Social Housing Bill [HL]
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:41 - Division on Amendment 83 - Ayes: 38 / Noes: 133 - Amendment 83 disagreed.
Lord Fuller
“Protections for adapted social housing(1) This section applies where a dwelling owned by the local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing—(a) has been substantially adapted for occupation by a person with a disability or support need, or(b) has been substantially adapted with the use of a Disabled Facilities Grant.(2) Before such a dwelling is allocated through the general housing allocation process, the landlord must take reasonable steps to offer the dwelling to a person whose needs would substantially benefit from those adaptations.(3) In this section, “substantially adapted” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require social landlords to protect the pool of adapted housing by giving preference to applicants who could benefit from existing adaptations before allocating adapted homes through the general housing allocation process.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. We are an ageing nation and nowadays, many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. In Committee, I explained how councils might install housing adaptations so that a resident with an impairment can live more comfortably. I explained that it might be as simple as a grab rail or ramp. Half of such adaptations include a wet room, many with wider doors to accommodate wheelchairs.
In preparation for Report, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He told me that wet rooms are important because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it helps keep our hospital wards clear. It typically takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation. I will not go into the reasons why, but in my council, we deliver about 150 such projects per year at an average of about £10,000 each.
I feel I have laboured the point, but the simple truth is that we do not have a large enough pool of adapted and improved homes to meet the demand. That is why the state invests in them. The local government department distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities for the purpose of improving homes and making them suitable for people with limitations. Some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs, top that money up. I suppose that making these improvements adds up to about £1 billion a year.
My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock—protecting that £1 billion per year investment—and about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. I have heard it said that this is an allocations issue and that this Bill is not going there, but I do not see it as an allocations issue in the sense that we are going to give preference to a particular veteran or a certain local person. This is about protecting the generality of the pool of adapted homes as society gets older, fatter and lives longer with debilitating impairments, so that there is a stock of homes where people can make the best of their lives and make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that simple truth, what is it for? Casually dismissing it as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection. We must grab this sufficiency issue now.
I have softened the text of my amendment so that the Minister can define the scope of what counts as a relevant adaptation. I have not been overly prescriptive, as I was in Committee. But it is really important that we protect that £1 billion a year investment, so that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and get on with.
Here is the problem my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, a tenant passes away or moves on and the home is readvertised, with the exception of certain specialised sheltered accommodation, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. Tenants can ask them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy; it is a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes and is bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice—once to put it in, and again to take it out.
I will repeat the story I told in Committee of the brand new accessible home built with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for the wheelchair-bound resident. The first resident turned out to be exceptionally tall and, by and by, he tired of bending down to move the saucepans around the low-level hob. So, the council was obliged to replace the kitchen with a normal one. That is crazy—it should have been reserved for a wheelchair-bound resident in the first place.
The Bill purports to protect the supply of social homes. My council expert, Kevin Philcox—that man again —told me that, among housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country. That is quite a statement.
We have a new Prime Minister. He wants to make social housing a talismanic issue; this is du jour. I am suggesting something that would not cost anything, yet it would make huge strides in helping some of the most vulnerable people. It is here and now. I will not press this to a Division this evening, but I hope the Minister will take this to the department, and in turn to No. 10, which wants low-cost quick wins and can have them at Third Reading. I am serving this one up out of the goodness of my heart as a house-warming present for the new Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on their first day in charge. I beg to move.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 80 is a retabling of an amendment I tabled in Committee. I will say a few words at the end in support of the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has just spoken.
My Amendment 80 would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the extent to which former members of the Armed Forces are able to access social housing. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss this issue and for making clear her commitment to achieving progress on this. I also thank her hard-working officials for sending me a very helpful note about the data that is collected, which I note was sent extremely late in the evening, so I am sure they were working hard in advance of the Bill returning to the Lords today.
The Minister responded to my amendment in Committee and in more detail when we had the chance to meet. She explained that she sees the way of making progress on this as being incorporating it partly within the wider review of social housing allocation. I broadly support that proposal, which I think is a sensible way forward, but I have some questions that I would be grateful if she would respond to. The information that her officials sent me was about data. I was really asking for a lot more information so that we are able to scrutinise how the Government are getting on. The Government say they are making progress on this issue. We need to be able to see the impact of that. Are more of the Armed Forces community able to access social housing or is it having no impact whatever?
The data that was sent to me on local authority housing statistics reported that 2,649 households on housing registers are members of the Armed Forces community and have been given additional preference under local authorities’ allocation schemes and that this equated to around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers in England. Do we really think that is picking up everybody who ought to be benefiting from being given an additional preference? How do the Government intend to ensure that all those in need report their need? How are they encouraged to report their need? Is the review being conducted going to meet the gap between the figure that we currently have and the almost certainly many others who are not benefiting from the measures that the Government have already brought forward? How are we going to monitor the progress that is made? How do we know that what gets delivered is going to be successful? How we measure success is an important question here.
My other point is about injured veterans who have a disability and require specialist or adapted accommodation, which relates to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, just moved. We spoke about this in private, so the Minister is aware that this is an issue very dear to my heart as my husband is a wheelchair user and other members of my family who have complex disabilities have struggled to access housing. One of them remained in hospital for a very long time waiting for accommodation that would meet his needs. This is a question about not just the waste of taxpayers’ money of taking out adaptions that are done but the extreme waste of taxpayers’ money of keeping people in hospital waiting for an appropriate property that would meet their needs.
I know the Minister has said—and I accept this—that not every disability is the same, and people will often require something that is personally adapted to meet their needs. However, there are certain aspects of adaptation that are likely to meet many people’s needs, including wider doorways and wet rooms, so stripping everything out does not make any sense whatever. I really hope the Minister will respond to that. It dovetails neatly with my point about making sure we are meeting the needs of veterans as well as others.
I do not intend to push my amendment to a vote, but I would be pleased to hear the Minister explain how the Government are going to respond to the point about the gap between what we currently know about and the people who are facing the changes that the Government have made, and how we are going to reach them and make progress on those aspects.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 81 and I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in their Amendments 83 and 84.
My amendment is trying to bring a bit of accountability back into housing associations. An issue that has been well described during various stages of the Bill is that housing associations are becoming enormous, with no connection to local areas. As a consequence, I thought—especially in line with the vibe of the new Prime Minister about devolution, local decision-making and people feeling involved—that it was time to get some democracy and democratically elected people back on these boards. Specifically, Amendment 81’s proposed new subsection (3) says:
“Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must ensure that no private registered provider’s board is comprised of a majority of elected local councillors”.
I anticipate that the Government will try to say, “This will put it back on the balance sheet”, but the answer is that it will not. The ONS—and I know this because there are some excellent officials over there; I have worked with some of them in the past—only puts things on the balance sheet because you have to have a majority. Control has to be with local government, which is why having a minority, not a majority, specifically in primary legislation, is key to that.
It feels that the direction of several housing associations is not going in the right way. The new Prime Minister has certainly been keen to talk about council housing—more so than social housing, although I appreciate that both will be in his mind—and that is where people would expect that, where there are special situations or a special kind of social housing or council housing, somehow there would be local involvement, not somebody who might be a couple of hundred miles away deciding what houses get sold, what get built and where they get built. For that reason, I hope the House may consider this during its consideration of the Bill.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might like to speak first to tell us about his amendments so that we could respond, but I will go first.
While they are all on the same theme, these amendments are all different so I will take each of them in turn. As usual, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sounds totally sensible, but I have checked this with three allocations officers in three different councils—so I have top trumped his single one—and the conclusion was that this is not an issue. Councils have the power to do what they wish with homes that have been adapted. They can leave them as voids, or they can rip out adaptations if they feel that they are too niche, but the reality is that they rarely have to do that because demand is so great. In fact, one officer said to me that the longest they have ever had to wait to re-let an adapted home is three weeks. I suppose I am saying that they would agree with the noble Lord that they care about protecting their precious adapted stock, and they do so.
My noble friend outlined the case for her Amendment 80. She said that many councils do this, but she is seeking to broaden our data about who accesses social housing, particularly veterans. The reason why that is important, as many of us know, is the high incidence of ex-military who end up homeless. My noble friend made a pertinent point about the wait that people have in order to get their adaptations. That is a far more serious point, and it could be to do with the availability of funding.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will start with where I think we have slightly more consensus and agreement. I believe my noble friend Lord Fuller made persuasive arguments on the importance of making best use of adapted properties. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is correct and his amendment is not needed, that is fine, but I would far rather have the ability to do something if it is needed, so this is something that we should be looking at.
We have also heard a very persuasive case from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for reviewing whether former members of our Armed Forces are able to access social housing effectively. I very much agree with this. One of the first instances I dealt with in my time as a councillor was that of a military family who were unable to access social housing. I was pleased that we were able to change the rules locally to make sure that they were able to access it.
My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment raises questions on local accountability, the relationship between housing associations and the communities they serve and, in particular, councillor representation. When I first became a councillor, I was a councillor representative on our local housing association. That was quite normal; it all changed because of Treasury rules, as my noble friend alluded to, which meant that we could no longer sit on housing associations. My understanding is that those rules have changed slightly and we should take that opportunity to revisit this. Clearly, having somebody local who understands the local issues on housing boards is critical, particularly as some housing associations are getting very large and remote—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made that point. Certainly, if you have somebody in Stevenage and the housing association is being run out of Manchester—I do not know whether that is the case—they will not have that local knowledge, so getting it is important.
Finally, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill all centre on the already much-discussed issue of the shortage of suitable social housing stock, and our need to deliver and manage that stock efficiently for the maximum benefit of our communities. I turn first to Amendment 84, which is about greater transparency and local connection. We know that local authorities already possess these powers to take local connection into account when determining allocation. The question raised by this amendment is whether those powers are used consistently and transparently.
Amendment 85 would simply require the Government to consider how social housing can remain focused on those with the greatest housing need. It does not prescribe a particular outcome; rather, it asks whether, at a time of acute housing pressures, we are making the best use of limited housing stock, and whether there are ways of helping those whose circumstances have changed and improved towards alternatives, such as home ownership or right to buy, or helping them move into other options. It is not about divisiveness. It is about helping everybody into the best option that suits them.
Finally, on Amendment 83, we need the public’s support and their trust that this is a fair and open country. Social housing is supported by substantial subsidy or grant when it is built, and the public, rightly, deserve and need to understand that it is fair. That is at the heart of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook highlighted at Second Reading, we continue to see high-profile cases that raise public concern: whether it is the First Lady of Sierra Leone or asylum seekers moving straight into brand new social housing, this raises concerns.
Now, that is not to deny the obligations that councils have to house those in need, but we believe that social housing exists to support those with the strongest connection to this country and their local communities. It is not about divisiveness; it is about being a single community. As we have heard in earlier debates, with many families spending years on waiting lists and local authorities facing ever-increasing pressures, it is entirely legitimate for this House to consider whether existing allocation rules command public confidence. For that reason, Amendment 83 gives priority for the allocation of scarce social housing to British citizens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say but, if I am not assuaged, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather, Lady Thornhill and Lady Coffey.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for moving Amendment 79. I very much support the intention behind it. Home adaptations can make a significant difference to disabled people, helping them live safely and independently in homes that meet their needs. I also agree that local authorities should make the best possible use of the homes available to them, particularly properties that have already been adapted.
Local housing authorities are responsible for setting their own allocation schemes, within the framework of legislation and statutory guidance. They will take different approaches to identifying and allocating accessible accommodation. Some may hold a separate register for applicants who need adapted housing, while others may record that information within their main housing register.
We will underline the importance of making the best use of existing stock, including adapted homes, in our updated statutory guidance on allocations. We will draw on evidence from the guidance review and the department’s wider work on stock management to share best practice with local authorities and registered providers. I would very much welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that work and I hope that, on that basis, he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her amendment to review access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces. I know this is a very important issue for the noble Baroness, as it is for me. This Government are committed to ensuring that those who have served, and their families, can access social housing when they need it. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections within the social housing allocations framework, including receiving the highest priority where they have urgent need and the exemption from the local connection rules introduced by this Government.
Op FORTITUDE, for example, is a single referral pathway to connect veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness with help and support. As of 28 June, Op FORTITUDE has received more than 5,100 referrals and supported 1,150 veterans into temporary or supported housing. I take on board the noble Baroness’s point that very often these two things—the issue from the previous amendment and that in her own amendment—are often linked together in veterans who have disabilities.
My department already collects, assesses and publishes a range of data to understand the access of veterans to social housing, the details of which I have indeed shared with the noble Baroness. I suspect that the numbers we have in the department are low. I think the noble Baroness was quoting from the information I gave her. My department asks authorities to report households that both are members of the Armed Forces community and have been awarded additional preference under the allocation scheme. From this we can see that, in 2024-25, local authorities reported 2,649 households on housing registers that were members of the Armed Forces community and had been given additional preference. That is around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers.
As I say, I suspect that that number is low. We rely on veterans to report this to housing authorities. I have discussed this with one of my local veterans’ charities, The Muster Point, which is working very hard to promote this fact, but it says that there is a multitude of reasons why sometimes veterans do not wish to disclose to the housing authority. They do not always understand that this is going to help them in their housing application, so we need to make sure that we get that message out there. I will talk to the noble Baroness and consider how we can do more on that, because it is very important that we get that message out there—that they need to disclose this at the point of their application.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I think we have a slight misunderstanding. The whole point of Amendment 85 is how we best manage that stock, not just on the point of application but the stock in its entirety, to ensure that social housing is targeted to those with the greatest need. The point I am making is that it goes beyond application.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have outlined, both on this set of amendments and on previous ones, that we are carrying out an extensive review of stock management and allocation, so I hope all those issues will be taken into account in those reviews.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, and I have said I will not press this to a vote, but I am sincere in my desire to protect homes for the most vulnerable in society, to protect dignity and to enable them to get out. I was very taken with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, who spoke from the heart. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given, but we need to reflect the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.
Today, there is a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will stay in her place. In the last Session, she had some monster Bills—the devolution Bill, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and whole tranches of the pensions Bill—as well as this Social Housing Bill in this Session. We have spent many hours on opposite sides of the Chamber, not always agreeing but always respecting our views. With that in mind, I hope we can have an assurance that we will come back with something at Third Reading that places in the Bill some of the reassurances she has given for a new Government, to bind the new Secretary of State. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Farmer
“Provision of information and collaboration on housing for prison leavers(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to—(a) ensure local housing authorities receive the necessary information, and(b) facilitate effective collaboration between local housing authorities, HM Prison and Probation Service and other relevant organisations,to prevent prison leavers at risk of homelessness from being unable to access housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, publish—(a) requirements for the nature of the information that must be shared with local housing authorities,(b) the timescales on which the information must be provided to local housing authorities,(c) the timescales within which local housing authorities must respond, including when they need to confirm whether or not housing will be available,(d) requirements for local housing authorities to respond to the person or body which made the social housing referral for a prison leaver, and(e) guidance for local housing authorities on their responsibility to provide further information as required.(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison. (4) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (3) before Parliament.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that local housing authorities receive information and effectively collaborate with other organisations as necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. It also to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on social housing provision to prison leavers.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82 is in my name and I support the three other amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. Amendment 82 augments my Committee stage Amendment 94, and I thank MHCLG for two meetings with officials which have helped me refine what I think is needed. Summarising briefly the arguments I made in Committee, which are still all valid, I would say that this amendment does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities working better together to prevent post-release homelessness. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, and especially rough sleeping, makes their rehabilitation almost impossible. Unsurprisingly, they will be more than twice as likely to reoffend as those released into settled accommodation.
They are also far more likely to die. In an investigation by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman into 137 deaths after release over a two-year period, almost one-third of those dying within two weeks had been released homeless. The PPO described homelessness on release as “a considerable issue”. It is also a growing issue. Last year, there was a 28% rise since 2021 in the numbers of deaths within two weeks of release. Greater pressure will shortly come from the 10 monthly tranches of early releases from English and Welsh jails, starting on 2 September 2026, of an estimated 6,000 prisoners. HM Inspectorate of Prisons told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2024 that, at some prisons, the limited housing stock available for those released had been
“overwhelmed by early release schemes”.
The Government are aware of this. Ministry of Justice data shows almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. Its national plan to end homelessness states that this
“could have been prevented had better coordination and planning been in place”—
hence the timeliness and needfulness of my amendment. It would ramp up accountability on local housing authorities’ compliance with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, because some are far better than others, under similar stock pressures, at finding ex-prisoners accommodation. Effective partnerships with prison, probation and other organisations are key to successful operation of the Homelessness Reduction Act’s duty to refer, which should kick in 50 days prior to release.
My amendment would tighten up the existing legal framework, as it is not delivering as it should, and its reporting requirements would reveal how local authorities compare with their statistical neighbours. It would enable regulations to specify more clearly how and when local housing authorities must respond to referrals. Prisons are also not consistently complying with the duty to refer; hence, regulations would also tighten the process at their end.
My new amendment explicitly refers to the need for effective collaboration between all relevant agencies, for reasons that I will now explain. Given the urgency, I am pleased that there has already been promising news on its direction of travel. First, the new Prime Minister —and I sincerely wish him well—has promised to end rough sleeping. Over half of all “duty to refer” referrals to local housing authorities are from criminal justice agencies, highlighting just how many of those threatened with rough sleeping are prison leavers. I met Andy Burnham when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester and asked if he had ever visited what used to be the city’s notorious HMP Strangeways. He had not, but he mentioned that practically all the men he saw sleeping rough on the road down to his office from what is now HMP Manchester had recently been released from there. Symbolically, they had barely moved on. Given today’s remarks, he clearly remains profoundly exercised by this.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 87, in the names of my noble friends Lady O’Neill and Lord Jamieson. This is an issue on which I have had a long-standing interest. During my time in this House, I have sought to strengthen the powers available to tackle tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. I did so because social housing is a precious public asset and every home lost to fraud is a home denied to a family in genuine need. We frequently discuss the need to build more social housing, and of course new supply is important, but we should not overlook the importance of making the very best use of the stock we already have. That seems like the common-sense approach.
The legislation is already in place to tackle fraud. The question is whether it is being used effectively and consistently. Effective enforcement measures act as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to abuse the system. Before we ask taxpayers to fund even more housing, it is right to understand whether the homes we already have are being used for the purposes for which they were intended. This is why I support these amendments that are built on transparency, accountability and understanding.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, from the Front Bench.
Amendment 82 is a sound and compassionate amendment. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way that the exchange of data between the Prison Service and local authorities with regard to placing ex-offenders does not happen as it should. I felt that the noble Lord’s comment about all local authorities taking their share is particularly pertinent, as I found out from bitter experience. To cut a long story short, I noticed a spike in homelessness and offences in certain neighbourhoods. When I dug under those statistics and spoke to the Probation Service, it turned out it was to do with the lack of homes for ex-offenders. I said, “How come it’s all congregating here?”, and they said, “Well, Hertfordshire councils aren’t very co-operative”. I then found out that only two of the 10 authorities in Hertfordshire actually co-operated and tried to work with this group of people. I am pleased to say to the Minister that they were Watford and Stevenage.
However, I fear that Amendments 86, 87 and 88 confuse a lack of action with a lack of oversight. The social housing sector is not short of reviews, strategies or regulators; what it is short of is homes. On Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, was absolutely right that every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone in real housing need. We should tackle tenancy fraud whenever it occurs, but I am not persuaded that yet another review from Whitehall will tell us anything that landlords do not already know. In my experience, the challenge is not a lack of understanding but often a lack of capacity and resources.
My greatest concern is with Amendment 87. Of course we want fewer voids, faster reletting and better use of existing stock—yes, yes, yes—but this amendment seems to assume that nobody is already collecting the data, monitoring performance or holding providers to account, and I do not believe that this is true. We already have a Regulator of Social Housing overseeing governance, financial viability and consumer standards; we already have the Housing Ombudsman scrutinising landlord performance and identifying systemic failings through complaints; and housing associations and councils already operate under significant scrutiny and reporting requirements. The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it. A national strategy will not relet an empty home and another set of metrics will not house a family; good management does that, as does investment and building more homes.
As for Amendment 88, we support strong governance, transparency and tenant representation, but those principles are already embedded in the existing regulatory framework. Housing associations are independent organisations, subject to robust oversight, not bodies waiting for Whitehall to tell them how to behave.
Therefore, while I support the objectives behind these amendments clearly and firmly, I cannot support the assumption behind them: that every challenge in housing requires another review, another strategy or another layer of central direction. The sector is already regulated, scrutinised and awash with data. What it needs is the freedom, capacity and investment to focus on what matters most: providing and managing good homes for the people who need them the most. For that reason, we oppose these amendments.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Farmer.
A common theme has run through this group: making better use of the social housing stock we already have. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Farmer addresses the important issue of prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Stable accommodation can play a crucial role in helping individuals rebuild their lives and in reducing the risk of reoffending. His amendment rightly seeks to improve co-ordination and information sharing between agencies, and I know that the House will have listened carefully to those arguments.
Amendments 87 and 88, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, are fundamentally about making the best use of the social housing stock we already have. We all hear calls for more social housing, but that conversation inevitably turns immediately to building more homes. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, new supply is important, but it will not arrive overnight. Before we ask taxpayers to fund more homes, is it not reasonable to ask whether the homes we already have are being used as effectively as possible?
We need to make better use of the homes we already have. To do that, we need a more accurate view of how many we need. When an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied, there is a strong case for a national strategy that tackles tenancy fraud, reduces void periods and improves re-letting performance. The Government themselves estimate that 5,800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short-term letting platforms. There could be a lot of people making a lot of money out of that. That demonstrates why tackling tenancy fraud must be part of any serious strategy for improving the use of social housing stock. Even if that figure proves to be overstated, it underlines the importance of having accurate data and a clearer understanding of the scale of the challenge.
Likewise, we need to understand how accurate housing waiting lists are and when they were last reviewed. Circumstances change, and it is only with a timely review that a more accurate and transparent assessment can be made of the number of dwellings actually needed, as well as ensuring that the list is assessing accurate prioritisation. Without that information, it is difficult to judge how many additional homes are genuinely required and how many could be made available through better stock management.
At a time when the demand for social housing continues to grow, it is not enough simply to talk about building new homes. We must ensure that the homes we already have are being managed as effectively as possible. Too often, concerns are raised about lengthy void periods, delays in re-letting, outdated waiting lists, tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. Every property left empty unnecessarily is a missed opportunity for a family in need. Every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone on a waiting list.
Our amendment would require the Government to produce a national strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing housing stock. It would improve transparency, requiring key information to be published on void properties, re-let times, recovered properties and enforcement activity relating to unlawful subletting. It is not about creating additional bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that landlords, local authorities and government focus on making the best use of an extremely valuable and scarce public asset.
The related amendment on unlawful subletting seeks to better understand whether current enforcement powers are being used effectively and the barriers that might exist. Before calling for ever more supply, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the stock we already have is being managed as efficiently as possible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for Amendment 82, which seeks to ensure that local authorities receive the necessary information and collaborate with others to support prison leavers at risk of homelessness. I echo the noble Lord’s words about my noble friend Lord Timpson. He was an exceptional Minister who brought both the discipline of running a business and the compassion that he embodies in the principles by which he runs his business to his ministerial role. He has been an incredible success as a Minister and I wish him well for the future.
This amendment is focused on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice recognise. Supporting people into accommodation on release from prison is critical to reducing both homelessness and reoffending. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for meeting my officials and for the work that he has done previously with my noble friend Lord Timpson on this issue. Although I recognise and am supportive of the intent of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Public bodies such as His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are already required to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice.
The Government have also outlined an ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness. Collaboration is key to achieving this goal. As the noble Lord said, we have committed to consulting on a duty to collaborate to compel certain public bodies to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. Getting the design right will be important to ensure that public services work together more effectively to identify those at risk of homelessness as early as possible. I always get a little nervous when I read out something such as “getting the design right”, because that sometimes means a very long time thinking about it. Let us therefore be optimistic about our new Prime Minister’s pledge to end rough sleeping. We know, as the noble Lord said, that a lot of these issues lead to rough sleeping, so I hope that our PM’s pledge to end it will accelerate progress on this issue.
My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison through the CORE data collection and publishes this annually. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising the important issue of effective use of social housing stock in Amendments 86 and 87. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Addressing illegal subletting, as Amendment 86 would, is an important element of that. However, as I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which will report later this year—not too long to wait for that. It will examine issues covered by these amendments, including voids, underoccupation, unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature to legislate for a separate review or strategy before that work has concluded. This will enable us to properly assess its findings and inform next steps.
The amendments would also duplicate existing data collection. Much of the information they seek to mandate is already collected through sources, including the CORE social housing lettings data and local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined.
Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly. This may include taking legal action. I was very pleased to read about a case in Hertfordshire today where technology was used to detect and convict on a housing fraud case. That will be a very useful tool in supporting this work.
On 8 July, the Government announced a new, innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for the families that need them and are not in the hands of criminals. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that these amendments are not moved.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on governance standards for registered providers of social housing. It is of the utmost importance that registered providers are well run organisations and that fundamental principles such as transparency and accountability are core to all their operations. However, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, registered providers of social housing are already subject to standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Specifically, private registered providers are required to meet the outcomes that are set out in the regulator’s governance and financial viability standard. This standard requires private registered providers to have effective governance arrangements that deliver their aims, objectives and intended outcomes for tenants and potential tenants in an effective, transparent and accountable manner.
Local authority-registered providers are not subject to this standard but instead are subject to a range of other governance requirements, including the statutory best-value duty. This requires them to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, all registered providers of social housing must meet the outcomes set out in the regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard, which requires that they take tenants’ views into account in their decision-making on how landlord services are delivered. Consequently, I am of the view that further governance standards set by the Secretary of State would duplicate these existing requirements set by the regulator. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, not to move their amendment.
That said, the regulator is currently seeking views through its discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, on its approach to economic regulation. This includes exploration of good governance and how to regulate for it. If there are specific ideas about how to strengthen governance requirements in the sector, I encourage noble Lords to engage with this process. If anybody needs any help with that, my officials will be happy to facilitate.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
The Minister said that the stock management review would come before the end of the year. Can she be clearer about a timescale? Will it be in the autumn or on Christmas Eve? Will that review show the data openly and transparently so that people can assess who is doing well and who is not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is a review of the practices of stock management. It is intended to flag up good practice but also look at what needs doing further to make stock management easier. I am going to say yes to the second question. To the first question, the safest that I can say is “by the end of the year”. The year ends, as far as I know, on 31 December, so it will be before that. I hope that it will be earlier than that, because we all want to get on with this work.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
Taking that one step further, is the Minister likely to share that with the House at that time? Obviously, I am hoping that she will still be in her place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Discussions will take place when the review is complete. We have had some good discussions around this in the House. It is obviously of interest to noble Lords. I am very happy to discuss it further when we get the outcome of that review.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her support, particularly in highlighting the variability of councils’ responses to notification that homeless prisoners will be coming out on their patch, and how councils right next door to each other vary from one to another. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for her contribution.
I thank the Minister for understanding this amendment. I am slightly disappointed, but I am aware of the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm and that quite a lot of work could be done on this in the Summer Recess. It is quite a simple amendment. Therefore, in view of the timescale that the Prime Minister has put on this—by the end of this Parliament—I ask that the Government use the Recess usefully to tidy up this amendment, maybe to come back at Third Reading with their own government amendment. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“Access to social housing: British citizenship(1) Where a dwelling is social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Regulation of Social Housing), the landlord must be satisfied that the lead tenant is a British citizen.(2) Where the landlord is not a local authority, the relevant local authority should take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that those who are not British citizens cannot access social housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we have the confidence of the public in our housing system. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“National strategy for management of social housing stock(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing social housing stock.(2) The strategy must include proposals for—(a) reducing vacancy periods;(b) improving re-letting performance;(c) tackling unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud;(d) improving waiting list management;(e) addressing under-occupation;(f) tackling barriers to downsizing, where appropriate;(g) improving transparency and data collection in stock management.(3) Every local housing authority and registered provider of social housing must publish annually, in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, information relating to—(a) the number of void properties;(b) average re-let times;(c) unlawful subletting investigations and prosecutions;(d) recovered properties;(e) the date on which the housing waiting list was most recently reviewed.(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report summarising and analysing the information published under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require a national strategy to improve the management of existing social housing stock and requires social landlords to publish key stock-management data, with the Secretary of State reporting annually on performance.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
Based on the commitment made earlier by the Minister, I am happy not to move this amendment.
Lord Bird
“Empty dwelling management orders: prescribed period of timeIn the Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Period of Time and Additional Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2625), omit Article 2 (prescribed period of time).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reinstate the period of time that a dwelling has to be unoccupied for before local councils can apply for empty dwelling management orders to six months.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased that I am being given the opportunity to speak to these two interesting amendments, Amendments 89 and 90. They are very simple. They are nowhere near what I want to achieve in life, but they are, in a sense, a halt in a becoming. In 1998, we had a situation where under the Blair Government—
Lord Bird (CB)
Shall I talk louder? The rain in Spain goes mainly down the drain. Sorry. Forgive me. Thank you. You are on my side.
Tony Blair or somebody in his Government had the idea that, if a house was empty for six months, it should be available for the local authority to turn it into some social usefulness. After the Second World War, Abbé whatever his name was said that because of the crisis of homelessness every empty property should be used by the local authority and the national Government to get people out of homelessness.
The Blair Administration said that if a property was empty for six months then it was important that it should be available so the local authority could say, “We will utilise it and return it back to you when you need it if you want to sell it, move your family in or whatever”. That referred to local authority housing, which at the time had in the region of 20% of voids. It was a period when many buildings that had been social housing had been rubbished and were not used properly.
I am here today partly to try to get the Government to move from the situation that we are now in. We know that the coalition Government, shall we say, kicked the can further down the road when they changed the period from six months to two years, so a property had to be empty for two years before the local authority could take it over. In my opinion, we should return to six months. I have had discussions about that with this wonderful Minister, and I hope she is in government—I really do. If we have the opportunity of returning to that time period then we could start kicking holes in the fact that there are so many empty houses out there, and that we have 160,000 children and 174,000 families in temporary accommodation. Would it not be brilliant if we could use empty homes as part of providing that need? That is one of my amendments; I cannot remember whether it is Amendment 89 or Amendment 90—forgive me my trespasses.
The other thing is that I want to invest in social housing. I should declare my situation: I am a social entrepreneur, a social investor, who runs a business, The Big Issue, which deals with the crisis of homelessness in the streets but also runs an enormous social business. We invest in 600 social businesses around the UK. Last week, I had the great pleasure—I am sure your Lordships cannot imagine me crying—of opening a school. I had to cut the ribbon of a school for disabled children down in Sunbury that Big Issue Invest had put £3 million into. So I am interested in the use of social business. Where do we get our money from? We get out money from the City of London, from family offices and from high net worth individuals. I am trying to bring two things together: one is the need for social justice around social housing and the other is freeing up the way that businesses can invest in social housing so that we can remove the anomalies that Governments have thrown up. We want to get into a situation where you can make money out of social housing but for the benefit of the most disenfranchised people in British society.
I am glad that Mr Burnham has taken as his first wonderful option the ending of rough sleeping. As an ex-rough sleeper, I have been campaigning for 35 years to get rid of rough sleeping. I have been campaigning to get rid of people leaving prisons and ending up on the streets. I am an ex-offender, and I was blessed that I did not end up on the streets. I ended up on the streets because I was running away from not just the police but my family.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 92, the final amendment, and will be going ahead of my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench. To set it out pretty clearly, I hope that this finds favour with not only the Minister but the renewed Secretary of State, the right honourable Angela Rayner, who has been appointed. I also hope this finds favour with the Prime Minister.
Basically, one of the barriers for councils and others in trying to provide social housing is land. Homes England has tons of land. It has been given a lot of land by other government departments, with the very specific intent for homes to be built. But I am still awaiting—admittedly still within time—Answers to Questions about how many homes Homes England has built. I think that, at the moment, it is constrained by Treasury rules that it has to do this commercially. That is nonsense. We have an asset and there is a very clear intention by the Government to build many more homes, and, in particular, with this new Prime Minister, many more council homes. Why can we not just get on with it?
I appreciate that people go on about different aspects of finances, but the point is that this is in the Government’s hands. It is a bit like why the Conservatives brought in the right to buy initially. The property was there, and we knew that there were people wanting to buy those homes, to have and to invest in as they did, rather than them being an ongoing expense for the taxpayer. We have the same here. There is land all over the place that could become homes much more quickly if it was simply handed, for free, to the local council to get on and build.
For anybody who thinks that it is quite challenging to build homes, I remember that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and I were having dinner on The Cut. We saw the modular building right opposite the Old Vic. It is not a huge plot of land, but now there are four homes there—and it was all done within about two or three months. It is quite extraordinary. Where there is a will, there is a way, but land is the barrier. I encourage the Government to think that through.
I want to support Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I have long been a supporter of this. At the moment, there are 754,000 vacant properties in England, according to statistics published by the department last October. That has gone up by about a third in the last decade. That is not on; something needs to be done to try to get this moving. Quite often, these places are scruffy, and yet councils are not making use of their powers to force the owners of such properties to tidy them up and keep them looking nice. Much more needs to be done on this.
The proposed new clause headed “Long-term empty homes use: strategy and funding” is very sensible and the amendment is definitely needed. I expect the Minister will say, “It doesn’t need to be in law. We’re already doing something about it”, but the very fact that we are seeing an increase—I think it increased year on year—is a real scandal when, by the way, 105,000 of those empty homes are in Greater London.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has not indicated whether he intends to press his amendment. If he does, I would support him, but I hope the Government will consider it carefully and come forward with their own amendments by the time the Bill goes to the other end, particularly under the guise of the new Prime Minister and the renovated Secretary of State, in order to really make a difference here.
I know that the Prime Minister talked today about rough sleeping, which has often been a huge focus for a number of Governments, but it is actually a small number of people in this country compared with the people who are living in temporary accommodation. I hope that the Government will give this full force and back the intent of the Prime Minister not only on rough sleeping but, as he also mentioned, on making sure that people get their homes. That will be the basis on which they can have prosperous lives.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this is a group of interesting and different amendments. Nobody could fail to be moved by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, speaks to us, or to understand and feel his passion. He should not doubt for a minute that we share that; I think we all do.
My concern about Amendment 89 is that it would involve empty dwelling management orders. There is a real irony about those orders, as they are a power that councils rarely use. In fact, councils regard them as much more complex and difficult than CPOs—compulsory purchase orders—and have almost abandoned using them altogether. There were, in fact, no EDMOs used at all between 2023 and 2024, and only 200 in total since they were introduced in 2006.
I absolutely understand the intention of what has been said, but I am going to be cheeky and use this opportunity with the Minister to jump on one of my hobby horses, which is empty homes. This is really about the constraints and difficulties with compulsory purchase orders. It was said that councils should use their powers, but the trouble is that there are real barriers to councils using those powers. To start with, on money, councils lack dedicated funding to renovate properties, which is exacerbated by the costs of compensation to the owner and legal fees, so there are real money issues there.
It is absolutely accepted that the CPO process is overwhelmingly bureaucratic, complex and slow; it also requires government approval. If we are talking about the devolution of things, perhaps that is a power that councils could just get on with. On the six months, you want to say, “Of course that’s right”, but from my experience tracing the owners can, in reality, take far longer than six months. It is really frustrating watching officers try to progress these sorts of things. It is very challenging when there are so many absentee owners now. Some of the most difficult issues are about untangling complicated probate ownership.
Another big issue is the capacity in councils to do this work, when there is an ongoing concern that councils are constantly being asked to do more with less, particularly with regard to such issues and enforcement. But I understand why this amendment has been brought and the Government should look at removing some of those barriers to CPOs, which are well known and well evidenced. Councils are not using them for those reasons and some of those could be changed.
I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that I will say nice things about Amendment 91. He is feeling a bit bruised today. Of course, it is absolutely right. Where we disagree on this is that I have always believed that brownfield is at the top of the planning hierarchy—ever since John Prescott’s days. It is very clear that we should be developing on brownfield sites. The amendment says that there should be a stronger emphasis. The reason for this, I know from sensible discussions with the Conservative Front Bench, is that they deal regularly with councils that do not give planning permission for brownfield sites.
That is a very real concern. Developers will always develop green spaces over brownfield, so there is a case for talking about incentives to use brownfield sites, to get those more into action. But I guess it is also a challenge for the Minister’s inspectorate. If councils are regularly turning down suitable housing sites and not giving permission, presumably a developer will appeal and inspectors will do their job. So I totally agree that it is always preferable to use brownfield.
My authority is one where 98% is brownfield. We do not really have any green sites apart from scratty little bits of land, which we very quickly put social housing on if we can get ownership of them. I absolutely get where the noble Lord is coming from; I just believe that brownfield is at the top of the hierarchy and that councils that are not playing ball, not playing by the rules, should be brought to account regardless of what party they are run by.
I have to say publicly to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I find her amendments wonderfully quirky. She is really good at thinking outside the box. I am busy thinking, “Okay, this one actually sounds quite simple, coming from the noble Baroness, but I bet there are loads of really complicated reasons why it can’t happen”. What I will say is that she put it very simply: why can they not just give it for free? In our council we give the land for free. The only way we get social housing built is by giving the land for free. I guess it is about the principle of that, and I wholeheartedly endorse the principle. Public land is a public asset and should be used for the public good. It might amuse the noble Baroness to know that we have some very quirky policies on land use within our party. Land clearly is an issue for building and development. I will rest my words there and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I support Amendment 89 and acknowledge the remarkable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to tackling homelessness over many years.
That challenge is particularly acute in rural communities. We know that rural housing is less affordable. Action with Communities in Rural England reports that the average home costs nearly nine times the average local earnings, compared with around seven and a half times in urban areas. Unsurprisingly, these pressures are reflected in rising levels of homelessness. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has found that homelessness in rural areas has increased year on year, with a 73% increase since 2018.
In such circumstances, many people find themselves unable to live in the communities where they work, have family connections and contribute to local life. When people can no longer afford to live near their work, communities lose not only vital skills and services but the continuity of relationships, local knowledge and a sense of shared responsibility. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community’s Coming Home report identified stability as one of the necessary building blocks of housing that supports people to flourish. At a time when homelessness is rising and affordable housing remains out of reach for many, the question, as many noble Lords have already mentioned, is not simply what more we can build but how well we are using what we already have.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have a new Prime Minister and I worry there may be unfortunate changes, so before I speak to these amendments I place on record that I have thoroughly enjoyed my 18 months with the Minister and sincerely hope I shall enjoy many more months opposite her. As a fellow ex-council leader, she brings local government knowledge to a very important part of government.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. As we move into the night, we seem to be breaking out in harmony. I turn first to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As ever, he is a passionate advocate for addressing homelessness and rough sleeping, and for better utilising housing stock—something that we have been pushing for, certainly as regards social housing stock.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, I worked really hard to try to get empty housing back into use. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: EDMOs are a very difficult way of getting housing stock back. In the end, we moved to a CPO strategy. The noble Baroness is right: looking at how we make that more effective and efficient, not just for empty homes but for other matters to do with councils, would be important.
That brings me on to the issue of six months or two years. I know that six months sounds a long time, but I completely agree that trying to find the owners and going through the processes in six months is very difficult. It also raises a number of issues regarding probate. Probate homes, and other examples, are frequently empty for more than six months. That is not because the owners do not want to do something with their home; it is just going through the legal process.
However, it is absolutely right to highlight this issue and look at how we can make better use of property that is empty for extended periods. When a property is empty for two years or more, you will frequently find that there are other issues with that housing to address, and it can often end up being a blight on the neighbouring community. In defence of the previous Conservative Government, they introduced other measures that were very helpful. Having a double new homes bonus for bringing an empty home back into use was a very helpful additional resource while it lasted. The additional council tax for empty homes was also an incentive not to leave them empty.
I would say that my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment is thoughtful and inspirational rather than quirky. She is absolutely right to look at the role that Homes England could play in accelerating social housing delivery by making publicly owned land available to local authorities. Whatever view noble Lords may have about the specific mechanisms proposed, the amendment raises an important question about how public land can be best used to support the delivery of affordable homes and homes in general.
The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley reflects a principle that has long been associated with these Benches: a “brownfield first” approach. I do not think there has been any disagreement in the House about the idea of prioritising brownfield land. There is underused urban land across the country, and there are former industrial sites, vacant plots, and existing social housing estates that are ripe for regeneration. These sites offer an opportunity to deliver much-needed new homes while revitalising communities and reducing pressure on greenfield land.
Yet we need to recognise that building on brownfield is often more difficult, and it is not surprising that developers often take the easy option and seek to build on greenfield. Many Governments of all stripes and colours—this is not a partisan comment—have talked about a “brownfield first” approach, and there is a presumption in favour of brownfield. However, in the planning hierarchy, that is clearly insufficient because it is not working. It is all too easy for objectors to cite numerous planning grounds that delay and frustrate developments to the extent that brownfield sites become too high risk for developers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned that the planning inspector should do this, but when you have only a presumption in favour and not a strong material presumption in favour, that means that you have to take into account many other factors and objections. It is only if we raise brownfield above that level that we will see a step change, which we have not seen to date. Frankly, the proof is in the pudding: we are not seeing enough brownfield developments, so we have to do something.
As I said, this requires that increase in the planning weight given to brownfield land, which is the purpose of our amendment: not just a presumption but a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development. We believe that that is a practical and balanced approach. It would support the delivery of new homes, would align with the principle of regeneration and would help to ensure that social housing is built in locations of greatest need and where the infrastructure and services often already exist. Too often, debates about housing become polarised between those who want more homes and those who wish to protect local environments. A “brownfield first” approach would help to reconcile those objectives. Conservatives have long championed this approach, which we believe remains the right way forward.
The common thread running through this debate is the need to be more ambitious in how we use the assets already available to us, whether that is empty homes, brownfield land or publicly owned land. On these Benches, we believe that increasing housing supply requires not only investment but a willingness to remove barriers to development where it delivers clear public benefit. Amendment 91 seeks to do precisely that. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Jamieson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Before I respond to the amendments, I want to welcome our new Secretary of State, Angela Rayner. She was an absolute powerhouse when she was in the department before, and I am sure she will be again. I hope I get the opportunity to work with her again there. Honestly, if the combination of Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham cannot tackle the housing crisis, nothing will, especially if they are advised by our formidable noble Lord, Lord Bird. That will create the fire and the passion that we need to sort this out once and for all.
Turning to Amendment 89, the Government are clear that, if we want to see more empty homes brought back into use, we absolutely must ensure that that is a focus. I am sympathetic to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to reduce the time that a property must be empty before a local authority can apply for an empty dwelling management order. We all know that there are many and various reasons why properties are left empty, and many of them have already been mentioned. Sometimes there are probate cases and there can be disrepair and insurance cases: if you have subsidence in a property, the insurance company will insist that you leave it empty while it measures the impact of the subsidence. There can be adaptation or tenancy issues, ownership disputes, and abandonment and lender reclamation for properties where the bank or building society needs to reclaim the property. When I was a council leader, there was nothing more frustrating to me than seeing not only properties left empty but then the expense and time that councils had to go to to bring them back into use—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that process.
As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes, and the Government will confirm further details of how we will deliver this in due course. I do not believe it is necessary to legislate in this Bill to deliver the stated aims of the amendment, because we can already deliver the changes needed by secondary legislation. We already have those powers and we intend to bring forward this secondary legislation as quickly as possible.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would place an obligation on the Government to create a national strategy and to provide a loan scheme to bring long-term empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation. It would also require the Government to provide an annual update on progress under the strategy. I fully understand the aims of the amendment to support local authorities with investment and tools to acquire and renovate empty homes and to analyse the progress on tackling empty homes.
On funding, including the amendment’s proposed loans programme, I note that local authorities can already access grant funding to acquire empty homes through a number of existing programmes designed to support the building and acquisition of social housing. This includes the existing affordable homes programme, the new social and affordable homes programme and the local authority housing fund; the Public Works Loan Board also offers lending to local authorities to support housing objectives, including to acquire empty homes. Setting up a new ring-fenced loans programme for empty homes could overlap with and complicate the funding picture for local authorities, requiring them to bid to multiple different funds to deliver projects involving empty homes in their areas, so I am not persuaded of the value of this part of the amendment.
I am also not convinced that a national strategy is the most effective approach. As I have said, the Government are already committed to strengthening the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but to be successful it is vital that each local authority creates a plan to tackle empty homes tailored to its own local circumstances. The scale of and reasons for empty homes can vary hugely, requiring a tailored local action plan, not a nationally prescribed plan. I therefore request that Amendments 89 and 90 are not pressed, but I invite the noble Lord to discuss further how we are progressing commitments to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over empty homes and how we can ensure that existing funding programmes are supporting his intended outcomes. I fully expect that he will be called into No. 10 to do that, but if he has any spare time, perhaps he can come and talk to us in the department as well. That would be wonderful.
Turning to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach. We discussed it many times in this Chamber during the passage of the planning Act, including the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land must be the first port of call. To support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include large areas of hard standing, better reflecting land that is already developed, and made clear that plans should deliver greater density in urban areas. The Government are committed to prioritising the building of new social rent homes, and to reflect this we amended the definition of “affordable housing” in the framework to provide a separate definition of social rent, rather than referring to it as just one thing.
We are clear that local authorities should set out the minimum proportion of homes for social rent that should be delivered on new developments. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land in the framework, including introducing a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. The consultation included proposals to encourage local authorities to identify sites for estate regeneration in their local plans. This will give residents a formal opportunity to comment on such proposals through the plan-making process.
All this demonstrates the strong support for brownfield development and the building of new social rent homes that already exists in the National Planning Policy Framework and in emerging policy. This addresses what I believe to be the intention of the noble Baroness’s amendment. As such, in our view a strong presumption, as proposed by this amendment, is unnecessary and duplicative as existing and emerging policy already sufficiently seeks to achieve this aim. We will shortly be publishing the new National Planning Policy Framework that resulted from the amendments and the consultation we have done.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to require Homes England to transfer its land free of charge to local authorities where a local authority requests the land for social housing. The noble Baroness reminded me of our first Housing First scheme in Stevenage, for which we used a patch of council-owned land and modular buildings to deliver a supported housing scheme of 18 homes for homeless people with complex needs. We delivered that within 12 months, so the noble Baroness is right; it can be done.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
We have discussed brownfield many times, and I think that we are both in agreement that that should be the preferred option. The issue that I am seeking to address is that, while we all agree it should be the preferred option, in reality that is not happening. I use London as an example with very low housing delivery. The problem is that, as the Minister said, if substantial harm were to occur, a proposal will not get approval, but substantial harm is based on the weighting given to the different factors in the planning hierarchy in the planning regime. To use the example of a recent planning application whose rejection was upheld on appeal, a dilapidated shopping centre in Peckham was going to be converted into 800 or so housing units, but the planning inspector deemed that the view of a historic clock tower outweighed the benefit of housing in that area. I do not know enough details about that, but my point is that the weight given to that was greater. The point of our amendment is to increase the weight relative to other weights in the planning system such that a proposal is more likely to go through rather than less likely to go through. I appreciate the changes that are coming to the NPPF, but can the Minister confirm or agree that, if we do not see a material improvement in brownfield development, the Government would reconsider the various weightings given within the NPPF?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on individual planning cases—it would be very unwise to do so from the Dispatch Box. But he will know that there has been, as I said, this recent consultation on the NPPF. It has a different rules-based policy approach and that has been out for widespread consultation. We had 20,000 responses to that. The new NPPF would introduce an expectation that local authorities plan to meet as much of their development needs as possible on brownfield land, and that is supported by a whole series of policies which will increase housing supply on brownfield, include providing strong policy support for the intensification of brownfield to provide those additional homes.
It would be fair to say that, whenever we introduce a new NPPF—and we certainly did last time when we introduced one in December 2024—we have monitored it and made some changes to it. We are constantly looking at the NPPF, and that is the benefit of the way our planning works. We can be flexible in the way we approach these things. I am sure that officials will continue to keep that under review once the new NPPF is published.
Lord Bird (CB)
I will make my final comments. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, obviously does not know Peckham, because, if he did, he would know that the clock tower is very important for the well-being of people in Peckham, as there is not an awful lot to look at. I am sorry—I am joking.
But it is interesting that we cannot achieve many of the things we would like to achieve in this world because of newts or clock towers getting in the way. I have been involved in the brownfield site argument. When I worked as a member of a revolutionary organisation in Southall, we tried to get the old AEC factory turned into a housing association. Eventually, it became a private housing residence, so it did work its way out. There are many limitations to brownfield sites.
In summing up, I would like to dwell more on the idea of businesses investing. Amendment 90 focuses on the idea that we can get businesses involved in investing in social housing. When I say businesses, I mean social businesses such as Big Issue Invest. We found it incredibly difficult to invest in social housing. Forgive me for saying so, but all of the reasons why it is easy are not easy: Big Issue Invest has funds and can get more funds to invest in social housing, but the impediments are largely because of planning and the fact that there are all sorts of limitations placed on it. I would like to see social businesses and businesses meeting their ESGs and using their money to bring about social transformation.
Companies such as L&G want to build more social housing, but the impediments placed on them are quite incredible. That is why I raise the possibility of removing all the impediments to investment by businesses, which will make money out of social housing but will be able to provide people with what they need.
There is a company I am working with called Resonance, of which I declare I am not a director, and there is no way I will get money out of it. Resonance is a business that takes social housing that local authorities cannot develop because they are void. It does them all up and then brings in tenants who are taken off the streets, so to speak. It is absolutely brilliant, but there are too many impediments to the ability of business to help us with the voids and the empty homes. I am looking at these little things from my own experience, not from the experience of other people. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment—God bless you.