housing, were the reason why I ran for public office. I am delighted to support the Government’s Bill. We need to build more social and affordable homes, we need to protect them, and we need to invest in them, so that they are fit for the future. I welcome the Bill and look forward to it being rolled out, so that my constituents in Barking can benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for bringing their experience and expertise to today’s debate. Like many of them, I was fortunate enough to live in social housing, which my family secured following a period of homelessness in my childhood. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned the relief, and that light in your eyes when you get a set of keys and know that you and your family do not have to move yet again with plastic bags and a suitcase. The relief that social housing brought us, the safety and security of having a roof over our heads, was priceless. I share the disappointment and anger expressed by Members from across this House about the fact that this is not available to many families today. Many Members highlighted the importance of social housing to communities up and down the country.
I turn first to the reasoned amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Opposition. While I am happy to see the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), a fellow former member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I am worried to hear Opposition Front Benchers contradicting themselves. They welcome our support for protections for victims of domestic abuse, but I am disappointed with their contradictory response to our wider reforms. They both want to permit homes to be sold under the right to buy at the unsustainable rate that is discouraging our local councils from building more of them, and say that we should support more councils in building and increasing the supply of social homes, but it cannot work like that.
I am mindful of time—we do need to finish—but I want to reflect on some remarks made. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke about protecting tenants who are fleeing violence. I am sad to say that I have had to help three families in my constituency who, tragically, have lost young people due to knife crime. It is important that we look at this issue and highlight some of the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister.
Many Members raised the issue of shared ownership. As the Housing Minister outlined, we have taken positive steps to look at the shared ownership model, including the expectations on landlords who bid for shared ownership funding. As the Minister highlighted, we do not believe that a review is necessary, but we are already considering specific issues that have been raised, including about data and long-term affordability for customers. We will report back on that at a later date.
Andrew Cooper
Is my hon. Friend aware of how difficult it is to sell a shared ownership home when the previous owner is deceased? The estate can end up paying service charges and rent for quite a long period. Will she consider whether there is further action that the Government could take on that?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I think that will be one of the areas that we consider when my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister looks at shared ownership.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned domestic abuse and debt. It is really important to know that this is a key area for survivors of domestic abuse. The Government are committed to addressing this issue in their national plan to end homelessness. We believe that the best route for doing so is to ensure that the regulations are amended and the relevant legislation is looked at. My understanding is that the Housing Minister will look at that. I am due to meet the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I would welcome other hon. Members attending that meeting.
A number of hon. Members mentioned council disposals. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue very seriously. We want local authorities and housing associations to, where possible, retain homes in the social housing sector. We believe the new disposals notification requirements in the Bill will help to maximise opportunities for social housing providers to retain homes. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister highlighted: housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. However, we will continue to explore what further steps we can take to stop social housing stock being sold.
Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, whereas there would be a loss of 26,000 homes if we retained the current system. The right to buy remains a crucial route into home ownership, but we must also confront the reality: social house building has struggled to keep pace with sales under the right to buy, and that has resulted in an increase in the number of families in costly temporary accommodation and expanded social housing waiting lists across the country. Our right to buy reforms, notably the new build exemption, will give councils the confidence to get building again.
We refute the accusation that we are doing nothing to ensure that social housing is being used effectively. The Government expect social housing landlords to maximise the use of existing homes, as well as to build more. We have launched a review of how effectively social housing providers use their properties. We will report on its findings later this year.
On the Opposition’s concerns about the allocation of social housing to non-UK nationals, the Government do not support restricting social housing solely to British citizens. Such an approach would be unworkable and would cut across legal obligations, including obligations relating to EU citizens with settled status and the Equality Act 2010. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled by local councils. If a person’s immigration status does not allow them recourse to public funds, they are not eligible for social homes. The racist rhetoric and the demonising of people who want to work has to stop. The vast majority of those allocated social homes in the UK are UK nationals. That is a fact, so I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment on the issue.
When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10, he put building more council homes at the heart of this Government’s agenda. For far too long successive Governments have failed to deliver the homes that we need up and down the country, while simultaneously failing to protect our housing stock. We know we can and must go further.
The Bill is about bringing an end to the era of failure on social housing; it is about protecting the homes that we have and supporting the building of the new homes we need; it is about ensuring that the system works fairly for those who need it the most; and it is about reducing the overreliance on temporary accommodation that is crippling so many councils, up and down the country. Collectively, London councils are spending £5.5 million a day on temporary accommodation. That is unsustainable.
We need to turbocharge social housing, up and down the country. Social housing is not just about a roof over people’s heads; it creates strong connected communities, enables families to live happily, enables healthy lives and provides long-term sustainable housing. The Government are making progress to reverse the decline of social housebuilding, as represented by the latest figures from Homes England showing a 65% increase in social rent completions.
Across the country, almost 180,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. As many hon. Members have mentioned, over 1.3 million people are on the housing waiting list. That has a devastating impact on the wellbeing of our children and families, who are facing poor conditions, lacking the space to grow. How can we expect those young children to contribute to society in later life when they do not have a safe place to call their home? The Bill brings an end to that failure.
The Bill provides the crucial step that many families want to see—the same step my family was given many years ago. It ensures that when families face homelessness and women are fleeing domestic abuse with their children, they are not the ones who are evicted—the perpetrator is. The Bill ensures that we restrict right-to-buy sales, and that 100% of the receipts go back to councils so that they can reinvest in their local areas.
The Bill will ensure that we turbocharge and bring a new lease of life to local council building across the country, working with our councils, providers, housing associations and private developers to get the housing right. It is important that we continue to progress the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I put the question, I need to inform the House that in the event of a Division—I pass no comment on whether there will be one—some of the pass readers in both Lobbies are currently not in operation. I ask all Members to follow the directions of Doorkeepers and Division Clerks and use the working pass readers, which have notices on them. The Parliamentary Digital Service are working hard to restore the remaining pass readers for any Divisions tomorrow.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tuesday 27th October 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 -
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 55—Strategy relating to Right to Buy: 16 to 25 year olds.
“Within 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for promoting awareness of the Right to Buy scheme to people aged 16 to 25.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a strategy for promoting the Right to Buy scheme among young people.
New clause 57—Transitional arrangements relating to qualifying period for right to buy.
“(1) Section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 (qualifying period for right to buy) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (A1) insert –
‘(A2) Subsection (A1) does not apply in relation to a secure tenancy entered into before the coming into force of section 1 of the Social Housing Act 2026.
(A3) In relation to a tenancy within subsection (A2), the right to buy does not arise unless the period which, in accordance with Schedule 4, is to be taken into account for the purposes of this section is at least three years.’”
This new clause seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in Clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies
Amendment 84, in clause 22, page 16, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would prevent section 1 of this Bill coming into effect on the day on which the Act is passed. Together with amendment 85, section 1 would come into force at the period of three years beginning on the day on which the Act is passed.
Amendment 85, in clause 22, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) Section 1 (right to buy: qualifying period) comes into force at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment together with amendment 84 would prevent section 1 of this Bill coming into effect on the day on which the Act is passed, instead making the commencement of section 1 to be three years following the day on which the Act is passed.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Before I speak to clause 1, I would like to put on the record once again my sincere thanks to my ministerial colleague Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for ably shepherding the Bill through its House of Lords stages. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill in the other place. It goes without saying that we did not agree with all the arguments made—we cannot accept the incorporation into the Bill of clause 13, for reasons that I will detail in due course—but overall the expert scrutiny and challenge provided by peers have helped to improve the Bill. A number of Government amendments that we have tabled arise directly from the issues raised and the points made during the debates in the Lords.
The Bill has three core objectives. The first is to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby to incentivise the building of more social rented homes. The second is to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protection for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. The third is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.
At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme that are designed to put it on a fair and sustainable footing for the future. They are informed by the feedback that we received in the public consultation, which ran from November 2024 to 2025, and are set out in clauses 1 to 10.
More than 2 million tenants have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980. However, as we all know, many of the homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced, which has depleted social housing stock. There is now an insufficient supply of good-quality social housing to meet demand. More than 1.3 million households are on the social housing waiting list, and almost 180,000 children are living homeless in temporary accommodation. The right-to-buy scheme has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, since new homes can be sold before the council can recover its investment.
Although we respect those who believe that right to buy should be abolished outright, the Government’s position remains that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, as I argued on Second Reading, there is a pressing need to radically reform the right to buy to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to once again build at scale, and to attract broader investment in council housing.
As things stand, to qualify for the right to buy an individual must be a secure tenant and must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant—in other words, their landlord must be a public body, usually a council or a housing association. The three years do not have to have been continuous, and an individual can add together any time they spent as a public sector tenant. They are also able to count any period when their husband, wife or civil partner was a public sector tenant.
Until 2014, the minimum eligibility requirement was five, not three, years. The main rationale given at the time for reducing the qualifying period by two years was explicitly to drive an increase in the take-up of right to buy. The decision was taken in the full knowledge that a tenant occupying a property for three years is extremely unlikely to have paid rent that equates to the available discount.
The Government believe that a more sustainable balance must be struck to support councils to rebuild their stock of homes. Clause 1 therefore amends section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 to increase the minimum eligibility requirement from three to 10 years. As under the existing law, a combination of present and previous tenancies will continue to count towards the qualifying period.
Increasing the minimum eligibility period in that way has received strong support from stakeholders. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of respondents, including 62% of tenants who responded, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.
The Government believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing long-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting much-needed social housing stock. Incidentally, 10 years is also the average length of tenancy for someone buying under the scheme currently. This targeted change will maintain access to the right to buy for long-standing tenants, but in a way that provides for a fairer and more sustainable scheme and better supports the long-term supply of social housing.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.
I rise to support the clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important and significant clause in the Bill, as it constrains the selling off of council houses. It is concerning that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment that would essentially reverse it. With 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list and 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing that we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. There has been a net loss of 2 million social homes since the introduction of right to buy. If that does not show that we cannot fill the bath with the plug taken out, nothing does. We stand squarely in support of the clause, although we would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend right to buy completely if that is right for their area so that they can rebuild their stock of council housing and social rent homes.
Gareth Bacon
No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home.
Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Orpington for tabling new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, and for speaking to them. I should say at the outset that, in political terms, he and I could not be further apart. However, he is a decent and diligent shadow Minister, as is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—I do not want to leave him out. I very much look forward to the robust yet civil debates we will have over the coming sessions.
I do not want to dwell too long on the more general points made by the hon. Member for Orpington, but I think it is worth responding to two of them. We are not extinguishing the right to buy through the Bill. We could have abolished the right to buy outright, but that is not what we are doing. We are ensuring that those who benefit from the scheme are long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill having no impact on supply, he really ought to get out and speak to local authorities. They tell us that the benefits that they will see from the regulatory certainty and stability that we are providing, as well as the grant funding, will give them the confidence to go out and build new social homes, safe in the knowledge that, thanks to clause 1, they will not be immediately sold off after three years.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time, and I think he is a very competent and diligent Minister in the Department. Can he provide the evidence base for what he has just said? I was the leader of a local authority, and I never once met a housing provider that told me they cannot build any more social housing because of the right to buy.
Matthew Pennycook
That is not my experience from discussing the matter with councils, and it does not reflect the feedback that we received in the consultation. Councils up and down the country tell us that they could build more if they had certainty that their stock would not be lost in the proportion that it is—and certainly not after a minimum qualifying period of three years.
Danny Beales
Having been a cabinet member responsible for council house building in Camden for seven years, and building 1,000 homes, I can say that it is a challenge when council homes can quickly leave our stock through right to buy. Having built them at great public expense, and having borrowed on a 30-year basis to deliver them, the possibility of losing that asset at a discount without recouping the investment is a material consideration. Does the Minister agree that authorities that do not build council homes but rely on housing associations might not see this as a problem, as housing associations are not included in right to buy in the same way?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his very considerable experience. There is a difference in experience between local authorities that have housing revenue accounts and those that do not, and those that build at scale and those that do not. However, it is certainly the case that councils knowing they can lose stock three years after building it without recuperating that investment is a disincentive to build.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but then, in the interests of getting to the Opposition new clauses, which I am told they want to speak to, I will make some progress.
Patrick Spencer
I appreciate the Minister’s point about recouping councils’ investment, which is why there are elements of the Bill that change that deal for councils. What my residents and I do not understand—and what people across this country do not understand—is why the Government are restricting access to right to buy for a whole group of people, including young people, young parents and people at the beginning of their professional lives, who might want to get on to the housing ladder. It seems they are tackling one problem by focusing on the completely wrong element of the issue.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I respectfully disagree. It is a problem that local authorities up and down the country build new social homes but then, after three years, they can be purchased. That is leading to an unsustainable outflow of social housing stock from the system. We are not net positive on social homes—we have not been for many years—but the Bill will ensure that we are. It gives an incentive to councils to build, as they will know that they are building more than they are losing, and therefore the 1.3 million people on waiting lists will not increase but decrease over time.
I must turn to the amendments and new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. New clause 57 would exempt existing secure tenants from the new 10-year minimum qualifying period introduced by the Bill. As I have said, a core aim of the Bill is to protect social housing stock better and to ensure that more social homes are built than lost. If existing tenancies were excluded from the changes to eligibility rules, the vast majority of tenants would be unaffected by our qualifying period reforms. I have no doubt that that is the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but the result would be homes continuing to be sold as little as three years after a tenancy was secured, and the continued loss of significant amounts of social housing stock. That is not the Government’s aim or the aim of the Bill. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the shadow Minister will not press it.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 2 and 3 further tighten the eligibility criteria for right to buy, to ensure that the scheme is fair and well targeted. Clause 2 prevents existing residential property owners from exercising the right to buy, which we believe is a reasonable and rational approach. We have set out what we think is an appropriate definition of a residential property owner in the clause. The 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 of less than 21 years, as will properties in joint ownership or owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad.
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 the right-to-buy scheme where they already own a residential property because they have been the victim of domestic abuse, they will also be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord.
Clause 3 prevents those who have previously exercised the right to buy from doing so again, with exceptions in place for cases of domestic abuse and irretrievable relationship breakdown. I hope hon. Members will agree that repeat purchases would undermine the objectives of the right-to-buy scheme. It would lead to more social housing stock being lost to those who have already benefited from a publicly funded discount to buy their own home.
During our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 91% of respondents stated that they would support preventing someone who has either previously benefited from the right to buy or owns another property from being able to access the scheme. The terms of the referenced 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. Obviously, councils are already well practised at doing this 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.
We think clauses 2 and 3 are fair and proportionate. They are designed to appropriately restrict access to the right-to-buy scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Timescales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 4 concerns the statutory periods in which local authorities have to consider applications under the right to buy. The clause amends sections 124 and 125 of the Housing Act 1985 by extending the periods within which landlords must serve notices either admitting or denying a tenant’s eligibility for the right to buy, which relates to section 124, and setting out the purchase price and other required information, which is section 125. The period under section 124 will be extended from four to eight weeks where the tenant has been a tenant of the same landlord for the qualifying period and from eight to 12 weeks in any other case. The period under section 125 will be extended from eight to 12 weeks for freehold properties and from 12 to 16 weeks for leasehold properties.
The revised statutory periods are intended to provide additional flexibility where applications are complex, for example where there are valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Importantly, they will give landlords more time to verify eligibility based on the new criteria and support them in carrying out preliminary counter-fraud and money laundering checks. Although we are extending the time period that landlords have to respond to right-to-buy applications, I stress that these timescales are an upper limit, not an expectation. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as they can.
Clause 5 inserts proposed new section 124A into the Housing Act 1985, enabling a landlord to suspend a right-to-buy application where there is reason to suspect that the claim may be fraudulent. A suspension under section 124A does not cancel the application; it temporarily pauses the statutory process while an investigation is carried out and must end no later than six months after the date of the suspension, or sooner if the investigation is concluded.
In response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy, we committed to carry out more effective fraud prevention, including mitigating vulnerable tenants being pressured into buying and cracking down on third-party backed applications. We are clear—I hope the Committee will support us in this principle—that fraudulent applications backed by unscrupulous lenders have no place under right to buy. They undermine the scheme. By ensuring that social landlords have more time to investigate suspected fraud when managing applications, the clause will help to prevent fraudulent applications from slipping through the cracks and maintain the integrity of the scheme.
During the period of suspension, the procedural requirements of the Act, including statutory time limits, will not apply. The tenant will, therefore, not be able to issue delay notices during this period. Guidance will make it clear that timelines for processing applications can be extended only where fraud is suspected and are not to be used by landlords as a way to delay the processing of more routine applications.
We will also strengthen guidance for landlords and tenants on fraud prevention, including third-party companies lending money for purchases. Any such companies will need to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will support both the FCA and landlords with enforcement.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Discount
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Report on the impact of changes to right to buy discounts—
“Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 6 (discount) comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact of the changes made by that section on—
(a) overall rates of home ownership,
(b) the number of social housing tenants exercising the right to buy,
(c) social housing supply, and
(d) the provision of replacement social housing.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the Bill’s changes to right to buy discounts on home ownership, right to buy uptake and housing supply.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have already set out, the Bill’s reforms aim to ensure that the right-to-buy scheme is sustainable, including by 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.
This Government already took action in November 2024 to reduce the maximum cash discounts, returning those to pre-2012 levels. We subsequently committed to revise the discounts available as a percentage of the property value, so that they align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause 6 delivers on that commitment by reducing percentage discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value after 10 years of public sector tenancy, and increase for every extra year of a tenancy up to a maximum of 15%. As is the case now, the percentage discounts will be subject to cash caps that set out the maximum cash discount that a tenant can receive in their 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 avoiding disproportionately large discounts in high-value areas.
The revised percentage discount aims to strike a balance between the responses received during the right-to-buy consultation, in which many respondents supported setting the percentage discounts lower than those proposed by the clause. We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to both houses and flats to make the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants.
Patrick Spencer
Would it be possible for the Government to present some kind of analysis on the impact that this policy will have on the number of sales made available to tenants? That would be important to establishing the long-term economic impact on properties across the country.
Matthew Pennycook
I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the impact assessment. If he has further, detailed questions about it, I am more than happy to answer, but we have set out our analysis of the impact of the Bill and in particular that of the ambition to go net positive on new social housing as a result of the changes we are making.
The clause also extends the discount repayment period from the current five years to 10 years after the original sale, during which time a repurchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. That measure was supported by 72% of respondents to our consultation and it will ensure that there is less incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme. It will encourage people buying to retain the property and discourage profiteering.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
You did not bob, Gareth. We will move on.
Clause 7
Right of first refusal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 7 extends the existing right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes that were previously sold under the right to buy when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently 10 years after the original sale, and councils have eight weeks to decide whether to buy back the home when informed by the owner that they plan to sell; following that period, the property can be sold on the open market. Under the clause, the period in which councils must be given the right of first refusal will increase, so that it applies in perpetuity, meaning that councils will have the opportunity to buy back a property every time it is resold.
This proposal received strong support from respondents to the Government’s consultation. The change will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measures come into force. Homes already sold under the right to buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold under the scheme.
Giving social landlords greater opportunity to buy back properties sold under the scheme increases their ability to acquire social housing that may otherwise be lost to the open market. That directly supports the Government’s ambition to grow the volume of council housing. Clause 7 is an important safeguard that supports the effective operation of the right-to-buy scheme. It will help to ensure that public subsidy is protected, discourage short-term purchases for financial gain and support the Bill’s wider objective to protect social housing stock. I commend the clause to the Committee.
The Chair
I can see no one bobbing, so I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Exceptions to the Right to Buy
Gideon Amos
I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition spokesperson has entered into the realm of social housing supply, given the record of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, we need to increase supply as well as saving the stock that has been built with public funds—taxpayer’s money—for the community, rather than giving over discounts, sometimes to the extent of a £70,000 or £80,000 transfer of cash, from the taxpayer into the hands of individual property owners for no good reason.
We need to increase supply. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a target to build 150,000 social rent homes per year. I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s party’s target for the delivery of social housing—they did not build many when they were in government. We need to give local authorities the power and flexibility to decide for themselves whether it is right to continue with right to buy in their areas. If we believe in local communities and local democracy, we should give them the ability to say that right to buy and the loss of more council housing stock is no longer right for their area. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee and urge all Committee members to vote for it.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to clause 8 and amendments 13 to 18, tabled in my name, and then I will turn to various amendments that have been tabled and spoken to.
Clause 8 amends schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 to introduce new and updated exceptions to the right to buy. Under the scheme, exceptions already include homes suitable for occupation by the elderly, sheltered housing and homes due to be demolished. Of respondents to our consultation, 76% agree that the existing exceptions should be retained, and we are doing so. The clause does, however, make a small change to amend outdated terminology in the current exemption for dwellings for persons of pensionable age, to update the reference to resident or non-resident wardens to resident or non-resident managers.
The clause introduces three new exceptions. First, it exempts newly built social homes from the scheme for 35 years, giving councils the confidence to invest in new supply. At present, councils are disincentivised from building because homes can be sold before costs are recovered through rent, undermining housing revenue accounts. A 35-year exemption period reflects the typical pay-back period and ensures that councils are not losing new homes prematurely. Despite what the shadow Minister continues to assert, that is a significant supply-side reform that helps to deliver the Government’s commitment to back councils to build at a scale not seen in decades.
Councils have been clear to the Government that the risk of early sale deters investment. Removing that risk provides greater certainty over stock and income and supports new development. We recognise the frustration of seeing newly built homes sold so quickly before they can meet local need. The Government’s manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the right to buy, and the introducing the exemption was supported by the vast majority of respondents to our consultation on the basis that it will give councils, as I have said, greater confidence to build new homes and provide greater protection than the existing cost floor rules.
Secondly, the clause exempts homes in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas from the right to buy. That recognises the particular pressures on rural housing where land and planning constraints mean that homes are significantly harder to replace once lost from the social sector. In many cases, replacement is not feasible at all, exacerbating already acute shortages in those areas. There was clear recognition of these challenges in the other place, where the difficulty of replacing rural homes and the importance of protecting stock in these areas was highlighted. This measure responds directly to those concerns and will help safeguard rural social housing.
Existing rural designations will continue to have effect for the purpose of this exemption until we implement the new framework for local authorities to self-designate as rural, as set out in Government amendments 13 to 18, which I will come to shortly, as well as clause 8. The covenants attached to homes that have been sold under the right to buy in rural areas, which restricts sale to a local person or a social landlord, will also continue to apply.
Thirdly and finally, council-owned market rent homes will also be excluded, supporting councils to use mixed tenure and cross-subsidy models to deliver more housing. That recognises the important role that market rent homes can play in enabling councils to generate additional income to reinvest in social and affordable homes. These changes are part of the wider package of reforms to ensure that more homes are built than lost.
Government amendments 13 to 18 deliver on commitments made during the Bill’s passage in the other place to put the criteria for rural designation into regulations. That was a call that came from noble peers on the Opposition Benches. The regulations will use the long-established criteria of a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer. That criteria will be applied using census-derived population data, and local authorities will be expected to ensure that the criteria will continue to be met in relevant areas every 10 years, as new census data becomes available.
It was also agreed in the other place that the Government would explore whether the existing process under which local authorities need to apply to the Government for designation could be replaced with a new system under which local authorities will be able to self-designate rural areas where they meet the criteria. I can confirm that we do intend to implement that change, and these amendments will enable that. These changes will provide transparency on the criteria for rural designation. They will also empower local areas and reduce bureaucracy for both local authorities and the Government compared with the current process, which, as I have said, requires local authorities seeking designation to apply to the Secretary of State, and secondary legislation to be made for each individual designation.
Matthew Pennycook
My apologies; it was tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The amendment would require the Government to use the urban-rural classification system when determining whether an area is rural or urban for the purposes of the designated rural area exemption. As I have made clear, our intention is to continue with the long-established criteria for rural designation. Areas will need to have a population of 3,000 people or fewer and a population density of two persons or fewer per hectare, and we intend to set out those criteria in regulations. In our view, that strikes the right balance in defining designated rural areas for exclusion from the right to buy. Including areas with a population of 10,000 or fewer would bring far too many areas into the scope of the exclusion. For those reasons, I will not be able to take—[Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Newbury, and I give way.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment 91 would require regulations made under section 37 of the Housing Act 1985, which allows restrictions to be imposed on the disposal of a home in a rural area, to be approved by both Houses before they could come into force. I understand that the intention of the amendment may have been to require the affirmative procedure to designate areas as rural for the purposes of the right to buy. Under self-designation, rural areas will be designated by local authorities instead of by regulations, so no parliamentary procedure will be needed.
The new power to prescribe the criteria will be, as I have said, subject to the negative resolution. In any event, the Government do not accept the premise that the affirmative procedure is required in that instance; there may be a principled point of disagreement on that. The current powers are subject to the negative procedure—that is the existing arrangement—which, in our view, provides an appropriate, proportionate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The powers amended or created by the Bill are also subject to the negative resolution procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure would add an additional parliamentary step without affecting the substance or effect of the policy. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, not to press amendment 91.
Amendment 83 would reduce the exemption from the right to buy for newly built social homes from 35 to 10 years. The Government cannot support the amendment. Our starting point is that the exemption should reflect the time needed for rental income to repay the costs of building a new social home. That payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on the viability of the site. We therefore concluded that 35 years strikes the right balance. It protects councils from losing newly built homes before they have recovered their investment while retaining a route to home ownership for tenants over the longer term. Reducing the exemption to 10 years would not provide sufficient protection and would act in direct contradiction to our commitment to back councils to build again at scale. It would allow homes to be sold long before their development costs have been recovered. A 35-year exemption will give councils the certainty and confidence to build, knowing that new homes will remain available as social housing for a meaningful period.
New clause 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concerns that motivated this proposed new clause. However, the Government cannot support a proposal that would allow individual local authorities to suspend or abolish the right to buy in their area. We remain committed to a reformed right to buy that continues to provide long-standing council tenants with a route into home ownership while better protecting social housing stock, and we are reforming the scheme nationally to strike that balance. This new clause would create inconsistent access to that statutory right, with a tenant’s position depending on the local authority in which they live. That would, in effect, create a postcode lottery and make it difficult for tenants to understand whether the right to buy is available to them.
We believe that the right approach is a consistent national framework, supported by national reforms that better protect council housing stock. That will ensure a fair and consistent offer for council tenants across the country. We also recognise that housing markets vary significantly across England. However, rather than creating different rights in different areas, the Government’s reforms reflect those differences through the discount regime. As I have already set out, discounts are calculated as a percentage of a property’s value and are subject to regional cash caps, helping to ensure that the scheme responds to local property market conditions while maintaining a fair and consistent national entitlement for eligible tenants.
Amendment 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, has been spoken to by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. Again, I recognise the intention behind this amendment. Community-led housing is established to meet local needs and often includes arrangements intended to protect affordability for the long term. This Government have done a huge amount in this area and there is more to come to better support community-led housing. But in our view, the amendment is not necessary in relation to the principal form of community-led housing it identifies. Homes owned by community land trusts and fully mutual housing co-operatives are already outside the right to buy, and for those reasons the amendment would not provide the protection intended, beyond that which already exists. For those reasons, I would respectfully ask that hon. Members withdraw all their amendments, and I commend clause 8 to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.
Matthew Pennycook
This simple and straightforward clause ensures that the reforms to the right to buy are applied fairly and consistently. It protects tenants who have already made a valid application by ensuring that applications received by landlords ahead of the reforms coming into force will continue to be subject to the existing rules. That will avoid retrospective changes that could disadvantage applicants partway through the process.
The clause also makes important provision in relation to rural exemptions, which links directly to the reforms in clause 8 and Government amendments 13 to 18. It provides that existing rural designations will continue to have effect after commencement, as if they were made under the new powers introduced by clause 8. That means that there will be no gap in protection for rural areas while the new framework in which local authorities self-designate as rural is implemented.
Together, these provisions ensure a smooth and legally certain transition, protecting both tenants’ rights and the integrity of rural housing protections. Overall, the clause provides legal clarity, fairness and continuity as the reformed right to buy scheme is introduced.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Right to Buy: receipts
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”.
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.
Edward Argar
The very simple fact that there would be no vote on it by Members of this House, regardless of whether that was in a Committee, which is of course a subset of the House where we can debate and raise issues. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady. I spent almost 10 years sitting on her local council before I was elected to this place, and I still closely follow Westminster politics. Consequently, I know that she is a hard-working and diligent Member who engages with all these issues particularly closely. However, the simple answer to her question is that Members would not have a vote on the Secretary of State’s determination.
With that, I will conclude by again reiterating my support for the intent behind the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has tabled.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me say to hon. Members that I have never found the process in Delegated Legislation Committees particularly fast in any instance, but I recognise the reasonable concerns that have been put. I think they are unfounded, and for the reasons I will set out, I hope to reassure hon. Members.
Clause 10 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Its intent is to improve administrative efficiency and to provide flexibility. To understand our purpose behind the clause, it is important to have an accurate view of the current arrangements. As things stand, every stock-holding authority has an agreement with the Secretary of State, allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided that it spends those receipts on replacement social housing.
In practice, this is hugely administratively burdensome. There are over 160 stock-holding local authorities, all of which must be issued with identical section 11(6) retention agreements whenever the rules change. That requires issuing, tracking and chasing agreements for signature across every one of those authorities, creating unnecessary bureaucracy for both councils and central Government.
Clause 10 replaces that with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to disapply or modify the requirements on the use of receipts set out in regulations by determination, which will then apply consistently across all local authorities. That removes the need to replicate the same agreement process many times over.
Concerns were raised in the other place that we may be seeking to use the clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. Let me reassure the Committee that that is absolutely not the case. We fought hard to ensure that local authorities could retain 100% of their receipts. Hon. Members may recall that the previous Government temporarily made that change, but reversed it before the last election.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 11 concerns the right-to-acquire scheme for housing association tenants, which is broadly modelled on the right-to-buy scheme, with most of the same rules applying. The right to acquire applies to housing association homes built or acquired with social housing grant after 1997. The Committee has already discussed the effect of and rationale for clauses 1 to 10, which amend the Housing Act 1985 to alter rules regarding the right to buy. Under section 184 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, those changes also apply to the right-to-acquire scheme for housing association tenants. The Committee will understand that it is only right for the same eligibility criteria and exemptions to apply to both schemes, to ensure consistency and fairness for social housing tenants, regardless of whether they live in a council home or a housing association home. My officials have engaged with relevant stakeholders, such as the National Housing Federation, which is supportive of our consistent approach.
Clause 11 also supports the broader policy objective of protecting social housing stock. That is a core objective of this Bill, and the Committee has debated it at length. As the discounts for the right to acquire are set out separately from those for the right to buy, they remain unaffected and will continue to be £9,000 to £16,000, depending on the location. Increasing them to align with the right-to-buy discounts would contradict our objective of better protecting social housing stock.
The clause is consequential on previous clauses, and reflects the changes made to the rural area provisions, which is currently an area of divergence between the two schemes. Under the right to acquire, homes in designated rural areas are already exempt from sale, in recognition of the challenges of replacing stock in such areas. The clause helps to ensure that the new rural exemptions in the Bill apply consistently across both schemes. The clause will provide fairness for social housing tenants, support our objective of protecting social housing stock and ensure that the new rural exemptions operate coherently across both schemes. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers
Gideon Amos
I will speak to amendments 5, 6, 1 and 8. Amendment 5 would extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing.
Amendment 6 would extend the timescales of notice from four to eight weeks. I note that, since we tabled the amendment, the Government have come up with their own amendment to extend the timescales; they have obviously been reading everything we table closely. I am glad that we are already having an impact on the Bill and I will be happy to press the amendment to a vote if necessary, to ensure that the Government succeed in getting the change in timescale that they clearly want. Otherwise, depending on the order of voting—I still sometimes have a problem following that—I am sure that one or the other will fulfil the same purpose.
Amendment 1 would require the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of the notice. Amendment 8 is effectively a stop-the-clock amendment, whereby, if negotiations are ongoing for the acquisition of a social home by a local authority, the time period would be extended by a further four weeks. I recognise that the amendment refers to the four-week period in the Bill, which may be extended to eight weeks through other amendments. However, the principle of allowing an extension of time when negotiations are ongoing is significant, and something that the Local Government Association would support. Although I will not push amendment 8 to a vote, it would be helpful if the Minister considered whether an extension could be provided where negotiations are ongoing, so that there is a real chance for the purchase of that property to be completed and for the local authority to succeed in that endeavour.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to Government amendment 19 and respond to each of the eight amendments in this rather large group. I have listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and stakeholders over recent weeks and months that a four-week period between a private provider notifying a council or other provider in their area of the sale of a social home and the disposing of that home is not sufficient for local authorities to consider purchasing the property.
I appreciate that local authorities were concerned that a four-week window would not align with their internal timing constraints, such as monthly cabinet or committee meetings. On that basis, the Government have tabled amendment 19 to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property from four to eight weeks. We think the amendment strikes the right balance between maximising opportunities to retain social homes and not causing undue delays to sales. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made about negotiations that are in train.
Amendments 6 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seek to extend the disposal notification period. Amendment 8, as he just argued, would require an extension of the window to eight weeks where a provider could demonstrate they were taking steps towards purchasing the property. The Government’s amendment 19 goes further than that proposal by requiring eight weeks in all cases, so I hope he will support it.
Amendment 6 would require a further extension to 12 weeks in areas designated as rural. We are not persuaded by the case for a longer notification window specifically for rural areas. A statutory minimum of 12 weeks could unnecessarily delay sales and require providers to deal with the additional burden and costs associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods. I should also stress that the notification period is just a minimum. I would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond that period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector.
Mr Dillon
The Government do not accept that there is a compelling case to extend the period to 12 weeks for rural areas, but an organisation may be looking to buy a property in an area of outstanding natural beauty or where there is no hard-wired infrastructure. Does the Minister not accept that more consideration needs to be given when taking on a social home in a rural area than in a well-developed town, and that someone in that situation should be given longer—on top of what the Government have already graciously accepted—to go through the sale and make sure they have all their ducks in a row and can convert the property however they might want to under restrictive planning laws?
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the concern. I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is just a matter of fact that there will be different challenges in different areas. What we have tried to get to with the increase in the notification period from four to eight weeks is a period in which we think it is reasonable for all local authorities to consider these matters. What I have not had is compelling evidence—if he has any, I would like to see it—to suggest that local authorities would not be able to deal with these matters in an eight-week period. I stress again that the notification period is just a minimum. We would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond this period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector. I hope that reassures him.
Amendments 102 and 103, tabled by the hon. Members for Newbury and for Taunton and Wellington, would require written consent from the local authority for the sale of a social home in a rural area or one with four or more bedrooms. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. I and the Government want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to protect much needed social housing stock. I would expect private registered providers to think particularly carefully before selling homes that meet acute housing needs in local areas. However, housing associations remain independent organisations responsible for their own asset management, and the Government cannot support an approach that would prevent landlords from making legitimate business decisions about how to manage their stock without the agreement of the local authority. I am happy to go into the reclassification risks that arise in this area with the hon. Members. I have debated those points at length with a number of Members on both sides of the House.
I should also point out that the previous restrictions that required approval by the Regulator of Social Housing for disposals of homes had to be removed in 2017—the hon. Member for Newbury, with his experience in the sector, will remember this—to reclassify the housing association sector back to private. I fear that introducing a requirement for local authority approval would represent a significant classification risk. It is not the only classification risk—these things are considered by the Office for National Statistics in the round—but nevertheless it is a material risk from our point of view.
Lewis Cocking
I ask genuinely about disposals, in a nice and polite way, so I wonder what the Minister’s comments will be. When housing associations or councils dispose of properties, they generally do so for a reason—for example, not being able to spend the money to get it up to a certain EPC grade that the Government have set for them. What evidence does he have that, where one company cannot do something for a social home, such as spending the money to increase the EPC rating, and therefore is selling it, another social housing provider will be able to do it? I want to understand where we are going with these amendments and this part of the Bill. When properties are disposed of, it is usually done for a reason. What makes him think that where someone cannot do it, someone else in the industry could?
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair point. The particular reasons that individual providers dispose of stock vary wildly across the country. In the case of disposals that are driven by increases in standards, we are seeing some of that, but it is also the case that there are occasions when local authority or other providers are, for their own reasons, based on their own assessment of the stock, able and willing to take those homes on. I do not think that we can specify a general rule. What we are trying to do here is to give local authorities and other providers the maximum possible opportunity to pick up those stocks and to retain them in the social housing sector, if that is possible. To be very clear and honest with the hon. Member, that may not always be possible, and those homes may be disposed of on the open market, but we want to increase the chances of them being able to be retained in the sector, for all the reasons that we have gone into.
Amendments 1 and 5 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 that 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 it to better regulate against the standards that it sets. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals; that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so it has an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.
Amendment 101 would, similarly, require community land trusts with social housing in the area to be notified. Of course, community land trusts that are registered with the Regulator of Social Housing would already be notified under the requirements of the clause. I am aware that not all community land trusts are registered with the regulator, and that is their choice, but the focus of the clause is to keep homes in the regulated sector where it is possible to do so. The notification process is therefore focused on notifying providers that are registered with the regulator.
Amendment 99 would require a sales notice provided to the local authority and other registered providers in the local area to be published on the website of the private registered provider intending to dispose of the property. One of the main aims of the clause is to increase transparency around disposals. However, there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of transparency and the burdens and costs to private registered providers. We believe that the amendment would introduce an unhelpful level of bureaucracy around the disposal notification process. While some providers may choose to publish notifications of sale on their websites, requiring publication via legislation is disproportionate.
Gideon Amos
If we are after transparency, I have difficulty with the Minister’s basing his argument on the massive cost of putting something on a website. I understand that it is a tradition of this place that the Government resist all amendments that come from all quarters other than their own, but this seems to be taking things to an illogical conclusion.
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly do not make it a point of principle to resist all amendments despite how sensible some will be. The hon. Member will see in the list of Government amendments that we will be debating many points that were raised by noble peers and that we have taken on. I will go away and reflect on how much of a burden this would be, but let me make a general point. This is my third Bill Committee as a Minister, and I sat on probably 13 while in opposition. The natural tendency of Oppositions is to call for further requirements, further regulations, further reviews and further assessments, because often they have nothing more to say on the point of principle of the particular clause. There is a cumulative impact of layering all of that on top. We want to ensure that the balance is struck properly, and that the disposals process is proportionate and is streamlined to an extent, but I will go away and reflect on the particular point and review whether requiring private registered providers to do what he suggests would be as burdensome as we think.
Mr Dillon
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and appreciate the Minister’s commitment to go away and reflect on them. May I just add a plea? There is concern, when stock is being disposed of in local communities, that the community does not know what is going on. Having disposal notifications published online would not just allow the sector to know what is going on, but allow the local community to know what is going on with its housing stock.
Matthew Pennycook
I take the hon. Member’s point and, as I committed to doing in response to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, I will go away and reflect. I am happy to provide a fuller, written answer to both hon. Members.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“171AA Right of first refusal: local housing authorities
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and
(b) the dwelling—
(i) is let at social rent, or
(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.
(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), the local housing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.
(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the local housing authority at existing use value for social housing.
(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.
(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”
This amendment gives local housing authorities a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.
Gideon Amos
I will be brief. Amendment 2 would give local housing authorities right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing. The acquisition of those properties at existing use value for social housing, rather than at market value or existing use value, is significant, because obviously the existing use value for social housing is lower. It is important that local authorities have the ability to acquire homes that are being disposed of, so that the net reduction in social housing is not increased. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a right of first refusal for the local authority and other registered providers notified via a sale notice during the notice period. That right would be on the condition that the home would remain as social housing and would require the private registered provider to sell the home at the existing use value for social housing. The corresponding amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, would extend the right of first refusal to specific types of bodies that provide affordable housing. Some of those bodies would be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing, and therefore would already be included within amendment 3, but amendment 10 would also extend the right of first refusal to unregistered housing providers.
I have heard clearly, both on Second Reading and today, the desire of hon. Members to protect social homes. I very much share that desire, but that must be balanced with the ability of private providers to operate efficiently and manage their housing assets, including by investing in more new homes or their existing stock. Sometimes that can mean selling a social home out of the sector. I can assure the Committee that I have fought long and hard, and challenged officials—they can verify that with nods—to ensure that we look in a lot of detail at what requirements can be put in place, and what levers we can try to pull, to keep as many social homes in the regulated sector as possible.
A key consideration when thinking through possible interventions is the reality that interfering with private registered providers’ freedom to use and sell their assets as they wish would present a significant risk of reclassifying the sector. Not only would that bring £110 billion of debt on to the public books, but it would bring with it risk and uncertainty that could impact on the investment in the sector that is so needed.
As I have said, I hope the disposals measure in the Bill will ensure greater transparency around disposals and support better dialogue between private registered providers and local authorities. I hope it will also focus minds to ensure that we minimise any negative impact resulting from disposals. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a private registered provider from choosing to sell to another provider at a lower price on the understanding that it remains social housing. I hope that the notification requirement introduced by the Bill will support such discussions. I am very open to ideas about what more can be done to support that dialogue, and I have tasked my officials to work with the sector to identify and promote good practice, as well as to explore what more the Government might do to reinforce it.
Given the issues that I have highlighted, I believe we will get the best results by working together with private registered providers and local authorities to explore what more they can do and where we can support them to keep homes in the regulated sector. For the reasons that I have set out, primarily around reclassification risk, we cannot accept the amendments, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment 2.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate the Minister’s response. The amendments are genuinely intended to provide councils with the ability to acquire stock rather than see it lost from the social housing sector. This is a particularly important area and, I believe, an important amendment. I understand the risks of reclassification on to the public sector balance sheet. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to publish the advice he has received on that, because the sector will want to understand why first refusal cannot be given to local authorities.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the attempt, let us say, to have confidential advice to Ministers published in the round. That is not the usual practice—
Tuesday 27th October 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“171AA Right of first refusal: registered providers
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and
(b) the dwelling—
(i) is let at social rent, or
(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.
(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), any registered provider which received a sale notice under section 171A(2) may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.
(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the registered provider at existing use value for social housing.
(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.
(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”
This amendment gives registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.
Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“171AA Right of first refusal: local affordable housing providers
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and
(b) the dwelling—
(i) is let at social rent, or
(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.
(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), where a qualifying local affordable housing provider makes an offer to acquire the dwelling, a private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the qualifying local affordable housing provider at existing use value for social housing.
(3) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing.
(4) In this section, a ‘qualifying local affordable housing provider’ means—
(a) a community land trust;
(b) a housing co-operative;
(c) a community benefit society;
(d) a charity whose purposes include the provision of affordable housing; or
(e) such other locally based not-for-profit housing body as may be prescribed by regulations,
which operates, or intends to operate, affordable housing within the local housing authority area in which the dwelling is situated.
(5) Any dispute as to existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”.
This amendment seeks to extend the right of first refusal to not-for-profit community-led housing organisations and other non-registered providers capable of retaining homes as affordable housing within the local area, and provides that the disposal must be at existing use value.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. When we finished this morning’s sitting, I was responding to a point from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, who is not in his place; I know he is a trusty reader of Hansard, so I am sure he will see my remarks.
Essentially, I was saying that it would not be appropriate for me to share any specific advice that I have received on the matter that we are debating. It is not the standard procedure for the Government to put official advice in the public domain. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the decision taken by the Office for National Statistics back in 2015 clearly identified the approval of disposals by the Regulator of Social Housing as a key control that resulted in the reclassification of the housing association sector to public.
It is the Government’s considered opinion that many of the suggestions for further controls over housing association assets, which go beyond the notification requirement in the Bill, would likely be a significant classification risk. I have committed to writing to the hon. Gentleman if there is any further detail that I can provide, but we are somewhat limited in what we can say about how the ONS makes those decisions.
The Chair
As we have heard, Gideon Amos is not present. Mr Dillon, do you know what his wishes are? Does he want to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Dillon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I would like to speak to amendments 100 and 7. Amendment 7, which in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, really gets to the “what”: what is being offered for disposal, whether it is at social rent and what the energy performance certificate rating is. Amendment 100 is a follow-up to that: the “why”. Why is a property being disposed of? Is it for financial viability? Is it because of the cost of retrofit? If we were to collate that data, the Government would be able to reflect on the success of this policy in later years.
Matthew Pennycook
Government amendment 20 requires sales notices from private providers to include information about whether the rent standard applies to the dwelling and, if it does, the rent category of the dwelling. Engagement with the sector has highlighted the importance of potential purchasers knowing the rent category of a home when taking decisions about purchasing it. That is because the rent category has implications for the future rent that can be charged, and therefore the future income potential of the property.
I remain mindful of the need to ensure the disposal notification is proportionate and limited to the information that is most useful to those considering purchasing the property. We believe information relating to the dwelling rent category is a useful and reasonable addition to the information requirements. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Amendment 82 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers when making regulations under proposed new sections 171B or 171A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. A common theme in my responses to the amendments on the disposals measure in this Bill is that I recognise that private registered providers are private bodies that need to be allowed to make their own business decisions. In short, for that reason, I do not think the amendment is required. If making regulations, the Secretary of State would necessarily be aware that housing associations are private bodies. I reassure the shadow Minister that we have no current intentions to use these powers.
I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury spoke only to amendment 100. Am I wrong?
Matthew Pennycook
I will deal with both, in that case. Amendment 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would significantly expand the information required to be included in sales notices where a private registered provider intends to dispose of a property outside of the regulated sector, to include, for example, whether a property complies with the decent homes standard, its EPC rating and whether it has been adapted for accessibility.
The Government’s view is that adding requirements for more information to be included in the sale notice would not be proportionate. We do not want to impose additional unnecessary burdens on providers, and we certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced that would mean additional reports need to be produced, or surveys carried out, though I note the hon. Member’s amendment does seek to avoid this.
Our view is that extending the notification window to eight weeks will allow providers to have the opportunity to request further information that they judge to be necessary to their consideration of a potential purchase. However, I do not think that requiring the inclusion of all this information by law is a proportionate response. Our aim is to capture the basic elements that will always be relevant to providers when considering purchasing a home, and provide more time for inquiries to be made where needed. That point has come up previously. The provisions in the Bill do not prevent those notifications and requests for further information between the parties in question from being made. That is the basis on which I brought forward amendment 19, which requires information on the category of rent, which we think is an important improvement.
Amendment 100, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newbury, would require providers to categorise their reason for disposing of a property as either financial viability, the cost of energy efficiency retrofits, stock rationalisation or some other reason that might be specified through secondary legislation. My concern is that seeking to prescribe particular categories of reason in the notice might result in a less helpful notification. Let me explain why.
First, it requires providers to identify one particular reason behind the sale. It is possible that the proposed sale will be based on more than one of these categories. It is also possible that there might be a different driver entirely. In response to a very reasonable question from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I tried to give a sense of the variety of reasons that individual providers might be disposing of particular stock.
Secondly, there is a risk that by setting out the categories in legislation, providers will just use the default descriptions of the reason and fail to provide a fuller and more helpful description for those being notified. Thirdly, although I do not think this was the intention of the hon. Member for Newbury, the amendment would have the effect of preventing sales from going ahead. No sale can proceed without a notice, and the notice must be valid. To be valid with this amendment in place, the notice must include one of a limited list of reasons. The Government cannot support an amendment that would prevent legitimate disposals. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment to a Division.
Gareth Bacon
I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have set out, the Government are committed to protecting our much-needed social housing stock. As it stands, there is no requirement for advance notification of disposals of social homes, meaning that opportunities to retain them within the social housing sector can be missed. Although private registered providers may choose to dispose of homes for valid reasons, including to support investment in new supply and the effective management of their stock, we understand that that can have a particularly acute impact in areas where the supply of social housing is already constrained.
It is therefore important that opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector are not missed, particularly in areas with significant demand or where replacement is particularly difficult. Clause 12 will achieve that by requiring providers to notify the relevant local authority and other registered providers in the area before a sale can be completed. It creates a short window during which completion of a disposal cannot take place, while still allowing providers to market the property and continue with their disposal plans as usual. The window was set at four weeks upon introduction of the Bill, and the Government are seeking to extend that window to eight weeks, in response to concerns raised by both Houses and by stakeholders that it was too short.
The new window of time allows local authorities and other providers to consider whether they wish to acquire the property, helping to retain homes within the social housing sector. To help them in that initial assessment, the notice is required to provide certain basic information such as the address, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and its estimated value. Earlier, I spoke to an amendment to include the category of rent in the sale notice, which we think is a reasonable and fair addition.
The clause is targeted and proportionate. It includes sensible exceptions such as sales to another registered provider, sales to the tenant and certain low-cost home ownership transactions. It is important to be clear that this is not a consent regime. The clause does not prevent disposals, does not restrict who a property may be sold to, and does not interfere with providers’ ability to make legitimate stock management decisions. It is a light touch and proportionate measure to improve transparency, embed consistent good practice across the sector—I have detailed some of the non-legislative means where we intend to work with the sector to go further— and support the Bill’s broader objective of safeguarding and sustaining social housing stock.
Amendment 4, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would introduce additional requirements for disposals in designated rural areas. I support the intention behind it: to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to possible disposals of social housing in rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. I am not convinced, however, that the best way to achieve that outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and a statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal.
The provisions in the Bill will ensure that a local authority is aware of a potential disposal. I hope that that gives local authorities, particularly in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue before the disposal takes place. Requiring statutory consultations on the regeneration of social housing would likely place significant time and administrative costs on both local authorities and private registered providers, and materially impact the ability of private 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 PRP-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 the existing rigorous requirements. I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, but I am not convinced that we need to legislate in this way to achieve our shared aim.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that local authorities and housing providers are listening to this debate, and understand that the Government expect them to work in a collaborative manner for the best outcome for social tenants. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Review of shared ownership and staircasing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 41—Shared ownership strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme.
(2) The strategy under this section must include proposals relating to—
(a) first-time buyers,
(b) key workers,
(c) housing association provision, and
(d) staircasing arrangements.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘staircasing’ means the practice of buying additional shares in a Shared Ownership home in order to increase overall equity.”
This new clause would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.
New clause 45—Model shared ownership agreement—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a model shared ownership agreement.
(2) The model shared ownership agreement must include standard provisions relating to—
(a) rent reviews,
(b) staircasing,
(c) service charges,
(d) administrative fees,
(e) sales and resales, and
(f) capital improvements undertaken by shared owners.
(3) Registered providers must have regard to the model agreement when granting shared ownership leases.”
This probing new clause would require the publication of a standardised model shared ownership agreement.
Matthew Pennycook
Shared ownership is an important route into home ownership and has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to get on to the property ladder who otherwise would not have been able to do so. However, the Government are fully aware that shared owners continue to face serious difficulties relating to affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges. Although some of these challenges affect leaseholders more widely—high and rising service charges are a good example—they can have a disproportionate impact on shared owners, given that the product is aimed at households on lower-to-middle incomes.
Yesterday, I tabled a written ministerial statement setting out the Government’s position on shared ownership and the action we are taking to improve the experience of shared owners. We are determined to ensure that shared ownership is fair, transparent and affordable across its life cycle. That is why we are taking forward a phased programme of targeted improvements. The first phase, which has been under way for some time, has focused on improving the customer experience and giving providers greater certainty, stability and confidence to deliver new shared ownership homes.
We have set clearer expectations for registered providers receiving funding through the social and affordable homes programme, including giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness around costs, and allowing customers to opt out of fees for optional services. We have also made it clear that fees charged to shared owners should not be used as a source of profit or to cross-subsidise other activity.
Work is now under way on the second phase of our improvement programme. This will include reducing barriers and costs associated with staircasing; exploring options to support resales; improving information and guidance for existing shared owners; and reviewing buy-backs as an exit route for those who either cannot afford to remain in or cannot sell their home. Alongside that, we will improve shared ownership data quality and collection, helping us to better understand the experience of shared owners over time and pressures such as long-term affordability.
Clause 13 would require a statutory review of shared ownership. I recognise the concerns that motivated the amendment in the other place—Lord Young has been a consistent and forceful champion for shared owners and I commend his work in doing so—but these are precisely the issues the Government are already focused on and will continue to progress through the improvement programme that is already under way.
As is set out in the written ministerial statement I made on Monday, we have done lots to date. There is more to come on those issues I identified. For that reason, we feel that a statutory review would duplicate that rather than deliver the practical improvements that shared owners need beyond the work that the Government are already undertaking. I urge the Committee to oppose the question that clause 13 stand part of the Bill.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government.
My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause.
New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I have lived in a shared ownership home, so I thought it only right to support this part of the Bill. Usually on Bill Committees, I speak against and ask the Government to take something out of a Bill, rather than keep it in.
This is important. The Minister, on opening, summed up the issues that lots of constituents with shared ownership face right across the country. If the Government are already doing part of the review anyway, and if they are committed to that review, I do not see why it cannot stay part of the Bill. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason why the Government want to remove it from the Bill is so that they can change their mind and not actually do that review of shared ownership, which has been a long-standing feature of the housing market for a number of years. It is high time that we do a review.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip spoke eloquently about the issues that his constituents face in some of the developments in his constituency. That is not too dissimilar from developments in my constituency. Staircasing has major issues, particularly if ownership is shared with a large social housing provider, such as one of those that operate all across the south-east and London. Residents who buy those shared-ownership homes feel that the social housing provider is unaccountable. They lack transparency on their fees, and I have heard some horrific stories about people buying into shared ownership and wanting to use that as a stepping stone to buy a house on the open market, but having to buy selling packs off the social housing provider at extortionate costs, or the provider not getting back to them and the sale of their property falling through.
New clauses 41 and 45 are trying to solve a number of issues in the Bill. If the Government are doing some of the work already and think that this review is needed, I urge them to keep it in the Bill. As I said, the cynic in me thinks that the Government want to leave it out so that a few months down the line they can say, “We’ve changed our mind. We’re not doing a review.” Do the Government really want a review of shared ownership and to listen to shared owners? The Minister outlined quite eloquently some of the issues that affect shared owners, such as leasehold and commonhold—we look forward to that Bill coming forward—but shared ownership does tend to fall through the cracks.
We have not spent enough time speaking about the issues that shared ownership tenants face, so I really urge the Government to change their mind. I was left with the impression on Second Reading that clause 13 would remain part of the Bill and that the Government would accept the amendments tabled in the other place. I hope that the Government can reflect and keep this clause as part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I said this in my opening remarks, but let me reinforce it: we absolutely appreciate that shared owners across the country face issues, but I do think that there is a regional element to this. From the feedback I receive, it seems to me that the experience of shared owners in London and other parts of the south are far more problematic than shared ownership in parts of the north, where it is quite a successful product and does not have the issues that are often confronted. Serious affordability, transparency, management, staircasing, and resale challenges are being experienced. I know that from my own postbag; I have lots of shared owners in my constituency.
I speak as someone who grew up with a single parent myself, but lots of shared owners are often single women who got a mortgage on the basis of an affordability calculation and have seen, within two or three years, service charges and other costs increase to the point that their home is no longer affordable and would not be counted as such on that affordability check. They are under real pressure. We recognise those pressures and I understand that any shared owners watching will see this clause as a sort of lifeline.
Notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about the frequency with which Ministers in previous Conservative Administrations were cycled through, I think I am right in saying that if I make it to Thursday I will be the longest serving Housing Minister since 2010.
Matthew Pennycook
We have better form on permanence of our policy and our ministerial certainty and stability. Notwithstanding the right hon. Member’s attempts to beguile and flatter me, I cannot accept the new clauses, for two reasons. I will take them in turn, but essentially I do not think that either is proportionate or necessary.
New clause 45 would require the Secretary of State to publish a model shared ownership agreement, but model shared ownership leases are already available, and they contain the fundamental clauses governing how shared ownership operates—including many of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Providers delivering grant-funded shared ownership are required to use leases containing these clauses and comply with wider grant funding requirements.
To give Members a sense that we are thinking about these things, part of the reason that I made the written ministerial statement on Monday was because we have done a huge amount of work in this area, but we have never brought it together into one place in the context of a wider improvement programme. The fault for that is on me and I throw my hands up, but a lot of work has already been done, and a lot of work is to come.
Tackling specific issues, we know that shared owners who want to staircase can face barriers such as transaction costs, a lack of information, rising property values and wider affordability pressures. HomeOwners Alliance estimates typical transaction costs of around £2,000—that was two years ago, in 2024. In the WMS, we have committed to considering measures to reduce existing barriers to staircasing, such as those up-front and ongoing transaction costs.
The issue of buy-backs arose in the context of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, again from Lord Young pressing the case for shared owners. I am absolutely and acutely aware that buy-backs can be a lifeline for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable either to afford to remain in their home or to sell it, whether due to building safety defects, high service charges or lease-related restrictions. Again, we have committed and made clear in the WMS that we are intent on undertaking a comprehensive review of the functioning of buy-backs, to better understand practical barriers and solutions, and to look at specific issues such as the current use of recycled capital funding grants. That work is under way.
It is also worth saying that lots of the problems that affect shared owners go beyond them to affect other leaseholders. The actions we are taking in several areas will benefit shared owners along with other long residential leaseholders.
A good case is the standardisation and transparency measures that we are introducing in respect of service charges using powers in the previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We will lay those statutory instruments in the very near future, so hon. Members can look forward to that. Shared owners who are experiencing those high and rising service charges will benefit from those provisions.
The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston got to the point of the substantive matter at hand, which he framed as an “extra opportunity”. If he can put his ministerial hat on from when he stood here for many years, I gently ask him whether it is reasonable and proportionate to require, through a Social Housing Bill, a statutory review of shared ownership, given all that the Government are doing. Is it really proportionate to require a statutory review just to give that extra opportunity?
We already consult the Shared Owners’ Network and other representative groups. If hon. Members are telling me that we can do more, I am happy to work with them to get shared owners and their experiences into the Government’s thinking so that they are better reflected. If there is more that we can do to improve the improvement programme that is already under way, I am more than happy to hear about that, but it is a little stretching to say that it is absolutely essential just for, to quote the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, that “little extra opportunity” to cover those issues. We are looking at issues in the round. We are considering the comprehensive set of challenges that shared owners face.
Edward Argar
On that basis, is the Minister prepared to commit—whether explicitly in the Bill or not—to the Government’s launching a formal review of this?
Matthew Pennycook
In some ways, it is pure semantics. We have a comprehensive improvement programme under way. If the right hon. Member looks at my written ministerial statement from yesterday, he will see the work that we have already undertaken: material changes, including to the social and affordable homes programme, where we are setting firmer expectations for providers that receive grant funding. A lot of work is already under way. Whether the right hon. Member calls it a review or an improvement programme, shared owners across the country will rightly focus not on what we term the work that is under way, but on the benefits they see coming out of that work. They can already see some of those in the expectations that we have set, but there will be more to follow.
Lewis Cocking
To draw out the point a little further, will the Minister commit to making an oral statement on the Floor of the House in the near future so that Members from across the House can ask questions and he can update us on what he is doing about shared ownership and improvements to shared ownership?
Matthew Pennycook
My Whip whispers in my ear that that is a matter for Mr Speaker. The hon. Member and any other Member of the Opposition can secure a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate on this subject. I am more than willing to debate shared ownership or any other housing matter.
Matthew Pennycook
I have made a written ministerial statement that sets out the Government’s work in this area.
Taken together, the existing framework of model leases and guidance, alongside the substantive programme of improvements that is already under way, address the issues at the heart of both new clauses. We continue to have constructive engagement with Lord Young and others in the other place who have concerns about this issue, but we do not believe that a further statutory model agreement or a separate statutory strategy is necessary. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to press new clauses 41 and 45.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 22 to 25, 46, 47, 26, 29, 27, 28, 30, 31, 48 to 57, 32, 58, 33, 59, 34, 60, 35, 61, 36 to 42, 62 to 65, 43, 44, 66 to 72, 45 and 73.
Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“3A In section 160ZA of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation only to eligible and qualifying persons: England), after subsection (11) insert—
‘(12) In deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons under subsection (7), a local housing authority must disregard housing-related debt or any other priority debt that was accrued, either by an applicant for housing accommodation or by a member of their household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.
(13) For the purposes of subsection (12), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’
3B In section 166A of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme: England), after subsection (14) insert—
‘(15) A local housing authority in England must, in preparing or modifying their allocation scheme, disregard housing-related debt or any other priority debt that was accrued, either by an applicant for housing accommodation, or by a member of their household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.
(16) For the purposes of subsection (15), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This amendment is intended to ensure that people in England who have incurred housing-related or other priority debt, for example rent arrears, as the result of domestic financial abuse are not prevented from bidding for social housing.
Schedule 1.
New clause 30—Domestic abuse protections: implementation review—
“(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 14 and Schedule 1 (Protection for victims of domestic abuse) come into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of those provisions at protecting victims of domestic abuse who hold social housing tenancies.
(2) The review under this section must include an assessment of—
(a) the effectiveness of the courts and relevant agencies at identifying when incidents of domestic abuse have occurred within social housing dwellings; and
(b) the ability of local authorities and other relevant agencies to identify previous victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse when allocating social housing tenancies.”
This new clause would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions on protecting domestic abuse victims.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 14 and its associated schedule 1 will address a clear legal gap in respect of social housing tenancies, namely that existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that, all too often, victims are forced to choose between staying in danger and losing their home. As I argued on Second Reading, that is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs; taken together, the clause and schedule will end it.
Schedule 1 will introduce stronger powers for landlords to enable them to take possession of a property where domestic abuse has taken place without the requirement for the victim to leave. It also 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. The new mandatory grounds in the schedule seek to provide a clear framework by which courts must grant possession if the threshold has been met. Crucially, under the discretionary grounds in the schedule, the court must take into account the opinion of the victim before making the decision, helping to ensure that victims remain at the centre of the process.
A key focus of the measures is providing certainty in cases of joint tenancies. The schedule ensures that, if conditions are met for joint tenancies, the court will transfer the perpetrator’s interest in the joint tenancy so that the victim becomes the sole tenant. Where it is not appropriate for a victim to remain in their current home, the Bill allows a court to order suitable alternative social housing where the landlord has such accommodation available. The court must, as far as possible, take into account the victim’s views when considering the suitability of alternative accommodation. If a landlord cannot satisfy the court that a suitable home will be available, the victim will not be forced to move under these provisions.
Clause 14 and schedule 1 provide that the new measures will apply where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the victim currently lives in the property or has left due to domestic abuse. The measures critically remove the requirement for the victim to have fled the property before possession action can be taken. They also protect victims of modern slavery where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the other conditions in the Bill are met.
We will continue to work with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the Home Office and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation. It would be remiss of me not to say that our work with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has been, in my view, an exemplar of cross-departmental working to resolve a pressing issue. In aligning with the definition of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the measures also cover a broader range of conduct. They protect those most at risk who currently live, or previously lived, in a property with a perpetrator, while remaining clear and workable in practice.
Government amendments 22 to 73 address concerns raised in the other place about the evidence needed to use the discretionary grounds in domestic abuse cases. We have listened carefully to those concerns and we have acted. The amendments strengthen the discretionary domestic abuse grounds by ensuring that the existence of a relevant protective order is sufficient to satisfy the first stage of the ground ahead of the court’s determining whether it is reasonable to grant possession.
Where either a non-molestation order or a domestic abuse protection order is in force against a perpetrator, landlords may rely on it as evidence for the courts to then progress to consider whether it is reasonable to grant possession. That removes the need to separately establish whether domestic abuse has taken place where an order is in place, making it easier for social landlords to take possession action where a court has already made an order protecting the victim. An order will be disregarded if an appeal remains unresolved or results in the order being overturned.
The amendments do not make possession automatic. The courts will still need to consider whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, retaining judicial oversight through the existing reasonableness test. The amendments will simplify the process and give greater confidence to landlords and victims when seeking possession.
The amendments also make technical and consequential changes to the domestic abuse provisions in schedule 1. They align the terminology used in the Bill with the definition of domestic abuse in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, make consequential changes and align wording across equivalent provisions in the Bill and, finally, clarify how the tenancy transfer and possession provisions operate.
The amendments will ensure that, where the conditions for making a possession order on the basis of suitable alternative accommodation apply, the transfer of tenancy provision will also operate. The effect is that the perpetrator tenant’s interest is severed in all cases where the ground for possession is met and the court is satisfied that an order should be made. That will help deliver more consistent outcomes for victims in joint tenancy cases.
Taken together, the amendments improve the clarity and consistency of schedule 1 and ensure that the domestic abuse provisions operate as intended. I commend clause 14, schedule 1 and the Government amendments to the Committee.
Mr Dillon
I will speak to amendment 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington. The amendment looks at the impact of rent arrears on a victim of domestic abuse and quite simply asks that that not be a consideration when bidding for a future social home.
While on my feet, I will also talk about clause 14 in its totality. We Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled on domestic abuse, but will the Minister outline why the Government use only discretionary powers rather than mandatory powers, such as ground 7A, which is mandatory for antisocial behaviour?
Edward Argar
I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury, the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I never know whether I am pronouncing that entirely correctly—
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the cross-party support for the intent behind these provisions and their effect. In some ways, I would go so far as to say that they are groundbreaking in what we have tried to achieve. As I said, there has also been very effective cross-departmental working.
On the specific point that the hon. Member for Newbury raised, there are mandatory grounds for possession in the Bill, but they apply only when a breach of a relevant order has taken place. The changes we have made to the discretionary possession grounds are to allow for the existence of an order to be relevant grounds for the court, rather than a breach having to take place. However, there are mandatory grounds in place. I am happy to set that out in more detail for the hon. Member, in writing, if he is interested. I know that he takes a keen interest in these matters.
I will turn to the two non-Government amendments that have been tabled, starting with amendment 12. This issue, and a version of the amendment, was raised in the other place by Baroness Neate. I would like to give the Committee the same reassurances that we gave the noble Baroness, and that she accepted, in debates in the other place.
First, the Government agree, as I think we all would, with the principle that survivors of domestic abuse should not face unfair barriers to social housing because of debt arising from that abuse. That is why, in the national plan to end homelessness, we committed to addressing the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing through our update to the statutory guidance on social housing allocations.
We continue to believe that primary legislation is not the right approach in this area. There are sensitive and inherently complex cases at play here, and the amendment would introduce a rigid rule that would not allow local authorities to take proper account of individual circumstances. Updated statutory guidance will allow us to set clear national expectations while preserving the flexibility needed to reach fair and sustainable decisions in individual cases. Work is already under way to review the guidance, and we will consult on the updated guidance early next year.
We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, as I made clear on Second Reading—I think my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed me on that. I am happy to reiterate that if guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation. The Government’s position has not changed. We support the objective of removing unfair barriers for survivors, but believe that updated statutory guidance, backed by existing regulation-making powers, if necessary, is the more proportionate and effective route.
Danny Beales
I thank the Minister for referencing our previous debate on this topic. I welcome the Government’s action in developing guidance. I have seen worrying cases in my constituency of rent arrears being a barrier to victims of domestic violence getting a tenancy. There is concern that, even though rules have already been changed about local connection tests, they may not always be applied effectively, and local connection tests may still be used as a route to block victims of domestic violence. I welcome the development of guidance, but will the Minister commit to collecting evidence about the effectiveness of the guidance and whether further measures might be needed?
Matthew Pennycook
We will absolutely keep the effectiveness of that guidance under review. I reiterate the commitment I have made, which I have tried to put as plainly as possible: if that guidance is not effective, we will introduce regulations to ensure that we resolve the issue. However, we believe that there is a high chance that the guidance will be successful in achieving the outcomes we want. That is our preferred route in the near term, but I am determined to ensure that the issue is addressed. The Baroness accepted the commitments we made in the other place, and those regulations are available if we require them.
Turning to new clause 30, the Department already collects data through CORE— continuous recording of lettings and sales in social housing—on how many new tenancies were given to victims who left their previous tenancy because of domestic abuse, which provides an important baseline for monitoring outcomes as the reforms are implemented. The Ministry of Justice also publishes quarterly statistics on landlord possession proceedings in the county courts of England and Wales. Those cover claims, possession orders, warrants and repossessions, including for social landlords. We will work with the Ministry of Justice, social landlords and the domestic abuse sector on implementation—the hon. Member for Orpington would expect nothing less. That includes developing clear guidance so that landlords know how and when to use the measures and how to support victims.
The new clause would also require an assessment of how courts and other organisations identify domestic abuse. On 5 October, the Government launched the judicial finding of domestic abuse, a significant step forward in improving the identification and management of domestic abuse offenders across the criminal justice system. As part of sentencing, judges will be required to make a judicial finding of domestic abuse in open court where the evidence supports such a finding as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That will provide a formal record where an offence involves domestic abuse. Those findings will be recorded in court records and shared with police and probation. The judicial finding will enable police, courts, prisons and probation services to recognise domestic abuse offenders and respond to the risks they pose more effectively.
Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause extends beyond the purpose of these measures. The Bill does not alter the way local authorities identify previous victims or perpetrators when allocating new social housing tenancies. That is a matter for local authorities to determine when assessing need and priority for an allocation of social housing.
The measures that the Government have put forward in this part of the Bill will help ensure that our reforms can operate effectively. The Government amendments provide the necessary technical changes to support the operation of the provisions and ensure that the legislation works as intended. I welcome the cross-party support for the measures and ask the Committee to support Government amendments 22 to 73.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Protection for victims of domestic abuse
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 74.
Schedule 2.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 15 introduces schedule 2, which gives the Secretary of State the power to create one new general consent and removes the need to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent for certain transactions altogether. There are a range of circumstances in which local authorities must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to undertake certain actions relating to their social homes, including how they account for them and when and how they can dispose of them. Some of the consents also apply to private individuals who own property that was once owned as social housing by a council or a new town corporation.
The first measure gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a general consent to non-housing assets—for example, shops or recreation grounds—that are being accounted for in the housing revenue account in accordance with part II of the Housing Act 1985. That will enable the Secretary of State to permit all such accounting practices when they meet certain criteria. That will remove one obstacle from the process of planning new council developments. It will also make it easier for councils to include these additional premises in their developments, supporting the creation of thriving, liveable communities.
The second measure streamlines the process by which local authorities can serve demolition notices, when homes are due to be demolished, that suspend or end tenants’ right to buy. Under schedules 5 and 5A to the 1985 Act, initial demolition notices can be issued for up to seven years, and final demolition notices, which can be issued once the local authority has acquired all the relevant properties for demolition or entered into binding agreements to acquire them, for up to two years. The provision removes the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent when local authorities need to serve further interim or final demolition notices if demolition cannot be completed during the time of the original notice, and it sets out requirements that local authorities must follow when serving further interim or final demolition notices. Those changes will help local authorities to manage redevelopment schemes more efficiently while still requiring them to follow clear statutory conditions.
Finally, the measure amends or repeals provisions in a number of Acts that require the Secretary of State’s consent for the onward sale of homes that have previously been owned by a local housing authority or new town corporation, even if those homes are already in the private market. The changes do not have effect in Wales, where the previous regime will continue. The changes will take away a completely unnecessary brake on these housing transactions in the private market. There is no longer any rationale for these now private homes to be subject to the Secretary of State’s consent, and consent is never in practice denied. All the changes are part of a suite of measures planned by the Government to simplify and streamline the council housing consent system in England and to empower local authorities who know their communities best.
Government amendment 74 makes minor and consequential amendments to schedule 2. Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule omits section 171D(2) of the Housing Act 1985. That subsection currently requires the Secretary of State’s consent for certain onward disposal of homes already sold under the right to buy. As a consequence of that omission, references elsewhere in the Housing Act 1985 to consent under section 171D(2) are no longer required. Amendment 74 removes those redundant references, ensuring that the legislation will operate coherently once the requirement for consent is removed. The amendment does not make any further substantive change to policy; it simply makes necessary consequential amendments to give full effect to paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2.
I commend clause 15 and schedule 2 to the Committee, and ask the Committee to support Government amendment 74.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Social housing: consent requirements
Amendment made: 74, in schedule 2, page 37, line 22, at end insert—
“1A ‘(1) Schedule 9A (land registration and related matters where right to buy preserved) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4 (entries on register protecting preserved right to buy), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ preceding it.
(3) In paragraph 5 (change of qualifying dwelling-house), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ preceding it.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Section 171D(2) of the Housing Act 1985 is omitted by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill. This contains amendments that are consequential on that omission.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16
Vacant higher value local authority housing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
It is essential that local housing authorities have the flexibility to manage their stock in the way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 16 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 by previous Governments. Even so, the presence of the provision on the statute book has a negative effect on local authorities’ spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties, which typically earn higher than average rents and are cheaper to maintain.
The policy was intended—I recall this because, as a relatively new Member, I sat on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the 2016 Act—to raise capital to supply new social homes, but it would ultimately have led to a net loss of social homes. Furthermore, when the 2016 Act was passed, a major aim of the policy was to help to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. This Government have made it clear that they do not intend to take that extension forward. The last Conservative Government chose never to implement the measures due to the negative impact that they would have had on local authorities, and we are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 75 to 77.
Schedule 3.
New clause 40—Fixed-term tenancies for social housing—
“Nothing in this Act prevents a local housing authority or registered provider from granting a fixed-term tenancy for social housing in accordance with existing enactments.”
This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.
New clause 58—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
(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.”
This new clause 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.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 17 introduces schedule 3, which will repeal uncommenced provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies and required new social housing tenants to be given fixed-term secure tenancies instead. As with the provisions that we have just debated, the rules were never brought into force and would have reduced security for tenants. Indeed, the inclusion of the fixed-term provisions in the 2016 Act received strong objections throughout the Bill’s passage.
The Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households, and help people to put down roots in their communities. Security of tenure matters, particularly for families, older residents, disabled people and others for whom a settled home is the foundation of wider wellbeing and opportunity. That was the rationale for the changes we recently implemented through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Although we promote the use of lifetime tenancies, the Government expect landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need. Landlords can support tenants to downsize, transfer or mutually exchange their homes if their circumstances change. That helps people to move to properties that are better suited to them and ensures that social housing is used in the fairest way possible.
Retaining the option for landlords to grant fixed-term tenancies is an important tool that allows councils to respond to specific circumstances, such as supporting time-limited resettlement schemes. The schedule also retains the existing approach to succession by reinserting the relevant provisions from the 2016 Act, ensuring that there are no substantial changes to how succession works in practice.
The repeal of the uncommenced provisions will provide greater certainty to tenants and landlords, and ensure that the law continues to work properly after they are removed. The previous Government confirmed in their 2018 social housing Green Paper, after listening to residents’ concerns, that they had no intention of implementing those provisions. Once again, this Government are going a step further and repealing them from the statute book.
Government amendments 75 to 77 make minor and technical changes to the succession provisions in schedule 3. Amendment 77 corrects the provision dealing with demoted tenancies so that it refers only to changes that apply to those tenancies. References to provisions that apply only to introductory tenancies are removed, as those cases are already covered separately. Amendments 75 and 76 make it clear that the sections 143H and 143J to which the provisions refer are sections of the Housing Act 1996. The amendments do not change policy or tenants’ rights; they simply clarify the Bill’s wording and make sure that references are correct and in order. I commend clause 17 and Government amendments 75 to 77 to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled.
Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need. The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion.
Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.
Gareth Bacon
As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource.
Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not.
New clause 58 is not an eviction notice. It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start with new clause 40, which seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies.
Fixed-term tenancies will no longer be available within the assured tenancy framework once the relevant Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms take effect. I therefore understand that the proposal is aimed principally at ensuring that local housing authorities and other secure tenancy landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies when appropriate.
I want to be clear that the new clause is not needed. Nothing in the Bill prevents secure-tenancy landlords from granting fixed-term tenancies. As I have said, the Bill repeals uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies to be fixed-term tenancies. As we have just debated, those provisions were never brought into force and we are now removing them in order to provide clarity. Secure-tenancy landlords will still be able to offer fixed-term tenancies where they consider it appropriate to do so; as I have said, the Bill does not change that. The proposed measures risk repeating what is already the case in law for secure-tenancy landlords and would create confusion by suggesting that the Bill removes flexibility in this area when it does not. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister not to press new clause 40.
New clause 58 would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years. I made it clear when speaking to clause 17 that the Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households and help people to put down roots in their communities. That is precisely why we are repealing uncommenced provisions in the 2016 Act that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies in favour of mandatory fixed-term tenancies.
We expect local authorities and other social landlords to make the best and most effective use of their stock to meet housing need. However, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for local authorities to review every secure tenancy once every five years would be an appropriate way to support them in doing so, given the administrative burden that that would entail. We also believe that it would have detrimental impacts on tenants and communities. Those are some of the reasons why the previous Government did not commence the provisions they had legislated for in the 2016 Act.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am losing track of the narrative in this debate. The Government do not want to sell the unit to the tenant, but that means they will forgo all the long-term health, economic, social and community benefits of home ownership. At the same time, you want to lock them into lifelong tenancies, which would take their house out of action and reduce its availability to other households that are more in need. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill, but that is the narrative that I understand the Government are setting out. Can the Minister confirm that for me?
Matthew Pennycook
I fear that the hon. Gentleman does misunderstand the Bill in a number of respects. First, we are not abolishing or phasing out the right to buy. As I have persistently made clear, we want to ensure that the right to buy is available for long-standing tenants who have lived in—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can intervene once I have answered his first question. I refer to those tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.
I have already made it clear in a previous debate that landlords can already consider the changing needs of tenants through a variety of methods, ranging from tenant surveys to direct engagement. They can already support tenants to downsize, to transfer or to mutually exchange their home if their circumstances change. The new clause would mandate, through primary legislation, a review of every secure tenancy once every five years. I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman—this picks up on the precise reason why the previous Conservative Government did not bring into force the provisions in their own 2016 Act—that that would entail huge administrative burdens for local authorities. We think, because we believe in the principle of secure tenancies in social housing—in terms of the benefits for tenants and for communities more widely—that we should not impose such a statutory review every five years. I am struggling to see how that is incompatible with trying to place the right-to-buy scheme on a fairer and more sustainable footing.
The Government are reviewing how effectively social housing providers are using their stock. That work is considering issues such as under-occupation, overcrowding and how landlords are supporting tenant movement. We will set out findings from that review and the next steps in due course. We think social landlords can, in some instances, make better and more effective use of their stock. That does not necessarily require, as a means to support them to do so, a statutory requirement to review every secure tenancy every five years.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Regarding social landlords reassessing the use of their stock, does the Minister agree that there needs to be more focus on the needs of disabled members of our community? My constituent Keeley Callan came to see me on Friday. She is disabled, and I would argue she is actually disabled by the social housing system because she has been waiting for at least five years to move into her own accommodation. That is totally unacceptable, given her equal rights to housing in law. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that as he sums up?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sorry to hear about that case; if my hon. Friend wants to write to me with further details, I am more than happy to look into it. I would make two points: local authorities are best placed to decide the types of social homes their communities need and to plan for them appropriately. Local authorities also have a statutory duty to promote adaptations for disabled people in all housing tenures, subject to a needs assessment, and the Government provide the disabled facilities grant to support them. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about the support that should be in place and the expectations that the Government have in respect of local authorities. If he wants to write to me, I am more than happy to come back to him on the particular points that might arise from the case he has mentioned.
We cannot accept new clause 58 and I have already spoken to new clause 40, tabled by the shadow Minister. I ask the Committee to support Government amendments 75 to 77 and I commend clause 17 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Secure, introductory and demoted tenancies: uncommenced legislation etc
Amendments made: 75, in schedule 3, page 41, line 1, after “143H” insert
“of the Housing Act 1996”.
This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.
Amendment 76, in schedule 3, page 42, line 5, after “143J” insert
“of the Housing Act 1996”.
This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.
Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 42, line 23, leave out “to (10)” and insert
“, (9) and (10)(c) and (d)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This would clarify that only sub-paragraph 10(c) and (d) are relevant to sub-paragraph (13). Sub-paragraph 10(a) and (b) concern introductory, rather than demoted, tenancies.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18
Rents for high income social tenants
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 42—Review of income eligibility for social housing—
“(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act and every five years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review income eligibility thresholds for social housing.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following trends over the previous five years—
(a) household earnings,
(b) regional housing costs,
(c) housing affordability, and
(d) levels of demand for social housing.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of each review and lay them before Parliament.”
This new clause would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds for social housing.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 18 will repeal unimplemented provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants. We are now removing them to provide certainty and clean up the statute book. The provisions, as with others we have debated this afternoon, were never implemented. Once again, I note that the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections during the passage of that legislation.
A mandatory pay-to-stay scheme would be difficult and costly to administer. Indeed, the previous Government, despite legislating for this policy, chose not to commence it on the explicit basis that the costs outweighed the benefits. Income alone is also not the only determinant of who is allocated social housing. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances which mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list.
Social housing is targeted at those who need it most, but some tenants’ incomes may rise over time. Our focus is on keeping rents affordable and supporting all social tenants, not penalising tenants for improving their circumstances. As we debated in the previous group, landlords can encourage tenants to move if their circumstances change. Where tenants want to move or downsize, we expect landlords to support them to do so through transfers or mutual exchanges, which helps people move to properties that are better suited to them, and helps to ensure that social housing is used in the fairest way possible. Where councils and private registered providers choose, they can run voluntary pay-to-stay schemes, which allows landlords to decide whether a scheme is suitable for their area.
Councils can also consider an applicant’s income and financial circumstances when deciding whether they qualify for social housing and what priority they should receive. Households with higher incomes may be given less priority, or may not qualify at all. However, councils will also consider whether the household has other needs, as I have referenced, which can mean that social housing is still the right option for them.
Repealing these measures provides a fairer and more workable approach. This change will help keep rents affordable for social tenants, especially those on lower and middle incomes, avoid disincentives to work and mean that tenants are not incentivised to reduce their working hours to avoid higher rent. I commend clause 18 to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so.
We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time. Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I respond to new clause 42, I must address something that the shadow Minister keeps saying, which is that the Bill does not build any new social housing. I have made this incredibly clear, and I encourage him to go and talk to his local authority, although I am not sure its record on social housing is a particularly good one. Local authorities are very clear and have said to us in plain terms that the measures in the Bill will incentivise them to build more social homes. Of course, it is not the case that this piece of legislation is the only means by which we are building new social and affordable housing. We have a £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, which dwarfs anything that the previous Conservative Government allocated in this area, and there is additional funding to come on top of that.
New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing within two years of the Bill’s passage, and every five years thereafter, and to publish the findings and lay them before Parliament. Each review would consider trends over the previous five years in household earnings, regional housing costs, housing affordability and demand for social housing.
I recognise the importance of considering income to ensure that social housing is targeted at those most in need. Indeed, it is a sad truth that the residualisation of social housing over many years—not least because of the engineered decline of it under previous Conservative Governments, with increased right-to-buy discounts explicitly targeted to ensure that more is sold—has meant that, in most cases, it has become targeted to those on very low incomes, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary.
Eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process, and there is no general national income eligibility threshold for social rented housing. As I have made clear, local authorities can take financial resources into account in determining qualification and relative priority under their allocation schemes, subject to statutory requirements, and private registered providers also operate their own lettings polices. This allows local and individual circumstances to be taken into account.
Rachel Blake
The Minister has been incredibly generous. I wonder whether he will reflect in his closing remarks on the clause—which repeals what were, in my view, ideological attacks on something that is a very practical solution to a range of market needs and the affordability options open to people—that the previous Government did not enact these measures because they were found to be impractical, and because their implementation would actually cost the taxpayer money due to the risks of an additional administrative burden on local authorities and increasing homelessness; or will he remain as gracious and generous as he has been in our discussions so far?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation to become ungracious in respect of Opposition Members. I remember the debates in that 2016 Bill Committee. Those were deeply ideological measures, but I think it says everything that Conservative Ministers decided they were impractical, unworkable, could not be implemented, and made it clear—[Interruption.] They did. I encourage Opposition Members to go and read the 2018 social housing Green Paper, in which Conservative Ministers made it very clear that huge administrative burdens would come from some of these measures, in addition to their detrimental impact on tenants and communities. What we are doing is going a step further, as I have said, and removing these measures, and the uncertainty they create, from the statute book.
On the new clause, it is important to be clear that only a very small minority of social housing lettings are to high-income households. This is based on household income, not individual income, and in many cases could reflect two people each earning a modest salary, rather than a single person on what anyone would reasonably describe as a high income. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains, as I have said, the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even when their income may be somewhat higher than that of others on the waiting list.
Income should be considered alongside a household’s wider housing needs and circumstances, but we do not believe that this duty is necessary, or that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of these independently set thresholds. In repealing the pay-to-stay provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, councils and registered providers will still be able to operate voluntary pay-to-stay schemes for households earning over £60,000 if they wish to do so. That discretion is important and it remains, but there will be no mandatory national requirement. That approach will, as I have said, avoid disincentives for people to work or increase their earnings, and will support a more sensible system overall. I therefore ask that the new clause not be pressed, and I commend clause 18 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 19 will make a minor technical amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, section 320 of which sets out the parliamentary procedure that applies to regulations made under its provisions. Regulations made under sections 70, 72 and 126A are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that a draft of the regulations must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament before they can be made.
However, the provision governing the negative procedure currently excludes only regulations made under sections 70 and 72; it does not also refer to section 126A. Clause 19 corrects that inconsistency and ensures that all regulations that section 320 specifies as being subject to the affirmative procedure are properly excluded from the negative procedure. The clause does not confer any new powers or reduce the level of parliamentary scrutiny; it simply ensures that the existing statutory provisions operate clearly and consistently. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 21
Management of local authority housing by TMOs
“Schedule (Management of local authority housing by TMOs) makes provision about the management of local authority housing accommodation by tenant management organisations.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This would introduce NS1 which provides for a revised and expanded legislative regime about the management of council housing by tenant management organisations.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new schedule 1—Management of local authority housing by TMOs.
Government amendment 79.
Matthew Pennycook
The right to manage can be a powerful tool through which social housing residents can take greater control of the housing services that they receive, but it must operate within a clear, robust framework that protects residents and clarifies respective responsibilities. Taken together, these changes will update and strengthen the right to manage, making it easier for social housing tenants to exercise that right with confidence, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place.
These reforms have been informed by the findings of the review of the right to manage that was undertaken by the Government. Through the review, we heard clearly from stakeholders that the current right to manage framework has not kept pace with wider regulatory change. They highlighted the need for governance that is more proportionate and for greater clarity on roles, responsibilities and information sharing.
We also heard from landlords and residents that the current routes for intervention if things go wrong can be slow and cumbersome. Within schedule 1, proposed new sections 27AD to 27AF of the Housing Act 1985 will enable a more proportionate approach to governance requirements. They will put in place lighter-touch requirements where residents take on more limited services, and stronger requirements where tenant management organisations assume more complex functions, including building safety responsibilities.
Those provisions will also provide broader powers to strengthen the framework governing right to manage arrangements, helping to ensure that it keeps pace with wider regulatory requirements, including on the safety and decency of social homes and quality of services to tenants. These are enabling powers that will allow us to update the right to manage regulations and guidance to govern management agreements, ballots of residents, regular reviews and information sharing. The powers will come into effect on Royal Assent, but we will consult on the detail before introducing the new regulations and guidance.
Proposed new sections 27AG to 27AL will also require regular reviews of the management agreements, strengthen the requirements for residents to be balloted on continuation of TMO arrangements, and require better information sharing between TMOs and their landlords. They will also strengthen requirements on landlords to consult TMOs on policy changes affecting functions exercised under management agreements.
Proposed new sections 27AM to 27AQ will create a targeted court-backed route for intervention in exceptional cases, including removal of board members where there is serious mismanagement of a TMO or a risk to residents’ safety. That route will be subject to judicial oversight, with the court required to be satisfied that urgent intervention is appropriate. That will help to address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the ability of councils to act swiftly where serious failings are putting residents at risk.
We know that many TMOs work hard to deliver good-quality housing services that respond to local priorities and are supported by tenants who give up their own time to serve on committees. These reforms will make the right to manage easier to exercise, clearer to operate and safer for residents. They will support resident empowerment while ensuring that landlords have the tools they need to meet their regulatory requirements and safeguard residents.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Duty of private registered provider to offer accommodation after local authority request
“(1) After section 193C of the Housing Act 1996 insert—
‘193D Duty of private registered provider to offer accommodation after local authority request
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a local housing authority in England has a duty under section 193 to secure accommodation for an applicant, and
(b) the authority has made a written request to a private registered provider of social housing to provide low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district for the applicant.
(2) The provider must make an offer of low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district to the applicant within a reasonable period, unless the provider has a good reason not to.
(3) If the provider considers that there is a good reason not to make an offer of low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district, the provider must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give written notice of the reason to the local housing authority.
(4) In deciding whether to make a request under subsection (1)(b), the local housing authority must have regard to—
(a) the type and amount of low cost rental accommodation that the provider in question owns or manages in the authority’s district, and
(b) the extent to which the provider is already providing accommodation in the authority’s district to persons who are homeless.
(5) The local housing authority may by written notice require the provider to provide the information described in subsection (4)(a) or (b), unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
(6) A notice under subsection (5) may require the information to be provided—
(a) within a specified period;
(b) in a specified manner or form.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of subsection (2) as to what constitutes—
(a) a reasonable period;
(b) a good reason.
save-line2(8) “Low cost rental accommodation” has the same meaning as in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (see section 69)
(9) An offer made under this section is not an offer of accommodation under Part 6 (allocation of housing).’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Many councils and housing associations already work closely together to secure settled homes for people facing homelessness. We are committed to building on the many examples of good practice and collaboration that exist, but informal agreements between councils and other providers do not always work. Private registered providers are less likely than councils to offer accommodation to homeless households. New clause 22 will give local housing authorities an additional tool to help them to discharge the main homelessness duty.
Where a council owes a household the main homelessness duty, it will be able to ask a private registered provider with social housing in its area to offer social housing to that household. The provider must respond and offer suitable accommodation within a reasonable period unless it has good reason not to do so. We will consult councils, housing providers and other relevant providers before setting out in regulations what constitutes a reasonable period and a good reason, but, to give an example, a private registered provider would not be expected to offer accommodation if they do not have anything suitable available in a reasonable timeframe.
The power includes important safeguards. Before making a referral, the council must take account of the type and amount of accommodation that the provider has locally, and the extent to which it is already housing homeless households. That will ensure that referrals are fair and proportionate and that they reflect local circumstances. The approach builds on established practice in Scotland and delivers a commitment in our national plan to end homelessness. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 22 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Referral of homelessness cases to other local housing authorities
“(1) Section 198 of the Housing Act 1996 (referral of case) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4ZA) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify circumstances in which—
(a) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2ZA), or
(c) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (4),
are not met for the purposes of referral of a case by a local housing authority in England.’
(3) In subsection (7) after ‘order’, in the first two places it occurs, insert ‘or regulations’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying circumstances where a local housing authority in England cannot refer a person who is homeless to another local housing authority.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Duties of specified bodies to collaborate and act on homelessness.
Matthew Pennycook
New clauses 23 and 24 will strengthen homelessness prevention and ensure that support reaches those who need it most, as quickly as possible.
We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in our armed forces. They have given so much of their life in service to their country, and it is right that we support them to have a safe home on leaving active service. The number of former armed service personnel seeking homelessness support is thankfully relatively small, but the Government recognise that those who do so can face challenges, particularly if they seek to establish themselves in an area where they may have no existing local connections. The existing legislation permits a local housing authority to refer someone who is seeking housing support, but does not have any connections to their local area, to the area of another local housing authority where they do.
New clause 23 provides a power for the Secretary of State to define in regulations where that should not apply. We propose to use that power to exempt our armed forces veterans from local connection referrals. That means that there will be no barriers or delays to veterans receiving homelessness assistance. They will be able to seek support from anywhere in the country, and the local authority will be required to provide assistance. This builds on the action that we took last year to exempt veterans from any local connection test that councils might apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing.
Rachel Blake
I strongly welcome the move to remove the local connection test for armed forces veterans. It indicates this Government’s recognition that the local connection sometimes creates barriers for people to making their way off the streets, particularly when they are vulnerable. I welcome the Bill’s acknowledgment of the issue. I hope that there can be an ongoing conversation about the role of local connection tests, particularly regarding rough sleeping and how we support people to stop sleeping rough.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s support for this measure. I am more than happy to have an ongoing dialogue about the issue with her, as I do with so many others. It is absolutely right that we look to do everything possible to support our veterans.
I turn to new clause 24. We know that homelessness rarely occurs without warning. Yet too often, people come to the attention of local housing authorities only when they have already reached crisis point. Many of them will have been in contact with different public services long before, but opportunities to identify risk, co-ordinate support and intervene early are often missed. People often face homelessness despite engaging with services that are well placed to help prevent it. The new clause addresses this challenge by introducing new duties on specified bodies to identify and act on a person’s homelessness or risk of homelessness. This supports the Government’s commitment to prevent and relieve homelessness at the earliest possible stage.
The specified bodies will also be required to take meaningful action as part of the existing functions to address or relieve homelessness. The duty will replace and extend the existing duty to refer. It will mandate earlier engagement with local housing authorities, alongside notifying them if someone requires support. It also mandates continued engagement with the local authority to enable it to support an individual as effectively as possible, and will require specified bodies to consider other sources of support for the individual.
Preventing homelessness should not be the responsibility of a single organisation. People at risk of homelessness often have multiple and overlapping needs, including poor health, unemployment, financial hardship or involvement with the justice system. No single service can address these issues effectively alone.
Danny Beales
On the point about specific bodies, can the Minister clarify whether this provision would extend to hospital trusts and prisons within the criminal justice system? I am sure he knows that one of the most significant routes on to the street is from both of those public sector institutions. Unfortunately, hospitals rarely if ever count those who are likely to sleep rough on discharge or are currently doing so. Positively, the Government’s rough sleeping strategy is committed to ending discharge to street from hospitals, but getting that engagement from the NHS and trusts as well as the asylum system and prisons will be crucial to making that happen. Will this new clause be a step forward in that regard?
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s points. We will set out the specified bodies in due course. I hear what he says about hospital trusts in particular. I think engagement is to take place on the precise scope of the specified bodies that we want to be caught by the new duty. On the point of principle—these are broad enabling powers—effective prevention depends on earlier identification, co-ordinated action and shared responsibility across services.
Importantly, this is not about creating an entirely new system. Many services already undertake these activities to support homelessness prevention, whether by identifying vulnerabilities, signposting support, making referrals or working with partners to resolve housing issues. These new duties build on existing good practice and should drive a consistent national framework to support those who are most vulnerable.
The Government intend to define in secondary legislation the bodies within scope and the actions required to comply with the duty, but my officials and I have heard the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip makes.
Mr Dillon
The new clause refers to identifying the local housing authority to which the notification could be made. In additional legislation, is it possible that H could notify more than one local housing authority— if they had a local connection, say, in Liverpool and in Berkshire—to get them off the streets as soon as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Member will allow me, I will write to him on that specific point; I do not have an answer to hand. I am more than happy to set out how these provisions might work where multiple local authorities are involved. I take his point on that. ‘relevant steps section 213AC(3)’; ‘specified body section 213AB(2)’.”
As I say, we intend to define in secondary legislation the bodies within scope and the actions required to comply with the duty. This will allow us to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that implementation is proportionate and effective and that it reflects the differing functions of individual services. Ultimately, the new clause is about ensuring that services work together to identify risks earlier and intervene before people reach crisis point. By creating a more joined-up approach to homelessness prevention, we can help more people to remain in their homes, shift the system away from crisis response and deliver our ambition on homelessness and rough sleeping, as the Prime Minister has rightly outlined. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Duties of specified bodies to collaborate and act on homelessness
“(1) This section amends the Housing Act 1996.
(2) After section 213AA insert—
‘213AB Specified bodies must identify actual or possible homelessness
(1) A specified body must take reasonable steps to identify persons in England in relation to whom it exercises functions who it considers are or may be—
(a) homeless,
(b) threatened with homelessness, or
(c) otherwise at risk of becoming homeless.
(2) When a specified body becomes subject to that duty in relation to a particular person (taking into account any effect of regulations made under section 213AG(1)), the body must comply with the duty promptly.
213AC Specified bodies must act on actual or possible homelessness
(1) A specified body must comply with the duty to notify the local housing authority (see section 213AD) in relation to a person (H) if the body identifies H as a person who the body considers is or may be—
(a) homeless, or
(b) threatened with homelessness.
(2) But the specified body does not need to comply with the duty to notify if it is satisfied that—
(a) H has already made an application for assistance, and
(b) the application has not been disposed of.
(3) A specified body must comply with the general duty to act (see section 213AE) in relation to a person (H) if the body identifies H as a person who the body considers is or may be—
(a) homeless,
(b) threatened with homelessness, or
(c) otherwise at risk of becoming homeless.
(4) A “relevant step”, in relation to H, means a step to—
(a) prevent H becoming homeless,
(b) reduce the risk of H becoming homeless,
(c) relieve H’s homelessness, or
(d) alleviate the effects of H’s homelessness.
213AD The duty to notify the local housing authority
(1) The “duty to notify the local housing authority” in relation to H consists of the duties set out in this section.
(2) The specified body must ask H—
(a) whether H has made an application for assistance under this Part, and
(b) if so, to which local housing authority the application was made.
(3) If H has not made an application for assistance, the specified body must ask whether H agrees to the body notifying a local housing authority in England—
(a) that the body considers that H is or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, and
(b) how H may be contacted by the local housing authority.
(4) If H agrees to the specified body making the notification, the body must ask H—
(a) whether H consents to the body sharing with the authority such information as is necessary to make the notification (including information provided by H and information already held by the body), and
(b) to identify a local housing authority in England to which H would like the notification to be made.
(5) If H agrees to the specified body making the notification and consents to the body sharing the information that is necessary to make the notification, the body must notify the local housing authority in England to which H would like the notification to be made.
213AE The general duty to act
(1) The “general duty to act” in relation to H consists of the duties set out in this section.
(2) The specified body must—
(a) consider the question of what relevant steps could be taken by it or other persons, and
(b) raise that question with such persons as the body considers appropriate, who must include any other persons that could take relevant steps.
(3) After complying with subsection (2) the specified body—
(a) must take any relevant steps which it concludes it can take, and
(b) must provide to the persons with which it has raised that question reasonable assistance to assist or enable them to take relevant steps.
(4) This section does not affect any right of the specified body, whether by virtue of a contract, enactment or other law, to seek to obtain vacant possession of any accommodation.
(5) If a specified body must also comply with the duty to notify in relation to H, making the notification under section 213AD(5) does not satisfy the general duty to act in relation to H.
(6) A reference in this section to a relevant step—
(a) includes a relevant step that can be taken with the assistance of another person;
(b) in relation to a specified body, only includes a relevant step that the body can reasonably take in the exercise of its functions;
(c) in relation to a person who is not a specified body, only includes a relevant step that the person can reasonably take in the exercise of their functions or in carrying out their activities.
213AF Duty to engage with local housing authorities
(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England considers—
(a) that a person is or may be homeless, threatened with homelessness or otherwise at risk of becoming homeless, and
(b) that a specified body exercises functions in relation to that person.
(2) The local housing authority may ask the specified body to engage with them for the purpose of assisting the authority with the discharge of their functions under this Part in relation to that person.
(3) The specified body must engage with the local housing authority in such manner and to such extent as the body considers reasonable in the circumstances.
213AG Regulations and guidance
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how specified bodies can or must comply with—
(a) the duty to identify homelessness,
(b) the duty to notify the local housing authority,
(c) the general duty to act, or
(d) the duty to engage.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about the following matters—
(a) factors to be considered by a specified body when identifying whether a person is homeless, threatened by homelessness or otherwise at risk of becoming homeless;
(b) what information is necessary to make a notification to a local housing authority in England;
(c) what relevant steps by a specified body in the exercise of its functions are reasonable;
(d) the process to be followed by a specified body when identifying which persons it is appropriate to raise the question in section 213AE(2)(b) with.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to specified bodies in relation to any of the following duties—
(a) the duty to identify homelessness;
(b) the duty to notify the local housing authority;
(c) the general duty to act;
(d) the duty to engage.
(5) Specified bodies must have regard to guidance issued to them under subsection (4).
213AH “Specified bodies” and other interpretation
(1) In sections 213AB to 213AG and this section—
“duty to engage” means the duty imposed by section 213AF for specified bodies to engage with local housing authorities;
“duty to identify homelessness” means the duty imposed by section 213AB;
“duty to notify the local housing authority” has the meaning given in section 213AD;
“general duty to act” has the meaning given in section 213AE;
“H” has the meaning given in section 213AC;
“relevant step” has the meaning given in section 213AC;
“specified body” means a body or other person that is—
(a) specified in regulations, or
(b) of a description specified in regulations.
(2) Regulations made under this section may provide that a person is a specified body only in relation to a particular function exercised by that person.
(3) If a provision under subsection (2) specifies a particular function of a specified body, any reference in sections 213AB to 213AG to the functions of a specified body has effect in relation that body only as a reference to that particular function.
(4) In this section, “regulations’ means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’
(3) Omit section 213B (duty of public authority to refer cases in England to local housing authority).
(4) In section 218 (index of defined expression Part 7) insert in the table at the appropriate places—
—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This would amend the Housing Act 1996 to introduce a duty for specified bodies to identify and act on homelessness.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Laurence Turner.)
Thursday 29th October 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Cocking
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words; I have great respect for him too. He makes an interesting point, but it is a wider issue than that. It is about appropriate development in the right place, followed up by infrastructure.
I agree that brownfield sites are usually in the centre of towns. As I said on Second Reading, we are all fed up with driving past sites with all the hoarding up. The sites have planning permission: either they have gone through the planning committee, and the local council has said, “Yes, we will give permission based on these circumstances,” or unfortunately it has not, but permission has been won on appeal. It creates a certain feel in a town centre when someone goes down and sees all the hoarding up on the brownfield sites.
In the heart of my constituency, in Cheshunt, we have a care home waiting to be built. It is a long-overdue facility in the local community that we really want to see built, but it has been left empty for years and years, and we just see the hoarding up. It creates a real sense of loss of pride in a place when someone goes down to the town centre and sees site after site like that. We have sites in Hoddesdon that got planning permission in 2014 and have only just started moving through this process.
Lots of things affect house build-out rates, but this Government could do much more to give powers to local councils to get these brownfield sites off the ground, because there are thousands of sites across the country that have planning permission but remain unbuilt.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?
Lewis Cocking
I know that the Minister has a lot of expertise in this area. One example is that when standard planning permission is issued, a developer might get three years to build. As we have seen in my local area, that does not necessarily mean that something gets built; it just means that they have started on site. That could be digging a hole or building the first wall; nothing is actually produced at the end of it. I would like councils to have a “use it or lose it” power, which would mean that someone cannot necessarily finish building just because they have started digging on site.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?
Lewis Cocking
I think we have to explore all options. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. We all have brownfield sites in our constituency that we want used to meet the social housing targets and bring down waiting lists.
Unfortunately, the Bill talks about stopping the right to buy. I just want to put it on the record that if we do that, the people who bought those houses will still be in them. Those people, and the waiting lists, will not magically disappear if we get rid of the right to buy.
Patrick Spencer
We would not argue against that statement one bit. I am not trying to expunge social tenants from rural England. Suffolk is not just a load of farms and tractor driving; we have a lot of working-class towns. We need social housing, but we are talking about the future of social housing, the future of our economy and the future of our dynamism. We have always moaned jealously about the French, the Germans and the Americans for having dynamic economies with engines of prosperity outside the capital city, while we are stuck with a unimodal economy that is so rooted in London—it is crazy that I am making the Prime Minister’s arguments for him from the Opposition Benches, but anyway.
Surely this is an opportunity. If we are going to build 50,000 to 100,000 or 150,000 homes, and if we are going to tackle the 1.3 million people who are stuck on the waiting list for social houses, why do we not make sure that that is aligned with our responsibility for economic growth? We are all bored with hearing from experts, friends and family members about the lack of joined-up policymaking across Government. This Bill, which is not an inconsequential Bill but is one piece of a wide patchwork of legislation, is a good example of how we can align with a wider economic agenda that we can all get behind.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today.
Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp. Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so.
I turn to new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised. We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building.
In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic. A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.
Gideon Amos
We shall certainly be setting that out prior to going into government. The Minister makes an extensive argument that 150,000 is not the right target. Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that a minimum of 90,000 are needed per year. What is the Government’s target?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence.
In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove.
I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward.
On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so.
Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy.
On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.
The Chair
The hon. Member for Orpington has indicated that he wishes to press new clause 34 to a Division. For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with this arcane process, let me explain that although new clause 34 was grouped with new clause 1, the Division on it will happen later in our proceedings. It will not be forgotten.
New Clause 2
Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy
“Before section 121(A) of the Housing Act 1985 insert—
‘Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy
(1) A local housing authority in England may make a determination that the right to buy does not arise in relation to dwelling-houses in its area.
(2) A determination under subsection (1) may apply to—
(a) all dwelling-houses within the authority’s area, or
(b) dwelling-houses of a description specified in the determination.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed by a local housing authority in making a determination under this section.’”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers.
The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary. It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.
In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight.
In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Does he believe that the Regulator of Social Housing has enough powers to deal with the issues that he describes? That is just me, in a good spirit, asking a genuine question about how he thinks it is operating.
Matthew Pennycook
I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour.
Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed.
On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards.
The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Gideon Amos
I wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gideon Amos
The new clause stands in my name and in the name of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. The run-up to Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day is the appropriate time to consider and take account of the needs of service personnel and veterans under the Bill. About 3% of rough sleepers are veterans, according to the No Homeless Veterans campaign. Government research found that 2,180 veteran households were assessed as at risk of experiencing homelessness. One of the most significant reasons for that is post-traumatic stress disorder, which obviously affects many veterans, and one in three veterans are also disabled.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the provision of social housing for former members of the armed services. To anticipate the point that this is simply a review, surely no group can be more important to review the performance of social housing for than our veterans and those who have put their lives at risk for our country.
I shall speak now to new clause 12, which also stands in my name and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, rather than having to sit down and stand up again—a great tradition in this House. New clause 12 is on reviewing access to social housing for rehabilitated offenders. There has been a staggering 26% year-on-year increase in the number of households requiring homelessness support due to leaving care, custody or hospital.
When it comes to rehabilitated offenders, the last thing we want are offenders whose rehabilitation is not sustained or supported due to their having nowhere to live. One in 10 of those sleeping rough were recently discharged from an institution. That is a massive number. We need to do better by those who need that support. One in six prison leavers had no fixed abode on their first night in 2025-26. About 1,000 a month were released to rough sleeping in 2024-25, up about 40% in a year. I therefore respectfully submit both new clauses to the Committee for consideration.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively.
We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life. New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance.
Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households. Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year.
With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Gideon Amos
New clause 5 is not a burdensome amendment; it is a review of access to social housing for former service personnel. I hear what the Minister says about the Government keeping these matters under review, but surely a Social Housing Bill should commit to supporting our veterans and armed service community in this way. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the requirement for wheelchair-accessible social housing. Social tenants are worse served now than they were in terms of access to wheelchair- accessible housing. In 2022-23, a third of wheelchair users in the social sector were placed in homes that were neither accessible nor adapted, according to Age UK.
The planning system is also something of a postcode lottery. Only 170 out of 311 local plans set targets for wheelchair user homes. Nationally, one wheelchair-accessible home is planned per 538 people; the south-west plans one per 810 people; London plans one per 210 people; and the north-west plans one per 2,006 people. The NPPF does not require any M4(3), which relates to homes that are wheelchair-accessible under the building regulations. It leaves it to local plans to assess need, and we have already seen how this is something of a lottery.
London already has a 10% requirement in its local plan, which proves that 10% is achievable. The Minister may say that this is a matter for devolution, so that local communities rather than central Government can decide, and that councils are free to follow that example. However, we say that a minimum floor of 10% is reasonable, and it has been considered by a previous Government. We respectfully submit that 10% of new social housing should be wheelchair-accessible.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause.
The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need. In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas.
Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent. Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes.
In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance.
For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.
Gideon Amos
I hear what the Minister says, but we have had these expressions in guidance and policy before, and we are still a long way from having suitable provision for wheelchair-accessible homes. With the leave of the Committee, I will therefore press new clause 6 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents.
Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. 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 accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met.
The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold. Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.
Gideon Amos
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow. To clarify, the new clause proposes active cooling only where that temperature cannot be achieved otherwise. The priority of passive measures would continue with this new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate.
As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues.
The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027. It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit.
That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit.
The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.
Gideon Amos
On new clause 7, the cool rule, I appreciate that, as the Minister points out, there is no prohibition on active cooling being used in new homes, but the fact is that we need to secure cooling. We cannot just leave it so that only the most luxury accommodation has cooling in the extremely hot summers that we are having. Just as we have habitable standards for space, daylight and heating, we need a statutory standard for cooling. If it does not come today, I believe it will come, so I wish to press new clause 7 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we come to new clause 10, I remind Members that where a lead amendment is grouped with others, they do not need to seek permission to speak to those other amendments. Only the lead amendment is moved at that time, but Members may speak to any of the amendments grouped with it. If they are reached, and if a Division is required, that will take place later in the proceeding. I said it was arcane, and it is.
New Clause 10
No reduction in social housing secured through planning permissions or obligations
“(1) A local planning authority must not agree to any modification or discharge of—
(a) a planning obligation entered into under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or
(b) a condition attached to a planning permission,
where the effect of the modification or discharge would be to reduce the number or proportion of dwellings secured as social housing under that obligation or permission.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to any planning obligation or planning permission entered into or granted before, on, or after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end.
The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites. At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward.
We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units. It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states:
“Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.”
Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received.
The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House. As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for engaging on all these amendments, including this one. My question is whether he and the Government recognise that, as in the example I cited, most authorities in southern England cannot meet the five-year housing supply because of the standard method, and that, as a result, social and affordable housing is being removed from planning permissions. Are the Government concerned about that? Are they doing any assessment of how much this is happening?
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites.
I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment. Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward.
If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions.
Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73. Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing.
The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes. We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes.
However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling.
It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery.
I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate the Minister’s correct analysis that there is a balance to be struck with individual sites, and I accept that. There is a direct link between the standard method and the loss of social housing. The standard method, having been introduced, means that most local plans now cannot meet their five-year housing supply, which means that most of them are no longer effective.
Therefore, if a developer presents an inspector with a site that has both social housing and private housing, the inspector will be forced to conclude, on the section 73 application to amend the plan, that there is no longer an exception that justifies social housing, because all the sites have to come forward, and they all have to be market housing. That is the effect of imposing the standard method and rendering so many local plans no longer effective.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSocial Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to new clause 59, which, in a similar spirit to the official Opposition’s new clauses 36 and 54, asks that the Secretary of State carry out a review. My new clause asks that the review takes place 12 months after Royal Assent.
We come at this with a different aspiration: I feel the Opposition amendments have been tabled to catch the Government out, whereas we support the objectives of the Bill. However, although we support the changes to right to buy and the tightening of stock disposal, it is only right that the House be able to see, via a review by the Secretary of State within 12 months, whether those objectives have indeed been met or whether we need to legislate further to continue to protect social housing stock, on which we are in full agreement with the Government.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I will speak to new clauses 36, 54 and 59. Members of the Committee will have heard my opinion of the merits of Opposition amendments that seek further statutory reviews in general, so they can guess where I am heading with some of these.
Although we share the aim of ensuring that the impact of our reforms is properly understood, the Government do not believe that further statutory review requirements are necessary or proportionate. We have already published an economic impact assessment. We have arrangements in place to monitor the effects of the Act. The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million.
New clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants’ rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the Bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. More broadly, the Government already publish comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right-to-buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority-level data. We will continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing datasets and established statistical releases. We therefore do not think that new clause 59 is warranted.
On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with hon. Members about the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act’s effects. The Government’s priority is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. For those reasons, I am afraid we cannot accept new clauses 36, 54 and 59.
Gareth Bacon
I have listened carefully to the Minister. In the light of what he says, we will withdraw new clause 36. However, when the time comes, we will press new clause 54 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Provision of social housing: foreign public office holders and associated persons
“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance concerning the provision of social housing by foreign public office holders.
(2) A local housing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning applications for social housing made by foreign public office holders and associated persons including—
(a) persons holding senior public office in a foreign state; and
(b) spouses or civil partners of such persons;
(3) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision relating to—
(a) public office holders subject to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom;
(b) disclosure requirements; and
(c) verification of overseas assets.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any guidance issued under this section before Parliament.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require guidance relating to social housing eligibility for certain foreign public office holders and associated persons.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Every home that is illegally sublet is a home taken from a family who need it. With waiting lists as long as they are, that is nothing short of theft from the public. It is also unfair to the many tenants who play by the rules. We know that the problem exists, yet we have little idea of how well it is being tackled. How many prosecutions are brought? How many properties are actually recovered? What stops landlords and councils acting?
The new clause answers those questions. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. The Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to the new clause. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Tackling illegal subletting is an important element of that. We are clear that landlords should be taking action to clamp down on such unacceptable practices. I very much agree with the shadow Minister’s comments about how unacceptable they are; they are a misuse of social housing.
New clause 38 would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of enforcement activity relating to the illegal subletting of social housing. The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement.
As I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management that specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the stock management review will inform any future action; I can give the shadow Minister that assurance.
In addition, much of the information that the new clause seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value, while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers. The shadow Minister is a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, so I am again surprised that he is urging the Government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. In our view, they are not warranted; we think they would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery.
Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly, which may include taking legal action. The Government are already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes. Through the Cabinet Office’s national fraud initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered.
On 8 July, the Government also announced a new innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the PSFA within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for families who need them, not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the Government taking action on fraud. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Gareth Bacon
On balance, I will accede to the Minister’s request. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Standards relating to maintenance of social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance relating to standards for the maintenance of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).
(3) Guidance under this section must also include provision relating to—
(a) damp and mould,
(b) electrical safety,
(c) response times for repairs, and
(d) tenant complaints procedures.
(4) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Government to issue guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Dillon
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 61, which is a probing amendment. As the new clause outlines, a home and place standard would be a design and place-making framework for an organisation to enable the measurement of housing quality, to guide strategic investment and to shape resident wellbeing. The core pillars of such a standard should focus on customers, on homes and on the place. It should also make sure that social housing providers are part of a sustainable future.
Although it may not be appropriate to mandate in the Bill a standard on to private registered providers, I would be keen to hear from the Minister how his Department is shaping the future standards for the sector and encouraging those PRPs to go further: to think beyond just their bricks and mortar, and about where their homes are situated, about the role they play on an estate, about the role that they can play in a town, about encouraging sustainable transport into new developments and about having a holistic approach to what makes social housing so important and making it even more successful.
Matthew Pennycook
I will begin by speaking to new clause 39. I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments on standards and decency. It is reassuring to know that his deregulatory zeal does not extend to Awaab’s law, the decent homes standard or minimum energy efficiency standards.
As well as delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, we are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Maintenance is a critical part of that. We have set out the standards required for social housing through the decent homes standard. In the coming months, we will provide more detailed guidance on how landlords can meet that standard. We have also published electrical safety guidance that sets out rights and responsibilities for landlords, local authorities and tenants.
On complaints, social landlords are already subject to the Housing Ombudsman’s statutory complaint handling code. We are working closely with the ombudsman to ensure that it has the resources and capacity to meet increased demand and support better complaint handling by landlords. We have also introduced Awaab’s law, with its clear time-bound requirements on social landlords to investigate hazards and take action. Ahead of phase 2 of that law coming into force on 30 November, we have published updated guidance to support landlords to comply with its requirements.
Awaab’s law promotes a person-centred approach, putting the need to make individuals safe at the heart of legislation. Again, I commend the Opposition, because it was a Conservative Act of Parliament that provided the powers to introduce Awaab’s law into the social rented sector. However, in our view it would not be appropriate for the Government to tell landlords how to put individuals at the heart of the legislation, as the solutions will vary depending on individual circumstances. For that reason, we do not believe that the additional guidance called for in the new clause is necessary.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. What provision is he putting in place to replicate those arrangements where there is no mayoral authority?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.
New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.
All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.
I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Minister for his lengthy answer. I will accede to his wishes and will not press my new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 40
Fixed-term tenancies for social housing
“Nothing in this Act prevents a local housing authority or registered provider from granting a fixed-term tenancy for social housing in accordance with existing enactments.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The most recent data available to us shows that the waiting list for social housing stands at a shocking and shameful 1.34 million people. However, that data, which comes from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publication from March 2025, is now well out of date. To understand one of the fundamental problems that we are here to rectify, which is how to get people off the streets, out of temporary accommodation and into social housing, we must understand the full scale of the issue before us.
My new clause 52 would therefore require housing register applications to be reviewed at least every three years to ensure that the waiting list remains accurate and up to date. Without that, it is impossible for resources to be properly distributed, stock to be efficiently allocated and decisions to be made promptly. Efficiency means more than people getting a roof over their head and a place to call home. That is why I believe the proposals in my new clause would make essential and much-needed changes to the system.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to this new clause. I am enjoying the irony of a shadow Minister who bemoans this Government’s, in his words, zealous overcentralisation and penchant for regulation, but who proposes a new clause that would impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to review their housing register at least once every three years—a new duty that would create additional administrative burdens—without any evidence that it would improve allocation decisions.
Local authorities take different approaches to managing their housing register. It is right that they have the flexibility to do what works best for their own local area. In addition, councils already reassess housing need both before a household joins a waiting list and again before allocating a social home, and thereby ensure that social homes go to those most in need.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As members of the Committee know, I worked in social housing for 14 years before entering this place. One of the more challenging elements of my role was ensuring the safety of our residents, particularly with annual gas safety checks. We had to make three attempts to carry out the check before going to court and seeking an injunction to access the property, not only resulting in legal costs for the social provider, but extending the time that a tenant was residing in a property without the boiler having its approved checks done. The same problem can also extend to five-year electrical safety checks. Only yesterday, I hosted a roundtable with the British Pest Control Association, where we spoke about how delays to access in such instances are causing further damage through pest infestation. Bedbugs, for example, often move within a block of flats, so quick access to all dwellings in that instance is key to stopping the spread and its impact.
The new clause has come from experience of working in the sector. I have never known a judge not to grant an injunction when a social landlord has been able to prove that it has made those three attempts. Although article 8 and the right to a private life may come up, that is of course a qualified right. As long as the access is in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate, or pursuing a legitimate aim, article 8 considerations can be laid aside.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for tabling and speaking to the new clause. It raises an important issue that we recognise has been an area of growing concern, and on which there were some particularly considered and constructive debates in the other place; I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his engagement. Those debates reinforced the incredible complexity of the issue, which involves the interaction of the fundamental rights of tenants, the legal duties placed on landlords and the safety of both residents and their neighbours.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, since those debates in the other place, the Government have been undertaking an intensive process of engagement and policy development to examine the issue. In that respect, we are grateful for the input and expertise that we have received from a range of residents’ groups, landlords, representative bodies and charities. That engagement has put it beyond doubt that this is an issue that must be resolved. However, it also made it clear that we cannot act in haste and risk creating new systemic problems, and there are a range of challenges that arise from various options in this area.
For that reason, the Government cannot support new clause 60, but we will shortly bring forward a consultation that will examine the issue in the round to get at some of those challenges and find out what the potential solutions might be. It will also look at the design and the necessary safeguards for any new law in this space. To support the sector with practical advice, we will bring forward plans to develop best practice guidance on access procedures.
I absolutely understand and recognise the expertise of the hon. Member for Newbury in this area. He raises a valid point, but for the reasons I have given, I hope he will withdraw his new clause.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his Department’s understanding of the wider impact. I welcome the consultation being launched. I agree that the balance between a landlord’s rights and a tenant’s rights needs a lot of thought. When I was drafting new clause 60, I did not include pests as a hazard; I appreciate that that should have been included as well. I look forward to seeing the Government’s progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 62
Ability of tenants to request an electric vehicle charging point
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to enable tenants to request and install a domestic Electric Vehicle Charger.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) made under this subsection must include—
(a) the grounds on which a request can be declined including—
(i) electrical standards,
(ii) planning requirements, and
(iii) cost; and
(b) a requirement for social housing providers to respond to the request within one month.
(3) 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.”—(Mr Dillon.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Dillon
These are simple new clauses and we hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will support them. In effect, new clause 62 would allow social tenants the opportunity to have an electric charging point on existing stock, and new clause 63 seeks the same for new builds.
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to improving access to convenient home charging for tenants, including in social housing. However, we do not believe that new clause 62 is the right way to achieve that objective.
Tenants can face hurdles in getting landlord or freeholder approval, sometimes without a clear reason; that is not in dispute. The Department for Transport is already consulting on an ability to charge for tenants and leaseholders. That consultation, published on 21 October, considers both legislation and non-statutory guidance to give residents clearer routes to request permission for a charge point. It also seeks views on setting clearer expectations for landlords and freeholders when responding to those requests, including in social housing.
New clause 62 would pre-empt that consultation by introducing requirements before the Government have considered any evidence or fully assessed the impacts. In our view, that risks introducing grounds for refusal, which could be inappropriate and have the unintended consequence of deeming certain scenarios unreasonable when they are not, limiting access to home charging for tenants rather than making it more accessible. We want to ensure that any intervention is workable for tenants, while also taking proper account of the legitimate responsibilities and constraints on landlords and freeholders.
New clause 62 would risk creating an inconsistent approach between different property types, which could cause confusion for housing providers and leave other tenants without the same protections. Support with installation costs is already available, with existing Government grants providing up to £500 towards the cost of installing an eligible charge point.
New clause 63 seeks to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newbury about the importance of ensuring that new homes are equipped for the transition to electric vehicles. In schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, part S, which was introduced in 2021, already requires charging infrastructure in new residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations in England, including in social housing developments. In our view, the new clause is therefore not required. The Government are also currently considering whether those requirements should be strengthened via the DFT consultation.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
On new clause 63, does the Minister agree that, before we worry about electric vehicle charging points, the new developments must have enough parking spaces? As it is, I suspect that hon. Members’ postbags are full due to new developments coming forward without enough parking spaces, even before electric vehicle charging points are put in as well.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to opine on a completely different issue. The hon. Member for Newbury may correct me, but car parking spaces are not in the scope of his new clauses. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is more than welcome to write to me with specific concerns about local authority action in that area.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw new clause 62 and will not press new clause 63.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to speak again—no day would be complete without a sitting of this Committee. New clause 66 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). In proposing the new clause, she said:
“There are hundreds of thousands of empty homes across England and Wales, while many families wait years for a social home or remain in temporary accommodation.
My amendment would require the Government to carry out a review of how empty homes could be used as social housing. It would assess how many properties could be brought into use, the potential benefits of a dedicated scheme and the barriers that would need to be addressed.
Bringing empty homes back into use can be a faster and more cost-effective way of increasing social housing supply, while also helping to regenerate local communities. This review would give the Government the evidence it needs to act and I hope it will receive support from across the House.”
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I particularly draw attention to the regeneration benefits of bringing empty homes back into use, which are significant. As hon. Members know, many of our town centres have too many empty buildings, and there is a real bottleneck in the procedure for getting them back into use.
The late Liberal Democrat Housing Minister Andrew Stunell started the last significant empty homes programme that any Government have introduced. Begun in 2010, it brought 120,000 empty homes back into use; that is 10 times the number of social homes created last year and a significant contribution to meeting the need for housing.
When the Conservatives took over in 2015, that programme was abandoned—its funding was ended. The number of empty homes is now on the increase again. As a result of the programme, it fell to a record low, from 315,000 to 203,000. However, it has gone up again under subsequent Governments. By October 2026, it had risen to 303,000, almost back to its 2010 level, up 14% on 2024 and 50% higher than in 2015 when the programme ended.
The programme brought units into use for affordable rent, low-cost home ownership and social rent. It therefore made a significant contribution to not just housing but social housing. Its grant was around £22,000 per dwelling—significantly less than the average subsidy for creating new social housing. It was therefore a very important factor.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in the country. We need a programme to bring them back into use. That is the missing link in the Government’s housing policy. A Liberal Democrat Government would bring in an empty homes programme forthwith. We commend the new clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for speaking to new clause 66, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He rightly pointed out that there are currently more than 300,000 homes that have been empty for six months or more. The Government absolutely want to see more empty homes brought back into use across the country, but we do not believe that a national review or a national empty homes strategy supported by a new ringfenced fund is the right approach.
The scale and causes of empty homes vary considerably between places, as do local housing pressures and the interventions that will be most effective. Therefore, we believe that local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities are best placed to understand those circumstances and determine the right approach for their areas. Local authorities can already access funding to bring homes back into use, including through the social and affordable homes programme, the local authority housing fund and the long-term rough sleeping innovation programme. Loan funding is also available through the Public Works Loan Board to support the acquisition of empty homes.
We are also strengthening local authorities’ powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders, removing evidential requirements and reducing the period that a property must be empty before it is eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months.
Mr Dillon
The Minister has outlined a number of funding packages and processes that are already set up to tackle empty homes. Can he say how well they are working, and whether the Government need to go further? A national strategy, with a regional breakdown or local levers within it, could help tackle the problem.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question. I commit to give him, in writing, a sense of the local and regional breakdown of the use of EDMOs and these powers. Funding is available, but the point I am making is that although funding can be a barrier, it is only one part of the solution. Local authorities have a range of powers and incentives available to tackle empty homes. We want to continue empowering them to use those, but we think it is right that they retain the flexibility to respond to particular local priorities.
Although the Government agree with the sentiment behind the new clauses, we do not believe that this Bill is the best route forward. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing new clause 66.
Gareth Bacon
Amendments 80 and 81 are about transparency and accountability. We believe that the Bill is unsuitable for its own stated purpose of making provision for social housing. Already on Second Reading, and here in Committee, we have seen an unwillingness from the Government to reshape the Bill into something that not only is fit for purpose but actually delivers provisions to benefit social housing tenants. If they cannot be trusted to deliver for tenants over the full process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would be unwise to let the Secretary of State alone make further changes to the system without the same level of oversight.
Let us be clear: clause 20, page 16, line 10 —subsection (2)—is a Henry VIII clause. It allows the Bill, after all the debate, analysis and scrutiny here and in the other place, to be selectively amended at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. It has been clear to date that the Government are misguided in their approach to reforming the social housing sector, so it would be unwise to let further reforms go unchecked in the future. That is why I have tabled amendment 80, which would ensure that Ministers cannot just use regulations to amend or repeal existing Acts.
On amendment 81, the Government have done their best to centralise power and avoid scrutiny throughout the last two years. The demolition of local democracy by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the cancellation of elections and now the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are just a few examples from this Department alone. It is critical that such power grabs do not go unchecked, and that is why I have tabled amendment 81, which would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 20.
I recognise that it is sometimes necessary to tackle less consequential points or issues in need of immediate response through secondary legislation, but that does not mean that Ministers have an excuse to avoid the watchful eye of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that all hon. Members will support amendments 80 and 81.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister made clear, amendments 80 and 81 concern the power in clause 20 to make consequential provision and the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should apply. I recognise that they seek to ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny, but as we have already discussed during our proceedings, the Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
Amendment 80 would prevent consequential regulations from amending or repealing primary legislation. That could mean that any consequential changes identified following Royal Assent would require additional primary legislation. That would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time and could delay implementation. The power is expressly limited to provisions that are consequential to the Act. It cannot be used to pursue new policy objectives, whether related or not, to the legislation approved by Parliament in the Bill. Any regulations made beyond what is consequential on the Bill’s provisions would be open to legal challenges, as well as parliamentary scrutiny. Importantly, clause 20 already provides additional scrutiny where this power is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, with such regulations requiring the approval of both Houses.
Amendment 81 would go further by requiring all consequential regulations to be approved by both Houses. We do not consider that to be proportionate. Where regulations do not amend or repeal primary legislation, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny for more technical, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. The power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act and is intended to ensure its effective implementation and the maintenance of a coherent legislative framework. I therefore consider that clause 20 provides the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while avoiding unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. On that basic, I hope I have sufficiently reassured the shadow Minister, and I ask that he does not press amendments 80 and 81.
Matthew Pennycook
May I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Vickers, and the other Chairs of the Committee? I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings, and my officials and private office for all their support in bringing forward this piece of legislation. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for their valuable insights.
I have had a spirited and constructive dialogue with the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I accept fully that there are principled points of disagreement, but I have valued their challenges and contributions. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.
Gareth Bacon
I echo the Minister’s sentiments. Obviously, on a subject like this, there will be disagreements across the House, but they have been largely respectful and, at times, quite good-humoured. I thank the Minister, his officials, my hon. Friends from the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and all hon. Members on the Committee. I look forward to seeing you all on Report.