Social Housing Bill [HL]

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

67: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

--- Later in debate ---

Social housing did not create migration pressures and it cannot resolve them. What it can do, if properly supported, is provide secure homes to people, based on clear, fair and locally determined criteria. The Liberal Democrats believe in fairness, compassion and evidence-based policy. We believe that housing should bring communities together and should not be used to divide them. We also believe that politicians have a duty to show leadership in this regard and not abrogate responsibility for the consequences these issues provoke. It will be no surprise that we oppose these amendments.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

122: Clause 19, page 14, line 6, at end insert—
“(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.