Social Housing Bill [HL]

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Report

16:14

Clause 1: Qualifying period for right to buy

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after second “years” insert “subject to subsection (A2)”
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.

16:30

[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.

16:45

On Amendment 5, I refer again to the arguments I set out in Committee to resist this amendment. Clause 6 ensures that discounts available as a percentage of the property value align with the changes already implemented to cash discounts. A discount starting at 35% of the property value, as is in place now, will practically never apply in many areas of the country, given the revised cash caps. By amending the discounts available as a percentage of the property value, we are ensuring that those who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for the longest continue to receive the greatest benefit. Importantly, Clause 6 extends the period during which landlords may require repayment of the right-to-buy discount if the property is resold, which is necessary to reduce the incentive for early resale and profiteering.

The Government oppose Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as we did in Committee. Extending the right of first refusal so it applies in perpetuity will give councils more opportunity to buy back homes sold through the scheme. I believe we all share a desire for more social rented homes, and this amendment would directly oppose that. Clause 6 will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measure comes into force. Homes already sold will remain subject to the terms of the covenants attached to them. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on the implementation of the measure and keep its impact under review, noting the concerns in relation to subsequent sales.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, for Amendment 7, on which both have engaged constructively with me since Committee. I recognise the importance of ensuring that affordable housing in rural communities continues to receive appropriate protection. The thresholds referred to in Amendment 7 are long-established criteria which underpin the current rural designation framework. I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord and, while I continue to believe it unnecessary to place the criteria in the Bill, as the noble Lord has already recognised, the Government will commit to introducing a power to enable the criteria to be set out in regulations. We are willing to explore allowing local authorities to self-designate where they meet the criteria. If self-designation is not granted, there will be the opportunity for new areas to come forward and apply for designation where they meet the rural criteria. I hope this commitment provides the noble Lords with sufficient reassurance. My officials are happy to continue to discuss the issue with them, as am I.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 8. This would reduce the period for which newly built social housing is exempt from the right to buy from 35 years to 10 years. The duration of the exemption for new builds should cover the period in which rental income pays back the costs of delivery of a new home, otherwise councils will continue to face a strong disincentive to build. The payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on site viability. Therefore, 35 years is a proportionate period that gives councils meaningful assurance while preserving the reformed right to buy for long-standing tenants. A 10-year exemption would not provide the same certainty and incentive for councils to build, which is the objective we all share.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Coffey, for Amendments 9 to 12. As I set out during Committee when responding to similar amendments, the Government already publish extensive information on the operation of the right-to-buy scheme. I am happy to write to noble Lords—indeed, they should have received something today that provides more information on where this data and the annual releases can be found and what they contain. This data provides Parliament and the public with a clear and transparent picture of how the scheme is operating and its impact on housing supply. We also publish annual data on the number of right-to-acquire sales by private registered providers. The data can be broken down by each local authority, so I maintain that there is no need for a new statutory reporting requirement.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for returning to the issue of the local recycling of right-to-buy receipts in Amendment 24. This is, however, again a matter that the House considered in Committee and the Government’s position has not changed. The existing right-to-buy receipts framework already provides significant assurance for receipts to support housing delivery within the areas in which they were generated. Local authorities can work with other councils and housing providers, and, where receipts are returned, Homes England and the Greater London Authority already seek to reinvest funding, where possible, in the areas from which receipts originated.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I did not experience any problems in transferring receipts, but I am happy to continue to discuss that with the noble Lord if he can give us examples of where it has been an issue. The Government have extended the period for spending receipts to 10 years for receipts generated from 2027-28 onwards. That gives councils a greater opportunity to retain and deploy funding locally. The noble Lord’s Amendment 24 is therefore unnecessary.

On the basis of the reasons that I have set out and the reassurances I have given, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[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.

16:52

Division 1

Amendment 1 disagreed.

Ayes: 162

Noes: 220

17:03

Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.

Clause 4: Timescales

Amendment 4 not moved.

Clause 6: Discount

Amendment 5 not moved.

Clause 7: Right of first refusal

Amendment 6 not moved.

Clause 8: Exceptions to the Right to Buy

Amendments 7 and 8 not moved

Amendment 9 not moved.

[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

Moved by

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

13: Clause 12, page 11, line 24, leave out “C” and insert “D”

[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.

17:15

Following meetings with the Minister, I understand that the Government accept the need for some extension of the timescale for notice to be given of a proposed sale. I look forward to hearing further detail, and I am grateful for the Minister’s attention to this matter.

Other amendments in this group take the notification issue a step further. Amendment 15 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, would add a right of first refusal when a disposal is proposed, but not a right for local authorities. Expert advice suggests a problem: if this right of first refusal took the form of a legal right for the council to intervene to buy the property, this might risk housing associations being reclassified as public bodies and, therefore, their substantial debts being added to the national debt. But a right of first refusal, as in Amendment 15, could be given to another housing association; for example, one managing and maintaining stock nearby.

My Amendment 16 would add a requirement for information about the properties that will be subject to the requirement for notification of impending plans to sell. The amendment would require the social landlord to say whether the property has been adapted to make it more accessible to wheelchair users or those with mobility problems. Adapted properties at social rents are real gold dust, and not to be discarded lightly. The property is likely to have used a disabled facilities grant, and it would be entirely wasteful for this investment to be scrapped simply because there was no understanding of the property’s adaptation. I hope that the Minister agrees that the information should be part of the notification duty.

Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would oblige the vendor housing association to provide lots more information about the property; this should speed up the decision-making about its future.

The amendments in this group invite the Minister to beef up the Bill’s rather gentle nudge to encourage social landlords to behave responsibly in selling their existing properties. I know that the Minister has been taking another look at this clause, and I understand that she is persuaded that we need to extend the statutory minimum currently in the Bill beyond four weeks, not least because she is familiar with the constraints on timing for local authorities to take action. I look forward to hearing her positive response.

[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.

17:30

I turn first to Amendment 14, from the noble Lord, Lord Best. I know that several noble Lords are sympathetic to extending the minimum period following a notice and before sale beyond the current four weeks. I have also heard clearly the concerns about the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. There is no right or wrong period for the time that must elapse before sale; this is just the minimum. I would expect that a private registered provider would wish to engage and be flexible beyond whatever the statutory minimum period is. However, I have also heard clearly the view that the current four-week period is insufficient. In particular, I know that many local authorities are concerned that this would not align well with possible internal timing constraints, such as consideration by cabinets or committees that may normally meet only on a monthly basis. I am therefore persuaded of the case to extend the statutory minimum currently in the Bill. I would like to consider further what that period should be, but I will commit that the Government will return with a future amendment to extend the current four-week minimum.

However, I am not persuaded of the case for a different and longer period for rural areas. I am also inclined to think that a statutory minimum of 12 weeks may unnecessarily delay sales progressing and require providers to deal with the additional burden and cost associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Local authorities have funding available in order to consider these sales. They are more than able to consider whether the market value at which the property is being offered represents good value for them, and they can do that fairly speedily. They are able to carry out survey work of their own, if they wish to do so.

Amendments 13 and 15, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a pause to the disposal process where another registered provider in the local area expresses a wish to purchase a property. I should say that, where there is a serious active interest from another registered provider, I would expect the landlord disposing of the property to take that interest seriously, given that it is in their interest to find a purchaser for their property. Nothing compels a landlord to dispose of a property as soon as the notification period has ended and it is their decision as to how quickly they proceed. However, the Government cannot support this amendment, because a requirement that would put on hold any sale where there is interest from another local registered provider risks introducing unnecessary delay and uncertainty into the disposals process.

The further Amendment 16, from the noble Lord, Lord Best, returns to the question of whether the notice should contain information about how a property has been adapted. As I indicated in Committee, I am sympathetic to what lies behind this amendment. Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would extend further the information that must be required in all notices to include, for example, whether a property complies with the decent homes standard and its EPC rating. My primary concern with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, is whether it successfully identifies the right information or at a level of detail that would deliver the outcomes his amendment seeks to achieve.

Currently, new Section 171C(1) outlines the information that should be included in a notice. It is focused on information that all providers should have about their properties, and that will be relevant to all other providers receiving the notification. This includes the address and the type of dwelling. Adding more information requirements would risk mandating information that is not relevant or useful to providers seeking to purchase homes, and that is not readily held by providers seeking to dispose of their homes. We certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced that would require additional reports to be produced or surveys carried out. Adding too many requirements to the notification process risks imposing additional unnecessary burdens on providers, both those receiving information and those providing it.

Similarly, I have concerns with the length of the list of matters that are considered essential to include in a sales notice, as suggested by Amendment 17. Individual providers will always be able to make further inquiries on matters that might be of particular interest to them beyond the statutory minimum. However, I have asked my officials to continue to engage with representative bodies across the sector to gather their views on how we might deliver the right outcomes without imposing unnecessary burdens. I hope that reassures noble Lords.

I now turn to Amendments 18 to 20, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I was grateful for the explanation of the difference between a “modern method of auction” and an “unconditional” auction approach, the latter of which can favour the cash buyer. I understand the aim of these amendments: namely that, by preventing sales at auctions being restricted just to cash purchasers, homes end up in the hands of “traditional” purchasers, such as first-time buyers, rather than professional landlords and developers. However, it is important that private registered providers take their own responsible decisions about managing their assets, including on the means of sale. I therefore cannot support an approach that would require all sales by auction to be on the basis set out in these amendments.

Amendment 21, from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, sets out requirements about the collection and publication of disposals information. The same amendment on post-disposal reporting has also been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in Amendment 22. The Regulator of Social Housing already requires certain information from private registered providers after a disposal, including information on the type of dwelling disposed of, whether the home was occupied and the recipient. The regulator publishes information annually on disposals. I am therefore not convinced that further legislation is required to achieve the aim of this amendment. Where there are specific further ideas about how data collection might be improved and published, these can be taken up directly with the Regulator of Social Housing. Now would be an opportune time to do so, as the regulator considers its economic regulatory regime. I will ask my officials to follow up and to facilitate the relevant conversations with the regulator to discuss this. I do not see what place another guide or code would have in addition to these regulatory standards. I therefore ask that noble Lords do not press this amendment.

Amendment 27, from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce restrictions relating to how capital grant recycled from social housing can be reinvested into the provision of further social housing. In previous debates, noble Lords have reflected the challenges that arise when a home is lost from a local community and where proceeds are reinvested in the provision of social housing elsewhere. I am of course sympathetic to the challenges and would expect that, wherever possible, registered providers are considering how they can reinvest recycled grant into the communities from which it has originated.

Homes England already sets a series of conditions on how recycled capital grant may be used. These include the expectation that providers deploy recycled grant in support of identified housing need and in line with investment priorities set out in local plans. These conditions seek to strike a balance between ensuring the provision of much-needed homes and not unduly restricting the use of grant in a way that may compromise the delivery of new social homes altogether. The varied circumstances that registered providers operate within—for example, some may be directly developing new homes whereas others may invest in the social housing sector through other means—supports a more flexible approach to the use of recycled grant. With this in mind, I am not persuaded by the value of introducing further restrictions on the use of recycled grant and kindly ask the noble Lord and noble Baroness not to press their amendment.

[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.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendments 14 to 22 not moved.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

23: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

17:45

The Minister argues that the current model is constraining neither supply nor demand, but that looks just at the beginning. Down stream, shared owner satisfaction is low, and it decreases the longer the shared owner remains in the property. A survey of more than 1,700 prospective and current shared owners by the Shared Ownership Council in 2024 found that average shared owner satisfaction with their landlord’s service dropped from around 59% in the first year to 28% after five to nine years. The Regulator of Social Housing’s recently introduced tenant satisfaction measures similarly finds low satisfaction.

The reality is that the Government do not know whether the current model is actually working. They have no national data on ongoing affordability or transition to full ownership. They do not know how many shared owners suffer equity loss when they sell, or how many homes become effectively unmortgageable because service charges become too high or leases become too short. Nor do they know—this is particularly important—what proportion of shared ownership homes are successfully sold to another shared owner during the nomination period. Taken together, these are fundamental indicators of whether the current model remains financially sustainable for the households it was designed to help. Proposed new subsection (4) in Amendment 23 puts that right with a call for data.

But it is the second factor, the absence of buyback, that is the most important area of disagreement. There are a number of barriers to sale that can result in shared ownership homes becoming unsellable and unmortgageable. The building safety crisis, of course, not foreseen when the shared ownership model was devised, is the principal factor, but there are also inherent aspects of the model, including short 99-year leases, obsolete 80% staircasing caps, high service charges under complex ownership structures and the older person’s shared ownership extra care business model.

By definition, shared owners are not well off. If they were, they would not be eligible for shared ownership. Those affected by the building safety crisis are simply unable to cope with the waking watches, the increased insurance and service charges post Grenfell. Others may find that the purchase is financially unsustainable or have other valid reasons to vacate the property, but they find that intractable barriers to sale mean that they are trapped in unmortgageable flats with no viable exit route.

The Minister will not move on buyback. She says she is taking forward wider work on remediation and reform, but that is going to take years. The End Our Cladding Scandal campaign has said that the remediation Bill is silent on shared ownership concerns. Noble Lords will have received many emails over the weekend from Justine, Keran, Eddie, Ross, Holly, Suzan and many others who have written to me, and they cannot wait. Nor can James, whose moving letter the Minister has. These are mainly young people whose dreams have been shattered and whose lives have been upturned, trapped in unsellable properties, who can see no way out.

The Minister says that shared ownership landlords can already buy back shared ownership homes. But they do not. In the past three years, Homes England has funded 41 requests, a fraction of those caught up in the post-Grenfell scandal or whose shared ownership properties are otherwise unsellable, largely due to the characteristics of shared ownership lease terms. The Minister’s letter says she has the utmost sympathy for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to sell their homes, but she offers no practical solution.

Amendment 23 does that. It would give the Secretary of State six months to put in place a buyback scheme for homes that are unsellable and unmortgageable. As I previously argued during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, a dedicated allocation to support the buyback of unmortgageable shared ownership properties within the current social and affordable homes programme is the solution. Access to that funding should be governed by transparent national criteria so that all requests are considered consistently rather than depending, as now, on the policies of any individual registered provider.

Two years after a Select Committee recommended that buyback should be considered as part of the solution, it is time for the Government to act decisively to protect existing shared owners from financial harm and to restore confidence in the model. Shared owners have been failed by a scheme that was intended to help them. This was not Parliament’s intention when shared ownership was promoted as a stepping stone into home ownership. I beg to move and reserve the right to test the opinion of the House on either or both amendments.

[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.

18:00

Unfortunately, it is not a limited problem. There are now around 252,000 shared ownership households in England. Official and parliamentary reports have highlighted ongoing concerns about affordability complaints and barriers: we know the problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, recent satisfaction surveys showed that fewer than half were satisfied with the service. I emphasise that: fewer than half.

I put slightly it more bluntly in my notes: scrap it or rescue those who are trapped; or reform it and still rescue those who are trapped. These amendments are about fairness. When people are trapped by building safety defects, negative equity or other circumstances beyond their control, there must be a meaningful route out. That route should be made clear, as quickly as possible. Shared ownership should offer security and opportunity, not years of financial hardship and personal limbo. That is the real essence for me: it feels as if we are all in limbo on this, including the Government.

For that reason, I truly hope that the Minister can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others that she and the Government are “on it”, and that there will be very real actions to come to the aid of those hundreds of thousands of households living in this nightmare scenario.

[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.

18:15

In summer 2025, we published a Remediation Acceleration Plan Update, which went even further to remove barriers, strengthen accountability and expedite remediation, including over £1 billion in new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing, giving social landlords equal access to government funding schemes with immediate effect.

I remind Members opposite that a remediation Bill will soon be before the House—the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill—which will compel responsible entities to remediate their buildings or risk criminal prosecution. We are bringing forward that Bill just two years after taking office, whereas little had happened when we took over, seven years after Grenfell. I look forward to discussing that Bill with Members of the House.

Separately, provisions within the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, once implemented, will give shared owners a statutory right to a lease extension and therefore aid shared owners struggling to sell or remortgage their home due to the diminishing length of their lease. For those reasons, we do not think additional social and affordable housing programme funding for use on buybacks of shared ownership homes is necessary.

On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, on data, we have already made improvements to shared ownership data collection via the continuous reporting of social housing sales log. It is a condition of receiving grant funding that landlords complete this log for shared ownership sales. These changes will help us better understand when shared ownership homes are lost to open market sale. We continue to keep data requirements under review while balancing the value of additional information against the reporting burden placed on landlords and the practicalities of collecting information about what are often individuals’ very personal circumstances.

On Amendment 25, shared ownership is a long-standing product that has been continually reviewed and improved upon. The Government want to ensure that shared ownership continues to work effectively for customers. As such, we have a programme of improvements in place, not tackling the issues in a piecemeal or fragmented way but a programme of activity aimed at making shared ownership more transparent, easier to understand and navigate, and more affordable to customers in the long run. This programme of work will also consider the staircasing process with the aim of removing barriers and lowering costs.

On the comments about older people’s housing by the noble Lord, Lord Best, I have already commenced discussions with the Associated Retirement Community Operators, following its annual conference three weeks ago. I have only recently taken over the portfolio for older people’s housing, but I am exploring the models ARCO has advocated, so that we can look into developments in this area, such as housing in New Zealand that is working particularly well. I want to explore such models so that we can see whether we need to amend the drafting of the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill to facilitate those types of approaches. We expect to make good progress on this whole programme within the next year, and I will update the House within that timeframe with a view to implementing changes by the end of this Parliament, and sooner where we possibly can.

In addition, targeted measures have already been introduced through the launch of the social and affordable homes programme. They include measures to improve the fairness and transparency of costs and reduce service charges through the design and management of new buildings. Measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will, once implemented, drive up service charge transparency for all leaseholders, including shared owners.

Finally, the Government have taken care to create an environment in which social and affordable housing can be delivered with confidence. Therefore, we wish to ensure that any further changes to shared ownership do not undermine that. For those reasons, we are resisting this amendment. However, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their continued engagement on shared ownership matters. I look forward to working with them further on the practical steps that the Government can take to improve shared ownership. In the meantime, I hope that they will not press their amendments.

[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.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Amendment 24 not moved.

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

25: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“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 Young of Cookham (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:21

Division 2

Amendment 25 agreed.

Ayes: 232

Noes: 146

18:31

Amendments 26 and 27 not moved.

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Lord Best]

28: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

18:45

Domestic abuse is one of the leading causes of homelessness among women, and women’s homelessness is increasing. The number of women sleeping rough in England increased by 8% between 2024 and 2025. Lone-mother households make up 57% of families homeless in temporary accommodation provided by councils, despite making up only 20% of families in the general population. In my experience at both Women’s Aid and Shelter—yes, this is personal experience—I found that it is rare to meet one of these women who is not a domestic abuse survivor. Domestic abuse is the second-most common reason for a household being owed a relief duty to accommodate them because of homelessness or the risk of homelessness. This is all households, both men and women; for women, the proportion would be much higher.

I know from the conversations we have had, and am really grateful to have had, that the Minister is as profoundly committed to protecting survivors of domestic abuse from homelessness as I am. Like me, she is acutely aware of the impact that coercive control and economic abuse have on the ability of survivors and their children to find the safe, secure home that is essential for their recovery and safety. I have clearly heard that the noble Baroness is personally committed to finding a solution to the problem I have outlined through guidance and secondary legislation.

New research has found that in December 2025 up to one in six households disqualified from a social home on the grounds of debt were those who were homeless and in temporary accommodation because of domestic abuse. These debts can be as little as £250, while public spending on temporary accommodation is set to reach £4 billion a year by the end of this decade. In this context where local authorities are shouldering this cost, it is no surprise that the Local Government Association is backing the amendment I have proposed. The amendment also has the support of the Chartered Institute of Housing, Women’s Aid and Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse.

I appreciate the work that the Minister is leading to ensure that new statutory guidance is sufficiently robust to achieve the results we are all looking for. I would also welcome a commitment to secondary legislation in the form of regulations if, as I strongly fear based on experience, even statutory guidance is not enough to ensure domestic abuse survivors can access their rights. Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that the guidance is clearly and comprehensively communicated to all social landlords and to introducing it as soon as possible so it achieves the ends we seek more quickly than my amendment would do? That would be an outcome to this debate that would transform the lives of domestic abuse survivors and their children.

[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.

19:00

Equally, this amendment would impact on core tenant rights of quiet enjoyment and engage ECHR Article 8 rights, among others. Tenant safety should be foundational for social landlords, but any new power must not replace the need for constructive engagement between landlords and tenants to solve issues. I think we all agree that that would always be the preferred route.

Therefore, it is important to fully consider the best ways to address the risks presented by refusal of access cases, and the operation and implications of any new power for the courts to grant the landlord authority to enter a tenant’s home. As such, the Government are giving careful consideration to this matter in advance of the Bill moving to the other place, and we will work with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and all the stakeholders that have been engaged in promoting this amendment to assess what options are available. In preparation, MHCLG officers—I mean officials; I am sorry, I am back in my council days—are already working constructively with providers, tenants and other groups to examine the case for and operation of a statutory right of access in these cases.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling Amendment 76. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s speech in Committee and have since had the opportunity to discuss the issue with her further. I have greatly benefited from the noble Baroness’s extensive experience in these discussions, as does your Lordships’ House.

The amendment reflects a view that I think we all share: that victims of domestic abuse should not be denied access to social housing due to the circumstances they find themselves in because of that abuse, including any housing-related debt they have incurred because of it. I hope the noble Baroness accepts the sincerity of our desire to address the issue. Where she has pressed, rightly, is on the detail of how we will do so.

In A National Plan to End Homelessness we committed to

“address the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing”

as part of our update to statutory guidance on social housing allocations. We continue to believe that guidance is the right route, rather than a rigid rule in primary legislation for an area that is inherently complex and case-specific, which could give rise to unintended consequences.

I recognise the noble Baroness’s concern about the pace of this work. I reassure her that we are already working with stakeholders on the guidance review and intend to consult on draft updated guidance in the early part of next year. I am happy to agree to her request that we commit to the communication of the guidance once we publish it. If guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the legislation—we have the powers to do that—as we did to exempt domestic abuse survivors from local connection tests. I am happy to commit to the House today that we will pursue changes to regulations, should the review of statutory guidance show that to be necessary. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and my noble friend Lady Lister.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for highlighting this important issue, and I hope she accepts our commitment to tackle it. In the meantime, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Best, will withdraw his amendment.

[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.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Amendment 29 not moved.

Schedule 1: Protection for victims of domestic abuse

Amendments 30 to 75

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

30: Schedule 1, page 18, line 26, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim”
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.

31: Schedule 1, page 18, line 30, leave out “before “partner who” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” in both places substitute “victim””
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.

32: Schedule 1, page 18, line 33, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim”
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.

33: Schedule 1, page 18, line 37, leave out “before “partner who” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” in both places substitute “victim””
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.

34: Schedule 1, page 18, line 38, leave out “before “partner” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” substitute “victim””
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.

35: Schedule 1, page 19, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
“(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.

36: Schedule 1, page 19, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
“(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.

37: Schedule 1, page 21, leave out lines 13 to 28 and insert—
““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.

38: Schedule 1, page 22, line 6, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 7 and insert “—
(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.

39: Schedule 1, page 22, line 17, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 18 and insert “—
(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.

40: Schedule 1, page 22, line 39, leave out from first “the” to “about” in line 40 and insert “victim mentioned in that ground”
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.

41: Schedule 1, page 23, line 10, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 11 and insert “—
(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.

42: Schedule 1, page 23, line 18, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 19 and insert “—
(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.

43: Schedule 1, page 23, line 24, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.

44: Schedule 1, page 23, line 31, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or any of the recipient tenants”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.

45: Schedule 1, page 23, line 35, leave out “resident partner in question” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.

46: Schedule 1, page 24, line 3, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.

47: Schedule 1, page 25, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
“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.

48: Schedule 1, page 25, line 25, leave out “the resident partner” and insert “—
(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.

49: Schedule 1, page 25, line 27, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.

50: Schedule 1, page 25, line 29, leave out “the resident partner is not” and insert “neither the victim, nor any member of the victim’s family, is”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.

51: Schedule 1, page 25, leave out lines 33 to 43 and insert—
““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.

52: Schedule 1, page 26, line 40, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim”
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.

53: Schedule 1, page 26, line 42, leave out “before “partner who” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” in both places substitute “victim””
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.

54: Schedule 1, page 27, line 3, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim”
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.

55: Schedule 1, page 27, line 5, leave out ““the partner” substitute “the resident partner”” and insert ““partner” in both places substitute “victim””
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.

56: Schedule 1, page 27, line 19, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 20 and insert “—
(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.

57: Schedule 1, page 27, line 29, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 30 and insert “—
(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.

58: Schedule 1, page 28, line 7, leave out from first “the” to “about” in line 8 and insert “victim mentioned in that ground”
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.

59: Schedule 1, page 28, line 22, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 23 and insert “—
(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.

60: Schedule 1, page 28, line 30, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 31 and insert “—
(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.

61: Schedule 1, page 28, line 36, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.

62: Schedule 1, page 28, line 43, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or any of the recipient tenants”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.

63: Schedule 1, page 29, line 4, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.

64: Schedule 1, page 29, line 17, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.

65: Schedule 1, page 30, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
“(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.

66: Schedule 1, page 30, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—
“(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.

67: Schedule 1, page 32, line 14, at end insert—
““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.

68: Schedule 1, page 32, leave out lines 17 to 31
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 7AA in my name.

69: Schedule 1, page 33, line 8, leave out from “towards” to end of line 10 and insert “a person (the “victim”) who—
(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.

70: Schedule 1, page 33, line 14, leave out “the resident partner” and insert “—
(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.

71: Schedule 1, page 33, line 16, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.

72: Schedule 1, page 33, line 18, leave out “the resident partner is not” and insert “neither the victim, nor any member of the victim’s family, is”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.

73: Schedule 1, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
““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.

74: Schedule 1, page 33, line 24, at end insert—
““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.

75: Schedule 1, page 33, leave out lines 27 to 37
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 14A in my name.

Amendments 30 to 75 agreed.

Amendment 76 not moved.

Amendment 77

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

19:15

[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.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Clause 17: Rents for high income social tenants

Amendment 78 not moved.

19:29

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.29 pm.