House of Lords
EU Security Action for Europe Programme
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent steps they have taken to explore the UK’s participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe programme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government entered SAFE negotiations in good faith, but will only enter into agreements that are in the national interest. While no SAFE agreement was reached, we remain committed to EU co-operation under “NATO first”, whether through SAFE or other initiatives. It makes sense for Europe to work more closely together. In this context, we welcome the UK’s participation in the EU’s €90 billion Ukraine support loan, announced last week.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also very much welcome that announcement and I agree that the price tag from the EU was totally unreasonable on the first round. The fact that the defence sector in Europe is divided is an indication of weakness in the West and a gift to Putin. Will the Minister and the Government renew their efforts to find a sensible solution to joining SAFE? If the Canadians can, surely the United Kingdom can.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, we remain committed to co-operating where it is in the national interest to do so, as I said. The noble Lord is right to point out that it is in all our interests for Europe to co-operate on industry and defence to generate the interoperability that we need to cope with any threat from Russia. That takes place within the overall umbrella of NATO. As he and all noble Lords know, the defence industry is a vital component of any means by which we deter any adversary; for them to believe that we can arm and supply the troops we put on the front line is crucial.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, in this week of the Farnborough air show, and following the excellent Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference last week, which I attended, does the Minister agree that these opportunities for us to bring together our European counterparts and, importantly, European industries are significant events in our annual calendar?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Alongside our failure to get an agreement on the SAFE project, as the noble Lord, Lord Teveson, highlighted through his Question, there are numerous initiatives taking place and numerous things happening. My noble friend is right to point out the Farnborough air show, which brings together industry from across Europe and across the globe. It is at those sorts of events where industry can co-operate to provide the equipment and resources that we need to deter any threat. You can see initiative after initiative, and I may get the opportunity to lay them out further on this Question, where we and other European countries have come together to establish defence agreements which take forward all our defence needs.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on not accepting totally unacceptable terms on the first idea from the EU. Can the Minister confirm that our defence contractors can look forward to a very big increase in orders for our own defence requirements, so we do not need to pay a lot of money to get contracts elsewhere?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course we want the growth of our own industry, and we want it to have the means to support our UK Armed Forces; that is really important. But our industry and our defence also need exports, so I do not see this as one versus the other. Growing our own industries is important to supply our own Armed Forces, but working with partners to develop exports helps collective defence, and we should pursue that as well.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, the word “weaponisation” is in common usage. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to weaponise the defence industry of the whole continent of Europe to meet the scale of the challenges that we need to be ready to deter? Forcing us apart is not the way to do it. Whether through the SAFE initiative or one of the other initiatives that the Minister mentioned, it is now time to get the supply chains of Europe together on a sound financial footing, involving all parts of a weaponised financial system, which would give us an advantage. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord. It was best illustrated when, soon after the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, I read in a newspaper that Ukraine had had to retreat: not because it did not have the soldiers or desire to fight but because it did not have the weapons to fight with. That cannot be a situation we allow our allies or ourselves to be in in the future. The ability to keep your own forces and those of your allies supplied is absolutely crucial to any conflict. As the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, preparing for war is one sure way of preventing war.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that he might have an opportunity to talk a bit more about bilateral and other relations. When this Government took office barely two years ago, a lot of preparatory work had been done, for example between John Healey and Boris Pistorius on a British-German relationship on defence. Can the Minister confirm that the sort of work that has been going on for the last two years to strengthen bilateral defence relations will continue and that a change of Prime Minister and other personnel is not going to impede the effective work that is being done?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I can confirm that. Clearly, it is in all our interests that, alongside the collective agreements we seek, we also seek individual agreements, as the noble Baroness pointed out. She will already know of our agreement on frigate building with Norway, the recent announcement with the Netherlands on amphibious ships, the typhoon arrangement with Türkiye, the individual arrangements with Germany and France, and there are many others. The bilateral relationships that we have with other countries, and the bilateral agreements to rebuild our industries, are crucial to building the defence industrial base we need.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our new Prime Minister: he was a good MP for Leigh and Mayor of Manchester. In the interest of our country, I wish him every success. Last week, I met with military chiefs at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and they told me of their profound concerns about the outgoing Prime Minister’s defence investment plan, which led to the resignation of his Defence Secretary and Minister for Veterans. Will the new Prime Minister reopen the defence investment plan, in order to fund our defence properly? Will he also have the good sense to keep the Minister in his place?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, I agree with the beginning and end of the noble Lord’s question. As he knows, we have had debate and discussion about the defence investment plan, and we will continue to do so. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about the importance of defence and the noble Lord will know that, as it stands, we have a defence investment programme and a commitment to raise the £4.7 billion in the 2026 Budget. He will also know that defence and security will be the number one priority of the 2027 spending review. It is then that further discussions will no doubt take place about how we move forward with the defence investment plan we currently have.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that discussions are still going on with Germany about its involvement in the global combat aircraft work?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to my noble friend Lord West that there are discussions with a wide range of people. The confirmation of the GCAP within the DIP was a hugely significant event and a number of discussions are ongoing at the present time with a small number of different countries on how that develops and is taken forward. That is all I wish to say at the present time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is one case and one sector where the postponement of the EU-UK meeting from this month to the autumn provides an opportunity, and that there is a great necessity to ensure there is a defence element in anything that is agreed in the autumn?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with that. The defence and security partnership signed in May 2025 between the EU and the UK was a significant step forward. There will be a further summit, as and when it is arranged. For obvious reasons, it had to be postponed, but, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is a significant event, and we will continue to pursue that.
EU Technological Sovereignty Package
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the EU’s technological sovereignty package; and what plans they have to introduce equivalent instruments to protect and promote the UK’s artificial intelligence capabilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
We have undertaken an initial assessment and are working through a detailed assessment of the EU’s technological sovereignty package. This includes proposals on CADA and chips. Our current assessment is that the package presents both opportunities and risks to UK industry. We will continue to engage with industry and European partners as proposals evolve. For the UK, AI sovereignty means reducing overdependencies, strengthening resilience and backing British capability, including through the £1.1 billion AI hardware plan and our sovereign AI fund.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. The EU’s Cloud and AI Development Act will set out a framework with sovereignty criteria for public sector procurement. The Government’s AI hardware plan, mentioned by the Minister, is welcome, but it contains no equivalent procurement-linked sovereignty framework. Given that the Government’s public procurement overwhelmingly relies on US hyperscalers, can the Minister commit to introducing a UK AI sovereignty assurance framework to ensure that public sector services and critical national infrastructure are nationally resilient?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government have already set out their intention to use public sector buying power more strategically. The January 2025 blueprint for modern digital government noted that public sector organisations often contract locally and individually, limiting the impact of the £26 billion of annual technology spend, and committed to continue working on whole of public sector agreements. We are also developing the national cloud infrastructure programme, a strategic initiative to co-ordinate how the public sector buys cloud services. This programme will use the collective buying power of the whole of the public sector to secure better value for taxpayers, strengthen digital resilience and create new opportunities for British businesses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the rising pre-eminence of China in AI, with several world-class developers now there and the rapid adoption of its low-cost models across, for example, emerging economies?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Developments in AI are incredible in many respects. That only reinforces our belief that we need to invest in the UK, not just in digital infrastructure and hardware—for example, supporting UK businesses that have unique chip capabilities—but in upskilling people in the UK to adopt AI, so that we as a country can benefit from the productivity gains and that small and large businesses can adopt AI safely and securely.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome that AI growth zones have been designated across the UK, although not in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is disappointing. If His Majesty’s Government are looking at backing British capability, surely there should be resilience in Northern Ireland as well.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Northern Ireland is an incredibly important region for us. It has, as the noble Baroness knows, very high levels of digital connectivity, which puts it in a great place. I know that it also benefits from a thriving and growing cyber security sector and is thus able to tap into many of the adjacent industries that are part of the AI economy as it grows. We are backing cyber businesses in Northern Ireland and supporting them to export and scale.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the EU’s tech sovereignty package recognises the importance of procurement in developing a wider sovereign technological regime. Yet, here in the UK, we are increasingly seeing extensive use of lock-in deals across Defence, Health, the Treasury and so on. Can the Minister say what actions the Government will take to prevent tech dependency when they offer public contracts to foreign-based firms to ensure that the UK retains the ultimate say over its policies across all departments?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness highlights the importance of having clear guidance and a clear framework for the public sector as it makes various procurements. That is why, for example, we have published the Cloud Challenge Book 2026, which helps to identify how the public sector can strengthen resilience, improve competition and reduce unnecessary dependency on individual suppliers. That is part of our approach to cloud procurement for the whole of the public sector.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, technological sovereignty is not simply about developing domestic capabilities but about the values that guide their development. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to embed accountability, transparency and public oversight in technological development?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Investments that are backed by, for example, the sovereign AI fund must of course abide by UK laws, including copyright laws. However, this also goes to the point about AI technology in terms of discerning values and the understanding of everybody, from children to workers to older populations, about how to safely adopt AI. The assurance market in AI is something that we are backing very strongly, so that people have real clarity about the underlying credentials of the AI that they use.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has experienced a few PM changes myself, I genuinely wish all the Ministers good luck and thank them for the work that they have done—I know how hard it is. Technological sovereignty ultimately depends not on where AI is regulated but on who owns the compute cloud infrastructure and frontier models. What proportion of government AI investment is building genuine UK-owned capability, rather than further increasing our dependence on overseas hyperscale cloud providers?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government are taking the approach of reducing overreliance and building up our own capability. We welcome foreign investment, including in our AI growth zones, and the ability of UK companies and citizens to access the best technology available, whether it is in the UK or elsewhere. That is an important part of our being able to benefit from the developments in AI. However, I absolutely agree that AI compute is the engine behind every AI breakthrough. That is why we are investing up to £2 billion in public compute infrastructure to 2030, so that researchers, start-ups, SMEs and public services can have free access to the computing power they need to work at the frontier of AI.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s AI Security Institute does evaluate frontier models, but it lacks pre-market enforcement powers to block software releases. Pre-market enforcement would force developers to proactively prove that their models meet rigorous safety standards, such as we have for aviation, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Are the Government open to setting a global standard for AI by backing upfront, rigorous safety evaluations?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The AI Security Institute is one of the pre-eminent institutions in the UK in AI development and the transformations we are seeing. It works very closely with other AI security institutes. I think it was only two weeks back that it was meeting other similar institutions, developing common standards and approaches to assessment, which is one of the important ways that we keep a baseline across the globe for how we should appraise frontier models as they are developed.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, when the Government support a UK sovereign AI fund, will UK government investment be focused on models trained only on properly sourced and remunerated material?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The AI sovereign fund invests in companies based in the UK. They must adhere to UK law, including UK copyright law, for those investments made in the UK.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question from my noble friend Lord Markham, will the new EU CADA rules block out UK-based infrastructure and cloud service providers?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are assessing and having detailed discussions with EU counterparts about exactly the implications of EU CADA for UK businesses. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we continue to engage very closely because there are some risks to UK businesses, but our strong view is that the EU is stronger with the UK as a partner in these technological developments.
People with Learning Disabilities: Acute Illness
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendations in the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death report Acute illness in people with a learning disability, published on 11 June; and whether they intend to ensure those recommendations are implemented by NHS Trusts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death’s report and its recommendations. NHS England has circulated learning from the report across the health and care system for regional teams to share it with integrated care boards. NHS accountability arrangements are in place, and immediate improvement actions are under way, including the reasonable adjustment digital flag. The Government are committed to high-quality care for people with a learning disability.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, enough is enough. Currently, with everything in place, people living with a learning disability still die on average 20 years earlier than their non-learning disabled peers. The key missing part of the jigsaw is a statutory independent review of every such death, legally compelling NHS trusts and other providers to implement the improvements identified. Why are this Government content to rely on the toothless, non-statutory reviews that have changed nearly nothing, and allow this 20-year life expectancy gap to continue?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly accept the point, and I am not quibbling about the number, because 19 years, which is where we are now, is totally unacceptable. In addition, there is the high percentage of avoidable deaths, which I know the noble Lord is very alive to. While I share the view that this is unacceptable, I would not put it all down to reports. I can say that there are strong expectations of ICBs. As I have mentioned, they are kept to account, and we are continually ensuring that the death of every autistic person and those with a learning disability that is notified is reviewed. The new national-level patient dataset will certainly provide what I would call a single point of truth, which has not been there in the past.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the report highlights that, for almost two-thirds of these patients, there was no assessment of mental capacity. However, when people are ill and frightened, mental capacity is incredibly important for being able to communicate with people, to make a diagnosis and to monitor a response to treatment. Without communication, of course the outcomes are worse than they might otherwise be. How will the Government improve the assessment of mental capacity across the board and implement the recommendations in the report?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Guidance was issued not many months ago on this point, and I expect to see improvements. The report found that well under 50% of patients or their carers were asked about reasonable adjustments. It is not acceptable, but that is why we have brought in the mental capacity assessment guidance and the reasonable adjustment digital flag. These will make a major difference.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, in her Answer, the Minister mentioned accountability. Given that the report demonstrated that the gaps are very significant, with something like 50% of hospitals not even being able to record a patient’s learning disability on their digital record, what are the Government doing to track progress on hitting these recommendations, and what are the accountability measures? If trusts do not deliver this quickly, who gets fired?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There are financial sanctions for providers that could be brought into play. On accountability, delivery is monitored through NHS governance and assurance processes. This includes the NHS operating framework, annual assessment of ICB performance, regional oversight and review of local delivery plans.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the tragedy is that Lord Rix many years ago pointed out the same problems and no progress has been made. My noble friend is putting faith in ICBs, but she knows that their resources will be reduced in terms of headcount. Going back to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, does she not think that accountability needs to be placed with NHS trusts? They need to be required to establish specialist teams, which we know lead to better outcomes, and have a response in relation to communications. Should we not be putting responsibility where it actually lies, rather than relying on ICBs to commission this?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have to vary a bit on that point from my noble friend, who I know brings a tremendous interest to this area. It is right that local services are locally provided, but I do not accept the analysis that this is handing it over to an unaccountable local provision. I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, the specifics of accountability. All the actions that are identified in the inquiry’s report will make major progress. I assure my noble friend that we will keep this continually under review. I am sure that there are always improvements that we can make, and we are committed to doing so.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, specialist training in the care of people with a learning disability is critical to reducing avoidable mortality. Will the Government fund dedicated senior clinician roles in learning disability medicine across community, acute and mental health settings to provide the leadership that is necessary to improve healthcare outcomes for this population?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There are a number of aspects to that area. We have greatly increased the mandatory training requirement and the numbers who have been trained. The noble Baroness also points to the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. We have seen an increase in nursing staff in that regard. It is a matter for the local provider to decide, but the workforce plan, which we will be seeing soon, will be very helpful in this regard.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the report identifies significant variation in the recognition and treatment of acute illness among people with learning disabilities. The Minister talked about guidance, but could she be more specific? What specific help does her department aim to give to those areas, trusts or ICBs deemed to be underperforming? Given the new Prime Minister’s pledge on further devolution, how will the department resolve that tension between local decision-making and central government intervention, especially in underperforming areas?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is the reason for the accountability measures that I have outlined. I should add that transparency is absolutely key to that. The guidance that we have issued about supporting the identification of people with learning disability is important; we are at that basic level. That is where we have started, but it will push this forward. Further to my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the guidance for acute hospital staff, for example, included standardised mental capacity assessment forms; they were not in place previously. Each ICB is required, via statutory guidance, to have an executive lead on learning disability and autism.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, every question that has been asked has shown that the system is failing: people are still dying. The key point is that the accountability mechanism is missing or is too diluted to work. Why do the Government allow this system, which kills people early, to continue? What has the Minister not heard in this debate that assures her that the system is working and that it will somehow change for the better? Evidence and history tell us that the system is broken.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hope that I have already agreed with the noble Lord and others about the progress that needs to be made in this area. I have certainly not said that it is acceptable—it is far from acceptable—and the questions have been very helpful in identifying that. The learning disability improvement standards support NHS trusts to measure the quality of care that they provide. All the areas that I have suggested and more are taking us forward. I gave the commitment —and I mean it—to keep these things under review and to seek to improve wherever we can. We look forward to working with the noble Lord in doing so.
Music Teachers: Recruitment
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Keeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they are taking to recruit more music teachers to bridge the gap caused by missed recruitment targets in past years.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, alongside improved teacher retention, 369 music teacher trainees started training last year—a 55% increase compared to academic year 2023-24. Music teachers are a key part of our pledge for 6,500 additional teachers and we are making good progress, with over 70% of that target achieved. We recently announced a new pay award, including for music teachers, and accepted the recommendations of the independent body, meaning that schoolteachers will see a 17% increase in pay since this Government took office.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, under Conservative-led Governments, the EBacc and Progress 8 worked to squeeze music out of the curriculum. Recruitment targets for music teacher training were missed for 11 out of 12 years. In fact, the number of music teachers fell by 850 between 2011 and 2023. I am sure that the Labour Government’s reforms will strengthen provision, but the music curriculum is also constrained by music teacher workforce supply, which is fundamentally a question of unequal opportunity to choose music as a subject. Will my noble friend the Minister look again at teacher training incentives, such as the bursary, and at re-establishing ambitious recruitment targets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We look at the subjects to be covered by the bursary on the basis of need and difficulty in recruitment. Given the encouraging improvements in music teacher recruitment over recent years, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. My noble friend also made an important point about the curriculum, and we have already reformed the EBacc accountability measure and removed it, because it limited children’s choice of what they learned at school. Through the curriculum and assessment review, we will bring about further improvements in the music curriculum.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who is a brilliant Minister, for her reply. But she erred slightly in blaming the EBacc, which provides no constraint on choice. What supports choice, of course, is the provision of music hubs. Under the coalition Government, Darren Henley’s music review ensured that they are there to provide support for all schools, but sadly, under the latter years of the Conservative Government, and under this Government, there has been no real-terms increase in funding for music hubs. We know that the incoming Prime Minister is a great fan of music and a champion of the Hallé Orchestra. Will the Minister encourage him to show “true faith” in our music hubs, end the “definitely maybe” culture of funding and guarantee a “new order” with a “wonderwall” of funding for them?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Oh dear. We are definitely investing £76 million annually in music hubs, which of course means that the 43 music hubs can continue their important work to help children, regardless of background, to access musical education, by providing instruments and resources. In addition, we are investing up to £13 million in the national centre for arts and music education, which we intend to establish by September, to provide support for the revised national curriculum, improve the professional development of music teachers and make sure that extracurricular school enrichment and partnerships with music and arts organisations are strengthened.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, further to the supplementary question from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, does the Minister agree that what is needed most urgently, given that the Government are not taking into account the long-term decline in arts education, is a review of the way in which recruitment targets and ITT bursaries are calculated? This affects not just music but art and design. If they were really interested in boosting arts education, they would not just be looking at the most recent baselines.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Every year, we review the recruitment trajectory for different subjects. Given the need to safeguard public money and ensure we are spending it efficiently, and given that we have had a 55% increase in recruitment to initial music teacher training and the lowest leaving rate—8.7%—for music teachers at any point, apart from during the pandemic, I do not think it unreasonable to conclude that, at this point in time, the bursary is not required to bring about recruitment. As I said, we will of course review that every year. We will keep in mind the number of teachers needed to maintain the proportion of hours taught by specialist music teachers in our schools at above 90%, and we will, as we have already proved, pay more if necessary to get the teachers our children need.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are serious about expanding arts opportunities, along with other opportunities outside the core curriculum, do they accept that they not only have to be aggressive about recruiting teachers but must make sure that they reach those groups who cannot get there through the private sector? If you want equality, you have to have teachers in schools across the board who are reaching those communities that do not usually access private teaching. Is this a priority? Where does it fit in with the national centre for the arts?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Schools provide children who cannot access it through private means the opportunity to benefit from music and instrumental education. Through the national enrichment framework that the Government recently published, we will make sure there are more opportunities in the school day for children to take part in music and learn instruments.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have introduced extremely welcome tax relief for orchestras, theatres, museums and galleries, but the outreach they undertake is not eligible for that tax relief, despite it being a potentially significant source of support for music education in schools. Given that the extension of tax reliefs is being discussed at the moment, will my noble friend the Minister consider discussing with colleagues extending the scope of that tax relief so that every child in every postcode has the opportunity to learn music?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Tax reliefs are of course the purview of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the Chancellor—whoever they might be—will be listening very carefully to my noble friend’s argument about how we can encourage as much participation in music as possible.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
I studied music at the Guildhall School of Music. I suggest there are many ladies here who studied the piano up to level 8, which is a very good level for people to teach in schools. Will the Government look into the possibility that older people could help in that way and bring back that music in state schools, not just private schools?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This lady only got as far as grade 7, I am afraid—I am grade 6 in cello. The noble Lord makes an important point about the use of volunteers, but the key issue is whether we have the quality of teachers to give our children a strong music education. The fact that we have seen 55% more applications for initial teacher training in music in the past two years is encouraging, but we will, in the spirit of the challenge that has been put through this question, keep that under review to make sure we continue to deliver on the increase in specialist teachers in our state schools that we have so far succeeded in delivering.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I fear my noble friend underestimates the issue. Music teachers make a great difference to education generally. Music teaches collaboration, awareness of emotions, memory, social awareness, reading ability and a range of other things as well. That has to be done by music teachers, and they should be available in schools. That should be a priority for the Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sorry if my noble friend thinks that I have not looked enthusiastic about this. I was emphasising the progress that this Government are making in ensuring that qualified music teachers are in our schools, including through considerable investment. I agree with my noble friend that we need expert music teachers in our schools. At this point, more than 90% of the hours of music taught in our schools is provided by specialist music teachers. Of course that means there can be more improvement, and that is what the Government are committed to doing. But we have made considerable progress in the time we have been in government.
Strait of Hormuz: Merchant Shipping
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to assist in opening the Strait of Hormuz to merchant traffic; and what advice is being given by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Centre to UK merchant shipping.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the US service personnel killed or injured in the region recently. All our thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends.
The Government remain committed to supporting the safe and secure flow of merchant shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global trade, energy supplies and international stability. Respect for sovereignty over territorial seas and freedom of navigation are fundamental principles of international law. We stand ready to deploy the wider multinational military mission to support freedom of navigation, should conditions allow. We continue to work closely with international partners, the International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry to support the resumption of normal maritime traffic through the strait. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre continues to provide timely security information and situational awareness.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, we cannot allow the highly damaging closure of the Strait of Hormuz to continue indefinitely. We have two bases in the Middle East, HMS “Jufair” in Bahrain and Duqm in Oman. They were established to support our ships that were there to help the American Fifth Fleet and others in ensuring that the Strait of Hormuz stayed open, but that clearly is not happening. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that the time has come—we have the “Lyme Bay” out there, with minesweeping assets, along with HMS “Dragon”, which is a destroyer —to give more help to the Americans purely with the clearance of the straits? I am not talking about getting involved with their larger war, which one might have different views about, but those straits are so important that we cannot allow them just to be kept closed, with all the damage that that is doing to the world economy and the risk to other straits around the world.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. His Majesty’s Government are doing all that they can to see the restoration of a functional ceasefire and to bring about a de-escalation of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. As my noble friend says, the opening of the strait as an international waterway that is safe and secure is of benefit to us all. Through the multinational military mission, we continue to seek the permissive environment that would allow us to ensure that shipping had the confidence to use the Strait of Hormuz. He points to RFA “Lyme Bay” and HMS “Dragon”, which are in the region to support that permissive environment. We hope that can be brought about as soon as possible.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy Reserve. I draw the Minister’s attention to the welfare of the seafarers in the Merchant Navy. While those ships are blocked in the straits, a lot of their seafarers have been onboard for a long time. I wonder what more His Majesty’s Government can do to support them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The RFA provides a crucial service for the Royal Navy and our operations across the region and the world. My noble friend is right to point out the importance of that crew. We continue to discuss with them, their unions and their crews how we can support them in respect of their welfare, because we recognise the significance and importance of those crews.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I used to deal with mines a little, in clearance and so on. What is it that we cannot do now that we used to be able to do? Can we not just clear mines as we used to do, or is that too difficult?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is an interesting question. I will talk about the way in which the Royal Navy is developing. It used to be that the provision of a mine-hunting ship was the way in which mine-hunting activity was conducted. In looking for an expression of power and symbolism, a mine-hunter still has a role to play, and we still have mine-hunting ship capability. However, as you can see with the development of RFA “Lyme Bay” and the protection that HMS “Dragon” provides for it, should that permissive environment come forward, RFA “Lyme Bay” is the future of providing the mine-hunting capability that the noble Lord rightly points to. We have a big platform upon which there are numerous uncrewed systems, weapons and so on that we can use above, on or under the water. In this case, they provide a real, modern capability and capacity, working with our friends and allies, to deal with mines and to help in respect of the mine clearance.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in two of his answers the Minister has talked about conditions being right and there being consensus, but is not part of the problem that we need to be working now with the United States in particular to persuade it to look for a way that will create those conditions? While the attacks go on between Iran and the United States, the conditions are not going to be there and the problem is not going to be resolved. What conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with the United States?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We continue to speak to the Americans and discuss with them how we can see an operational and functioning ceasefire restored. The memorandum of understanding worked for a time and we saw an increase in the number of ships using the Strait of Hormuz. From memory, I think that, before the conflict, some 130 ships were using the strait per day; after the memorandum of understanding was signed and was seen to be operating for a number of days, between 20 and 30 ships were using it. That has reduced for obvious reasons—yesterday, there was one ship. Getting a situation in place which has the confidence of all the nations that use the Strait of Hormuz, as a functioning arrangement between Iran and the United States, is clearly in all our interests. We have certainly talked to the Americans about how we might support them in the re-establishment of that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, on the “Today” programme I heard an American former defence expert saying that the US-Iran war had got to such a point that the only thing for the Americans to do was to bomb for the next month. What is the Minister’s view?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have always said that any support that we have given to the Americans has been for defensive purposes. As the noble and learned Baroness will know, we have continually called for a ceasefire, as it initially was, the maintenance of the memorandum of understanding and the de-escalation of activity by any nation. We stand by that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that we need to be realistic that the greatest military power in the world cannot put enough arms in that area to resolve the present conflict and the only way this is going to be resolved is by discussion and debate? Does the Minister agree that we need to increase that dialogue?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree. The point we continue to make to our friends and allies in the region, and to the Americans, is that, in the end, dialogue, discussion and an agreement acceptable to all are what we all need to work towards. My noble friend is right to point that out, and we will continue to do all we can to bring that about.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it has been reported that the new Prime Minister supports increasing foreign aid spending back up to 0.7% of GDP. The Government have previously confirmed that all the money saved from cutting aid spending has been allocated to the Ministry of Defence. If the United Kingdom wishes to assist in opening the Strait of Hormuz in a meaningful way then our Armed Forces must, as all noble Lords have said, receive the necessary funds and assets. Can the Minister confirm that, if foreign aid spending is increased, the money will not be taken from the defence budget?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I can confirm that it has been government policy for a considerable period to restore aid, as and when the conditions allow, to 0.7%. There is nothing new in that. I heard what the Prime Minister said about his commitment to defence in his speech, so we will see what happens. As I say, it is government policy, as it stands, to restore aid to 0.7% and the Prime Minister made clear his commitment to defence in the remarks he made outside Downing Street. I think that is the answer for the noble Lord.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, for nearly 30 years after the signature and entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—to which we all subscribe and which considers the Strait of Hormuz to be an international waterway—it was possible to sustain that in the face of Iran not so agreeing, but not by using force? Could that not be an element in a diplomatic approach to this which would cover the extremely important issue of Iran’s nuclear programmes as well, both of which need to be resolved if there is to be peace and security in that region?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting and important point. The commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is an important restatement of the fundamental principle, not only in the Middle East but across the world, of the freedom of navigation. It is an extremely important point and the noble Lord is right to remind us of it. That remains our policy objective with respect to the Strait of Hormuz. It is an international waterway; it should be free and the freedom of navigation should operate there. On the noble Lord’s other point about nuclear, I reread the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, and, for me, that could have been followed through to start addressing many issues, including the nuclear issue that he referred to.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question follows on from that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I stress that I am asking not for any operational information but for a general statement. Are UK bases and UK military assets being used by US forces in the continuing attacks on Iran. Specifically, were they used in the attack on the nuclear power plant under construction at Darkhovin?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not often do this, but let me read the advice that I have had about UK bases involved in recent strikes, because I need to be clear that I am getting it right. The noble Baroness said in her opening remark why I would do this, so let me read the points. Our position on this has been consistent. The Government took a decision in Britain’s national interest not to get involved in the initial phase. We have acted in defence of our allies, including by approving the US to use our bases for the specific defensive and limited purposes of destroying Iran’s missiles at source. We remain in close communication with the US, including on our efforts to support the restoration of freedom of navigation through the strait, through our independent and defensive mission.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, none the less, the military personal in those bases in Oman and Bahrain will be at some degree of risk. What reassurance can the Minister give the House? When I visited Bahrain and Kuwait with HMS “Cumberland” through the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I was immensely impressed by the work that they do there, so how can we keep them safe?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The reassurance that I can give to the noble Baroness and to the people she knows is this. I can talk about the Ministry of Defence. Meetings have taken place across government, but I personally have met virtually every week with either defence attachés or the ambassadors from the region to talk to them. We have responded to their requests for help and support with respect to their own countries. Doing that helps to support the defence of our own personnel, whether that be people who are living there or our own Armed Forces personnel. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance that there is continued discussion with and involvement of the ambassadors, reflecting the opinions of their Governments. That is an important way in which we have tried to reassure not only the region but our people there as well.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, to add to an already very serious situation, is the Minister aware that the Houthis have now launched a naval blockade against the Saudis? What assessment has his department made of the impact that will have on not just Saudi maritime traffic but wider maritime traffic, including our own vessels?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. That takes us to the other side of the situation, and the so-called Bab strait, which is a narrow strait on the other side—the western side, if you like—of where we are talking about, rather than the Strait of Hormuz. All I can say is that we keep these things under review and an assessment is currently being made, as I understand it, of the perceived or current threat, and what we may or may not need to do about that.
Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 18 May and 1 June be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 and 15 July.
Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 June be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.
National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I declare my interests as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners. Can the Minister confirm the comments of whistleblowers that on 23 June
“constraints were breached and system security was compromised”—
and, I might add, five safety limits were breached as well? Can he confirm that such events can directly contribute to potential nationwide blackouts? Why was this not reported to Ofgem within 72 hours, as legally required? Does he agree with Octopus Energy, which told Parliament on 8 July that the cost of balancing the grid, net-work constraints and capacity payments under this Government’s high-cost wind and solar-driven energy policy is to go up from £1.5 billion this year to £10 billion a year by 2030, which will further deindustrialise the country and add higher costs to already unacceptably high domestic and industrial energy bills in the United Kingdom?
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
The Government take the allegations that the whistleblowers have made recently concerning the operation of NESO very seriously. An external legal firm has been appointed to investigate, reporting to a panel independent of senior management; indeed, there is the opportunity for anybody independent of senior management to make representations to that inquiry. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome at this stage.
As for the wider issue of constraint payments, this is substantially an issue of grid management and grid development, which the noble Lord will know were grievously neglected under the previous Conservative Government. The present Government have very ambitious plans to make sure that the grid is expanded, repaired and updated so that constraints can be managed much more effectively as part of the overall grid process.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, these allegations, if accurate, would represent a shocking breach of public trust by an organisation now owned directly by the Government. But it also demonstrates a failure of the current whistleblowing framework that, to be heard and to have some measure of protection, the whistleblower has had to go through an Opposition MP, not to Ofgem or any other part of government. Will the Government now act to provide proper protection so that people who speak out can do so without fear of detriment and as soon as they see that there is an issue to be raised, and will they take seriously the proposals of my party for an office of the whistleblower?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As far as whistleblowing is concerned, I can speak only to this particular episode, but I point to the Government’s response—or, rather, the response of NESO and other bodies—in developing very rapidly a forum in which whistleblowers can confidentially and without any concerns about their own future or safety participate in an inquiry into what has taken place. Indeed, the separation of that inquiry from senior management underlines how seriously the Government take this issue but also how they wish to make sure that whistleblowers are given the proper protection and status that their concerns merit.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, in welcoming my noble friend’s response, can he confirm that there was no loss of supply to customers on the occasion of the incidents referred to? Secondly, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in which he attacked the Government’s investment in wind and solar, will the Minster reflect on the national security assessment published earlier this year? That report stated:
“Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity”.
Does that not make it so much more important that we continue with the decarbonisation of our energy supply?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, that does make it very important that we continue decarbonising our energy systems to make sure that they are very resilient in a different climate that we will have in the future, and that the consequences of, for example, continuing to provide energy via high-carbon fossil fuels are countered by the systems being thoroughly low-carbon in the future. This has a bearing on the recent episodes as far as energy margin notices are concerned. We have had a period of extreme heat in the UK that is very likely the consequence of climate change, and this has produced some system resilience issues. However, the system was easily resilient enough to cope with that particular issue: there were no blackouts, there was no loss of power for customers or industry, and the stability of the system was maintained at around the 50 hertz mark at all times.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the episode not show that the integrity of the energy supply system is simply not fit for purpose? There is an overdependence on renewables that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Baroness. The recent episode showed that, even in relatively new circumstances of extreme heat—rather than the more normal issue of energy margin certificates being issued because of the effect of cold and winter on the system—the system stood up to it very well and managed to make sure that customers were not deprived of their power. As I said, the system was maintained to run at between 49.5 hertz and 50.5 hertz at all times. That is a sign that the changing nature of the system will be able to deal with these issues very well in the future.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister address the concern that the NESO inquiry is being conducted by a firm of City lawyers rather than electrical engineers? That gives the impression that the allocation of blame and legal liability is seen as more important than the integrity of the system. Is not part of the current problem that the privatised companies save money by running a lower margin of capacity than the old Central Electricity Generating Board? That, along with the changing patterns of demand and supply, make the system less stable and more vulnerable. What is the Minister doing about it?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Many things are being done alongside the changing nature of the system to make sure that it retains its resilience and ability to supply power on a no-failure basis. These include continuing to build out the grid, and bringing forward ancillary services, new forms of artificial inertia, long-duration storage and many other new instruments that the system will have to make sure that it continues on a stable and reliable basis. On the whistleblowers, yes, the investigation team will be led by a law firm, but it will report to a review panel consisting of the chair of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, the shareholder non-executive director and the Ofgem director-general. That is entirely in line with making sure that whistleblowers’ interests within the energy delivery system are properly protected.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister please accept that it is very important to ensure that the whistleblowing arrangements work effectively? Otherwise, people will use this opportunity to attack the Government’s excellent policy on moving as rapidly as we can to renewable energy, which is much cheaper and crucial for our security. Will he stand up toughly for the whistleblowers, given that some people, for some reason or other, want to attack the previous Government’s sensible policies, which this Government have continued? Will he make sure that we move to a position in which we are sovereign in our energy?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I could not agree with the noble Lord more. Whistleblowing is and should be an essential part of all these processes. Whistleblowers have to feel safe in what they say so that it can be properly looked at and lessons can be learned if it turns out that they pointed out something that should be done. It is essential that we have an environment in which whistleblowing is protected and where whistleblowers are taken seriously. That is what the Government have done on this occasion, supporting exactly what the noble Lord said about the direction that the system is taking and why it is essential that we do not fall foul of completely unfounded attacks on that system as a result.
British Steel
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s record on steel over the past two years has, I am afraid, been disastrous. Due to their tax, energy and regulatory policies, they have failed to secure a viable private sector future for British Steel, and taxpayers are now on the hook through nationalisation. British Steel itself has warned that the shortfall between its emissions and its free UK emissions trading scheme allowances is an ongoing liability that threatens the viability of domestic steel-making. Yet, from 2027, the Government intend progressively to withdraw those free allowances as the carbon border adjustment mechanism is introduced. Does the Minister accept that imposing ever-higher carbon costs on one of the last primary steel-makers is incompatible with reindustrialising Britain? Will the new Prime Minister therefore abolish the UK emissions trading scheme and scrap the carbon border adjustment mechanism so that Britain can reindustrialise at pace?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord remembers that we discussed this at length during the passage of the Bill; I am sure he would not want me to reopen the debate. We are where we are with British Steel. I totally understand the need for transparency on costs, including carbon costs. As it stands, we will abide by our international obligations on CBAM; that stands as our policy and the noble Lord knows full well that that is the Government’s position. Having said that, any financial assistance to British Steel will be reported in the ordinary way. The Government will publish quarterly Written Ministerial Statements for at least the first year, giving contemporary information on the support provided. Ministers must also comply with Managing Public Money, Treasury controls and accounting officer duties. We will protect taxpayers while ensuring that British Steel has the stability needed to continue operating.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talked about transparency and I am pleased that we were able to insert those quarterly reports into the legislation. The Minister in the Commons, in answer to my colleague’s Urgent Question, spoke about the key step of appointing the chair and board of the new enterprise and their role in taking that business forward. When will those appointments be made? Until that happens, who will be accountable for corporate governance?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, British Steel is now a government-owned company with the Secretary of State as its sole shareholder.
Lord Leong (Lab)
All will be revealed in due course. The noble Lord will know that we took control of British Steel on Thursday. As anyone will know, in any acquisition process there will be a nominal director who will be registered with Companies House until such time as a board of directors has been appointed. The Government are putting a new board in place that has commercial and industrial experience, which is very important: we need people with expertise running this. The priorities will be stabilising the operation, improving performance, protecting health and safety, developing a sustainable business plan, exploring private investment and ensuring that workers’ voices are central to the company’s future, including worker representation on the board.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, is not the decision by the Government to try to protect British Steel by imposing tariffs of up to 50% and reducing quotas down by 60% on imported steel a profound mistake? It harms steel processers and steel users. Let us not forget that steel users are much more numerous than are primary steel producers, and the steel processers and users of steel have to compete with foreign imported finished products. Is not what the Government have done a profound own goal?
Lord Leong (Lab)
No, it is not. Let us not forget that overcapacity and artificially cheap steel are why our steel industry is under such threat. Allowing cheap steel imports to enter the UK unchecked would only jeopardise domestic supply and the security of our UK supply chains for our critical infrastructure and defence. The measures put in place have been designed so that we will increase our domestic capacity, which is what the Government are trying to do.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision to nationalise British Steel, but I seek some clarification from the Minister on potential compensation to be paid to British Steel’s owners. Can he assure the House that the following factors will be taken into account: first, British Steel was insolvent, so the price is virtually knocked down; secondly, it received a vast amount of public subsidy, which will be recovered; and thirdly, its operations have done environmental damage, so the cost of that will be deducted from any compensation? I asked the Minister that question during the steel debate. I know he had lots of questions to answer, but I hope he has an answer now.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s current view is that, given British Steel’s history of loss-making and its poor financial position, the commercial value of the business today is nil. However, compensation will not be decided by ministerial assertion. Regulations will be laid in the autumn to appoint an independent third-party valuer. That valuer will assess what compensation, if any, is owed and the Government will abide by that process.
Lord Redwood (Con)
On nationalisation, have the Government also taken responsibility for the historical debts and borrowings, pre-spring 2025, that the company incurred under Chinese owners? That is a very large historical debt that we should not have to share.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord should probably reflect on the answer I gave to the previous question. We will appoint an independent valuer to take into consideration all aspects related to British Steel. Obviously, we have advanced British Steel £555 million for its running costs. That will also be taken into consideration by the independent valuer and we will abide by its final decision.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, today is a very significant day, as everybody knows. Will the Minister confirm whether this is a throwback to the previous Administration, or is this the first example of what the new Prime Minister calls governing as Labour? If so, does the Minister believe that this is the first of many such nationalisations?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the answer to that is no. This is not an ideological nationalisation. It is a targeted, exceptional intervention to protect a strategically important company and capability that the country cannot afford to lose. The Government would have preferred a commercial solution, but that was not available on terms representing value for the taxpayer. The objective now is to stabilise British Steel, restore commercial and environmental responsibility and sustainability, and explore future private sector investment where that supports the national interest.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome that last answer. It is, of course, just a few minutes ago that we were discussing a Private Notice Question on the events in the Strait of Hormuz and the need for British naval support to try to keep it open. Given that our naval ships, submarines and planes all rely on steel, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, in what is self-evidently an increasingly unstable and uncertain world, acting to ensure the continuation of steel-making here at home is a vital part of our national security?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that some specialist grades of steel used in precision engineering, aerospace, defence and advanced manufacturing are not currently produced in the UK, or are not produced in the required quantity or to the required specification. The steel strategy aims to increase the proportion of UK demand met domestically, including for specialist needs, as my noble friend mentioned. British Steel’s new board will need to consider how the company supports a wider industrial strategy and the needs of downstream manufacturers.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Can I confirm that the Minister said yes when I asked whether the state is taking responsibility for all the historical debts and borrowings?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I said in my previous answer that we will abide by the independent valuer’s final valuation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the important part of my question was: when does the Minister think that this board will be appointed? Can he give us a window for when that will happen?
Lord Leong (Lab)
It will be when the new Secretary of State is appointed.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Monday 20th July 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40–I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (17 Jul 2026)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I will now make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on the Bill. The Government accept that legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly would be required for Clauses 1, 5 and 11. These clauses cover areas that aim to modernise air passenger rights, strengthen consumer protection enforcement and enable updates to airport slot allocation. The Government have written to the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter, and my expectation is that these issues will be fully addressed during the Bill’s passage in the other place. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage. I beg to move.
Schedule 1: Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA
Amendment 1
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision that is unnecessary because the statement of policy prepared by the CMA under paragraph 16F of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will apply to all direct enforcement authorities.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have brought forward a minor and technical amendment. Schedule 1 to the Bill currently amends Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to refer us to a statement of enforcement policy prepared by a direct enforcement authority. However, under paragraph 16F of Schedule 5, the statement will always be prepared by the Competition and Markets Authority and not a direct enforcement authority. The amendment therefore removes this provision to correct the drafting accordingly. I assure noble Lords that this is a very minor technical amendment that tidies the Bill without changing policy intent.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are reaching the departure gate for this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I know—sorry. There is only one more like that. The Bill is focused on strengthening consumer rights and protections, reforming aviation regulation and enhancing aviation safety. Your Lordships’ contributions have ensured that the Bill leaves this place in a stronger shape. This is particularly true with regard to improving the experience of disabled people and those with reduced mobility while flying. I hope that in turn the Government have shown that we are willing to listen to and work with your Lordships.
Moving to thanks, I first give my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Katz, who supported me on the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; throughout the Bill’s passage, he has consistently assured the House that he supports its objectives. Indeed, he was so supportive that he felt obliged to test, challenge and interrogate almost every mechanism for achieving them. His contributions have, however, been thoughtful and constructive, and I thank him for that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the prudent and measured perspective they brought to our debates—particularly on consumer rights and the importance of ensuring that the Bill commands public confidence. Although we have not agreed on every point, their contributions have been consistently informed, probing and constructive. I am grateful for the spirit in which they have engaged with both me and my officials during our consideration of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley all campaigned effectively to improve accessibility and highlight the importance of inclusive transport, for which I give my thanks. This has resulted in the Government tabling a package of amendments that I believe will really improve the experience of flying for those with disabilities or reduced mobility.
There have been other contributions. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Grayling, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Empey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Oxton and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have provided wise words and, as ever, I am grateful for their contributions. I have enjoyed discussing the merits of general aviation with the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Davies of Gower, and my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, who raised issues of importance. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who supported me, especially the Bill team, policy and legal colleagues, the drafting team, parliamentary counsel and others.
In conclusion, the Bill has completed its passage through your Lordships’ House. It now takes off for the other place, and I would expect any return journey to involve only limited turbulence. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Third Reading. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive way in which he and his officials have engaged with this House throughout its passage. I also record my gratitude to noble Lords across the House for the contributions they have made to the Bill at every stage. The scrutiny that this House has brought to bear, often from very different perspectives, has strengthened this legislation. I do not think that improvement would have happened without it.
I particularly welcome the Government’s agreement to bring forward a consultation on the experiences of disabled passengers—an addition to the Bill that I hope will make a real and lasting difference. For too long, disabled passengers have been left without the convenience or dignity that ought to be a basic expectation of air travel. I am glad that this House has secured a firm commitment embedded in the legislation to examine and address that failure properly.
I also welcome the corrective amendment the Minister has tabled for Third Reading, which addresses a technical deficiency identified by the Minister since Report. That kind of responsiveness does not always attend legislation of this kind, and it should be acknowledged.
I return to the principle that has guided my and my colleagues’ contributions throughout the passage of the Bill: that reform of aviation regulations should be directed first and foremost towards improving the passenger experience. The protections we have secured for disabled passengers and the standards the Bill now sets are what I will be watching for closely as it is implemented. Passengers do not experience aviation policy as clauses and statutes. They experience it as to whether they are treated with courtesy when a flight is delayed, whether they can travel with the support they need and whether the system as a whole is built around their interests rather than around convenience for everyone but them.
Too often in the past, passengers have been an afterthought in regulatory design. The Bill is an opportunity to correct that imbalance. I hope the Government will treat this not as the end of that work but as a foundation on which future improvements can and should be built. I close by expressing my thanks in particular to my Liberal Democrat Peer colleagues who have contributed to the Bill. My particular thanks, above all, go to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, for his diligence and unwavering support throughout its passage, for which I remain deeply grateful.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thought we were going to end on a positive note, but the departure gate gag has probably set us back quite a bit this afternoon.
I thank the Minister for his engagement and also thank the Bill team and the Public Bill Office. On Report, he indicated to me on the record that the Government did not have power to deal with the issue of slots. Subsequently, the Minister has indicated that he would like to clarify what he believes now is the position, and he promised he would put a letter in the Library of the House to confirm that. I thank him and all his team for their engagement. It was very nice to be dealing with a Minister who knows how to be a Minister.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister, in particular for the exemplary way he has engaged with those of us who are Back-Benchers and on the Cross Benches over specific issues, and how he has facilitated moving forwards. If I may inform him, I have managed to secure a meeting with the CAA tomorrow morning, thanks to his intervention. I know that those who are disabled are also greatly relieved to know the seriousness with which he took the appalling situations in which they have often found themselves when travelling. I hope that he will continue, not only in his role but also in the way he has behaved towards all of us, because that personal contact has made it very easy to have very open discussions.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this was a pretty dreadful Bill when it was introduced to your Lordships’ House, in terms of its conception but also its drafting. It leaves it in somewhat better shape, which is very considerably due to the fact that the Minister paid attention in Committee to the many amendments and proposals that were made, and came forward on Report with an astonishingly large number of amendments to change the Bill—all of which, it is fair to say, noble Lords felt responded to their concerns, and which they were willing to support. I thank him for that.
Also, as was just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, a large part of Committee was taken up with discussions of the treatment of disabled people in the course of flying. Amendments brought forward by the Minister characteristically represent an improvement in the approach that government will take to those issues in the future, for which I thank him.
I also thank his officials for their engagement and the Public Bill Office for its support in drafting the amendments we put forward. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her important contribution to the debate. I am sure I will have forgotten some, but I also thank my noble friends Lady Bray of Coln, Lord Grayling, Lady Foster of Oxton, Lord Harper, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Reay, Lord Redwood, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Goschen and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate for the experience and scrutiny they brought to our proceedings.
This is fundamentally an administrative Bill. As I say, it changes decision-making processes in the wake of our departure from the European Union. But we remain concerned that the Government have chosen to use the legislation to transfer not only those European Union powers but also powers that the Government themselves possessed to the Civil Aviation Authority, to be carried out in many cases—fewer now, as a result of the Minister’s amendments—with no external scrutiny, certainly no scrutiny from Parliament, that would indeed have occurred under the previous system. This is a retrograde step in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.
We are also concerned that the Government have said, quite explicitly, that they want to use their new freedoms in order to align more closely with the European Union. It is a very strange conception of Brexit that the Government seem to have developed. British aviation is a world-leading industry, and it succeeds because of innovation and competitiveness. It needs to have regulations made for it that are suitable for the success of British aviation.
There was also one amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on Report that did not have the Government’s favour. Naturally, one suspects, the Government will use the passage of the Bill through the other place to try to remove it, but I hope very much that they will not. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in this regard. Although it was my amendment that passed, that was as a consequence of the numerical placement on the Marshalled List. He had an amendment achieving a similar effect, which related to the drop-off charges made at airports that have now become scandalously excessive. Families and other travellers are charged simply for trying to pick up or drop off somebody, very often with no feasible alternative for doing so. There may be a lack of public transport or it may be unsuitable for somebody to seek to travel to an airport other than by car, for example, because they are wheelchair-bound or have some other mobility impairment that prevents them travelling on ordinary public transport, even where it exists. The amendment that was passed calls on the Government to conduct a thorough review of airport drop-off charges. It is as simple as that; it requires nothing more legally. We will look at that at ping-pong—or perhaps we will never get to ping-pong because the Government will take the advice of your Lordships’ House and accept the amendment that was passed.
With that, I am sad to bring an end to my involvement with this Bill. I hope that it becomes a route—I will not make a silly pun—or path to better regulation of aviation. If it does, it will be very much because of the efforts of Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, no more puns. I have two brief points. First, the noble Lord just referred to the new Clause 7; we will see what happens in the other place on that.
I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke this afternoon. I am quite clear that what I said to him when he raised the point about the Secretary of State taking action to support regional connectivity was not in fact correct. I am very happy to correct the record on that and am pleased to confirm that the Bill’s powers on airport slots and schedules would enable the Secretary of State to take action to support regional connectivity if that were considered necessary. The Government’s current assessment is that such intervention is not required, but I am happy to put the record straight for the noble Lord. I thank all noble Lords.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Monday 20th July 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 33-I Marshalled list for Report - (16 Jul 2026)
16:52 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
18:21 - Division on Amendment 25 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 146 - Amendment 25 agreed.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we begin with the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we discussed in Committee, the right to buy has brought transformational benefits for 2 million families across the country. I do not wish to focus on the benefits to those who access right to buy, as I believe that case is inarguable, but rather I wish to debunk the argument against right to buy, which has focused on the loss of social housing.
Let me first be clear that we believe in one-for-one replacement or better, which was why I was pleased that the last Conservative Government introduced 100% retention of right-to-buy proceeds, which enabled councils, including my own, Central Bedfordshire, to deliver more council housing than was lost through right to buy. If this could spread across the country, there would be no loss of social housing. This should be the focus of the Government: delivering one-for-one replacement, not seeking to deny the opportunity to some of our most disadvantaged families to own their own home, which has proven to be one of the greatest mechanisms for social mobility in this country.
I turn to why right to buy can increase access to social housing. Some might find this counterintuitive, so forgive me if I get a little into the weeds. I refer to the Government’s impact statement, in particular to table four on page 24, which shows that, in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales supporting some 5,450 replacement homes. That is the “do nothing” scenario. It also shows that, once the restrictions are fully in place from this Bill and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales are projected to fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes.
I applaud the Government’s ambition for one-for-one replacement—in fact, rather better than that—but, despite that, by the Government’s own analysis, there will be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year, or 6,600 if there were a one-for-one replacement. The Minister has argued that more social homes will be retained and, yes, there will be around 3,000 per year. Notwithstanding that this assumes a failure to deliver one-for-one replacement, I would like to examine the impact of this figure, because it ignores a critical factor. Retaining a social home does not mean that it is available for a new tenant. The family still live there; it is just that they have been denied the opportunity to own their own home.
Based on figures from the House of Lords Library, around a net 3% of social homes become available each year for new tenancies, so, of the 3,000 additional homes that are retained, only around 90 would be available each year for a new tenant. Compare that with the 4,000 new social homes if the current right to buy were to continue. The cumulative impact over 10 years would be 35,000 fewer families having the opportunity to own their own social home and, if the Government focused on one-for-one replacement, 65,000 families. As we discussed in Committee, when we are having a housing crisis, this will result in 4,000 fewer homes being delivered every year. Can the Minister explain how denying a home to 4,000 families a year fits with the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon about eliminating homelessness?
That is why we have tabled amendments which seek to retain important features of the existing framework, including qualifying arrangements, discount provisions and other safeguards that have formed part of the scheme for many years. Amendments 1 and 2 would protect those who are already secure tenants when the legislation comes into force. The principle is straightforward: existing tenants accepted their tenancy with a legitimate expectation that, after three years, they would become eligible for right to buy under current arrangements. It is one thing to change arrangements for future tenants; it is quite another to make retrospective changes for existing tenants. This is about fairness and a fair transition.
Finally, Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. The Government are proposing to retain a right of first refusal in perpetuity for the local council whenever a right-to-buy property is sold by the owner. The current position is 10 years, which seems proportionate. Perpetuity is a very long time. This raises multiple questions about inheritance, redevelopment, long-term blight and evidencing many years after the event that you actually did offer it. This is bad law and risks inevitable problems for the future.
There is a simple choice before us. Do we support aspiration? Do we support the opportunity for families to own their own home? Do we support increasing the availability of social housing for those on council waiting lists? Do we support building more homes in a period of housing crisis? Or, for ideological reasons, will the Members opposite deny tenants the opportunity of home ownership? Will they deny those on council waiting lists the opportunity of a secure and affordable social home, while cutting housebuilding? We should not seek to stop right to buy. The better approach would be to strengthen replacement, reinvestment and local delivery. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and must once again refer to my interests as a retired member of a Somerset farming family which lets some houses on the farm.
During the passage of this Bill, I have explained how the shortage of affordable housing to rent in rural areas has had and continues to have long-term social and economic consequences for our communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services—quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional family and social networks have collapsed, and all this has been caused by a lack of affordable housing to rent in our countryside. We must protect this stock, both where it remains and where, hopefully, it is soon to be added to. I will not say any more about all this because your Lordships have heard it all before and I have had support from noble Lords on all sides of the House.
I thank the Minister and her team for meeting to discuss our concerns about how the strict interpretation in how Section 157 of the 1985 Housing Act was implemented resulted in over 60% of rural parishes being excluded from the exemption to the right to buy. Thus 60% of all rural parishes remained exposed to the near certainty of losing their council houses—and they did. We must not let this happen again. The problem was, and remains, that in the 1985 Act, Section 157 regulations require that local authorities apply to the Secretary of State for rural area designation of their rural parishes: that is, parishes that have a population below 3,000, with less than two persons per hectare. The problem was and is that few local authorities applied. Most local authorities did not realise that this was a requirement, had transferred their stock to a registered provider or did not have the resources to put together the necessary evidence. The point is that they did not apply and therefore we lost 60% of conforming rural parishes.
At our meeting with the Minister and her team, we all agreed that this must not happen again—hence my amendment, which I tabled in Committee and repeat here. We also agreed that it was not strictly necessary for the definition of a designated rural area to be in the Bill. Therefore, I agreed not to press my amendment to a vote, provided we had some sort of undertaking that, at least in the short term, all parishes that fitted the criteria could be included, whether or not their local authority had made an application following the 1985 Act. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the Government merely rolled over the post-1985 list of parishes with designated rural area status. I am counting on the Minister to reassure me on that point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendment 9 asks for information that is necessary to understand the full situation. I had better declare that I rent a flat in a social housing block, which was presumably bought under right to buy.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bennett argued that the most effective way to protect our social housing stock is to abolish the right to buy. I also support that. Scotland abolished the policy in 2016 and Wales followed in 2019; neither has chosen to bring it back. Both Governments concluded that, in the middle of a housing crisis, preserving social housing for the future was more important than continuing a policy that reduced its supply.
I appreciate that the Government are not prepared to take that step in this Bill but, if that is the case, the very least Parliament should expect is a clear picture of how the policy is operating and what impact the changes it will make are having. The amendment would require the Secretary of State—whoever it is—to lay an annual report before Parliament setting out how many homes have been sold under right to buy, the receipts received by local authorities, how those receipts have been used and an assessment of the impact on the availability of social housing in each local authority. The reality is that, for decades, we have been selling social homes more quickly than we have been replacing them. Every home lost is one fewer home available for the next family on the waiting list.
Social housing should be seen as a long-term public asset, not simply a resource to be steadily diminished while demand continues to grow. Between 1980 and the abolition of right to buy in Scotland, almost half a million social homes were sold. The Scottish Government estimated that ending the policy would protect around 15,500 homes over the following decade. In Wales, Ministers similarly concluded that ending right to buy would help preserve affordable housing and give councils and housing associations greater confidence to invest in new homes. We may disagree on whether England should follow that path, but we can surely agree that Parliament should have the information needed to judge whether these reforms are having their intended effect.
I also welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which would extend reporting requirements to include the right to acquire. If we are assessing the impact of policies that reduce the stock of affordable housing, it is sensible that the report should capture information from both schemes.
I acknowledge that some figures on right to buy are already published, including the total sales receipts. However, the Government do not publish the amount of those receipts retained by local authorities, nor does Parliament receive a single annual report bringing together sales, receipts, how those receipts have been used and the overall impact on the availability of social housing. This amendment would bring that information together in a single annual report laid before Parliament, enabling both Houses to scrutinise the real impact of these reforms and judge whether they are delivering their intended objectives.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I co-signed Amendment 9 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I thought it was very sensible. If it is not taken up by the Government today, bearing in mind that we do not yet have a Secretary of State for the department sponsoring this Bill, I would have thought that this would be right up the new Prime Minister’s street—being open and transparent and showing a duty of candour. I hope that, if the Government reject the amendment today, he will consider it in the Commons.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for accepting the amendments to include the other scheme, because this is just about trying to get an understanding of the picture. For what it is worth, I do not agree with what she just said about ending right to buy. I am a strong supporter of it, as are many current and former Cabinet Ministers of this Labour Government, who have taken advantage of it personally—or their families have. I do not criticise them for that; it was a very wise thing to do. However, this would just show that it has not had quite the impact that everybody thinks. In fact, it ties up or reduces the amount of capital available to build more social housing.
If the noble Baroness were minded to put her amendment to the vote, I would support her, but I appreciate that she has not indicated that in advance. Nevertheless, if the Government do not accept her amendment today, I hope that the Office for National Statistics takes it up as a project in order to improve reporting.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on Amendment 7. It is important that rural social housing stands apart from the generality of the pool of this valuable resource.
My Amendment 24 is a repeat of an amendment I tabled in Committee. Quite simply, it seeks to ensure that, when a social home is sold, the proceeds are recycled locally within the same strategic housing market area. When I was the leader of a council for nearly 20 years, every single home lost to right to buy was replaced and more. It can be done if you are organised about it. We recycled all the proceeds of right to buy into new homes by adding extra money alongside. Social housing is not the finite resource that some people would tell you it is. One of its features is that it permits a mechanism to renew over time the stock of social homes. As one house is acquired and replaced, it modernises the pool and provides affordable homes for new families. It keeps the system up to date.
I welcome the principle set out in the Bill that the receipts received by a council can be recycled by that council in pursuance of that replacement principle, but I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one even if they are in the same housing market assessment area. In Committee, the Minister explained that it would be very difficult to define such areas, but I disagree. We have both been council leaders. When local councils, either individually or with their neighbours, plan for new homes under a local plan, there is a statutory duty to define the housing market area on which the plan will operate.
I remember very clearly devising a plan with two of our neighbours. Collectively, we set the target for how many social homes were required and that number was judged to be sound by an independent inspector. This is not something you just pluck out of the air. Later, when our neighbours in Norwich could not spend their right-to-buy receipts fast enough, they gave the money to us and we built new homes no more than a mile from the city boundary. It benefited everybody.
With that in mind, noble Lords might ask why we need my amendment. The answer is that we had to go through the rigmarole of applying for special dispensation from Norwich to lend or give the money to us to build a house no more than a mile from its boundary. That was crazy. If we are to devolve powers to local government, as the new Government installed only today intend, my amendment would speed that up and deliver more homes, more quickly.
I have spoken about councils. I now want to talk about RSLs, which are a significant part of the mix. They sit apart from councils and there is a whole panoply of RSLs that, having started small, are now in many cases huge concerns. In Committee, I explained that a local Victory Housing association close to where I live, which was originally spun out of North Norfolk District Council some 15 years ago, is now part of a huge combine where the shots are called in Gloucester, 200 miles away. The effect of my amendment would be to ensure that, if one of the old Victory homes was sold in Norfolk under right to buy, Victory would be compelled to replace that home close by rather than in other parts of the country. We must remember the principle that organisations such as Victory, now absorbed into Flagship, received those houses in trust from their predecessor bodies—for the most part, our councils. My amendment would ensure that the proceeds were recycled within the same area from which the home was originally seeded by those predecessor bodies.
We have a Social Housing Bill that purports to maintain the supply of local social housing. My amendment would give legal weight to that. Accepting it would mean that RSLs are required to replace the right to buys close by, not in other parts of the country miles away—in other counties or regions or even on the other side of the country where houses are possibly much cheaper to build but where the need is not necessarily there. It is as simple as that. My amendment recognises that the stock is not just a national numbers game; it is more local than that. If we accept it, it will make the Government’s stated objective of delivering more social homes much easier than it otherwise would be. I invite the Minister to agree.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in winding for these Benches on these amendments, I start by saying that I do not intend to give long speeches opposing amendments we do not agree with; I believe that is the Minister’s job. I intend to be concise when setting out where we stand on each group, partly because, as noble Lords can hear, I have a little bit of a throat.
In the view of these Benches, these amendments largely seek to turn back the clock on reforms to right to buy. At a time when thousands of families are waiting for a secure, affordable home, the answer is not to make it easier to lose social housing stock faster. That sums up our view.
We believe that Amendments 1 to 6 would dilute or remove these important reforms. On Amendment 7, I have some sympathy with the perseverance the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has shown throughout on rural issues. I believe his intentions with regard to social housing are genuine, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. But these amendments could weaken protections for newly built social homes by reducing the period during which they remain protected from sale, and that risks repeating one of the great mistakes of past housing policy: selling homes without replacing them. Two noble Lords have made much of how wonderful they were at replacing one for one and more, but we all know that that was not the reality and we do not want to repeat that.
On Amendments 9 to 12, of course we welcome transparency, but reports and reviews do not build houses. Our support is squarely behind the Government in increasing the supply of affordable, especially social homes, not creating additional reporting requirements. There are numerous amendments on Report that ask for more data and more reviews. I was grateful to the Minister for her letter this morning, albeit at the eleventh hour. There is a wealth of data there. It is sometimes difficult to pull it all together, but it is particularly informative.
Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is described as a probing amendment. I have some sympathy with it, but when I thought about it, I realised it would impose unnecessary restrictions on how receipts are recycled. I was left questioning how big a problem this is. How many councils have trouble spending their receipts? If they know they are running into danger with that, do they not chat to their neighbours and say, “This is going to happen. Can we spend this between us?”
Lord Fuller (Con)
I do not deny that we talk about it neighbour to neighbour, but the example I gave showed that in order to give effect to the desirable outcome I think we both seek, we had to have special dispensation. That was a waste of time, it added cost, it imposed delay and it increased risk. My amendment would sweep away all those impediments and let us get on with building the social homes we need more quickly without interference from the Government, who, if they are in their right minds, would say yes anyway.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am not sure that it is quite as big, difficult and dramatic as that—we just did it.
We believe that the priority must be more social housing. We believe in better protections for existing stock and a housing system that works for those who need it most. We do not believe that these amendments help us to achieve that. I completely respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and his team on this. I believe this is a legitimate political difference and we are just not going to agree on it, hence my short but sweet contribution. I hope to continue in that vein throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening—but not too late into the evening, I hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, it is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for thanking our Secretary of State, Steve Reed, for his service to housing, local government and communities. He has worked tirelessly in his time to ensure that our places and the people in them can achieve their full potential. I wish him well for the future. I know he will continue to serve from the Back Benches, or wherever else he ends up in government. Thank you very much, Steve.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Report stage of the Social Housing Bill before the House today. My town was built to house people from war-torn London in 1946, and my passionate belief that good homes are the foundation for people and places achieving their potential comes from that. Our Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. In July 2025 we set out a plan for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing, including a reinvigoration of council house building, and we have since launched a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, with a focus on maximising delivery and increasing the supply of social rent homes.
The Bill supports councils to build more homes, alongside funding through the Council Housebuilding Support Fund, allowing councils to combine right to buy receipts with a social and affordable homes programme, extending preferential public works loan board borrowing and providing a 10-year rent settlement to give councils and providers greater certainty to invest in supply. Our new Prime Minister recently wrote:
“If you do not give people a good home, what chance have they got of having a good life?”,
which I agree with. His pledge this morning was not to end homelessness—although I am sure that is his ambition too—but to end rough sleeping, and I absolutely support that wish.
In Committee I stressed the narrow focus of the Bill on the three key issues that are its purpose: enabling local government to build new social housing while keeping alive the aspiration for those tenants who wish to do so to buy their home; supporting domestic abuse victims so that they are not re-victimised by the housing system; and removing some former social housing provisions that have never been enacted. I am grateful to noble Lords for discussions that have been broad and constructive, and, in order to assist your Lordships, I have provided details of two parallel pieces of work that I hope have assisted with the wider issues raised by Peers: the thoroughgoing review of statutory guidance on allocations, and the comprehensive review of stock management. I have also asked today for all sources of data on social housing to be circulated, which I understand has been done; I hope that those will be helpful.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, repeat amendments already made in Committee. As such, I have already set out the rationale for increasing the minimum eligibility period for right to buy and made it clear that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I have also confirmed that we have no intention of applying this clause only to new tenancies. These amendments would undermine the chief aim of our right to buy reforms, which is to preserve existing social housing stock while ensuring that long-standing tenants continue to be able to buy their homes.
Three years hardly represents a significant period of investing in a property through rental payments. In consultation there was strong support—from 81% of respondents—for increasing the eligibility period, and indeed 10 years is the average tenancy length for someone buying under the scheme currently. Excluding existing tenancies would mean that the existing rules continued to apply to the great majority of council housing tenants, and we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy was secured.
To respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about numbers, the reduced maximum cash discount levels still offer tenants significant financial support to buy their own home. Updated modelling suggests that a long-run average of around 1,500 council tenants annually will be able to buy their homes under the new discounts. Under the previous baseline, the system was projected to deliver a loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036. By contrast, following the reduction in maximum cash discounts in November 2024 and the implementation of the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same period. Taken together, this approach ensures that the scheme remains accessible and fair and delivers better value for the public while supporting tenants into home ownership. For these reasons, we oppose those amendments.
Amendment 4 seeks to retain the existing statutory timescales for processing right to buy applications by removing Clause 4 from the Bill. The Government do not support that. We have heard from social landlords that additional time is needed to process more complex cases—for example, in relation to valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Additional time will also help landlords to undertake appropriate checks and identify cases that may require further investigation before a sale can proceed. Importantly, these revised timescales are maximum periods, not targets. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as possible, and tenants will continue to benefit from the existing statutory protections where delays occur.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I should have declared at the outset that I am still a council member in Central Bedfordshire.
This debate has highlighted a number of important issues concerning the future of right to buy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for raising the issue of access to rural housing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for raising the issue of transparency, which is important, and my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the issue of retention of local receipts.
However, I return to my main theme, which I discussed earlier. Right to buy and recycling the receipts from it gives an opportunity for people to own their own home. It enables the building of more social housing and reduces the housing list, because a new home is 100% available: you do not have to wait, on average, 30 years for that house to become available. It also increases the housing stock of this country. That is win-win-win. Stopping right to buy is lose-lose-lose. It stops aspiration. It will mean longer council housing waiting lists and fewer homes being built. It is particularly egregious that those who are already secure tenants will be denied the opportunity to buy their own home after three years, something that they could reasonably expect to do.
I am therefore still minded to press my Amendment 1 and its consequential Amendment 2, because this is about fairness and opportunity. On these Benches, we think this is an important issue and we wish to protect it. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
As Amendment 9 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 10 to 12.
Clause 12: Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers
Amendment 13
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the advice of the Local Councils Network on a number of amendments that I have tabled in this group, and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and, on one amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Bill’s objective is to provide more social housing and protect our existing stock from ongoing dilution. The previous Government built roughly 130,000 new affordable homes in their five-year period. However, during that period, 28,000 social houses were disposed of. In the first year of this Government, 28,000 affordable homes are being built, but 5,806 have been lost from the social housing stock through disposal.
The first group that we looked at this afternoon dealt with the right to buy. These amendments concentrate on three things. First, they address other leaks in the bucket where social rent homes are being disposed of through sale. The exact figures are not known, but we estimate that there are 5,000 a year. Secondly, they would strengthen the provision where social houses are disposed of, so that proceeds are used to provide replacement social rent housing. Thirdly, they try to improve information on what exactly is going on here by requiring the collection of relevant data so that affordable housing is distinguished from social rent housing—we do not do that currently.
In Committee, the Minister was concerned about my amendment compromising the categorisation of private registered housing providers with government debt. Therefore, on Report, I have abandoned giving local authorities the right of first refusal at existing use value when social rent housing is being disposed of. However, in Amendment 15, we have maintained the right of private registered providers to be informed of disposals, as well as local authority housing, which is already provided in the Bill.
I am worried about overregulation and bureaucracy—I suspect that the Minister might be as well—and the feasibility of how every housing provider can be informed in a local situation. That is why my Amendment 21 proposes that a national disposal register, with access to local authorities and housing associations, should be provided. It should not be difficult to do this, and it needs to be done anyway for local authorities. It can then be accessible to housing association private registered providers.
We are supportive of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I hope very much that the Government will respond positively to the concept that the time for notification should be increased from four to eight weeks when a housing sale is being contemplated. The local authority could then have a proper period to consider whether it could intervene to purchase the housing. I hope very much that the Government will accept that amendment.
My Amendment 17 would provide for notification content to assist decision-making, so that people can make decisions in a fairly limited period—even eight weeks is fairly limited. Therefore, it would require that tenure, EPC ratings, housing compliance, stock condition survey findings, accessibility adaptations, general funding data and compliance certifications should be included in every sale notice. Following discussions with the National Housing Federation, this amendment has been designed to remove anything that the providers do not already hold. They would therefore not need to commission anything specifically. It is not designed to create an additional burden; it would just ease the process of information so that decisions can be appropriately made about whether a local authority or registered provider could get involved in purchasing the property.
Since Committee, I have tabled two new amendments dealing with the Homes England funding framework. Currently, Homes England will be asked to develop a code of responsible development disposal practice to protect social housing, in consultation with the regulator and the sector. Compliance with it will be a condition of accessing funding. The code would recognise that not all disposals are irresponsible, and we do not want to deter appropriate regeneration.
Amendment 27 addresses a significant gap in the current framework. When a provider sells a grant-funded social home on the open market, it can comply by choosing to repay any grant to Homes England and then walk away with no obligation to provide any replacement house anywhere. The amendment would require that where a social rent home disposal involves public money, it should be invested in a replacement home in the same local authority area, with a slightly more flexible requirement for affordable rent disposals. The provider would still be allowed complete commercial freedom on the disposal itself.
Finally, Amendment 21 and a similar amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, Amendment 22, concern registered providers. At the moment, they already notify the regulator following the completion of the disposal, but the tenure is not currently included in that return, and the regulator has never published the resulting data that would tell us whether it is affordable or social and where the local authority is losing social housing. We simply do not know how many social rent homes are lost through disposal and where.
These amendments attempt to underline the fact that there is a huge disparity between social and affordable rents, and therefore we must do all we can to prevent any reduction in the stock of social rented housing. The amendments seek to protect against inappropriate disposals without reinvestment and to improve information so that we can determine what exactly is happening.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and shall speak to my own Amendments 14 and 16 in this group. I declare my housing interests as on the register, not least as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, to which I am grateful for its help with this amendment.
The sale of social housing properties that have become expensive to repair and maintain, or are simply situated in an inconvenient location, has become a contentious issue for the housing association sector. The LGA has calculated that in 2024-25 alone, 5,250 social housing homes were sold to private buyers, often at auction and no doubt often to private landlords who will be less scrupulous about letting them in poor condition. These homes are lost to the social housing stock even where the properties may be among the only remaining social rented accommodation for less affluent people in the area. The financial case for these disposals may be clear, but disposals of hard-to-replace social housing are seldom in the public interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, noted, the Government recognise this issue, to the extent that the Bill introduces a requirement for a social landlord to notify the relevant council of their intentions to sell four weeks in advance. This provides at least a fleeting opportunity for intervention that could save the property from leaving the social housing sector. A local authority keen to preserve the accommodation as social housing could try to negotiate its retention, perhaps by making a grant towards its repairs, or even by the council making a bid for the property. However, this represents a somewhat lightweight response to what is becoming a major drain on much-needed stock: 28,585 homes have been sold out of the social housing sector in the last eight years. The response of a four-week window when councils will be notified is surely inadequate; this is too short a time for sensible decision-making, so my Amendment 14 seeks to improve this notification requirement by extending the timescale from four weeks in advance of a disposal, as the Bill specifies, to eight weeks generally, and to 12 weeks in designated rural areas, where there are special difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron will explain. These changes would provide a wider window of opportunity for action to preserve the social housing.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, as heralded, I support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. As he said, I am particularly interested in the 12-week delay proposed here for rural properties. I will not explain again the vital importance of affordable housing to virtually every rural community or how vital it is that we retain each and every house, wherever and whenever we can—I have already been through all that. But once sold, it is difficult to replace those houses, as land and opportunities for new, affordable development are often scarce in the affected rural community, particularly where the landscape might be protected or where the adequacy of the local infrastructure, such as power, water and drains, is a restricting factor.
The problem is that, very often, such rural stock is old and in need of expensive modernising, particularly with the need to achieve energy efficiency and EPC targets. To make matters worse, virtually all rural homes have high market values, which, if they are sold, could pay for larger housing projects elsewhere. Incidentally, these higher market values are why we desperately need more affordable homes to rent in rural communities. The point is that the registered provider’s business case for these disposal decisions is quite hard to argue against; as a result, the evidence shows, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, that there has been a significant increase in rural disposals over the last five years, particularly by larger registered providers.
If it was compulsory to delay and discuss the overall problems with the local housing authority, solutions might be found, as has already been mentioned. Could local authority funding help modernise the property or properties? Could local authority funding help build a replacement in the community itself? Maybe a package could be devised to attract Homes England regeneration funding? Given the large plots of some of these houses, perhaps everyone could get together to redevelop the site to provide more homes? The point is that such discussions and solutions are bound to take time; hence the demand in this amendment for a minimum of 12 weeks’ notice for these rural homes.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in my name and add my voice to the amendments I co-signed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford. He has already set out very clearly why we want this further information. Although we debated Amendment 24 in the last group, it is the same process—as has just been set out to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington—that, once these houses go out of the social housing market to whoever, then we have a problem. That is why I am concerned about how the disposal is done.
In Committee, I suggested that we should not have any cash purchase at all. This time, in Amendment 18, I have suggested that, where there is an auction, it should be possible for someone to be able to buy it who is not a cash buyer. It genuinely astonished me in Committee that the Labour Government did not want to do that; they wanted only cash buyers and did not care that people who are unable to apply for a mortgage might not have a quarter of a million or more to spend when they try to buy a home in the village they live in. I hope the Government have reflected on trying to make sure that local housing is open to local people.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, discussed the situation with big plots, and that is exactly what happened in Orford. Somehow, the housing association did not notice when its tenant had started rebuilding—or rather, destroying—parts of the house. There was a big garden; if it had been a commercial enterprise, there could have been probably three houses to fill the space and replace the original one after knocking it down. But, no, it was sold for cash. Nobody was able to buy it if they did not have several hundred thousands of pounds in their pocket. That is why I feel strongly about Amendment 18.
I also add my voice to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I tabled something similar in Committee and thought I heard positive noises from the Government that recognised the cycle of council meetings and cabinet meetings in local authorities. I had hoped we would get an amendment from the Government at this point; if we do not get it here, I hope we get it in the Commons.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22, which again is about transparency. I am sure the Minister is going to say again that all the information is out there, but this is actually about collating it, so that we do not have to hunt for it, and it is easy to read. I am grateful to the Local Councils Network for highlighting this issue and the gap in current reporting arrangements. This amendment would require post-disposal reporting to distinguish between homes let at social rent and those let at affordable rent. It would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish annual data in a form that allows useful analysis over time.
This is important as, although both tenures fall within the broad category of affordable housing, they are not the same. Social rent remains the only tenure that is genuinely affordable for many households on the lowest income, while affordable rent can be set at up to 80% of market rent. If social rent homes are being sold and replaced by homes at affordable rent, it represents a significant change in the nature of our social housing stock. At present, Parliament has no way of assessing whether that is actually happening.
The Regulator of Social Housing has confirmed that it has collected disposal data since 2017 but has never published any analysis of it. As a result, although we know that more than 28,000 homes have been permanently sold out of the social housing sector since 2018-19 through disposals, we cannot establish just how many of those had been at social rent and how many had been at affordable rent. Without that information, it is impossible to judge whether we are losing the homes that are most affordable for those who need them most or whether they are being replaced on a like-for-like basis.
The regulator already collects the information that this amendment asks for, but we need the data published in a way that enables Parliament, local authorities, housing providers and the public to understand what is actually happening to our social housing stock over time. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House whether the Government see any objection in principle to the regulator publishing this information annually. If the data is already being collected, what is preventing it from being published in a way that enables proper parliamentary scrutiny?
This is quite an interesting group, and I support quite a lot of these amendments, including Amendments 17, 21, 26 and 27, which are all good. I will support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young—he is not listening to me. I think he might divide the House, and I will be supporting him on Amendments 23 or 25.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I will continue with the brevity. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate. Given it is my first time speaking this afternoon, I remind your Lordships of my interest as a part-owner of a rental property in Bexley and as a vice-president of London Councils.
We have heard a range of important contributions on how the disposal of social housing should be managed, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey and to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward these amendments for consideration.
First, there is the importance of transparency. Whether through the provision of additional information on sales notices, the establishment of a national register or post-disposal reporting requirements, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the need for greater visibility of what is being sold, to whom, and with what consequences for local housing provision.
Secondly, there has been a strong focus on ensuring that social housing assets remain within the sector, wherever reasonably practicable. Amendments concerning notification periods, opportunities for other registered providers to purchase properties and the development of a code of responsible disposal practice all seek to address that objective.
Thirdly, several amendments have recognised that not all social housing is the same. Homes adapted for people with disabilities, homes in rural communities and homes let at social rent all make a particularly valuable contribution to meeting local housing need. It is understandable that noble Lords wish to ensure that such properties are not lost without proper consideration of the consequences.
We have also heard persuasive arguments regarding the recycling of capital grant and the importance of replacing homes within communities from which they are lost, wherever possible. As housing pressures continue to be felt across the country, there is clear merit in ensuring that local areas benefit from local reinvestment. From these Benches, we believe that housing providers should have the flexibility to manage their stock effectively, but that must be balanced against the equally important objective of maintaining the supply of social housing and ensuring confidence in disposal decisions.
This has been a valuable debate which has explored how that balance might best be struck. I once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. I will now address those amendments relating to the operation of the disposals measure in the Bill. This measure is simple: it will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. In doing so, we hope it will do what we all want it to do, which is to maximise opportunities for other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.
The new requirement must of course be balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are free to make their own responsible decisions about how to manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. I am pleased that noble Lords are largely supportive of the measure, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues raised in Committee with noble Lords ahead of this debate.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I do not see a particular need to wind up on these amendments. The concession that the Minister has made on Amendment 14 is pretty acceptable, given what is being asked. I was disappointed by her not moving on rural housing, but those are not really my amendments.
Generally, I can see why the Minister is worried about delay and overbureaucratisation, but I am disappointed that she has not been prepared to go further, particularly on the provision of information. Although the information is there, certain aspects are not being collected and it is not being publicised. The Government should have an interest in knowing exactly what is going on here and following through on it. However, having heard the Minister’s response, certainly to my amendments, I do not propose to press them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The point I was trying to make was that the Regulator of Social Housing is undergoing a complete review of that subject at the moment. I think it is appropriate for us to feed all that into the regulator’s review and let it work out with the sector what information is appropriate.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for suggesting that, certainly on Amendment 21. In other respects, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Shared ownership homes: buybacks, affordability and stock retention(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme, or any successor programme, to support the acquisition or buyback of shared ownership homes which are unsellable or unmortgageable, to prevent the loss of affordable housing stock through open market sale.(2) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of those arrangements within six months of the passing of this Act.(3) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on shared ownership homes which leave the affordable housing sector through open market sale. (4) The data published under subsection (3) must be disaggregated by the primary reason for sale, where known, including—(a) financial hardship or affordability pressures experienced by the shared owner;(b) repossession;(c) mortgageability issues as a result of building safety defects, remediation liabilities or associated costs;(d) lease length, lease terms or other lease-related restrictions;(e) simultaneous staircasing to 100% and resale;(f) such other categories as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must publish annually a summary analysis of the data collected under subsections (3) and (4), including an assessment of the extent to which sales are attributable to affordability pressures, mortgageability issues, or other structural features of the shared ownership model.(6) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on—(a) the number of shared ownership homes identified as unsellable or unmortgageable;(b) the number of such homes acquired or bought back by registered providers of social housing or local housing authorities;(c) the number of such acquisitions supported through the Social and Affordable Homes Programme or any successor programme, Recycled Capital Grant Funding, or registered providers’ own funds;(d) the number of such homes converted to social rent or other affordable housing tenures;(e) the proportion of shared ownership households whose housing costs exceed 40% of net household income.(7) The Secretary of State must publish annually—(a) the number of registered providers of social housing operating a shared ownership buyback policy,(b) the number of buybacks completed under such policies,(c) whether such policies are publicly available, and(d) the total number of shared ownership homes retained as social housing stock as a result of buybacks under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme or any successor programme, Recycled Capital Grant Funding, or registered providers’ own funds.(8) In this section—“housing costs” includes mortgage payments, rent, service charges, ground rent, and any other mandatory charges payable under a shared ownership lease;“unsellable or unmortgageable” means a shared ownership home in respect of which there is no reasonable prospect of sale, staircasing or mortgage lending on normal market terms due to affordability pressures, building safety issues, lease-related restrictions, valuation issues, or other material barriers.”
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 25 in this group, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, which calls for a review of shared ownership, before I move back to the more specific but related Amendment 23, which focuses on the need for buybacks.
We had an extensive debate in Committee about the problems facing shared owners. I will not repeat them but I can briefly summarise the main themes, which have since been reinforced by organisations representing shared owners, in particular Shared Ownership Resources and the Shared Owners’ Network. I am grateful to Sue Phillips and Carine Marzin for their help. The problems facing shared owners are basically ongoing affordability, service charges, fees, problems with staircasing and lease extension and, finally, barriers to sale and, crucially, the absence of buyback when misfortune strikes.
Concerns about shared ownership have been raised not simply by the media, individual owners or campaigners. They have also been identified by two separate Select Committee inquiries, questioning the degree to which shared ownership, as currently constituted, remains affordable for households once they have entered the scheme. Following our debate in Committee, the Minister kindly held a meeting with me and colleagues—she has always been very generous with her time. She agreed to reflect on what we said. True to her word, she then wrote to us on 13 July. It is a detailed letter, seven pages long, for which I am most grateful. At the outset, the Minister recognised that there is an issue here. Of the problems we raise, she says:
“These are practical concerns which can have a real impact on shared owners experience and I fully recognise the importance of addressing them”.
Later on, she says:
“The Government accepts that shared ownership needs to work better for shared owners”.
So we start in agreement that there is an issue here.
She then makes the point that the existing programme of work going on in her department largely covers these issues. That means that the review we propose will not start from scratch but can build on work in progress—but, crucially, much of the work in her department so far focuses on changes for new buyers and planned work. It does nothing for existing owners, because lease-based features will not be retrospectively amended. The gap between us is, first, that we specify a timescale, publication and proposed action, pinpointing six particular issues that we believe need clarification or amendment, whereas the internal review does none of that.
Crucially, the Minister’s letter makes it clear that some of the key issues that need addressing are not for discussion, principally the model of shared ownership and the division of responsibility between shared owners and landlord, and the need for radical change in the provisions for buyback. On the first, the model, where a shared owner with as little as 10% of the equity is still exposed to 100% of all the associated costs, often unknown at the time, she argues that looking at this would create uncertainty for providers and investors and that the risks of a review outweigh its potential benefits. Our view is that the uncertainty and inequity are already there, with associated risks primarily borne by shared owners. A review could put shared ownership on a more equitable and sustainable basis.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the shared ownership review proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, who have added their names.
In Committee, I drew attention to the asymmetry of powers and the imbalance in negotiating strength between the landlord and tenant in the case of shared ownership. I trod carefully when I characterised those who entered into these arrangements as financially unsophisticated, but the truth is that, in their natural desire to own at least part of their home, they have signed up to a situation with the certainty of all the costs but only the possibility of some of the uplifts if they happen. The terms of trade are stacked against them.
My noble friend Lord Young has raised several issues specific to shared ownership, which I will not repeat. Each is important in its own way. The Government feel that they are all independent of each other. The Government want to deal with them one at a time rather than all together, which is wrong. My noble friend concludes that the issues are harming, possibly irreparably, the case of shared ownership. I agree.
I am speaking in this debate because, after Committee, I was contacted by a shared ownership tenant, Lucy Hassall, who had heard what I had to say. She is sitting below the Bar of the House today. I want to use her case to prove the need for a fundamental review to reinvigorate the case for a fair and reasonable shared ownership system that works for families and helps them to build a stake in society.
Let us break down Lucy’s case to demonstrate why a fundamental review is needed. She spent a sum of money on a 99-year lease on a two-bed flat in 2005. Now, 20 years later, it is worth a little bit less—it happens. Last year, she wanted to move and inquired of her RSL about the process to sell. The landlord replied, stating that there were about 80 years left. In fact, there were under 80 years left. At that stage, they could have entered into a lease extension at no marriage value charge at all. The RSL manager, whom I will not name but who styled herself as an adviser, did not disclose that any delay could crystallise that marriage value. That was sharp practice and far from the social purpose that the National Housing Federation tells us is the golden thread that runs through all RSLs. Time apparently was not of the essence when indeed it was. Quite simply, Lucy and her husband were misadvised by their landlord, who was acting as a privateer, advancing their own pecuniary interests over the interests of their tenant.
A year later, Lucy inquired again about selling and was quoted £12,000 for the marriage value, plus £600 to confirm the cost of the leasehold extension, another £800 to cover some legal fees—her own legal fees—and another grand for the RICS to do an independent property value. This was all plus VAT—let us say £16,000 out of taxed income for a system that is available by law only to people on limited incomes. This was all in addition to the service charges and estate charges that were referred to by my noble friend Lord Young. I have received the same pleas from members of the public. This morning, a lady wrote to me saying that if only she could give away her 50% share in her shared ownership home for nothing she would be satisfied, but even at zero cost the landlord will not take it back. Why did the Hassalls’ RSL not write proactively to warn them of the marriage value jeopardy as the line approached? They did the reverse.
Now I look at the marriage value claim of £12,000. There is a helpful GOV.UK web page that helps people to assess what the marriage value might be. It is £11,000 to £12,000, but that is for 100% of the value and the Hassalls have only 50%. Had they been correctly advised 12 months ago, they would have owed nothing. This is a case of gross overcharging and further sharp practice. If shared ownership is to be the joint enterprise that it purports to be and that Parliament intended then there should be a degree of equity in the apportionment of these charges. The basic terms of these agreements are unfair. The tenant cops the lot and the landlord gets off scot free. That is not fair to people earning less than £80,000 a year, who are the only people who qualify for this. It is an abuse.
I have not tabled my social purpose amendment on Report, as I did in Committee, but perhaps I should have done. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me about the issues in the Hassall case. I do not blame her for the disappointing reply. She just stated the law as it is. However, it proves that the law needs to change. She explained that the issue is down to the Hassalls because they have chosen to move.
Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government purport to support the victims of the social housing system. However, the Minister’s letter just perpetuates victim-blaming of those people who have purchased a shared ownership home and were suckered in on unfair terms that I will not repeat. We must have this review to correct the asymmetry of risk and reward and of market and pricing power, and to constrain the RSLs that are acting with a predatory and pecuniary advantage and obvious conflicts of interest. We must review the cost apportionment between the landlord and tenant, and ensure that there is proactive information for people who have been financially unsophisticated and suckered into these basic terms. I concede that the Minister has advised us on the selling of 99-year leases that it will be 990 years in future, but the marriage value is a further punch in the guts. That is the reality of the situation.
Lucy says that she has been left with an unsellable property and considers herself misadvised and mis-sold. I agree. A review is essential, otherwise shared ownership as a tenure is finished. That would be a shame, for it should be part of the mix. This Bill is before us. The moment to sort it out is now.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the joys of following the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller; I will be less hyperbolic but sincere and completely agree with what has been said.
The Minister will not be surprised that we on these Benches strongly support these amendments. She has been very generous with her time and commitment to this issue. However, we have reached a crunch point, which is why we will support these amendments and why we were pleased that they have been brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has outlined everything clearly. I would go so far as to say that I do not really want another review; the facts are already known. Much work has already been done and some of the things that are wrong need urgent remediation, not waiting and waiting for a review, an outcome and the rest of it, but we are where we are.
Buyback and staircasing are the two main issue. Just imagine the horror. It is Kafkaesque to be unsellable and unmortgaged. Just think about that. I am certain that this would prey on anybody’s mental health. We need urgent action. Shared ownership is supposed to provide a route into homeownership. We on these Benches believe that it is a legitimate route for those who cannot afford to buy outright, especially in areas with high housing costs. We have all been contacted by very real people in very real circumstances; you do not want to be there. There does not seem to be a way out. I found the Minister’s letter very clear and compassionate, but it felt like she too was trapped, like the many people whom we are talking about.
This happens to people through no fault of their own. They have spent years being unable to sell or remortgage because of building safety. I would be really interested to know where we were on that—especially the failure of the external wall standard and being unable to staircase to 100% ownership due to rising property values, higher mortgage costs and additional fears. Many people who are unable to move on have become accidental landlords. We had one case where someone said that it is costing them hundreds of pounds a month to be an accidental landlord. When you are on low incomes, which you must be to be in this model, that is a hell of a lot of money every month. How do you deal with that? It is not what the scheme was designed to deliver and not what we would hope for it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made such comprehensive cases for Amendments 23 and 25. I have added my name to Amendment 25.
I declare my interests as a former non-executive on both Southern and Aster housing association boards and as the current chair of Look Ahead, which does not own any shared ownership homes but, I am pleased to tell your Lordships, works with rough sleepers—so I welcome the new Prime Minister’s remarks today.
Shared Ownership Resources is a charity that has sent information to me and other noble Lords regarding the urgent need to undertake a programme of improvements, exit mechanisms and buyback options to improve the situation of some shared owners, who appear to be trapped with spiralling service charges and the need for essential maintenance and upgrades to the buildings in which they live. These problems are in part a result of recommendations for fire cladding standards associated with the Grenfell fire.
I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in trying to improve the lot of shared owners, which will make the situation much better for many in the future. Problems, however, are of long standing, particularly for shared owners of flats in modern blocks who purchased prior to the Grenfell tragedy. I stand here as the mother of a teacher who was in a shared ownership property in Brixon—a converted Victorian flat—that was highly successful for her. She managed to sell it and now lives in a home in Bristol, so I am not anti-shared ownership.
There is clearly a need to review the situation for those who purchased a share in a property, one of these modern flats, early in the scheme. Some owners are trapped in circumstances that arise from the inherent characteristics of model shared ownership leases and other aspects of the scheme from the early 2000s. Many would like a system of buyback to be funded through a government grant mechanism; such homes would then become social rented units, reducing temporary housing options for many currently in bed and breakfast.
The problems have been described by many shared owners, who have written to me and other noble Lords. Aleksandra, who lives in a Peabody home in Croydon, says, “I have no control over my life anymore, trying to survive the ever-increasing costs of the scheme. I am unable to sell due to the building safety crisis and my housing association does not offer a buyback option”. Secondly, Quay, who lives in an L&Q unit in Tower Hamlets, has been granted permission to sublet but is unable to sell and is making a loss through subletting. However, he has been able to move.
The problems are not just London based. Eddie is in Southend-on-Sea and he says that, because of building safety issues, his home is, in effect, impossible to sell. There is no confirmed timetable for the remedial work necessary. He states that Moat housing association could convert properties into much-needed socially rented homes, but there is no realistic buyback option.
Rebecca bought her property in 2005 and has asked Hyde housing association if it will take back the 35% of the property that she owns. She reports that she would hand it over at no cost, as she has since met a partner and does not need the flat any more. She is currently subletting with the housing association’s agreement but is making a significant loss on rental income due to what she describes as “extortionate” service charges.
The final example is from the north of England. Holly purchased a shared ownership flat in Leeds in 2007. It was advertised as an affordable option for people on lower incomes. Nineteen years later, her home is, in effect, unsellable due to unresolved cladding and building issues. She has asked Together Housing to buy back her share, but it has refused because it has no funding available to do so. However, she reports that the association has acknowledged that the service charges have become unaffordable. She considers herself trapped with no viable exit route.
All these correspondents report the negative effects that such housing problems are putting on their health and well-being. As a mental health nurse, I firmly believe that to be true. For these residents and others in similar situations, these amendments are necessary so that the problems can be properly assessed and potential solutions identified in this Parliament. Other solutions may be identified, but central funding for buyback options should be seriously considered, particularly as such an approach would increase the number of social housing homes for rent. I hope that the Minister is in a position to report that the Government will accept at least one of these amendments, so that historical government-backed schemes can be reconsidered in the light of the powerful information provided by the charities and individuals that have outlined their issues to many in this House.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 25 in this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill. This amendment calls for a review of shared ownership. I emphasise that this proposed review should cover the special circumstances of shared ownership for older people.
Fortunately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I have the honour to chair, produced an excellent analysis of the key issues back in 2023 from our inquiry into shared ownership for an ageing population. A large section of our ageing population cannot afford to downsize to more manageable, accessible homes but will never be eligible for social housing. This squeezed middle can benefit in later life from the opportunity to move from family-sized accommodation to somewhere more compact, starting a chain of sales that help young and old alike. Savings accrue to the NHS and social care, alongside the direct benefits to the older person, but it has been a struggle to find a form of shared ownership that can be provided on an affordable basis for the less affluent home owner. The right shared ownership model could achieve this.
Homes England has devised its own older people’s shared ownership model—OPSO. The trouble is that this product currently involves an anomalous form of grant aid, which needs fixing. The OPSO grant means that, if potential occupiers can afford a 75% share, they will not be charged any rent on the 25% that remains in the ownership of the provider. This is very helpful, but the OPSO terms then stipulate that, if the shared owner can afford only 70% or less, they must pay full rent on the remaining 30% or corresponding share of the going rent. Someone who can afford only a 50% share must pay 50% rent; the combination of a 50% rent plus a significant service charge could be just too expensive for owners of middle-value homes.
Amendment 25, in its call for a review of shared ownership, needs to include the specific circumstances of older people and sort out the rather weird offering currently available from Homes England. The amendment could trigger a review that leads not just to an improvement in the amount of shared ownership housing for older people but that also means more sensible terms for the product itself—an excellent opportunity for a reset of a tenure that has much unrealised potential for young and old alike.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. They have brought forward these amendments and highlighted the very real challenges faced by many shared owners. I thank Lucy and the many others who have shared their examples with us that have brought this to light.
This has been a valuable debate on an area of housing policy which was intended to provide a bridge to home ownership but which, for some households, has been increasingly difficult to navigate. We have heard concerns about affordability, rising service charges, the costs associated with staircasing and the difficulties faced by leaseholders whose homes may be difficult to sell or mortgage. We have also heard concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock, where shared ownership properties leave the sector altogether.
The amendments before us seek above all to shine a light on these issues. Amendment 23 focuses on gathering better evidence about unsaleable and unmortgageable homes and on understanding the extent to which affordable housing stock is being lost. Amendment 25 asks the Government to undertake a broader review of whether the shared ownership model is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve.
From these Benches, we continue to support the principle of shared ownership as a route into home ownership for those who might otherwise be excluded from the housing market. However, support for the principle should not prevent us from examining how the scheme operates in practice and where improvements are needed. A review of the sort proposed by my noble friend Lord Young would provide an opportunity to assess the evidence, understand the experiences of shared owners and identify any barriers preventing the scheme from fulfilling its original purpose. If my noble friend is minded to move his amendment, we shall support him. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling Amendments 23 and 25, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill, for their support. I recognise the constructive and persistent way in which the noble Lord has raised issues relating to shared ownership throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, in previous Bills. In my responses, I in no way want to undermine the difficulties of shared owners, which I understand have caused great anxiety and for which I am deeply sympathetic. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the department is doing to provide support for some of the issues the noble Lord raised.
I turn first to Amendment 23. Shared ownership landlords are independent bodies and decisions about the repurchase of individual homes sit with them. However, landlords already have the option to buy back homes, including where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues. Landlords can already use their recycled capital grant funding to cover up to 100% of the cost of that.
Furthermore, allocating social and affordable homes programme grant funding for use on shared ownership buybacks would not be conducive to the core strategic objective of that new programme, which is to maximise supply, particularly of social rent homes. We expect landlords to set out any buyback policies, or confirm if they do not have one, on their websites. Ultimately, the solution for those struggling to sell their homes due to building safety issues is the remediation of unsafe buildings.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate—my noble friend Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady O’Neill on the Front Bench. There is agreement that shared ownership is a useful stepping stone to home ownership. The trouble is that, at the moment, for far too many people, the stepping stones do not reach the other bank.
I listened to what the Minister said, but she basically repeated what was in her letter and did not go as far as I would have liked. For example, she said that social landlords could buy and could implement buyback, but we have had email after email over the weekend explaining that the social landlords are not buying back. She went on to say that the answer is remediation, but remediation will not be complete until 2031 at the earliest. These people simply cannot wait.
The Minister also made it clear that she is not prepared to review the model of shared ownership, for the reasons she gave. I had hoped that she would produce a rabbit out of a hat. She produced a hat, but sadly there was no rabbit in it. It would be greedy of me to test the patience of the House by voting on both Amendment 23 and Amendment 25. My view is that Amendment 25 picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and that paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (2) cover the key point about buyback. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23 and, when the time comes, I will move Amendment 25 formally.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Review of shared ownership and staircasing(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of the shared ownership scheme in England.(2) The review must consider in particular—(a) the affordability of shared ownership for leaseholders;(b) the extent to which shared ownership provides a viable route to full home ownership; (c) the operation of staircasing arrangements, including the costs, fees and valuation requirements associated with the purchase of additional shares;(d) barriers faced by shared ownership leaseholders in staircasing to higher levels of ownership or to full ownership;(e) the impact of service charges, repairs obligations and other housing costs on shared ownership leaseholders;(f) whether legislative or regulatory changes are required to improve transparency, affordability and access to full ownership.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”
Lord Best
“Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safetyAfter section 86 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term), insert—“86ZA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety(1) This section applies where—(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure and assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.(2) When subsection (1) applies, the registered provider must grant the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy, and(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—(a) the registered provider,(b) the tenant, or(c) any member of the tenant’s household.(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the registered provider concerned must co-operate with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.””Member's explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure social housing providers offer a return to a secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, in accordance with police advice.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments begins with Amendment 28, in my name, and covers a range of different but vital issues. The concluding Amendment 76 in the group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, addresses the treatment of abuse victims who get into debt while living in temporary accommodation and lose their entitlement to a secure home. As I am sure the noble Baroness will explain, that is a vital amendment. I greatly welcome the wider definition of domestic abuse announced by the Minister in her letter to Peers of 14 July and encapsulated in the 46 government amendments in this group.
Amendment 28 picks up on a separate but related issue. It would ensure that social housing providers offered a new secure tenancy to a tenant who had been forced out of their social housing by threats of targeted youth or gang violence following police advice. This change was first proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. A constituent of hers, as instructed by the police, left her social rent home but thereby lost access to secure accommodation and was trapped in miserable temporary accommodation, with no right of return. She was penalised because one of her children had been threatened with serious violence by gang members, not because she or any member of her family had done anything wrong. Frighteningly, these cases of gang violence are not rare in some of our inner-city areas. The family of Helen Hayes’s constituent subsequently suffered the tragic death of a teenage son in a separate gang-related incident. The threats to life can be very real.
Amendment 28 would ensure that, in future cases, the fleeing household would not lose the right to return to a secure tenancy where the move was on the basis of police advice. I understand that the Government will be strengthening guidance to social landlords. What is needed is a firm obligation on the housing association to restore the household security of tenure in a decent property after a temporary emergency move.
Amendment 29 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I thank the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, the National Federation of ALMOs and the LGA for their work on this issue. Amendment 29 seeks to end the current legal anomaly whereby, on the one hand, social landlords are required to make checks of tenants’ homes for safety reasons while, on the other hand, the tenant may deny access. A recent court judgment has ruled that social landlords do not have a right of access in these cases. The social landlord can be penalised for failing to carry out safety checks, can be accused of regulatory failure and can face criminal prosecution, but they cannot fulfil the requirements on them because the tenant is denying access and the courts will not support the social landlord taking action to enter the premises.
Quite properly, the Government have been bringing pressure to bear on social landlords to improve their management and maintenance services, including by carrying out more safety checks and works. There is the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. However, the social landlord may make comprehensive and repeated attempts to secure entry to carry out these statutory checks but is still denied access. The tenant may have mental health difficulties, they may be hoarders or they may simply lead a chaotic lifestyle that makes appointments hard to keep, but taking the tenant to court as a last resort has revealed an ambiguity in the law, with a judgment last October that courts cannot grant access unless Parliament has clearly conferred such a power.
There is an urgent need to sort out the legal position. I know that MHCLG has been in helpful negotiations with all the representative bodies to bring together statutory guidance that would ensure good practice by social landlords and avoid accusations of trampling on tenants’ human rights. However, the blockage encountered in the courts suggests that social landlords need more than this important guidance. It seems that new legal powers are required.
I know the Minister has been pursuing this matter within MHCLG and with the other relevant government departments to resolve this legal dilemma. I was grateful to the Minister, as on so many occasions, for her willingness to meet and discuss the issue and for her subsequent letter in which she recognises the strength of the case and says: “I agree that the ability of landlords to access homes for essential safety checks is an important issue that we must take seriously. The early evidence suggests that there is an issue for government to resolve, and I am sympathetic to your amendment”.
Without a solution, the housing associations, councils and ALMOs are left in an impossible position. As always, the hard work behind the scenes by the Minister is much appreciated, and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, and I am delighted to see that it is grouped with the Government’s amendments extending protections for victims of domestic abuse, which I certainly support.
I was grateful for the Minister’s constructive response to this amendment in Committee, especially her recognition that the matter needs further consideration and her commitment to convene interested stakeholders to explore a way forward. I know that representative bodies from across the social housing sector have been working with officials on the best way to solve the issue of access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspection repairs and safety works. In Committee, the Minister raised important concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home, and I agree that that is extremely important in safeguarding a tenant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. However, the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ask simply: are existing routes for access clear, consistent and fast enough when tenants and residents do not engage and clear safety risks are posed? I am convinced that the answer to this is no.
We know that housing associations and councils increasingly report difficulties in gaining access to residents’ homes to carry out statutory safety inspections. Recent HQN research found that 60% of surveyed social landlords had growing or considerable concerns about access issues. The primary concern here must be the safety of residents and social housing staff. If gas safety checks or emergency repairs cannot be conducted, issues can be left unidentified or unresolved that pose significant and imminent danger not just to the resident in that property but to people in neighbouring homes as well.
Legal action is typically taken as a last resort after steps to engage directly with residents have proven unsuccessful, but even this has become more challenging. Housing associations have observed a shift in decisions from judges over the last 12 months, with judges seemingly less willing to approve requests for injunctions, particularly for matters other than gas safety. As I mentioned in Committee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just mentioned it too, a court judgment from October 2025 demonstrated that Parliament’s intention on forced entry is currently unclear.
Alongside the obvious risk to safety, there is the financial cost of inaction. In a 2026 White Paper, the Association of Safety and Compliance Professionals estimated that repeated access attempts cost the social housing sector more than £175 million annually in direct operational terms, with the figure rising to between £200 million and £245 million with legal escalation included. I urge that this money could be better directed towards work that will improve the conditions of residents’ homes or to building much-needed new social housing.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s approach so far. Whether through this amendment or another mechanism to clarify the process for securing access, I know that both she and social housing bodies want to work in partnership to develop a workable system with tenant safety at its heart.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 76 standing in my name, and I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This amendment would mean that landlords could not prevent domestic abuse survivors accessing social housing on the basis of debt incurred under coercive control or economic abuse. Research by Katherine Brickell of King’s College London and Mel Nowicki of Oxford Brookes University found that the allocations policies of only one in five local authorities in England currently exempt domestic abuse survivors from debt-related rules on social housing.
During my periods as CEO of Shelter and before that Women’s Aid, I saw the desperate impact of these rules on women and children who ended up homeless in temporary accommodation. Let us be clear what this means. Temporary accommodation is often just one room in a B&B, a converted office block or a hotel. Laying the table for tea often means laying the bed for tea. I have seen a GCSE student with nowhere to work but sitting on the toilet. I have seen a baby who could not be put down to crawl because there was no space between the beds. I have seen families having to live on unhealthy and expensive takeaways because they have no cooking facilities. Add all these challenges to the unimaginable trauma of domestic abuse followed by homelessness and you can easily see why many women literally risk their lives by staying with the perpetrator to spare their children from homelessness.
It was heartening today to hear the new Prime Minister prioritising the end of rough sleeping and, even more importantly, reiterating the commitment to a major programme of social and council housebuilding. The Prime Minister cited the model of Everyone In used during the Covid-19 pandemic but, while this was a great example of partnership and co-ordination, it is not a model for ensuring homeless people find safe and secure homes for the long term and not temporary accommodation in hotels. This is important context for this amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has made a very powerful case indeed, and I will not repeat what she has said. She emphasised that my noble friend the Minister is extremely sympathetic—she made that clear in Committee. She also said that she thought statutory guidance was the answer but that if it proved not to be sufficient, then, in effect, we have the necessary primary powers to take action.
I simply want to ask my noble friend whether she could give an assurance that, in the event that the guidance proves insufficient as the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has warned it might do, the Government will use those powers. Can she say what steps will be taken to monitor compliance with the guidance? What does she consider a reasonable period to assess the effectiveness of the guidance? Can she also say—and this echoes the noble Baroness—what steps will be taken to ensure local authorities are aware of the guidance and what is expected of them under it?
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is.
I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse.
Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing what she says on how she will meet the requests of housing associations there.
Finally, we welcome the expansion of scope in laying out and making sure that these provisions apply to other forms of abuse including, for example, sibling abuse or child-to-parent abuse. These are made available by the amendments that the Government have tabled here. We really welcome that change.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims.
It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition.
During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle.
We have also heard valuable contributions on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The proposed duty to ensure continuity of tenancy for those forced to move because of threats of targeted youth or gang violence raises an important issue. Nobody should face the prospect of losing the security of their tenancy because they are compelled to move for the safety of their family.
Likewise, the amendment concerning access for registered providers to undertake essential safety inspections addresses a long-standing and very practical problem. Social landlords have a significant statutory duty in relation to gas safety, electrical safety and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Where access cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, there needs to be a proportionate mechanism that can protect both the rights of tenants and the safety of the residents. This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for achieving that balance.
This debate is therefore united by a common theme of ensuring that the law provides appropriate protection, whether for victims of domestic abuse, tenants facing serious threats to their safety or residents whose well-being depends upon essential safety checks being carried out. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her engagement on these issues.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Neate, Lady Lister, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill. I will be moving government Amendments 30 to 75; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will move them en bloc and not one at a time.
This Bill introduces important changes to give greater security and stability to social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse while giving landlords stronger powers to take action against perpetrators. While these protections have been warmly welcomed, we have listened closely to the legitimate concerns raised that the Bill’s protections, which focused on abuse involving a resident partner or that partner’s resident family member, are too narrow. They risk excluding victims of familial abuse in non-partner relationships, such as abuse between adult parents and adult children, siblings or other relatives. The government amendments close that gap. I especially thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for her engagement on this issue.
The amendments align the Bill’s provisions more closely with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. by focusing on the victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and who occupies the home or has had to leave because of the abuse. They additionally make a number of consequential changes to who the court should consider when examining reasonableness under the discretionary ground or approving suitable alternative accommodation in joint tenancy cases. These amendments will deliver a fairer outcome for victims of familial domestic abuse. They demonstrate our Government’s commitment to engaging with the House and stakeholders, and to strengthening the Bill where there is a clear case to do so.
Commenting now on Amendment 28, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling this amendment. It raises the serious issue of how the housing system responds when an existing social housing tenant needs to move urgently for their or their household’s safety. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement with me on this issue. I also thank Helen Hayes MP; it was truly shocking to hear of the circumstances of her constituent, Georgia, and the shocking murder of Georgia’s son, Damarie Roye.
I agree that social housing tenants should not have to choose between their personal safety and the security of their home. There are existing protections: the social housing allocations framework requires that, where people need to move on welfare grounds, they must be given reasonable preference for social housing. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to give additional preference to those fleeing violence. The Renters’ Rights Act will strengthen security of tenure for social housing tenants on assured tenancies from October 2027. However, I recognise the importance of considering whether we can go further to ensure that those who need to move for safety do not lose the security and associated benefits of their tenancy, which may have been built up over a number of years.
We need to consider carefully how any new duties on landlords would operate, particularly in assessing whether there is a threat to safety and where a landlord does not have suitable accommodation. We believe that further work is needed before any solution to this policy issue can be put forward. I have asked officials to explore this matter at pace, and we are keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and stakeholders on possible solutions, ahead of the Bill moving to the other place. I hope the noble Lord will understand how committed I am to ensuring that nobody should have to choose between their safety and their tenancy.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 29, which seeks to introduce a statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to fulfil their statutory safety duties. Since he last introduced this amendment, we have had a helpful discussion about these issues and my officials have been working closely with sector bodies. I recognise that there is growing concern from the sector that a lack of legal clarity leaves it unable to conduct necessary tests and repairs, and risks tenant safety.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, it was a good debate, with approval from all sides for all the amendments in the group. It was good to hear the details of the 46 government amendments that will widen the definition of domestic abuse. Once again, it has been invaluable to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Teather, and to understand the Government’s sincere efforts to remedy the inherent injustices in the current arrangements for domestic abuse survivors through enhanced guidance. I thank the Minister for her very full and helpful response and for her firm commitment to take further action if guidance proves insufficient to protect victims of domestic abuse.
On dangers from crimes of violence where the police have strongly advised a move, it is important to note the Minister’s commitment to strengthening the guidance to social landlords, now in preparation. This will, I hope, make a significant difference.
When it comes to the no-access problem, we must await further action by government on the need for a change in the law for a statutory right of access, but I am greatly heartened by the willingness of the Minister to find a lasting solution. With these comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
“(c) the victim, or a victim, of the offence—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.” Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of the absolute ground for possession in new section 84B. The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
“(b) the victim, or a victim, of the breach—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of the ground for possession in new section 84B. The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to—(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour of the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines terms used in other amendments of new section 84B in my name.
(i) the victim mentioned in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim mentioned in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
(i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim mentioned in that section, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
“The following conditions are met in relation to a dwelling-house.Condition 1 is that there has been abusive behaviour by a person who is a tenant of the dwelling-house (“A”) towards a person (the “victim”) who—.(a) is personally connected to A, and(b) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.Condition 2 is that—”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 2A). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
(i) the victim, or(ii) a member of the victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
““abusive” has the meaning given in section 1(3) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to—(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour of the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines terms used in other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
(i) the victim who is referred to in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim who is referred to in the relevant ground, or (ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
(i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
(i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
“(d) the victim, or a victim, of the offence—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.” Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 7AA). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
“(c) the victim, or a victim, of the breach—(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 7AA). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to—(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour towards them by the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines terms used in other amendments of new Ground 7AA in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 7AA in my name.
(a) is personally connected to the tenant, and(b) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 14A). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
(i) the victim, or(ii) a member of the victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who—(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to the domestic abuse;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines a term used in another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
““personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines a term used in another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 14A in my name.
Lord Young of Cookham
“Review of lifetime secure tenancies(1) A local housing authority must review each lifetime secure tenancy at intervals of no more than five years.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) whether the tenant continues to require the accommodation having regard to their housing needs,(b) whether the accommodation remains suitable having regard to the size and composition of the tenant’s household,(c) whether the tenant has developed a local connection with another local housing authority area,(d) whether the tenant requires support to move to more suitable accommodation, and(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Following a review under this section, the local housing authority may—(a) confirm the continuation of the tenancy,(b) offer alternative suitable accommodation, or(c) take such other action as may be provided for by regulations.(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local housing authorities on the conduct of reviews under this section.(5) Local housing authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs and that existing stock is being used effectively.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77, in my name, is similar to Amendment 66, which we debated in Committee. It would require local authorities to review secure tenancies every five years to see whether there are other options available to the tenant which might free up social housing for others in desperate need. After inflicting the first defeat on the new Burnham Administration with my Amendment 25, I do not propose to try again.
The case for this amendment was actually made by the Minister in the letter she sent to all of us on 14 May when she introduced the Bill. She said:
“Yet too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists”.
She was right. At the end of last year, there were more than 175,000 children living in temporary accommodation, with the figure going up for each of the last three years. Some 20% have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years. This is no way to spend one’s childhood.
Building more social rented homes is part of the answer, but that programme is behind target. Last year, just over 12,000 new social rent homes were built, but—and this goes to the heart of my amendment—there were a quarter of a million social housing re-lets. On those figures, those on the waiting list are 20 times more likely to get a social home through a re-let rather than through a new build—hence the imperative to see what might be done through generating more re-lets, at a fraction of the time and cost of new builds.
I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Bird, previously. He said of social housing that
“the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]
Access to social housing has now become a safety net, and a safety net of limited capacity. Just look at the guidance issued by the Government on 10 July 2025:
“The government has made clear that we expect social homes to go to people who genuinely need and deserve them … priority for social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need”.
Today, the “greatest housing need” probably means the statutory duty to rehouse a family in emergency accommodation—for instance, in a bed and breakfast—or a family granted asylum who are now living in a hotel. It could be a mother and children fleeing domestic violence or a family whose illegal HMO has been cancelled by the local authority and closed. There is not enough social housing even for all of them.
You get social housing today because you are in the greatest need, to quote the government circular. The question then arises about what happens if you are allocated a tenancy because you were in the greatest need and then, with the help of that tenancy and perhaps wider support, you put your life together and have the ability to move on. Should you not then make way for someone who is now in the same desperate position as you were and give them the opportunity to rebuild their life in the same way? That is the question behind my amendment. It should be seriously considered by any party that claims to look after the most vulnerable.
The point was well made in an article in the Times on Saturday, headed:
“More than 100,000 households in social housing are in richest 20%”.
It went on to say:
“Andy Burnham’s promise to embark on the biggest expansion of social housing for a generation will not solve the housing crisis unless the politically toxic question of who should be entitled to subsidised homes is tackled, experts say”.
It pointed out that 389,000 social tenancies were
“under-occupying their homes by at least two bedrooms”.
So, today, you currently get a lifelong tenancy because of your vulnerability at one point in time, and, crucially, it is never reassessed. Tackling homelessness is not just about increasing supply; it has to be about allocation if it is to be serious. My amendment encourages a dialogue between the tenant and landlord to outline the options once it is clear that a family can afford to move. They may include shared ownership, help with a deposit, or help with the cost of moving.
I do not think the Minister, in her response to my amendment in Committee, did justice to the case I made or the seriousness of the current position. She said:
“Nothing in the Bill prevents local housing authorities from granting fixed-term tenancies where they consider it to be appropriate—for example, to support time-limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts”.
But my amendment is not about fixed-term tenancies in certain limited circumstances; it is about reviewing a secure tenancy every five years to see whether it is still appropriate. Further, as proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment makes clear, the secure tenancy can be confirmed.
The Minister went on to say:
“We want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. It is not right to require that most new tenants be offered fixed-term tenancies, as this would reduce their security”.—[Official Report, 17/6/26; cols. 292-93.]
But that is to duck the tough decision that Housing Ministers should now take: weighing the need for security and stability for one tenant, who may well be able to replicate that security and stability with another form of tenure, against the need for a decent home for someone in a bed and breakfast, who deserves the same chance that the first tenant had a few years ago. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am very disappointed to say that we oppose Amendments 77 and 78, but those who heard my comments in Committee will not be surprised. I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concerns and analysis, but I disagree with his solution. We believe that these amendments send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration. Social housing should be a foundation for opportunity, not a ceiling on ambition. Families should not have to think twice about taking on extra hours, accepting a promotion or starting a small business because they fear it could jeopardise the security of their home. Many social housing tenants are in receipt of some sort of benefit, which indicates that they would not be able to leap forward into other forms of housing.
Let us not ignore the sheer bureaucracy of these proposals. Frankly, they would be quite unworkable. Who is going to monitor the incomes, carry out the reviews, process the appeals and reassess thousands of tenancies? Housing officers are already stretched to breaking point; in the middle of a housing crisis, should they be helping people into homes or policing pay rises? It is obvious which we would prefer. Let us also be clear that the housing crisis is not caused by social tenants doing a bit better than when they went into the social home; it is caused by decades of failing to build enough homes. The answer is more social housing, not more scrutiny of the lives of the people who live in it.
We believe that a secure home should give people the confidence to get on in life. We should be building opportunity, not bureaucracy, and rewarding ambition, not regulating it. These amendments do the opposite. For that reason, we cannot support them.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, for once I rise to oppose—at least in part—an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: Amendment 77. I want to defend the concept of providing secure social housing tenancies for life. The review proposed in Amendment 77 envisages five-yearly reviews of whether a tenancy should continue, with the possibility of a consequent requirement for a tenant to move elsewhere if their circumstances have changed sufficiently. This would engender a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity for every social housing tenant.
Apart from the administrative overload, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has drawn attention, I suggest there are some powerful reasons why denying social housing tenants a secure lifetime tenancy is likely to have undesirable consequences. First, the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that has not been introduced to date, and which the Bill intends to repeal, would have required social housing tenants to pay a higher rent if their income improves. In theory, this would pressurise tenants to move on into the private rented sector or, less probably, to buy their own home elsewhere. I maintain that no regime should penalise tenants in social housing who improve their position in life by working hard and earning more. They should not be expected to pay for their success by facing higher rents. A system of rising rents for rising incomes brings disincentives to work longer hours, or even to work at all.
Secondly, if a tenant leaves subsidised housing because their improved financial position has meant a penalty in their rent, what happens if they have a reversal of their fortunes? The PRS property to which they have moved will no longer be affordable on their now reduced income, but it would be virtually impossible for them to regain a social home lost in this way.
Thirdly, if tenants are pressurised to move out of social housing and into private renting when their personal circumstances improve, they are likely to encounter the problem that their income will drop on retirement. A market rent that was affordable when they were working can swiftly become unaffordable when they are retired. The taxpayer will then get lumbered with a further increase in the housing benefit bill.
Fourthly, keeping households on an estate of social rented housing, despite their circumstances improving, has social and community advantages. A mixed-income estate that includes some tenants on rather higher incomes means successful neighbours providing role models for other families, often demonstrating community leadership for resident-led activity.
Fifthly, if tenants are encouraged or compelled to move out when they do well, those who remain could be stigmatised as losers and failures. This stigma can seriously affect children’s life chances, as American research into concentrated poverty has revealed.
Finally, there is the argument that tenants should be compelled to move on if they no longer need the space they are occupying—for example, if they have a spare bedroom. For this, the bedroom tax presents a case study. This reduction in housing benefit was intended to incentivise underoccupying tenants to move out but, in reality, very few of those facing the bedroom tax proved willing or able to move. Rather, the withdrawal of benefit from those with a spare room has served only to reduce the incomes of those affected. It has seldom been possible for the downsizing tenant to find a suitable home elsewhere. They have simply been made poorer through losing some of the housing benefit that previously covered their rent.
Instead, carrots rather than sticks have been shown to work in persuading older tenants to downsize into later living homes, such as a cluster of smart new apartments that replaced redundant garages on a council estate. Rather than pressurising elderly tenants to downsize, the incentive of a more suitable home—nearby accommodation that is more accessible and manageable —produces better results for everyone.
For all these reasons, I caution against a review that considers alternatives to secure-for-life social housing tenancies. These alternatives are likely to diminish the quality of life for tenants, especially measures that pressurise tenants unwillingly into an enforced move. Like most of us who are home owners, tenants in social housing thrive on the knowledge that they are secure in their own homes for as long as they choose.
On Amendment 78, I do not support the unhelpful provision in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to terminate fixed-term secure tenancies, which has never been implemented. This Bill is right to repeal that measure and preserve long-term security of tenure for social housing renters.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will not seek to elaborate on the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case that, where we have an asset with a finite supply and excessive demand, we need to look at how we can use it effectively.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke about the impact on the tenant: what about that person who is not able to access social housing because it is occupied by somebody who could comfortably afford their own private rented home or could afford a higher rent? I am not suggesting that everyone can but, where we have a finite resource, we need to use it efficiently. Ultimately, that is about fairness, not just to the existing tenant but to families, often in difficult circumstances, for whom the opportunity of a social home could turn their lives around—as it has turned around the life of somebody who has moved on and been successful. It is also about fairness to taxpayers. Why should someone who is struggling to pay their private rent see their taxes fund a subsidised home for someone earning more than they are? Again, I am not saying that they all are. This is about moving on.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of incentives and carrots, so I was surprised that, earlier on, he did not support the incentive of the ability to buy your own home under the right to buy. Surely that is a tremendous incentive for anyone who could afford to do it, thereby creating, through building, another social home for somebody in tremendous need.
With that, I very much support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment and the retention of the previous Conservative measure, because it is about fairness. It is about using stock wisely and about ensuring that it does the maximum amount of good for the maximum number of people.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 77. I recognise that the intention is to ensure that social housing stock is being used as effectively as possible by requiring local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies at least every five years. But the Government’s position is clear: we support secure tenancies because they provide stability and certainty for social housing tenants in the long term, and for the communities in which they live. This is especially important for families, older people, disabled people and other vulnerable households, who need a stable and secure home and the ability to put down roots in their communities that comes with the certainty that lifetime secure tenancies offer.
Local housing authorities already have tools to manage their housing stock and to support tenants who wish to move to accommodation that better meets their needs. Local authorities can carry out checks to assure themselves that tenants are meeting the terms of their tenancies. I agree that social homes should be used as effectively as possible to support housing need and that we should support landlords to ensure that this is the case. That is why the Government have launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are using their properties. This work is considering how landlords understand tenants’ changing needs and support tenant movement, including where changes result in tenants underoccupying homes. I wrote to all noble Lords ahead of Report with further details of this review. It will report later this year and will be used to help inform future policy development. It is important that we let this work conclude to better understand current practices and challenges before taking action.
On the extensive social housebuilding programme, the answer to lack of supply and to the people on the waiting list is: build more social housing. We have an extensive social housebuilding programme. Inevitably, it had a lead-in time but, now that funding is being allocated, it will quickly accelerate—and I suspect it might accelerate even more quickly now we have new management in place, but that is to be seen later.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I feel it is important to comment on that. That programme was announced over a year ago—I am pleased that the Minister has told me now that the allocations are available—and it will be interesting to see when the cash is out of the door. It will not deliver housing for at least another 18 months to two years. That is not making the step change that we need now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings.
Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they will retain this flexibility. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this relatively short debate. I recognise that my proposition on Amendment 77 has not commanded the breadth of support needed to convince your Lordships to change the law. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the bedroom tax. I remember the hostility from the Labour Party when the coalition Government introduced what Steven Webb called the “spare room subsidy”. I note, however, that there are no plans to change it at all from the incoming Labour Government.
I will say a word in defence of Amendment 77, which did not propose that somebody’s rent should go up if their income went up—that is Amendment 78. It would also not be my proposition that, if somebody is on benefits, they should be made to forgo their tenancy. The gap between my proposition and what the Minister has just said is relatively small. I wanted a dialogue, with no compulsion, outlining the options available to somebody whose circumstances had improved, perhaps offering some help with a deposit or, as I said, with shared ownership. In response, the Minister said that social landlords can already do this.
You can give lifetime tenancies, but there are consequences: people in real need will not get access to a secure tenancy as fast as they might if there were more mobility through the social housing sector. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 June be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument concerns machinery used every day across our economy and in our daily lives. It covers a wide range of products: from cranes and excavators used on construction sites to lawnmowers, leaf blowers and many other workplace and consumer products. The current machinery safety framework is based on legislation introduced in 2006 and 2008, which implemented the then EU machinery directive and was subsequently assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union.
As noble Lords will know and appreciate, machinery has evolved markedly over the past two decades. Digital technologies, automation, connected systems and software now play an increasingly important role in machinery design and operation. It is therefore right that our regulatory framework evolves alongside those technological developments to ensure it remains effective, proportionate and fit for purpose. This instrument has two distinct and complementary purposes. First, it introduces the domestic enforcement framework necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation which applies in Northern Ireland from 20 January 2027 under the Windsor Framework. Secondly, it amends domestic legislation to ensure that machinery meeting the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain under the CE marking. In doing so, it provides businesses with continuity and certainty while avoiding unnecessary duplication of conformity assessment procedures.
Turning first to Northern Ireland, these regulations establish a comprehensive enforcement framework to ensure that safe and compliant machinery can continue to be placed on the Northern Ireland market. They designate the existing enforcement authorities, which are the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and the district councils, and grant them appropriate investigatory and enforcement powers. They also create offences and penalties for serious non-compliance, including fines and, where appropriate, custodial sentences. I can reassure the House that these penalties are fully consistent with the wider product safety framework and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that these provisions will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system.
Importantly, enforcement is intended to be proportionate. In the overwhelming majority of cases, we expect compliance to be achieved through advice, engagement and support for businesses, rather than through criminal sanctions. Criminal penalties are rightly reserved for the most serious instances of non-compliance. The regulations also preserve the important role of UK-approved conformity assessment bodies for machinery placed on the Northern Ireland market by continuing to use the UKNI marking alongside the CE marking where required. It is equally important to emphasise that the UKNI marking is not mandatory in every case: where the relevant conditions are met, machinery bearing the CE marking alone may continue to be placed on the Northern Ireland market.
Turning to Great Britain, the regulations continue the Government’s policy of recognising machinery that complies with the specific requirements of the updated EU machinery regulation. This means manufacturers can continue placing compliant products on the GB market under the CE marking, avoiding costly duplicate conformity assessments while maintaining high standards of product safety. The regulations also ensure that qualifying goods in free circulation in Northern Ireland continue to enjoy unfettered access to the Great Britain market. The updated EU machinery regulation also reflects the considerable technological advances since the previous regime was introduced. It clarifies responsibilities across the supply chain, strengthens the obligations of importers and distributors, facilitates greater use of digital documentation, and mandates third-party conformity assessment for certain categories of higher-risk machinery.
Having carefully considered these changes and following extensive engagement with industry, the Government believe that they are sensible and proportionate and reflect the reality of a modern machinery sector. Indeed, the engagement has been extensive. My officials undertook a call for evidence, held a series of round table discussions with more than 200 stakeholders across the United Kingdom and internationally, and engaged directly with businesses in Northern Ireland, including through dedicated events in Belfast. The message from industry was consistent and clear. Stakeholders supported modernising machinery safety requirements and strongly backed the continued recognition of CE in Great Britain as a means of reducing costs, facilitating trade and maintaining competitiveness. Businesses in Northern Ireland also emphasised the need to maintain a coherent regulatory approach across the United Kingdom and to ensure that goods continue to move smoothly between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Government have listened carefully to those views. This instrument reflects that engagement. It supports competitiveness, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, while maintaining robust protections for workers and consumers.
Manufacturers already certify their machinery to EU requirements because they operate across multiple international markets. Consequently, officials have not identified any significant adverse impacts arising from these regulations, and we anticipate no material disruption to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of this instrument. The Government will continue to support businesses with clear guidance and practical assistance, including the recently announced £16.6 million UK internal market package for Northern Ireland businesses adapting to regulatory change.
I shall now briefly turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, which raises concerns about both the functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and the Government’s approach to updating machinery regulation. Northern Ireland is, of course, an integral part of our United Kingdom. While the legal framework applicable in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain will temporarily differ in some respects, the practical consequences for most businesses trading across the United Kingdom will be limited. Manufacturers have already designed and certified their products to meet EU requirements because they serve multiple international markets. The continued recognition of compliant machinery in Great Britain and the continued unfettered access enjoyed by qualifying Northern Ireland goods will enable businesses to trade across the United Kingdom with minimal disruption.
The noble Baroness also suggests that these measures merely follow the European Union’s regulatory approach. I respectfully disagree. The Government carefully considered a range of policy options and engaged extensively with manufacturers, trade associations and other stakeholders. We concluded that this approach best supports UK businesses, reduces unnecessary duplication, facilitates trade, maintains our high standards for machinery safety and provides the certainty businesses have consistently asked for. This is therefore a policy choice made in the interests of businesses, workers and consumers throughout the United Kingdom. Ultimately, these regulations aim to modernise an ageing regulatory framework, maintain high standards of product safety, support innovation, reduce unnecessary burdens where possible and provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest and grow. For these reasons, I beg to move that these regulations be approved.
Baroness Hoey
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations place a different legal requirement on the supply of machinery in Northern Ireland in order to comply with the Windsor Framework; risk interrupting the Northern Ireland supply chain from Great Britain; and increase pressure for the same EU requirements to be imposed on Great Britain, thereby undermining regulatory freedoms in Great Britain in order to prevent divergence from the EU.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
It is good to see the Minister in his place; he obviously has not had a telephone call today, which we all welcome, I am sure. This statutory instrument covers the regulation of both workplace machinery and consumer products, including excavators, cranes and leaf blowers, and potentially even lawnmowers. It provides an enforcement mechanism for the Government for a law that automatically applies to Northern Ireland because of the dynamic alignment provisions of the Windsor Framework.
This regulation was made on 14 June 2023. That date is important, because it is more than two years after we left the EU, and it was made by a legislature in which no part of the United Kingdom was represented. It was made not out of any regard for the people of Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK. It tells us that we have not really left the EU; we have simply made our subjection to Brussels that much more abject, imposing a trade border dividing our own country.
The regulation does not come into force, as the Minister has said, until 20 January 2027, so the European Union member state economies have had nearly four years to prepare, but Northern Ireland has not. As the Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee has recognised, dynamic alignment means that businesses do not know all the laws to which they are subject or even when they will be brought in. In addition to introducing an enforcement regime, these regulations amend domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain.
This treats Northern Ireland as if it is a self-sufficient economy that needs only the opportunity to sell its goods to the rest of the UK to succeed. There is a determination by the Government to minimise the impact of the Windsor Framework by saying that goods can move unfettered from Northern Ireland to GB, as if that is the only relevant part of being in the UK internal market, when, in truth, as a small and totally independent part of the UK economy, just as, if not more, important is the unfettered movement of goods and, critically, inputs from GB to Northern Ireland. The EU regulation has effect in Northern Ireland in all respects apart from enforcement, without our Government having to do anything, and yet we heard nothing about it until three years after it had been passed.
Normally, the Cabinet Office would produce an Explanatory Memorandum that considered the impact of legislation and gave us some idea of the cost of compliance. However, despite being passed more than three years ago, as I said, I can see no Explanatory Memorandum or government assessment of the cost of complying with EU Regulation 2023/1230.
Let us be clear. We are being asked to pass legislation enforcing a law that we did not make and have never debated. I addressed a Written Parliamentary Question on cost to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, but, rather than setting out the cost, the Answer suggested on the basis of highly controversial and contested assumptions that the overall impact would be positive. There was no attempt to set out the cost. One of the supposed benefits set to outweigh cost was dual market access, which, far from making Northern Ireland the Singapore of the West, has not been responsible for generating a single case of inward investment into Northern Ireland. It cannot and will not, because Northern Ireland plc does not enjoy dual market input access, which would be needed to make dual market access a net benefit rather than a net cost to Northern Ireland.
The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that goods made under this legislation in Northern Ireland must meet EU tests, resulting in their obtaining UKNI markings, and that if they also obtain CE markings, they can be sold in Great Britain. The key question, however, is whether the goods governed by these regulations can be made in Great Britain and then sold in Northern Ireland without encountering new border frictions. The critical question that lies behind that first question is: will a company based in Great Britain that sells most of its goods to Great Britain and that probably will not want the hassle of arranging the cost of separate conformity checks and getting the UKNI and the CE marking to access just 3% of the UK market continue to sell products into Northern Ireland?
When these regulations were debated in the other place, the honourable Member for North Antrim asked this question but did not get a clear answer. His follow-up Written Question was answered last week by the honourable Member for East Renfrewshire, who made it very clear that any company based in Northern Ireland that depends on using goods covered by this legislation that are manufactured in Great Britain will no longer be able to buy those goods from 20 January 2027 unless the GB company is prepared to go through the hassle of a separate conformity assessment and then having their goods subject to UKNI markings. This means, undoubtedly, that the supply chains of Northern Ireland will be placed in jeopardy unless businesses can find other suppliers, either in the Republic of Ireland or in the European Union.
I ask the Minister: what will a GB business that currently supplies these goods to Northern Ireland need to do to get its EU conformity checked and secure a UKNI label so that the product can continue to be sold in Northern Ireland from 20 January 2027? It needs to be making those preparations now. We still have not had any answer from any Minister on that issue. What will be the cost to that business of applying for the tests, being tested and then getting the UKNI marking? Again, we have had nothing about cost.
The Minister in the other place was very clear that the Government intend to subject GB to the same EU law as will come into force in Northern Ireland in January 2027, but can the Minister finally explain what happens between 20 January 2027 and whenever the comparable GB legislation comes into effect? That is going to be crucial for Northern Ireland businesses. When, realistically, do the Government imagine that the same legislation will come into effect in GB? Will the relevant products made in GB still need UKNI markings if sold in Northern Ireland, even after GB law aligns with the EU? That is a very important question.
Once again, Northern Ireland is being sacrificed by the Government, who are not prepared to stand up to the European Union and who are dividing our country once again. I beg to move my amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Minister correctly points out that after almost 20 years it is time for regulations to be updated to take account of technological and other developments. Nobody has an argument with that. However, the points that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, illustrate an ongoing problem. We are only at the foothills of this, because with the European reset about to take place, we are going to be confronted with a tidal wave of these SIs that will be going on for a long time.
On a number of occasions, I have argued that we have the potential to review this year our relationships with the TCA system and the European Union. We have had honeyed words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box saying, “Yes, we will do that”. I am not aware of anything currently happening. There is no meaningful attempt from government that I am aware of to seriously address what is not only a constitutional issue but rapidly becoming a serious economic issue.
The noble Baroness has illustrated, as happened in the other place, the issue of components coming into Northern Ireland to be part of a manufactured product which can then be sold on either to the EU, the world or GB. The Minister is very experienced; he knows business. He knows that to have an economy where you are constructing a product which could have hundreds of components—the form that the European Union produces, with each line with a number, down to washers, is overwhelming—the Government must take these issues seriously.
I am not going to get into the minutiae of the SI tonight because this is only an example; over the next few years, we will face literally hundreds of them. I therefore appeal to the Minister that when it is clear who is going to be representing his department at the Cabinet table—I wish it was him, but that is another matter—he asks whether the Government are going to address seriously the negotiating calamity that took place as we left the European Union, which produced the protocol, which produced the Windsor Framework. Nobody seems to be grasping this. It is costing this country an absolute fortune, with the Trader Support Service and all the differences, and the number of civil servants who have to monitor it. We are going round and round in circles, but no one is grabbing the politics or economics of it. We are just like nodding donkeys: if it comes from Brussels, that is what we do.
The Minister will have to accept that that is not good enough. I would like to see a serious negotiation. We can go back to the argument over Brexit and who was for or against it, but it was very clear to me and others like me, when we asked the Government for the plan they would introduce for Northern Ireland, that there was no plan. That is why some of us took the view that it was not the right time to make the move, but the people decided so we have to live with it and get on with it—and we must do so with enthusiasm. Whatever side of the argument we are on, a decision was taken and we have to live with it.
Therefore, instead of trying to subvert that decision, we have to try to implement it. That means that we do not do harm to our own businesses and constitutional position. I therefore ask the Minister to take back to his department the view that “Government plc” needs to reset our arrangements with the EU within the United Kingdom. We are neither fish nor flesh, and our businesses are confronted with at least two regimes; we have a patchwork quilt to try to repair the relationship. It was badly negotiated and it has been badly implemented.
I hope the Minister will take that back so that, when we come to the next one of what will be hundreds of these SIs, we might, I hope, see some light that the Government have got the message. I hope we can talk to our European partners to see whether we can find a solution, rather than having to do these things every so often.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. These regulations drive another wedge between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, cementing the gradual disintegration of our union by legislative stealth. Once again, we in Northern Ireland are the sacrificial lambs sent to the slaughter to appease Europe.
In my opinion, this is a debate about fairness; it is about having an equal footing within the internal market between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It is totally unacceptable that Northern Ireland stands on uneven ground. Businesses have already been fettered by the weight of the Windsor Framework bureaucracy, and now our Government want to apply even more red tape—much to their shame.
Companies and consumers based in Northern Ireland who depend on buying in machinery made in Great Britain will be very concerned about what these regulations will mean—certainly from 20 January 2027 onwards until the same legislation applies to Great Britain, although we do not know when that will be. There is no clarity concerning that timeline. Should businesses contact their suppliers in Great Britain now and encourage them to continue supplying the Northern Ireland market, despite the additional costs involved? In other words, are GB manufacturers expected to absorb the cost of having their machinery assessed against EU standards that apply in Northern Ireland, and of obtaining UKNI marking so that Northern Ireland businesses and consumers can continue to buy the products they need at prices comparable to those they have traditionally paid within their home economy?
I trust the Minister can tell us whether he fully understands why these regulations genuinely worry companies and consumers in Northern Ireland? The worst possible outcome is that many businesses in Great Britain will decide that it is no longer worth the hassle to sell to the Northern Ireland market. In the same vein, can the Minister also tell the House which organisation a GB manufacturer will need to approach to have machinery assessed against the relevant EU standard and what the expected cost of that assessment will be? Once compliance with EU standards has been demonstrated, which organisation will be responsible for issuing or facilitating the UKNI marking and what will be the cost of that process?
Unless greater detail is brought forward, I fear—even beyond the constitutional damage—that these regulations will cost businesses financially and practically. Can the Minister clarify what will happen to products that have already been manufactured and are in warehouses in Northern Ireland but do not have UKNI marking? If they are not sold by 20 January 2027, will they have to be scrapped or sent to GB? I am acutely aware that one company has had to scrap 11 perfectly good condenser tumble dryers because they were unable to sell them before the EU ban on selling condenser tumble dryers came in. I would regret it if this was the case for all the machinery to which these regulations pertain if they were produced without a UKNI marking.
In reality, these regulations do nothing to advantage or uplift British citizens. They were designed by foreign representatives in a foreign polity, not by this Parliament. The regulations are not made to be amended. They have been created with the sole purpose of appeasing the European Union. The people of Northern Ireland have had no say over these regulations and it is an insult to democracy that they should be imposed over our heads.
In conclusion, we have started today with a new Prime Minister. He speaks about a reset with Europe. Would it be too much to expect that our Prime Minister would stand up against Europe and defend the unity of the United Kingdom, remove the iniquitous Windsor Framework and permit us to trade freely within the United Kingdom on equal footing with the rest of the UK?
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to partake in this debate. I thank the Minister for the detail he has provided. I do not necessarily blame just the current Government for this issue because it goes back much further than that. We have to accept that there were very poor negotiations after Brexit that led to the protocol and the Windsor Framework. Who have been the fall people? The Northern Ireland businesses have been the main fall people, which is extremely unfortunate. We need to try to resolve the outworkings of the protocol and Windsor Framework.
That decision has had significant consequences for many businesses so far, and this will be another one. I am sure that most businesses in Northern Ireland never thought that, after Brexit, we would be debating excavators, cranes and leaf blowers—let alone tumble dryers. For goodness’ sake: this is way beyond what any of us expected in Northern Ireland and what we expected to see as a reasonable relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland, our businesses have been the fall people for all of this. So, how are we going to resolve it? This is not going to resolve it, because there is no assessment of the financial impact to the people of Northern Ireland and its businesses. Even though this Government have not been to blame for those negotiations, my issue is that I have not seen anything from them either that has tried to resolve the issues. As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has indicated, I would like to see them coming forward with better, more proactive solutions that are going to help this.
I have already mentioned the cost burden on Northern Ireland businesses, which has been highlighted. The Minister indicated the £16.6 million UK internal market package. But will that be sufficient for these costs? Does that include the cost of this particular regulation? Will it include the cost of the regulations that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has indicated we are going to have lots more of coming forward? We have to talk to the people on the ground—they are the important ones—and those people have found it extremely difficult to find their way through this bureaucratic burden.
I do not know how that is going to be helped and assisted and what the proactive steps are. The Minister indicated that the Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that the industry is supported and complying with the new requirements. What I want to know is: what are these proactive steps? We hear so often that they are taking steps and measures. I would like some detail on that, so the businesses know exactly where they stand and what they need to do—because they do not know. For the next four months, businesses are going to be looking around to see how they can actually comply with the regulations.
The one other issue that I am really keen to find out is: what are the differences in the requirements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? What are the requirements in that health and safety aspect in Northern Ireland that will be different to GB? I would have assumed that GB probably may even have a higher regulation than the European Union, or at least something similar, in health and safety standards. So, what actually are the additional aspects that are required? Unless those businesses are given that clear guidance and practical assistance, this is just going to be another burden.
This is increasing the internal divergence between GB and Northern Ireland, which is not only a constitutional issue but is hampering businesses and the economy. We are suffering in the economy in Northern Ireland because of it. We have to be honest: a lot of—or at least some of—our trade is with the Republic of Ireland. I do not deny that, but we need a more straightforward process to retain that trade with GB as well, which we cannot ignore, because that is still our biggest market. Let us be able to do that trade with the Republic of Ireland but also with GB as well, because if we stop that GB trade, that will have a significant economic disadvantage for our businesses in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to be able to participate in this debate and I support the statutory instrument coming from the Government, which is one of many statutory instruments that we have already addressed in relation to the Windsor Framework. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, there will be many more coming down the path to greet us in this Chamber which will already have been examined by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
It is important to point out that, as a supporter of the Windsor Framework, I feel that the new incoming Government, working with the Northern Ireland Executive, need to ensure that the ability provided by the Windsor Framework in terms of trade within the UK internal market and access to the EU single market is fully availed of, and that Northern Ireland businesses are enhanced as a result of it. That area needs to be examined with the Northern Ireland Executive.
On this particular statutory instrument, it is worth pointing out that the Government intend to introduce similar measures to those taking effect in Northern Ireland
“as soon as parliamentary time allows”,
which could allow regulatory divergence between GB and Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister can advise on that.
I would also like to see accelerated progress on the development of the one-stop-shop by the Cabinet Office to support services for business, including the role of AI in the operation of this one-stop-shop and the UK-EU dynamic database of applicable and future regulation to areas that were proposed by our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee in our first report, and also by my noble friend Lord Murphy in his review of the operation of the Windsor Framework. I look forward to answers from the Minister in relation to those issues.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I am not going to deliver a speech, but the noble Baroness and the Minister have spoken about certainty. Does the noble Baroness not agree that certainty would be a lot more enhanced—and I look forward to the Minister’s reply—if we got some form of timescale for whatever is going to be proposed for Great Britain, to bring it back into alignment with Northern Ireland? Also, certainty is massively undermined by the fact that there has not been any level of financial impact assessment on this. We are left with phrases such as “limited impact” and “not particularly practical impact”, but those things are very vague, and we know from previous experience that there was actually a much greater impact than had previously been highlighted.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I agree that there needs to be absolute certainty in relation to the framework, but I come at this as somebody who supports the Windsor Framework and feels that the Government need to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that access to both markets is fully captured, and it is ensured that businesses can avail of them.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for allowing us to have this important, if short, debate this evening through tabling her regret amendment.
I read the debate on 30 June about these regulations in the House of Commons with interest. I have also listened carefully to the contributions to this short debate this evening. As usual in these debates, the majority of concerns expressed about these regulations are not so much about the content of the regulations themselves but are constitutional and include concerns about trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the impact on Northern Ireland businesses.
These regulations in themselves are not particularly controversial. As the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have said, they update the safety standards of machinery under the EU directive of 2006 and the UK’s subsequent regulations from 2008. In the intervening nearly 20 years, machinery has changed quite significantly, and I am sure that nobody is disputing that the regulations themselves needed to be updated. These regulations are quite technical and, in the House of Commons, the Minister for Business and Trade estimated that they will impact 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and approximately 5,380 businesses in Great Britain.
The concerns expressed this evening by noble Lords are about the fact that Northern Ireland is being treated differently to the rest of the UK as a result of the Windsor Framework. There are also very real concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, about how to scrutinise these regulations as we align with the European Union on these matters but have lost our democratic voice in the European Parliament and our representation in the Council of Ministers.
I would like to make three points in my remaining time. The first is about the impact that these regulations will have on businesses throughout the UK, in particular on Northern Ireland businesses. I should note that it is welcome that there was extensive consultation with businesses. However, the Minister in the House of Commons acknowledged that there had been a “de minimis assessment” and not a full impact assessment, because the regulations were deemed
“to have a low impact per business from their introduction”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/6/26; col. 12.]
Does the Minister not accept, however, that given there is no real opportunity for Parliament to have a direct say on this secondary legislation, it would be preferable to have a full impact assessment of their implementation?
My second point is about the continued regulatory divergence that stems from these regulations. From these Benches we broadly welcome the upgrading of safety standards, but the measures being introduced to Great Britain, although they extend the recognition of CE marking beyond next January, are not the same as the EU standards being introduced in Northern Ireland. The Minister in the House of Commons indicated that the intention was to introduce measures in Great Britain similar to those being introduced in Northern Ireland, but she did not say when she expected this to happen. Like other noble Lords, I would be grateful if, in his concluding remarks, the Minister could indicate a rough timescale for when he expects this to happen. Does he agree that it would be advisable to minimise the amount of time when the wider UK internal market is working on different and parallel systems?
Thirdly and finally, does the Minister agree that the current policy of a gradual move towards dynamic alignment with the EU on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis results in both economic and political uncertainty for businesses? Clearly, with the arrival of Prime Minister Burnham in No. 10 today—the fifth Prime Minister in four years—the Minister this evening will not be in a position to know for sure what the new Government’s position will be towards the European Union. However, I am sure he will agree that businesses want and need certainty so that they can prepare and plan.
I am sure I will now lose the will of the House with my final comment, but the Liberal Democrat policy of joining the EU single market would provide certainty and clarity. I do not expect the Minister to comment, but I note that joining the single market would also result in removing regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is clearly of great concern to many in Northern Ireland as well as British businesses that trade and do business with Northern Ireland.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for giving us this opportunity.
The origins of the Windsor Framework lay in the desire of the previous Government to address the consequences of what was a deeply flawed protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, negotiated in October 2019. Within a short time of the protocol coming into force in January 2021, those consequences had become all too apparent. It disrupted trade, damaged businesses and imposed additional costs and inconvenience on customers and consumers. The Windsor Framework was a serious and, in my view, valiant attempt by the Government led by the former Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to address those problems. It was motivated by a desire to reduce significantly the checks on goods introduced by the protocol, to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom internal market and to reinforce Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Taken together with the January 2024 Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, the framework ameliorated some of the worst effects of the protocol. It facilitated a freer flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and contributed to the restoration of devolved government at Stormont in February 2024. We should not lose sight of the importance of either achievement. However, acknowledging those achievements does not require us to pretend that every underlying problem was resolved. Significant difficulties remain, including regulatory divergence, trade diversion and, as several speakers have pointed out, the imposition on Northern Ireland businesses of laws made outside the United Kingdom’s democratic institutions.
The regulations before us demonstrate precisely why those unresolved issues still matter. As has been explained, they give domestic enforcement effect in Northern Ireland to regulation (EU) 2023/1230. Northern Ireland manufacturers will be legally required to comply with that regulation, while equivalent businesses in Great Britain will not necessarily be subject to the same legal obligations. That raises both an economic and a democratic concern. Northern Ireland businesses may face higher costs when manufacturing goods for sale in their principal market in Great Britain. At the same time, they will be bound by rules that neither this Parliament nor the Northern Ireland Assembly made, can amend or can repeal. They are being made rule-takers, not rule-makers.
The central question for the Minister is therefore whether the requirements being enforced by these regulations will significantly increase the costs of production in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If they do, Northern Ireland goods could become less competitive in the Great Britain market, despite enjoying formal unfettered access to it.
Legal access is not the same as commercial competitiveness. A Northern Ireland manufacturer may retain the right to place a product on the Great Britain market, but that right is of limited value if the cost of conformity assessment, certification, technical documentation, product labelling and continuing compliance makes that product more expensive than an equivalent manufactured in Great Britain. We therefore look forward to the Minister’s explanation. Can he shed some light on this important area? What assessment has been made of the cumulative costs that regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will impose on Northern Ireland manufacturers? How do those costs compare with those faced by equivalent firms in Great Britain? How many affected businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises? Above all, what steps will the Government take if this new regulatory divergence makes Northern Ireland goods less competitive within their own United Kingdom internal market?
As virtually every speaker has set out, this is a magnificent and welcome opportunity for the Government to set out a clear policy in this area and make the Windsor Framework even more relevant today than it was when it was thought through by the Rishi Sunak Government.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I will address briefly the concerns and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and other noble Lords. This is a time-limited debate, so I will answer as many questions as I can and, if necessary, will write to noble Lords.
I recognise, as does the House, that noble Lords have consistently raised concerns about the operation of the Windsor Framework and its application for Northern Ireland. These are legitimate matters for parliamentary scrutiny and debate, which we welcome. However, the question before the House this evening is much narrower and more practical, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie: namely, whether businesses, regulators and consumers should have a clear, modern and enforceable machinery safety framework before the new arrangements take effect on 20 January 2027.
In reaching their conclusions, the Government did not merely make assumptions; we asked those who will be directly affected by them. As I said in opening, my officials have conducted a comprehensive programme of engagement, comprising a national call for evidence, 10 round-table meetings attended by over 200 stakeholders from across the United Kingdom and internationally, and targeted engagement with businesses in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. We listened to manufacturers, importers, conformity assessment bodies and representative organisations before deciding on this approach. The consistent message that we received was that businesses sought certainty. They wanted a modern regulatory framework that reflected technological developments. They wanted to avoid unnecessary duplication of conformity assessment. They sought ongoing acknowledgement of CE-marked machinery within Great Britain, as it diminishes costs, bolsters competitiveness, and facilitates more straightforward trade for businesses across the United Kingdom and within the European Union.
Numerous enterprises that we interacted with in Northern Ireland informed us that retaining CE recognition within GB would facilitate trade, as manufacturers already certified their products to these standards to access international markets. They regarded certainty and continuity as essential to investment and future growth. The evidence gathered by government shows that businesses are most concerned not with ongoing uncertainty but with having clear regulations, practical trade arrangements and a solid framework that helps them succeed in the UK and on the global stage.
Noble Lords may continue to hold differing views on the Windsor Framework, but this instrument neither creates nor alters those constitutional arrangements. Its purpose is more limited and practical, and ensures that businesses have certainty. It ensures that regulators have the powers necessary to fulfil their statutory responsibilities and it upholds high standards of machinery safety. It supports innovation and competitiveness, and it enables responsible businesses to continue trading with confidence.
Various noble Lords asked about costs. The measures applying in Northern Ireland are out of scope of formal impact assessment. Nevertheless, the Government have engaged directly with businesses in Northern Ireland, and the feedback from these stakeholders has been broadly supportive of the measures. As a result, we do not expect the measures to impose additional costs or burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland relative to those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We anticipate that most businesses operating in Great Britain will choose to meet the EU requirements. In practical terms, this means that machinery manufacturers across the United Kingdom will be subject to the same requirements. In addition, the Government have set out their intention to introduce similar reforms in Great Britain. For those reasons, we expect the requirements applying in Northern Ireland to create minimal, if any, competitive disadvantage. As I said, we recently announced £16.6 million to support Northern Ireland businesses adapting to regulatory change.
There were questions asked about whether businesses were unprepared. Through extensive stakeholder engagement, businesses are aware of these forthcoming changes. Guidance for businesses is available at GOV.UK, and this guidance will be updated to reflect the changes implemented by this SI.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked what businesses in Great Britain need to do. This instrument does not alter the existing Windsor Framework arrangement. Machinery placed on the market in Northern Ireland must comply with the applicable Northern Ireland requirements. Machinery in Great Britain may be placed on the Northern Ireland market with the CE marking where it is either self-assessed to the EU requirements or assessed by an EU-recognised body. Where the UK-approved body carries out the conformity assessment, both the CE and the UKNI markings are required. Manufacturers may therefore continue to place machinery on the Northern Ireland market, regardless of where it is manufactured, provided it meets applicable requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked whether we will be introducing similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already started actively developing further SIs to modernise the machinery requirements in Great Britain. This will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with technological developments. The announcement for implementing these similar measures has already taken place to provide businesses with certainty.
I think the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked a question about whether businesses are in favour. I say again that my officials have consulted with industry stakeholders across the UK and internationally in the call for evidence. The majority of businesses in Northern Ireland supported introducing the requirements under the machinery regulation, and many businesses stressed the importance of introducing similar measures in the rest of the UK as soon as possible.
I think a question was also asked about current products. Products that are placed on the market before 20 January 2027 can continue to circulate freely until the end of their lives without further requirements, including UK(NI) marking.
My time is running out, so I will conclude. Ultimately, I respectfully suggest that this House should evaluate these regulations based on the evidence presented before us, the tangible benefits they offer and the certainty they afford to businesses throughout the United Kingdom. For these reasons, I respectfully invite the House to reject the regret amendment and approve these regulations.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken, particularly my colleagues from Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, tends to come in on all these SIs and support the Windsor Framework, but does not really seem to take a detailed interest in what businesses are thinking about this.
Generally, I hope the Minister has realised that this is a complex and difficult issue and that the Government have not provided the detailed information for businesses that they could have. Businesses have only a few months before they have to implement, and we are still very unclear about the marking situation. The Minister says that UK(NI) marking will not always be necessary, so how are we supposed to know when it is and when it is not? These are the kind of details that small businesses in particular, which depend on their relationship with GB, will find extremely difficult. None of the detailed questions that noble Lords asked has really been answered, so after the Minister has looked through what was said in Hansard, perhaps we will get a more detailed response, because those questions will come up over and over again until we get real answers and businesses have some certainty.
I welcome the response from the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrats and some of the questions she asked, as I did the Front-Bench spokesman from the Conservatives. Interestingly, the Conservatives in the other place voted against this statutory instrument, and I welcome that. I am feeling hopeful because, every time we have SIs—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that we are going to have a lot more—we seem to get more support, but I am on my best behaviour tonight. I said to the Chief Whip that I would not call a Division and that I would stick to my six minutes, as I think I did. I also know that Members are very interested in what is happening—or is not happening—at Downing Street.
With that, I hope that everyone realises that this will not go away. We will be back, time and again, until this House and the Government recognise that, whatever the reasons for signing up to the protocol and the Windsor Framework, they are not working and this is not sustainable. We will keep coming back until the Government recognise that, as both opposition parties and reform parties seem to be beginning to recognise. I therefore withdraw my amendment.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:41 - Division on Amendment 83 - Ayes: 38 / Noes: 133 - Amendment 83 disagreed.
Lord Fuller
“Protections for adapted social housing(1) This section applies where a dwelling owned by the local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing—(a) has been substantially adapted for occupation by a person with a disability or support need, or(b) has been substantially adapted with the use of a Disabled Facilities Grant.(2) Before such a dwelling is allocated through the general housing allocation process, the landlord must take reasonable steps to offer the dwelling to a person whose needs would substantially benefit from those adaptations.(3) In this section, “substantially adapted” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require social landlords to protect the pool of adapted housing by giving preference to applicants who could benefit from existing adaptations before allocating adapted homes through the general housing allocation process.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. We are an ageing nation and nowadays, many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. In Committee, I explained how councils might install housing adaptations so that a resident with an impairment can live more comfortably. I explained that it might be as simple as a grab rail or ramp. Half of such adaptations include a wet room, many with wider doors to accommodate wheelchairs.
In preparation for Report, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He told me that wet rooms are important because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it helps keep our hospital wards clear. It typically takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation. I will not go into the reasons why, but in my council, we deliver about 150 such projects per year at an average of about £10,000 each.
I feel I have laboured the point, but the simple truth is that we do not have a large enough pool of adapted and improved homes to meet the demand. That is why the state invests in them. The local government department distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities for the purpose of improving homes and making them suitable for people with limitations. Some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs, top that money up. I suppose that making these improvements adds up to about £1 billion a year.
My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock—protecting that £1 billion per year investment—and about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. I have heard it said that this is an allocations issue and that this Bill is not going there, but I do not see it as an allocations issue in the sense that we are going to give preference to a particular veteran or a certain local person. This is about protecting the generality of the pool of adapted homes as society gets older, fatter and lives longer with debilitating impairments, so that there is a stock of homes where people can make the best of their lives and make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that simple truth, what is it for? Casually dismissing it as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection. We must grab this sufficiency issue now.
I have softened the text of my amendment so that the Minister can define the scope of what counts as a relevant adaptation. I have not been overly prescriptive, as I was in Committee. But it is really important that we protect that £1 billion a year investment, so that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and get on with.
Here is the problem my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, a tenant passes away or moves on and the home is readvertised, with the exception of certain specialised sheltered accommodation, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. Tenants can ask them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy; it is a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes and is bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice—once to put it in, and again to take it out.
I will repeat the story I told in Committee of the brand new accessible home built with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for the wheelchair-bound resident. The first resident turned out to be exceptionally tall and, by and by, he tired of bending down to move the saucepans around the low-level hob. So, the council was obliged to replace the kitchen with a normal one. That is crazy—it should have been reserved for a wheelchair-bound resident in the first place.
The Bill purports to protect the supply of social homes. My council expert, Kevin Philcox—that man again —told me that, among housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country. That is quite a statement.
We have a new Prime Minister. He wants to make social housing a talismanic issue; this is du jour. I am suggesting something that would not cost anything, yet it would make huge strides in helping some of the most vulnerable people. It is here and now. I will not press this to a Division this evening, but I hope the Minister will take this to the department, and in turn to No. 10, which wants low-cost quick wins and can have them at Third Reading. I am serving this one up out of the goodness of my heart as a house-warming present for the new Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on their first day in charge. I beg to move.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 80 is a retabling of an amendment I tabled in Committee. I will say a few words at the end in support of the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has just spoken.
My Amendment 80 would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the extent to which former members of the Armed Forces are able to access social housing. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss this issue and for making clear her commitment to achieving progress on this. I also thank her hard-working officials for sending me a very helpful note about the data that is collected, which I note was sent extremely late in the evening, so I am sure they were working hard in advance of the Bill returning to the Lords today.
The Minister responded to my amendment in Committee and in more detail when we had the chance to meet. She explained that she sees the way of making progress on this as being incorporating it partly within the wider review of social housing allocation. I broadly support that proposal, which I think is a sensible way forward, but I have some questions that I would be grateful if she would respond to. The information that her officials sent me was about data. I was really asking for a lot more information so that we are able to scrutinise how the Government are getting on. The Government say they are making progress on this issue. We need to be able to see the impact of that. Are more of the Armed Forces community able to access social housing or is it having no impact whatever?
The data that was sent to me on local authority housing statistics reported that 2,649 households on housing registers are members of the Armed Forces community and have been given additional preference under local authorities’ allocation schemes and that this equated to around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers in England. Do we really think that is picking up everybody who ought to be benefiting from being given an additional preference? How do the Government intend to ensure that all those in need report their need? How are they encouraged to report their need? Is the review being conducted going to meet the gap between the figure that we currently have and the almost certainly many others who are not benefiting from the measures that the Government have already brought forward? How are we going to monitor the progress that is made? How do we know that what gets delivered is going to be successful? How we measure success is an important question here.
My other point is about injured veterans who have a disability and require specialist or adapted accommodation, which relates to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, just moved. We spoke about this in private, so the Minister is aware that this is an issue very dear to my heart as my husband is a wheelchair user and other members of my family who have complex disabilities have struggled to access housing. One of them remained in hospital for a very long time waiting for accommodation that would meet his needs. This is a question about not just the waste of taxpayers’ money of taking out adaptions that are done but the extreme waste of taxpayers’ money of keeping people in hospital waiting for an appropriate property that would meet their needs.
I know the Minister has said—and I accept this—that not every disability is the same, and people will often require something that is personally adapted to meet their needs. However, there are certain aspects of adaptation that are likely to meet many people’s needs, including wider doorways and wet rooms, so stripping everything out does not make any sense whatever. I really hope the Minister will respond to that. It dovetails neatly with my point about making sure we are meeting the needs of veterans as well as others.
I do not intend to push my amendment to a vote, but I would be pleased to hear the Minister explain how the Government are going to respond to the point about the gap between what we currently know about and the people who are facing the changes that the Government have made, and how we are going to reach them and make progress on those aspects.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 81 and I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in their Amendments 83 and 84.
My amendment is trying to bring a bit of accountability back into housing associations. An issue that has been well described during various stages of the Bill is that housing associations are becoming enormous, with no connection to local areas. As a consequence, I thought—especially in line with the vibe of the new Prime Minister about devolution, local decision-making and people feeling involved—that it was time to get some democracy and democratically elected people back on these boards. Specifically, Amendment 81’s proposed new subsection (3) says:
“Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must ensure that no private registered provider’s board is comprised of a majority of elected local councillors”.
I anticipate that the Government will try to say, “This will put it back on the balance sheet”, but the answer is that it will not. The ONS—and I know this because there are some excellent officials over there; I have worked with some of them in the past—only puts things on the balance sheet because you have to have a majority. Control has to be with local government, which is why having a minority, not a majority, specifically in primary legislation, is key to that.
It feels that the direction of several housing associations is not going in the right way. The new Prime Minister has certainly been keen to talk about council housing—more so than social housing, although I appreciate that both will be in his mind—and that is where people would expect that, where there are special situations or a special kind of social housing or council housing, somehow there would be local involvement, not somebody who might be a couple of hundred miles away deciding what houses get sold, what get built and where they get built. For that reason, I hope the House may consider this during its consideration of the Bill.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might like to speak first to tell us about his amendments so that we could respond, but I will go first.
While they are all on the same theme, these amendments are all different so I will take each of them in turn. As usual, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sounds totally sensible, but I have checked this with three allocations officers in three different councils—so I have top trumped his single one—and the conclusion was that this is not an issue. Councils have the power to do what they wish with homes that have been adapted. They can leave them as voids, or they can rip out adaptations if they feel that they are too niche, but the reality is that they rarely have to do that because demand is so great. In fact, one officer said to me that the longest they have ever had to wait to re-let an adapted home is three weeks. I suppose I am saying that they would agree with the noble Lord that they care about protecting their precious adapted stock, and they do so.
My noble friend outlined the case for her Amendment 80. She said that many councils do this, but she is seeking to broaden our data about who accesses social housing, particularly veterans. The reason why that is important, as many of us know, is the high incidence of ex-military who end up homeless. My noble friend made a pertinent point about the wait that people have in order to get their adaptations. That is a far more serious point, and it could be to do with the availability of funding.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will start with where I think we have slightly more consensus and agreement. I believe my noble friend Lord Fuller made persuasive arguments on the importance of making best use of adapted properties. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is correct and his amendment is not needed, that is fine, but I would far rather have the ability to do something if it is needed, so this is something that we should be looking at.
We have also heard a very persuasive case from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for reviewing whether former members of our Armed Forces are able to access social housing effectively. I very much agree with this. One of the first instances I dealt with in my time as a councillor was that of a military family who were unable to access social housing. I was pleased that we were able to change the rules locally to make sure that they were able to access it.
My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment raises questions on local accountability, the relationship between housing associations and the communities they serve and, in particular, councillor representation. When I first became a councillor, I was a councillor representative on our local housing association. That was quite normal; it all changed because of Treasury rules, as my noble friend alluded to, which meant that we could no longer sit on housing associations. My understanding is that those rules have changed slightly and we should take that opportunity to revisit this. Clearly, having somebody local who understands the local issues on housing boards is critical, particularly as some housing associations are getting very large and remote—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made that point. Certainly, if you have somebody in Stevenage and the housing association is being run out of Manchester—I do not know whether that is the case—they will not have that local knowledge, so getting it is important.
Finally, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill all centre on the already much-discussed issue of the shortage of suitable social housing stock, and our need to deliver and manage that stock efficiently for the maximum benefit of our communities. I turn first to Amendment 84, which is about greater transparency and local connection. We know that local authorities already possess these powers to take local connection into account when determining allocation. The question raised by this amendment is whether those powers are used consistently and transparently.
Amendment 85 would simply require the Government to consider how social housing can remain focused on those with the greatest housing need. It does not prescribe a particular outcome; rather, it asks whether, at a time of acute housing pressures, we are making the best use of limited housing stock, and whether there are ways of helping those whose circumstances have changed and improved towards alternatives, such as home ownership or right to buy, or helping them move into other options. It is not about divisiveness. It is about helping everybody into the best option that suits them.
Finally, on Amendment 83, we need the public’s support and their trust that this is a fair and open country. Social housing is supported by substantial subsidy or grant when it is built, and the public, rightly, deserve and need to understand that it is fair. That is at the heart of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook highlighted at Second Reading, we continue to see high-profile cases that raise public concern: whether it is the First Lady of Sierra Leone or asylum seekers moving straight into brand new social housing, this raises concerns.
Now, that is not to deny the obligations that councils have to house those in need, but we believe that social housing exists to support those with the strongest connection to this country and their local communities. It is not about divisiveness; it is about being a single community. As we have heard in earlier debates, with many families spending years on waiting lists and local authorities facing ever-increasing pressures, it is entirely legitimate for this House to consider whether existing allocation rules command public confidence. For that reason, Amendment 83 gives priority for the allocation of scarce social housing to British citizens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say but, if I am not assuaged, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather, Lady Thornhill and Lady Coffey.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for moving Amendment 79. I very much support the intention behind it. Home adaptations can make a significant difference to disabled people, helping them live safely and independently in homes that meet their needs. I also agree that local authorities should make the best possible use of the homes available to them, particularly properties that have already been adapted.
Local housing authorities are responsible for setting their own allocation schemes, within the framework of legislation and statutory guidance. They will take different approaches to identifying and allocating accessible accommodation. Some may hold a separate register for applicants who need adapted housing, while others may record that information within their main housing register.
We will underline the importance of making the best use of existing stock, including adapted homes, in our updated statutory guidance on allocations. We will draw on evidence from the guidance review and the department’s wider work on stock management to share best practice with local authorities and registered providers. I would very much welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that work and I hope that, on that basis, he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her amendment to review access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces. I know this is a very important issue for the noble Baroness, as it is for me. This Government are committed to ensuring that those who have served, and their families, can access social housing when they need it. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections within the social housing allocations framework, including receiving the highest priority where they have urgent need and the exemption from the local connection rules introduced by this Government.
Op FORTITUDE, for example, is a single referral pathway to connect veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness with help and support. As of 28 June, Op FORTITUDE has received more than 5,100 referrals and supported 1,150 veterans into temporary or supported housing. I take on board the noble Baroness’s point that very often these two things—the issue from the previous amendment and that in her own amendment—are often linked together in veterans who have disabilities.
My department already collects, assesses and publishes a range of data to understand the access of veterans to social housing, the details of which I have indeed shared with the noble Baroness. I suspect that the numbers we have in the department are low. I think the noble Baroness was quoting from the information I gave her. My department asks authorities to report households that both are members of the Armed Forces community and have been awarded additional preference under the allocation scheme. From this we can see that, in 2024-25, local authorities reported 2,649 households on housing registers that were members of the Armed Forces community and had been given additional preference. That is around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers.
As I say, I suspect that that number is low. We rely on veterans to report this to housing authorities. I have discussed this with one of my local veterans’ charities, The Muster Point, which is working very hard to promote this fact, but it says that there is a multitude of reasons why sometimes veterans do not wish to disclose to the housing authority. They do not always understand that this is going to help them in their housing application, so we need to make sure that we get that message out there. I will talk to the noble Baroness and consider how we can do more on that, because it is very important that we get that message out there—that they need to disclose this at the point of their application.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I think we have a slight misunderstanding. The whole point of Amendment 85 is how we best manage that stock, not just on the point of application but the stock in its entirety, to ensure that social housing is targeted to those with the greatest need. The point I am making is that it goes beyond application.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have outlined, both on this set of amendments and on previous ones, that we are carrying out an extensive review of stock management and allocation, so I hope all those issues will be taken into account in those reviews.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, and I have said I will not press this to a vote, but I am sincere in my desire to protect homes for the most vulnerable in society, to protect dignity and to enable them to get out. I was very taken with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, who spoke from the heart. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given, but we need to reflect the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.
Today, there is a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will stay in her place. In the last Session, she had some monster Bills—the devolution Bill, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and whole tranches of the pensions Bill—as well as this Social Housing Bill in this Session. We have spent many hours on opposite sides of the Chamber, not always agreeing but always respecting our views. With that in mind, I hope we can have an assurance that we will come back with something at Third Reading that places in the Bill some of the reassurances she has given for a new Government, to bind the new Secretary of State. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Farmer
“Provision of information and collaboration on housing for prison leavers(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to—(a) ensure local housing authorities receive the necessary information, and(b) facilitate effective collaboration between local housing authorities, HM Prison and Probation Service and other relevant organisations,to prevent prison leavers at risk of homelessness from being unable to access housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, publish—(a) requirements for the nature of the information that must be shared with local housing authorities,(b) the timescales on which the information must be provided to local housing authorities,(c) the timescales within which local housing authorities must respond, including when they need to confirm whether or not housing will be available,(d) requirements for local housing authorities to respond to the person or body which made the social housing referral for a prison leaver, and(e) guidance for local housing authorities on their responsibility to provide further information as required.(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison. (4) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (3) before Parliament.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that local housing authorities receive information and effectively collaborate with other organisations as necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. It also to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on social housing provision to prison leavers.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82 is in my name and I support the three other amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. Amendment 82 augments my Committee stage Amendment 94, and I thank MHCLG for two meetings with officials which have helped me refine what I think is needed. Summarising briefly the arguments I made in Committee, which are still all valid, I would say that this amendment does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities working better together to prevent post-release homelessness. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, and especially rough sleeping, makes their rehabilitation almost impossible. Unsurprisingly, they will be more than twice as likely to reoffend as those released into settled accommodation.
They are also far more likely to die. In an investigation by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman into 137 deaths after release over a two-year period, almost one-third of those dying within two weeks had been released homeless. The PPO described homelessness on release as “a considerable issue”. It is also a growing issue. Last year, there was a 28% rise since 2021 in the numbers of deaths within two weeks of release. Greater pressure will shortly come from the 10 monthly tranches of early releases from English and Welsh jails, starting on 2 September 2026, of an estimated 6,000 prisoners. HM Inspectorate of Prisons told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2024 that, at some prisons, the limited housing stock available for those released had been
“overwhelmed by early release schemes”.
The Government are aware of this. Ministry of Justice data shows almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. Its national plan to end homelessness states that this
“could have been prevented had better coordination and planning been in place”—
hence the timeliness and needfulness of my amendment. It would ramp up accountability on local housing authorities’ compliance with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, because some are far better than others, under similar stock pressures, at finding ex-prisoners accommodation. Effective partnerships with prison, probation and other organisations are key to successful operation of the Homelessness Reduction Act’s duty to refer, which should kick in 50 days prior to release.
My amendment would tighten up the existing legal framework, as it is not delivering as it should, and its reporting requirements would reveal how local authorities compare with their statistical neighbours. It would enable regulations to specify more clearly how and when local housing authorities must respond to referrals. Prisons are also not consistently complying with the duty to refer; hence, regulations would also tighten the process at their end.
My new amendment explicitly refers to the need for effective collaboration between all relevant agencies, for reasons that I will now explain. Given the urgency, I am pleased that there has already been promising news on its direction of travel. First, the new Prime Minister —and I sincerely wish him well—has promised to end rough sleeping. Over half of all “duty to refer” referrals to local housing authorities are from criminal justice agencies, highlighting just how many of those threatened with rough sleeping are prison leavers. I met Andy Burnham when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester and asked if he had ever visited what used to be the city’s notorious HMP Strangeways. He had not, but he mentioned that practically all the men he saw sleeping rough on the road down to his office from what is now HMP Manchester had recently been released from there. Symbolically, they had barely moved on. Given today’s remarks, he clearly remains profoundly exercised by this.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 87, in the names of my noble friends Lady O’Neill and Lord Jamieson. This is an issue on which I have had a long-standing interest. During my time in this House, I have sought to strengthen the powers available to tackle tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. I did so because social housing is a precious public asset and every home lost to fraud is a home denied to a family in genuine need. We frequently discuss the need to build more social housing, and of course new supply is important, but we should not overlook the importance of making the very best use of the stock we already have. That seems like the common-sense approach.
The legislation is already in place to tackle fraud. The question is whether it is being used effectively and consistently. Effective enforcement measures act as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to abuse the system. Before we ask taxpayers to fund even more housing, it is right to understand whether the homes we already have are being used for the purposes for which they were intended. This is why I support these amendments that are built on transparency, accountability and understanding.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, from the Front Bench.
Amendment 82 is a sound and compassionate amendment. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way that the exchange of data between the Prison Service and local authorities with regard to placing ex-offenders does not happen as it should. I felt that the noble Lord’s comment about all local authorities taking their share is particularly pertinent, as I found out from bitter experience. To cut a long story short, I noticed a spike in homelessness and offences in certain neighbourhoods. When I dug under those statistics and spoke to the Probation Service, it turned out it was to do with the lack of homes for ex-offenders. I said, “How come it’s all congregating here?”, and they said, “Well, Hertfordshire councils aren’t very co-operative”. I then found out that only two of the 10 authorities in Hertfordshire actually co-operated and tried to work with this group of people. I am pleased to say to the Minister that they were Watford and Stevenage.
However, I fear that Amendments 86, 87 and 88 confuse a lack of action with a lack of oversight. The social housing sector is not short of reviews, strategies or regulators; what it is short of is homes. On Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, was absolutely right that every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone in real housing need. We should tackle tenancy fraud whenever it occurs, but I am not persuaded that yet another review from Whitehall will tell us anything that landlords do not already know. In my experience, the challenge is not a lack of understanding but often a lack of capacity and resources.
My greatest concern is with Amendment 87. Of course we want fewer voids, faster reletting and better use of existing stock—yes, yes, yes—but this amendment seems to assume that nobody is already collecting the data, monitoring performance or holding providers to account, and I do not believe that this is true. We already have a Regulator of Social Housing overseeing governance, financial viability and consumer standards; we already have the Housing Ombudsman scrutinising landlord performance and identifying systemic failings through complaints; and housing associations and councils already operate under significant scrutiny and reporting requirements. The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it. A national strategy will not relet an empty home and another set of metrics will not house a family; good management does that, as does investment and building more homes.
As for Amendment 88, we support strong governance, transparency and tenant representation, but those principles are already embedded in the existing regulatory framework. Housing associations are independent organisations, subject to robust oversight, not bodies waiting for Whitehall to tell them how to behave.
Therefore, while I support the objectives behind these amendments clearly and firmly, I cannot support the assumption behind them: that every challenge in housing requires another review, another strategy or another layer of central direction. The sector is already regulated, scrutinised and awash with data. What it needs is the freedom, capacity and investment to focus on what matters most: providing and managing good homes for the people who need them the most. For that reason, we oppose these amendments.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Farmer.
A common theme has run through this group: making better use of the social housing stock we already have. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Farmer addresses the important issue of prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Stable accommodation can play a crucial role in helping individuals rebuild their lives and in reducing the risk of reoffending. His amendment rightly seeks to improve co-ordination and information sharing between agencies, and I know that the House will have listened carefully to those arguments.
Amendments 87 and 88, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, are fundamentally about making the best use of the social housing stock we already have. We all hear calls for more social housing, but that conversation inevitably turns immediately to building more homes. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, new supply is important, but it will not arrive overnight. Before we ask taxpayers to fund more homes, is it not reasonable to ask whether the homes we already have are being used as effectively as possible?
We need to make better use of the homes we already have. To do that, we need a more accurate view of how many we need. When an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied, there is a strong case for a national strategy that tackles tenancy fraud, reduces void periods and improves re-letting performance. The Government themselves estimate that 5,800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short-term letting platforms. There could be a lot of people making a lot of money out of that. That demonstrates why tackling tenancy fraud must be part of any serious strategy for improving the use of social housing stock. Even if that figure proves to be overstated, it underlines the importance of having accurate data and a clearer understanding of the scale of the challenge.
Likewise, we need to understand how accurate housing waiting lists are and when they were last reviewed. Circumstances change, and it is only with a timely review that a more accurate and transparent assessment can be made of the number of dwellings actually needed, as well as ensuring that the list is assessing accurate prioritisation. Without that information, it is difficult to judge how many additional homes are genuinely required and how many could be made available through better stock management.
At a time when the demand for social housing continues to grow, it is not enough simply to talk about building new homes. We must ensure that the homes we already have are being managed as effectively as possible. Too often, concerns are raised about lengthy void periods, delays in re-letting, outdated waiting lists, tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. Every property left empty unnecessarily is a missed opportunity for a family in need. Every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone on a waiting list.
Our amendment would require the Government to produce a national strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing housing stock. It would improve transparency, requiring key information to be published on void properties, re-let times, recovered properties and enforcement activity relating to unlawful subletting. It is not about creating additional bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that landlords, local authorities and government focus on making the best use of an extremely valuable and scarce public asset.
The related amendment on unlawful subletting seeks to better understand whether current enforcement powers are being used effectively and the barriers that might exist. Before calling for ever more supply, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the stock we already have is being managed as efficiently as possible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for Amendment 82, which seeks to ensure that local authorities receive the necessary information and collaborate with others to support prison leavers at risk of homelessness. I echo the noble Lord’s words about my noble friend Lord Timpson. He was an exceptional Minister who brought both the discipline of running a business and the compassion that he embodies in the principles by which he runs his business to his ministerial role. He has been an incredible success as a Minister and I wish him well for the future.
This amendment is focused on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice recognise. Supporting people into accommodation on release from prison is critical to reducing both homelessness and reoffending. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for meeting my officials and for the work that he has done previously with my noble friend Lord Timpson on this issue. Although I recognise and am supportive of the intent of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Public bodies such as His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are already required to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice.
The Government have also outlined an ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness. Collaboration is key to achieving this goal. As the noble Lord said, we have committed to consulting on a duty to collaborate to compel certain public bodies to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. Getting the design right will be important to ensure that public services work together more effectively to identify those at risk of homelessness as early as possible. I always get a little nervous when I read out something such as “getting the design right”, because that sometimes means a very long time thinking about it. Let us therefore be optimistic about our new Prime Minister’s pledge to end rough sleeping. We know, as the noble Lord said, that a lot of these issues lead to rough sleeping, so I hope that our PM’s pledge to end it will accelerate progress on this issue.
My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison through the CORE data collection and publishes this annually. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising the important issue of effective use of social housing stock in Amendments 86 and 87. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Addressing illegal subletting, as Amendment 86 would, is an important element of that. However, as I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which will report later this year—not too long to wait for that. It will examine issues covered by these amendments, including voids, underoccupation, unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature to legislate for a separate review or strategy before that work has concluded. This will enable us to properly assess its findings and inform next steps.
The amendments would also duplicate existing data collection. Much of the information they seek to mandate is already collected through sources, including the CORE social housing lettings data and local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined.
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. This may include taking legal action. I was very pleased to read about a case in Hertfordshire today where technology was used to detect and convict on a housing fraud case. That will be a very useful tool in supporting this work.
On 8 July, the Government announced a new, innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for the families that need them and are not in the hands of criminals. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that these amendments are not moved.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on governance standards for registered providers of social housing. It is of the utmost importance that registered providers are well run organisations and that fundamental principles such as transparency and accountability are core to all their operations. However, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, registered providers of social housing are already subject to standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Specifically, private registered providers are required to meet the outcomes that are set out in the regulator’s governance and financial viability standard. This standard requires private registered providers to have effective governance arrangements that deliver their aims, objectives and intended outcomes for tenants and potential tenants in an effective, transparent and accountable manner.
Local authority-registered providers are not subject to this standard but instead are subject to a range of other governance requirements, including the statutory best-value duty. This requires them to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, all registered providers of social housing must meet the outcomes set out in the regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard, which requires that they take tenants’ views into account in their decision-making on how landlord services are delivered. Consequently, I am of the view that further governance standards set by the Secretary of State would duplicate these existing requirements set by the regulator. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, not to move their amendment.
That said, the regulator is currently seeking views through its discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, on its approach to economic regulation. This includes exploration of good governance and how to regulate for it. If there are specific ideas about how to strengthen governance requirements in the sector, I encourage noble Lords to engage with this process. If anybody needs any help with that, my officials will be happy to facilitate.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
The Minister said that the stock management review would come before the end of the year. Can she be clearer about a timescale? Will it be in the autumn or on Christmas Eve? Will that review show the data openly and transparently so that people can assess who is doing well and who is not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is a review of the practices of stock management. It is intended to flag up good practice but also look at what needs doing further to make stock management easier. I am going to say yes to the second question. To the first question, the safest that I can say is “by the end of the year”. The year ends, as far as I know, on 31 December, so it will be before that. I hope that it will be earlier than that, because we all want to get on with this work.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
Taking that one step further, is the Minister likely to share that with the House at that time? Obviously, I am hoping that she will still be in her place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Discussions will take place when the review is complete. We have had some good discussions around this in the House. It is obviously of interest to noble Lords. I am very happy to discuss it further when we get the outcome of that review.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her support, particularly in highlighting the variability of councils’ responses to notification that homeless prisoners will be coming out on their patch, and how councils right next door to each other vary from one to another. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for her contribution.
I thank the Minister for understanding this amendment. I am slightly disappointed, but I am aware of the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm and that quite a lot of work could be done on this in the Summer Recess. It is quite a simple amendment. Therefore, in view of the timescale that the Prime Minister has put on this—by the end of this Parliament—I ask that the Government use the Recess usefully to tidy up this amendment, maybe to come back at Third Reading with their own government amendment. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“Access to social housing: British citizenship(1) Where a dwelling is social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Regulation of Social Housing), the landlord must be satisfied that the lead tenant is a British citizen.(2) Where the landlord is not a local authority, the relevant local authority should take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that those who are not British citizens cannot access social housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we have the confidence of the public in our housing system. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“National strategy for management of social housing stock(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing social housing stock.(2) The strategy must include proposals for—(a) reducing vacancy periods;(b) improving re-letting performance;(c) tackling unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud;(d) improving waiting list management;(e) addressing under-occupation;(f) tackling barriers to downsizing, where appropriate;(g) improving transparency and data collection in stock management.(3) Every local housing authority and registered provider of social housing must publish annually, in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, information relating to—(a) the number of void properties;(b) average re-let times;(c) unlawful subletting investigations and prosecutions;(d) recovered properties;(e) the date on which the housing waiting list was most recently reviewed.(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report summarising and analysing the information published under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require a national strategy to improve the management of existing social housing stock and requires social landlords to publish key stock-management data, with the Secretary of State reporting annually on performance.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
Based on the commitment made earlier by the Minister, I am happy not to move this amendment.
Lord Bird
“Empty dwelling management orders: prescribed period of timeIn the Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Period of Time and Additional Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2625), omit Article 2 (prescribed period of time).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reinstate the period of time that a dwelling has to be unoccupied for before local councils can apply for empty dwelling management orders to six months.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased that I am being given the opportunity to speak to these two interesting amendments, Amendments 89 and 90. They are very simple. They are nowhere near what I want to achieve in life, but they are, in a sense, a halt in a becoming. In 1998, we had a situation where under the Blair Government—
Lord Bird (CB)
Shall I talk louder? The rain in Spain goes mainly down the drain. Sorry. Forgive me. Thank you. You are on my side.
Tony Blair or somebody in his Government had the idea that, if a house was empty for six months, it should be available for the local authority to turn it into some social usefulness. After the Second World War, Abbé whatever his name was said that because of the crisis of homelessness every empty property should be used by the local authority and the national Government to get people out of homelessness.
The Blair Administration said that if a property was empty for six months then it was important that it should be available so the local authority could say, “We will utilise it and return it back to you when you need it if you want to sell it, move your family in or whatever”. That referred to local authority housing, which at the time had in the region of 20% of voids. It was a period when many buildings that had been social housing had been rubbished and were not used properly.
I am here today partly to try to get the Government to move from the situation that we are now in. We know that the coalition Government, shall we say, kicked the can further down the road when they changed the period from six months to two years, so a property had to be empty for two years before the local authority could take it over. In my opinion, we should return to six months. I have had discussions about that with this wonderful Minister, and I hope she is in government—I really do. If we have the opportunity of returning to that time period then we could start kicking holes in the fact that there are so many empty houses out there, and that we have 160,000 children and 174,000 families in temporary accommodation. Would it not be brilliant if we could use empty homes as part of providing that need? That is one of my amendments; I cannot remember whether it is Amendment 89 or Amendment 90—forgive me my trespasses.
The other thing is that I want to invest in social housing. I should declare my situation: I am a social entrepreneur, a social investor, who runs a business, The Big Issue, which deals with the crisis of homelessness in the streets but also runs an enormous social business. We invest in 600 social businesses around the UK. Last week, I had the great pleasure—I am sure your Lordships cannot imagine me crying—of opening a school. I had to cut the ribbon of a school for disabled children down in Sunbury that Big Issue Invest had put £3 million into. So I am interested in the use of social business. Where do we get our money from? We get out money from the City of London, from family offices and from high net worth individuals. I am trying to bring two things together: one is the need for social justice around social housing and the other is freeing up the way that businesses can invest in social housing so that we can remove the anomalies that Governments have thrown up. We want to get into a situation where you can make money out of social housing but for the benefit of the most disenfranchised people in British society.
I am glad that Mr Burnham has taken as his first wonderful option the ending of rough sleeping. As an ex-rough sleeper, I have been campaigning for 35 years to get rid of rough sleeping. I have been campaigning to get rid of people leaving prisons and ending up on the streets. I am an ex-offender, and I was blessed that I did not end up on the streets. I ended up on the streets because I was running away from not just the police but my family.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 92, the final amendment, and will be going ahead of my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench. To set it out pretty clearly, I hope that this finds favour with not only the Minister but the renewed Secretary of State, the right honourable Angela Rayner, who has been appointed. I also hope this finds favour with the Prime Minister.
Basically, one of the barriers for councils and others in trying to provide social housing is land. Homes England has tons of land. It has been given a lot of land by other government departments, with the very specific intent for homes to be built. But I am still awaiting—admittedly still within time—Answers to Questions about how many homes Homes England has built. I think that, at the moment, it is constrained by Treasury rules that it has to do this commercially. That is nonsense. We have an asset and there is a very clear intention by the Government to build many more homes, and, in particular, with this new Prime Minister, many more council homes. Why can we not just get on with it?
I appreciate that people go on about different aspects of finances, but the point is that this is in the Government’s hands. It is a bit like why the Conservatives brought in the right to buy initially. The property was there, and we knew that there were people wanting to buy those homes, to have and to invest in as they did, rather than them being an ongoing expense for the taxpayer. We have the same here. There is land all over the place that could become homes much more quickly if it was simply handed, for free, to the local council to get on and build.
For anybody who thinks that it is quite challenging to build homes, I remember that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and I were having dinner on The Cut. We saw the modular building right opposite the Old Vic. It is not a huge plot of land, but now there are four homes there—and it was all done within about two or three months. It is quite extraordinary. Where there is a will, there is a way, but land is the barrier. I encourage the Government to think that through.
I want to support Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I have long been a supporter of this. At the moment, there are 754,000 vacant properties in England, according to statistics published by the department last October. That has gone up by about a third in the last decade. That is not on; something needs to be done to try to get this moving. Quite often, these places are scruffy, and yet councils are not making use of their powers to force the owners of such properties to tidy them up and keep them looking nice. Much more needs to be done on this.
The proposed new clause headed “Long-term empty homes use: strategy and funding” is very sensible and the amendment is definitely needed. I expect the Minister will say, “It doesn’t need to be in law. We’re already doing something about it”, but the very fact that we are seeing an increase—I think it increased year on year—is a real scandal when, by the way, 105,000 of those empty homes are in Greater London.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has not indicated whether he intends to press his amendment. If he does, I would support him, but I hope the Government will consider it carefully and come forward with their own amendments by the time the Bill goes to the other end, particularly under the guise of the new Prime Minister and the renovated Secretary of State, in order to really make a difference here.
I know that the Prime Minister talked today about rough sleeping, which has often been a huge focus for a number of Governments, but it is actually a small number of people in this country compared with the people who are living in temporary accommodation. I hope that the Government will give this full force and back the intent of the Prime Minister not only on rough sleeping but, as he also mentioned, on making sure that people get their homes. That will be the basis on which they can have prosperous lives.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this is a group of interesting and different amendments. Nobody could fail to be moved by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, speaks to us, or to understand and feel his passion. He should not doubt for a minute that we share that; I think we all do.
My concern about Amendment 89 is that it would involve empty dwelling management orders. There is a real irony about those orders, as they are a power that councils rarely use. In fact, councils regard them as much more complex and difficult than CPOs—compulsory purchase orders—and have almost abandoned using them altogether. There were, in fact, no EDMOs used at all between 2023 and 2024, and only 200 in total since they were introduced in 2006.
I absolutely understand the intention of what has been said, but I am going to be cheeky and use this opportunity with the Minister to jump on one of my hobby horses, which is empty homes. This is really about the constraints and difficulties with compulsory purchase orders. It was said that councils should use their powers, but the trouble is that there are real barriers to councils using those powers. To start with, on money, councils lack dedicated funding to renovate properties, which is exacerbated by the costs of compensation to the owner and legal fees, so there are real money issues there.
It is absolutely accepted that the CPO process is overwhelmingly bureaucratic, complex and slow; it also requires government approval. If we are talking about the devolution of things, perhaps that is a power that councils could just get on with. On the six months, you want to say, “Of course that’s right”, but from my experience tracing the owners can, in reality, take far longer than six months. It is really frustrating watching officers try to progress these sorts of things. It is very challenging when there are so many absentee owners now. Some of the most difficult issues are about untangling complicated probate ownership.
Another big issue is the capacity in councils to do this work, when there is an ongoing concern that councils are constantly being asked to do more with less, particularly with regard to such issues and enforcement. But I understand why this amendment has been brought and the Government should look at removing some of those barriers to CPOs, which are well known and well evidenced. Councils are not using them for those reasons and some of those could be changed.
I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that I will say nice things about Amendment 91. He is feeling a bit bruised today. Of course, it is absolutely right. Where we disagree on this is that I have always believed that brownfield is at the top of the planning hierarchy—ever since John Prescott’s days. It is very clear that we should be developing on brownfield sites. The amendment says that there should be a stronger emphasis. The reason for this, I know from sensible discussions with the Conservative Front Bench, is that they deal regularly with councils that do not give planning permission for brownfield sites.
That is a very real concern. Developers will always develop green spaces over brownfield, so there is a case for talking about incentives to use brownfield sites, to get those more into action. But I guess it is also a challenge for the Minister’s inspectorate. If councils are regularly turning down suitable housing sites and not giving permission, presumably a developer will appeal and inspectors will do their job. So I totally agree that it is always preferable to use brownfield.
My authority is one where 98% is brownfield. We do not really have any green sites apart from scratty little bits of land, which we very quickly put social housing on if we can get ownership of them. I absolutely get where the noble Lord is coming from; I just believe that brownfield is at the top of the hierarchy and that councils that are not playing ball, not playing by the rules, should be brought to account regardless of what party they are run by.
I have to say publicly to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I find her amendments wonderfully quirky. She is really good at thinking outside the box. I am busy thinking, “Okay, this one actually sounds quite simple, coming from the noble Baroness, but I bet there are loads of really complicated reasons why it can’t happen”. What I will say is that she put it very simply: why can they not just give it for free? In our council we give the land for free. The only way we get social housing built is by giving the land for free. I guess it is about the principle of that, and I wholeheartedly endorse the principle. Public land is a public asset and should be used for the public good. It might amuse the noble Baroness to know that we have some very quirky policies on land use within our party. Land clearly is an issue for building and development. I will rest my words there and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I support Amendment 89 and acknowledge the remarkable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to tackling homelessness over many years.
That challenge is particularly acute in rural communities. We know that rural housing is less affordable. Action with Communities in Rural England reports that the average home costs nearly nine times the average local earnings, compared with around seven and a half times in urban areas. Unsurprisingly, these pressures are reflected in rising levels of homelessness. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has found that homelessness in rural areas has increased year on year, with a 73% increase since 2018.
In such circumstances, many people find themselves unable to live in the communities where they work, have family connections and contribute to local life. When people can no longer afford to live near their work, communities lose not only vital skills and services but the continuity of relationships, local knowledge and a sense of shared responsibility. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community’s Coming Home report identified stability as one of the necessary building blocks of housing that supports people to flourish. At a time when homelessness is rising and affordable housing remains out of reach for many, the question, as many noble Lords have already mentioned, is not simply what more we can build but how well we are using what we already have.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have a new Prime Minister and I worry there may be unfortunate changes, so before I speak to these amendments I place on record that I have thoroughly enjoyed my 18 months with the Minister and sincerely hope I shall enjoy many more months opposite her. As a fellow ex-council leader, she brings local government knowledge to a very important part of government.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. As we move into the night, we seem to be breaking out in harmony. I turn first to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As ever, he is a passionate advocate for addressing homelessness and rough sleeping, and for better utilising housing stock—something that we have been pushing for, certainly as regards social housing stock.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, I worked really hard to try to get empty housing back into use. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: EDMOs are a very difficult way of getting housing stock back. In the end, we moved to a CPO strategy. The noble Baroness is right: looking at how we make that more effective and efficient, not just for empty homes but for other matters to do with councils, would be important.
That brings me on to the issue of six months or two years. I know that six months sounds a long time, but I completely agree that trying to find the owners and going through the processes in six months is very difficult. It also raises a number of issues regarding probate. Probate homes, and other examples, are frequently empty for more than six months. That is not because the owners do not want to do something with their home; it is just going through the legal process.
However, it is absolutely right to highlight this issue and look at how we can make better use of property that is empty for extended periods. When a property is empty for two years or more, you will frequently find that there are other issues with that housing to address, and it can often end up being a blight on the neighbouring community. In defence of the previous Conservative Government, they introduced other measures that were very helpful. Having a double new homes bonus for bringing an empty home back into use was a very helpful additional resource while it lasted. The additional council tax for empty homes was also an incentive not to leave them empty.
I would say that my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment is thoughtful and inspirational rather than quirky. She is absolutely right to look at the role that Homes England could play in accelerating social housing delivery by making publicly owned land available to local authorities. Whatever view noble Lords may have about the specific mechanisms proposed, the amendment raises an important question about how public land can be best used to support the delivery of affordable homes and homes in general.
The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley reflects a principle that has long been associated with these Benches: a “brownfield first” approach. I do not think there has been any disagreement in the House about the idea of prioritising brownfield land. There is underused urban land across the country, and there are former industrial sites, vacant plots, and existing social housing estates that are ripe for regeneration. These sites offer an opportunity to deliver much-needed new homes while revitalising communities and reducing pressure on greenfield land.
Yet we need to recognise that building on brownfield is often more difficult, and it is not surprising that developers often take the easy option and seek to build on greenfield. Many Governments of all stripes and colours—this is not a partisan comment—have talked about a “brownfield first” approach, and there is a presumption in favour of brownfield. However, in the planning hierarchy, that is clearly insufficient because it is not working. It is all too easy for objectors to cite numerous planning grounds that delay and frustrate developments to the extent that brownfield sites become too high risk for developers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned that the planning inspector should do this, but when you have only a presumption in favour and not a strong material presumption in favour, that means that you have to take into account many other factors and objections. It is only if we raise brownfield above that level that we will see a step change, which we have not seen to date. Frankly, the proof is in the pudding: we are not seeing enough brownfield developments, so we have to do something.
As I said, this requires that increase in the planning weight given to brownfield land, which is the purpose of our amendment: not just a presumption but a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development. We believe that that is a practical and balanced approach. It would support the delivery of new homes, would align with the principle of regeneration and would help to ensure that social housing is built in locations of greatest need and where the infrastructure and services often already exist. Too often, debates about housing become polarised between those who want more homes and those who wish to protect local environments. A “brownfield first” approach would help to reconcile those objectives. Conservatives have long championed this approach, which we believe remains the right way forward.
The common thread running through this debate is the need to be more ambitious in how we use the assets already available to us, whether that is empty homes, brownfield land or publicly owned land. On these Benches, we believe that increasing housing supply requires not only investment but a willingness to remove barriers to development where it delivers clear public benefit. Amendment 91 seeks to do precisely that. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Jamieson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Before I respond to the amendments, I want to welcome our new Secretary of State, Angela Rayner. She was an absolute powerhouse when she was in the department before, and I am sure she will be again. I hope I get the opportunity to work with her again there. Honestly, if the combination of Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham cannot tackle the housing crisis, nothing will, especially if they are advised by our formidable noble Lord, Lord Bird. That will create the fire and the passion that we need to sort this out once and for all.
Turning to Amendment 89, the Government are clear that, if we want to see more empty homes brought back into use, we absolutely must ensure that that is a focus. I am sympathetic to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to reduce the time that a property must be empty before a local authority can apply for an empty dwelling management order. We all know that there are many and various reasons why properties are left empty, and many of them have already been mentioned. Sometimes there are probate cases and there can be disrepair and insurance cases: if you have subsidence in a property, the insurance company will insist that you leave it empty while it measures the impact of the subsidence. There can be adaptation or tenancy issues, ownership disputes, and abandonment and lender reclamation for properties where the bank or building society needs to reclaim the property. When I was a council leader, there was nothing more frustrating to me than seeing not only properties left empty but then the expense and time that councils had to go to to bring them back into use—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that process.
As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes, and the Government will confirm further details of how we will deliver this in due course. I do not believe it is necessary to legislate in this Bill to deliver the stated aims of the amendment, because we can already deliver the changes needed by secondary legislation. We already have those powers and we intend to bring forward this secondary legislation as quickly as possible.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would place an obligation on the Government to create a national strategy and to provide a loan scheme to bring long-term empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation. It would also require the Government to provide an annual update on progress under the strategy. I fully understand the aims of the amendment to support local authorities with investment and tools to acquire and renovate empty homes and to analyse the progress on tackling empty homes.
On funding, including the amendment’s proposed loans programme, I note that local authorities can already access grant funding to acquire empty homes through a number of existing programmes designed to support the building and acquisition of social housing. This includes the existing affordable homes programme, the new social and affordable homes programme and the local authority housing fund; the Public Works Loan Board also offers lending to local authorities to support housing objectives, including to acquire empty homes. Setting up a new ring-fenced loans programme for empty homes could overlap with and complicate the funding picture for local authorities, requiring them to bid to multiple different funds to deliver projects involving empty homes in their areas, so I am not persuaded of the value of this part of the amendment.
I am also not convinced that a national strategy is the most effective approach. As I have said, the Government are already committed to strengthening the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but to be successful it is vital that each local authority creates a plan to tackle empty homes tailored to its own local circumstances. The scale of and reasons for empty homes can vary hugely, requiring a tailored local action plan, not a nationally prescribed plan. I therefore request that Amendments 89 and 90 are not pressed, but I invite the noble Lord to discuss further how we are progressing commitments to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over empty homes and how we can ensure that existing funding programmes are supporting his intended outcomes. I fully expect that he will be called into No. 10 to do that, but if he has any spare time, perhaps he can come and talk to us in the department as well. That would be wonderful.
Turning to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach. We discussed it many times in this Chamber during the passage of the planning Act, including the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land must 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 development should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include large areas of hard standing, better reflecting land that is already developed, and made clear that plans should deliver greater density in urban areas. The Government are committed to prioritising the building of new social rent homes, and to reflect this we amended the definition of “affordable housing” in the framework to provide a separate definition of social rent, rather than referring to it as just one thing.
We are clear that local authorities should set out the minimum proportion of homes for social rent that should be delivered on new developments. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land in the framework, including introducing a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. The consultation included proposals to encourage local authorities to identify sites for estate regeneration in their local plans. This will give residents a formal opportunity to comment on such proposals through the plan-making process.
All this demonstrates the strong support for brownfield development and the building of new social rent homes that already exists in the National Planning Policy Framework and in emerging policy. This addresses what I believe to be the intention of the noble Baroness’s amendment. As such, in our view a strong presumption, as proposed by this amendment, is unnecessary and duplicative as existing and emerging policy already sufficiently seeks to achieve this aim. We will shortly be publishing the new National Planning Policy Framework that resulted from the amendments and the consultation we have done.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to require Homes England to transfer its land free of charge to local authorities where a local authority requests the land for social housing. The noble Baroness reminded me of our first Housing First scheme in Stevenage, for which we used a patch of council-owned land and modular buildings to deliver a supported housing scheme of 18 homes for homeless people with complex needs. We delivered that within 12 months, so the noble Baroness is right; it can be done.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
We have discussed brownfield many times, and I think that we are both in agreement that that should be the preferred option. The issue that I am seeking to address is that, while we all agree it should be the preferred option, in reality that is not happening. I use London as an example with very low housing delivery. The problem is that, as the Minister said, if substantial harm were to occur, a proposal will not get approval, but substantial harm is based on the weighting given to the different factors in the planning hierarchy in the planning regime. To use the example of a recent planning application whose rejection was upheld on appeal, a dilapidated shopping centre in Peckham was going to be converted into 800 or so housing units, but the planning inspector deemed that the view of a historic clock tower outweighed the benefit of housing in that area. I do not know enough details about that, but my point is that the weight given to that was greater. The point of our amendment is to increase the weight relative to other weights in the planning system such that a proposal is more likely to go through rather than less likely to go through. I appreciate the changes that are coming to the NPPF, but can the Minister confirm or agree that, if we do not see a material improvement in brownfield development, the Government would reconsider the various weightings given within the NPPF?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on individual planning cases—it would be very unwise to do so from the Dispatch Box. But he will know that there has been, as I said, this recent consultation on the NPPF. It has a different rules-based policy approach and that has been out for widespread consultation. We had 20,000 responses to that. The new NPPF would introduce an expectation that local authorities plan to meet as much of their development needs as possible on brownfield land, and that is supported by a whole series of policies which will increase housing supply on brownfield, include providing strong policy support for the intensification of brownfield to provide those additional homes.
It would be fair to say that, whenever we introduce a new NPPF—and we certainly did last time when we introduced one in December 2024—we have monitored it and made some changes to it. We are constantly looking at the NPPF, and that is the benefit of the way our planning works. We can be flexible in the way we approach these things. I am sure that officials will continue to keep that under review once the new NPPF is published.
Lord Bird (CB)
I will make my final comments. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, obviously does not know Peckham, because, if he did, he would know that the clock tower is very important for the well-being of people in Peckham, as there is not an awful lot to look at. I am sorry—I am joking.
But it is interesting that we cannot achieve many of the things we would like to achieve in this world because of newts or clock towers getting in the way. I have been involved in the brownfield site argument. When I worked as a member of a revolutionary organisation in Southall, we tried to get the old AEC factory turned into a housing association. Eventually, it became a private housing residence, so it did work its way out. There are many limitations to brownfield sites.
In summing up, I would like to dwell more on the idea of businesses investing. Amendment 90 focuses on the idea that we can get businesses involved in investing in social housing. When I say businesses, I mean social businesses such as Big Issue Invest. We found it incredibly difficult to invest in social housing. Forgive me for saying so, but all of the reasons why it is easy are not easy: Big Issue Invest has funds and can get more funds to invest in social housing, but the impediments are largely because of planning and the fact that there are all sorts of limitations placed on it. I would like to see social businesses and businesses meeting their ESGs and using their money to bring about social transformation.
Companies such as L&G want to build more social housing, but the impediments placed on them are quite incredible. That is why I raise the possibility of removing all the impediments to investment by businesses, which will make money out of social housing but will be able to provide people with what they need.
There is a company I am working with called Resonance, of which I declare I am not a director, and there is no way I will get money out of it. Resonance is a business that takes social housing that local authorities cannot develop because they are void. It does them all up and then brings in tenants who are taken off the streets, so to speak. It is absolutely brilliant, but there are too many impediments to the ability of business to help us with the voids and the empty homes. I am looking at these little things from my own experience, not from the experience of other people. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment—God bless you.