Lords Chamber

Monday 1st June 2026

(began 1 week, 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:39
None Portrait Oral questions: The Sovereign AI Fund: reduction of public sector dependence on foreign hyperscale cloud providers Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-

Oral Question Lord Clement-Jones. I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Well, on the Crown Estate, we've we've created a particular appointment and appointed a particular space on the board of the Crown Estate with with special responsibility for for Wales. We're very, very clear that on the Crown Estate that there's a huge amount of investment UK wide that can be driven. And we don't want we don't want to put any. That's potential to create over 5000 jobs, bring £1.4 billion worth of investment into the UK economy, and we're not going to do anything to jeopardise that on, on on policing our reforms.

Policing reforms, removes police, crime commissioners and brings policing closer to communities. So that means we can actually spend more pounds, more money on bobbies on the beat, which is what I think people in both England and Wales want to see. Lord Watts before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Inviting the noble Lord to ask a private notice question, which is about the funding of political about the funding of political parties. I remind the House that no direct reference should be made to the criminal case currently before the criminal case currently before the Scottish courts. His Majesty's Advocate versus Peter Murrell. Noble Lords are, of course, free to Noble Lords are, of course, free to discuss the general issue, but the specific case remains subjudice as specific case remains subjudice as sentencing is due to take place on the 23rd of June.

Private notice question on political party donations. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:42
15:42
None Portrait Statement: Middle East: Economic response Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-

was not a major package, it was a collection of small measures welcomed by some people as far as welcomed by some people as far as it went. But as far as I know, the Chancellor did not announce the total cost. But except for the total cost. But except for the short delay in the increase of £0.05 on petrol, we are told that it will be covered by the changes to corporation tax on overseas investment and the foreign branch exemption, and I would be grateful to the noble Lord.

The Minister could tell us how much that corporation tax change will cost British businesses, and in which tax years, and what investment allowances will be made. As someone who made major investments overseas at Tesco and built up some fine businesses in Korea, in Thailand and in Eastern Europe, I can tell you that we would not have taken the successful risks we did if early losses had not been allowed against profits at home. How is the Treasury going to avoid this change? Chilling overseas investment a beacon of British wealth creation, reputation and strength for centuries.

I read the new list of food, drink, fertiliser and fuel items that will attract zero tariffs until December 2028. I note that they are rightly out for consultation. I have two questions here. First, has the government had regard to the impact on our aspirations for new trade deals, where the granting of tariff free access is a major bargaining chip? We know that the new Canada deal seems stuck because they have indicated that there's not much extra we can offer them. Second, whilst government has tried to avoid lifting tariffs in areas where there is a significant UK production in the agricultural sector, many of the items such as nuts and fruit and tuna, for example, are substitutes for UK grown foods and will displace demand for them.

Moreover, we have a vibrant and important food manufacturing industry now facing stronger competition on areas like confectionery and biscuits and processed foods. What is the government's estimate of the impact on them and on the vital jobs that they support? Is this a further nail in the coffin of our manufacturing industries? Which brings me on neatly to the third area of concern, which also affects food manufacturing. The high energy costs in the UK, they've been made worse by the Middle East war, but the main reason is the Miliband obsession with a drive to net zero.

This obsession is doing very little for climate change, as the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global emissions. As we, the official opposition, have repeatedly made clear. Actually, sometimes with some welcome support from the Minister, we must make full use of the North Sea, not only with Tiebacks but with an early go ahead for Jackdaw and Rosebank. This becomes more urgent by the day, given that there seems little chance of an early opening of the Straits of Hormuz. When can we expect an announcement on these two licences? Our high electricity prices are also a cause of wider industrialisation, and so I welcome the support for the ceramics industry.

Stoke on Trent's five towns with the Silicon Valley of Britain in their day, and indeed I'm an avid collector of Staffordshire pottery. However, something more fundamental is needed on energy to preserve our shrinking, shrinking industrial base. Given. Given that the statement was about the impact of war in the Middle East, I was surprised that it was so light on defence. I asked the Minister again, when will the Defence Investment Plan be published? He used to say in due course.

But in the King's Speech debate, he said shortly, which offered more hope. So I asked the question again when will it be published? And that brings me on to my final area of concern the gravity of the wider picture of inadequate and crumbling defence forces because of lack of proper funding or a proper defence investment plan, the country's finances in a mess, troubling social policies and divisions and anaemic growth. The lack of that magic which makes governing so much easier.

This is not surprising given the avalanche of taxes and business costs we've experienced National Insurance, minimum wage hikes, Employment Rights Act, a new visitors levy on our hotels, packaging taxes and vicious rape evaluations which, according to this weekend's papers, risks closing down yet more of our country's pubs further. Only today I see that it is proposed to reduce checks on those claiming disability benefits checks. This would be going in precisely the wrong direction. Is the report correct, my Lords, to understand the damage these policies have caused, we only need to look back at the OBR's March 2024 forecast for 2026.

At that point, shortly before we left office, having navigated enormous challenges, not least the unprecedented inflation following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the OBR forecast UK GDP growth of 2%, unemployment at 4.2% and inflation at 1.6%. After Labour's tax rises and spending spree, the OBR now forecast UK growth at 1.1% OBR now forecast UK growth at 1.1% in 2026, unemployment at 5.3% and, tragically, much more amongst the young, and then inflation of 2.3% for 2026.

All in the wrong direction. Over those Labour years, we face many serious problems in this country, and we on these benches, believe that we need a greater sense of urgency and a much better plan from the government, especially on growth and productivity, on defence, on energy and on debt reduction. Sadly, the latest package is another bit of unexciting incrementalism and mostly focussed on lesser issues and badly managed. As we saw from the outcry of all experts on the proposal to fix supermarket prices.

My Lords, we can do better.
15:49
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord. Till sales at the UK supermarket slowed to growth of supermarket slowed to growth of just 0.2% in the three weeks to mid-May. Families do not know how mid-May. Families do not know how they will cope with higher fuel costs, higher council tax and expected inflation. Now, I'm sure the Minister will tell us that the government has tried to ease costs on the most vulnerable, and that I support those actions, but with no relief in sight from the consequences of Trump's Iran war, will the government look seriously at the emergency £2 billion transport relief package proposed by my colleagues to be funded by Treasurys on forecast boost in tax receipts.

A cut in fuel duty by 10%, a slash in bus fares to £1 a slash in rail fares by 10%, and a cut on public EV charging on that on public EV charging to 5%. And does he also recognise that this is not a short term crisis? The government will have to find ways to reverse or offset the National Insurance increase to small employers, especially in hospitality and leisure. It must break the link between electricity prices and the oil price.

It must intensify the move to contracts for difference to spur on renewables, and it must provide an effective programme for individuals and small businesses to install energy saving and overhaul the business rates, at least to exclude all new business investment in energy saving from business rate consequences. Can he take these series of actions which would make a significant difference to.
15:51
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to both noble Ladies, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Ladies, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Kramer for their comments and their questions. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe ended her remarks with her usual doom and gloom and talking down the British economy. She didn't, unfortunately, mention any of the positive economic news that we have heard in the last few weeks. She'll know as she shares the importance of growing the economy. She knows that that's our number one objective. She didn't mention the fact that last week's figures confirmed that Britain's economy was the fastest growing in the G7 for the first quarter of this year.

She didn't mention that we beat the OBR's forecasts from the spring, with economic growth at 0.6% in the three months to March. And she didn't mention the fact that because of the resilience in our economy last week, the IMF upgraded Britain's growth forecast for this year. She also didn't mention the positive news on the public finances that borrowing last year was £20 billion lower than it was in the previous year, and it's falling in every year of this parliament. She didn't mention the fact that the IMF backed our economic plan, saying that the government's fiscal framework strikes, and I quote, a good balance between deficit reduction and growth friendly spending.

And she didn't mention any of the things that we are doing to ease the cost of living. So she didn't mention the fact that since the election, interest rates have been cut six times, that real wages have continued to rise in every month of this government, and that inflation fell in April faster than expected, making the UK the only G7 economy where inflation fell last month. She didn't mention any of these things, and I do think that continuing to talk the economy down when we are doing all that we can to help the economy through this difficult period with the war in the Middle East, it would not actually benefit anyone.

She talked about the cost of the measures that we are introducing. She talks about the foreign branch profits. I think that hopefully she will agree with us that when a country faces challenges because of higher oil and gas prices, that we must ensure that those who benefit from increased prices and volatility do pay their fair share. She will remember that in her first budget, the government extended an increase the energy profits levy. Last year, we announced a new permanent windfall tax regime for oil and gas price shocks, and last month we increased the electricity generator levy alongside further action to weaken the link.

As the noble Lady Baroness Kramer mentioned, between high gas and electricity prices, now the government is making specific changes to the taxation of foreign branch profits, changing how companies are taxed in relation to their overseas activities. She'll know that until now, some businesses have structured their affairs with taxable branches to pay little or no corporation tax on UK profits, and the change that we're introducing removes the ability to achieve disproportionate relief for overseas costs. Without UK taxation of future profits. The change from 1st of September 2026 for oil and gas extracting UK resident companies will ensure the UK continues to have a robust and effective corporation tax regime in line with international best practice, and ensures effective taxation of profits attributable to UK activities.

She talked about the cost. She's absolutely right to say that we do expect these reforms to raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and that they do fully fund the package of measures that was announced by the Chancellor. The costings will be certified by the OBR forecast in the usual way at the next fiscal event. She talked about zero tariffs and she said rightly, they are out for consultation. That obviously is the case and I'm pleased that she agrees with that. She mentioned the impact on trade deals.

These are temporary suspensions to tariffs. And so they will lapse long before any trade deals are negotiated. So I think we are able to actually see immediate improvements in terms of the cost of living. And obviously over over time, perhaps there will be trade deals that achieve that slightly more permanently. She talked about high energy costs and blame that on the drive to net zero, when she will know. We had a, I think, an oral question in this House at the time when the IMF put out their previous forecasts, and she'll know that at the time, the IMF said that we have faced high energy costs in this country, exactly because the previous government had failed to take action to make the UK more self-sufficient in terms of energy.

So I think blaming the solution to the problem and saying it's the problem itself, I think is, is is a little perverse. The problem for the UK is that we are too exposed to imports of energy, and that we are, as she knows, as a government, taking action to reverse that. She knows that I agree with her when it comes to oil and gas production from the North Sea and how important and valuable that is. She asked me specifically about two fields Jackdaw and Rosebank.

She'll know that the development proposals are a matter for the North Sea Transition Authority and the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning. I'm unable to comment on the specifics of any individual project. While the regulatory process is underway or on the investment decisions of individual operators. As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Energy Security Net Zero will be making a decision regarding the environmental impact assessments of these projects in the coming months. I'm pleased that she welcome the support for the ceramics industry.

She is right to say that there are far longer term issues at play in terms of the competitiveness of many of our industries, the foundational sectors so important to the industrial strategy. And of course, that is why we've already increased support for our most energy intensive companies through the British Industry Competitiveness Scheme that we announced a couple of weeks ago. She asked me about defence spending. She knows the Defence Investment Plan is the first zero based review of defence spending in almost two decades.

It will set out plans to ensure resources are directed effectively to meet its priorities. The government is working hard to facilitate this and to ensure that it delivers the outcomes the UK needs for defence and for taxpayers, and I shall repeat what I said previously that it will be published shortly. She asked about supermarkets. I think finally, as she knows we. It's right, quite right that we have discussions with supermarkets, as we have with fuel retailers and high street banks, to discuss ways we can work together to ease the cost of living on households.

But as I said to her, I think in a previous private notice question, this isn't about price caps, as some speculation has suggested. We would never advocate for that, and it's not for us to tell supermarkets how to run their businesses. The noble Lady Baroness Kramer focussed primarily on quite a long shopping list of support that the party would like to see introduced. Obviously we have introduced some support last week that the Chancellor set out, but all I would say is I'm not convinced that the funding that the noble Lady thinks is there is there for her package of support, and I do think that unfunded commitments are not the way to ease the cost of living crisis.

We saw that exactly that with the Liz Truss government. We saw exactly that with the previous Conservative Party government introducing unfunded support now would mean higher inflation and higher interest rates in the long term, meaning that the very people that we're trying to help now would pay more for their rent, for their for their bills, for their mortgages in the long term. And I do not believe that that is a sustainable way to help people with the cost of living crisis. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we move on to backbench questions, I've just been asked to remind noble Lords that the next 20 minutes is only for backbench minutes is only for backbench questions and not frontbenchers. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The Minister will remember this. I think you'll remember that after I think you'll remember that after 1945, the best brains of Britain, America and some other countries
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Over three months ago now, I was one of the. house the consequences for food security from the war in the Gulf. I declare my interest as somebody involved in the fertiliser industry, which I think makes me one of the more better informed commentators in this space. Now, all around the world, nation states are taking steps to secure supplies. The EU is modifying its scheme to increase supply and mitigate costs. Other nations are in in implementing export bans. Ukrainian strikes on Russian production, taken together with the damage in the Gulf, it's putting 50% of the world's nitrogen fertiliser production at risk.

And that hasn't been fully appreciated. And now, of course, sulphur shortages are creating a phosphate catastrophe in this country. We hardly have tariffs on imported fertiliser. So announcing that as a concession isn't going that far. But the government's response thus far has been to to propose insane fertiliser taxes that will drive food price inflation to new heights, increasing the the prices of beer, bread and biscuits. So with the cereals event where British farmers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

congregate next to Tuesday. Wednesday. Honourable Lord, to get to the question, please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question, please. With a serious event next Tuesday, what good news can the Minister give to those farmers who Minister give to those farmers who are planning for harvest 20 to 27? And when is the government going to And when is the government going to take the impact of this seriously? And can these extra charges that do nothing to reduce carbon emissions nothing to reduce carbon emissions globally, globally, and actually increase the importation of the most polluting fertilisers produced from coal fire in China?
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:16
16:17
None Portrait Legislation: Social Housing Bill - second reading Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

>> Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. >> My Lords, I beg to move. >> That this bill be now read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this bill be now read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this bill be now read a second time. My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open the Second Reading debate on the Social Housing Bill, and I look forward to listening carefully to noble Lords contributions from across the House. I am particularly conscious that many in this chamber bring deep experience of housing, local government, safeguarding and the realities facing communities. I therefore would like to begin by recognising the value that this experience brings to our debate and thanking noble Lords for giving this Bill the attention that it warrants.

Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I hope the House will allow me a brief personal reflection, because this bill is really personal for me. This legislation is not abstract. I grew up in Stevenage, in social housing. In those days before everyone carried a phone in their pocket, before internet shaped the world and not even every house had a phone, I should add. I'm that old. And before cars were widely affordable, community was the bedrock of our lives and part of the unwritten contract for my parents when they accepted the offer of a job and a home in Britain's first post-war new town, 80 years old this year, was that their parents would be welcome when they retired and that their children could, if they wished, be housed as children of tenants.

One of the great strengths of living in Stevenage was the sense of continuity and belonging. It offered families put down roots, your parents could live nearby and in time you could imagine your own children building their lives in the same area, with the possibility, if they needed it, of a secure, affordable home in the community. They knew that sense of security, that social housing could be there not only for you, but for the next generation. And that's part of what social housing, at its best, can provide stability, dignity, and the foundation on which people can build a life.

Now, amidst the complexities of modern life and the cost of living crisis, retaining that sense of community is more important than ever. And yet, for too many people, it's no longer something that they can rely on. In Stevenage, the housing stock has fallen from around 32,000 homes in the 1980s to around 8000 today, and many former council homes are now let to those on Universal Credit, costing the public purse more than double that compared with the council home and leaving over 2000 families stranded on waiting lists.

This is a picture we see around the country. Over time, social and affordable homes have become scarce in many places. Homes sold have not been replaced. The result is that families who once could live side by side in the same town, in the same neighbourhood, are now too often separated by necessity and forced to move far from the support networks they depend on. And that's one of the reasons I care so deeply about this bill. It's about restoring a sense of security and fairness for tenants today and for communities tomorrow.

My Lords, everyone deserves to live somewhere decent, safe, secure and affordable in a community where they feel at home. And that is why the social housing sector plays such a critical role in our system, providing a home to around 16% of all households in England and supporting many of the most vulnerable, including those on the lowest incomes and those living with long term illness or disability. Yet for many, that security is out of reach. Today, more than 1.3 million households are on local authority waiting lists for social housing, and over 175 000 children are growing up.

Without a stable home. Families are left with little prospect of secure housing in their community. They are forced instead into increasingly expensive and insecure private rented sector, or into temporary accommodation at significant personal cost and growing expense to the public purse. This country has not built enough social and affordable housing for decades. While nearly 1 in 3 new homes in recent years has been social or affordable, overall delivery remains far below the historic highs of the 50s and 60s, when housing was delivered at a far greater scale.

This decline reflects a combination of factors over recent years, including lower levels of public investment, constraints on providers ability to borrow and invest, and wider economic pressures such as inflation, which have increased the cost of building and maintaining homes. At the same time, the steady and significant loss of social housing stock, particularly where homes sold under Right to Buy have not been replaced, has further undermined the ability and confidence of providers to invest in building the new homes that communities so urgently need.

The government therefore, placed social and affordable housing at the heart of our manifesto. We have been clear that addressing these long standing challenges requires not just incremental change, but a sustained programme of renewal, bringing together investment reform and delivery across the sector. The priority of this government remains to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. And the delivery of these commitments is well under way.

In 2025, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To set out a clear, five step plan to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. First, we are delivering the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation through the £39 billion, ten year Social and Affordable ten year Social and Affordable Homes programme to support social house building at scale. Second, we are rebuilding the sector's capacity to borrow and invest, supported by a stable ten year rent settlement. And third, we have settlement. And third, we have established a more effective and stable regulatory regime by updating the Decent Homes standard, implementing new minimum energy efficiency standards and the passing of Awaabs law to drive up the safety and quality of homes for tenants.

Fourth, we are reinvigorating council house building, which this bill directly supports, recognising the central role of councils in social housing delivery. And finally, we are strengthening our partnership with providers and investors to unlock capacity and accelerate delivery. And with tenants themselves to guide our reforms, including addressing the social housing stigma that tenants highlight as a key priority. My Lords, this bill forms one targeted part of this wider programme of renewal, making the necessary legislative changes to underpin our reforms.

We have already given social housing providers the long term certainty and stability they need to dial up their housebuilding ambitions through grant funding, long term certainty over their incomes, clear and final quality standards and specialised support for councils. We now need to deliver the parts of our Decade of Renewal plan which require primary legislation. The Bill will protect the number of social homes available to those in need, and in doing so, incentivise the building of more social rented homes. It will create a fairer system with stronger protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse.

And it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clarify the statute book so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. Taking each of these objectives in turn. First, on protecting homes and enabling new supply. Right to buy has long provided an important route into home ownership, helping many social housing tenants achieve greater security and a tangible stake in their community. Since its introduction, it supported over 2 million households to buy their homes and realise the benefits of home ownership.

But, and it is a very big but, too often the homes that have been sold have not been replaced. This has led to a steady loss of social housing stock, reduced the availability of genuinely affordable homes, and weakened councils confidence and capacity to invest in new supply, particularly where homes are sold and do not return to the sector. My Lords, it cannot make sense for a council to invest in building a new home and then for a qualifying right to buy tenant to move in and purchase that home for significantly less than it costs to build.

This bill therefore builds on the existing tranche of reforms that government has already made to the Right to Buy scheme. The measures will continue the mission to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, one that continues to support long standing tenants to buy while ensuring councils can replace what is sold and better protect existing social homes to meet future housing need. We will increase the eligibility period from three years of tenancy to ten years, and that better reflects current practice and ensures the scheme is targeted to those with a long standing connection to their home.

We will also better align discounts with cash caps and introduce a 35 year exemption for new build homes, protecting new supply and giving councils the confidence to invest in homes for the long term. Alongside this, the bill introduces a new requirement for private providers of social housing to notify their local authority and other potential buyers before selling a home. This will maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector. Taken together, these reforms will shift the trajectory of the system from one where stock has been gradually depleted, to one where it is protected and can begin to grow once again.

My Lords, these measures are not about undermining aspiration, but about ensuring it is delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and sustainable so that future generations have the same opportunities as those before them. They are designed to ensure the sector is larger in the future, not smaller and more capable of meeting need, not less. Second, on the protection of tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. All tenants deserve safety and stability, but those experiencing abuse face acute risks and too often must choose between staying in their home and continuing to suffer that abuse, or leaving and risking homelessness.

This bill strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible, or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary, and these measures form part of the government's wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports rather than frustrates a victims route to safety and recovery. This also sits alongside wider government action to improve quality standards, strengthen tenant voice and ensure the sector works in the interests of those it serves. Third, the bill reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and clarifies the statute book, enabling councils and providers to invest with confidence.

It repeals unimplemented and unworkable provisions from previous housing legislation, including requirements to sell high value homes, impose fixed term tenancies by default, or charge higher rents to higher income tenants. It also streamlines, streamlines the outdated consents process so that councils can make more decisions about the management of their social homes without having to get approval first. These changes bring clarity and reduce barriers to delivery. Setting up the social housing system for the ambitious future we are working towards.

My Lords, social housing is an essential part of a functioning housing system. It provides security for families, supports communities, reduces homelessness pressures and, when done well, represents good value for the taxpayer over the long term. This bill is a vital part of our reforms, but legislation alone cannot deliver the decade of renewal. We want to see across the quality and supply of social housing. As I have said, this bill is one targeted part of a comprehensive and ambitious plan. The government is already delivering, through record investment into new social housing, new, modern and robust standards to improve housing quality and safety, strengthen tenant engagement and landlord accountability, and working with the regulator and the sector to ensure the system is stable and investable.

Ultimately, this bill is grounded in the everyday reality of families who need secure homes in the practical requirements of councils and providers who need certainty to build so future tenants can access social homes. And in the principle that the state has a responsibility to ensure that safe, secure, affordable housing is available to those who need it. In the course of this debate, I know that noble Lords will rightly scrutinise the detail how reforms are implemented, how we safeguard fairness, how we ensure the sector can deliver and I welcome that scrutiny.

But I hope the House will also recognise the central purpose of this bill to strengthen tenant protections for victims of domestic abuse, to clear away barriers that prevent investment and delivery, and to protect and grow the social housing available across the country. I commend the bill to the House.
16:30
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Here the question. >> Here the question. >> Is that this bill be now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second time. My Lords, I declare my interest as Vice President of the Local Government Association and of the National Association for Local Councils. My Lords, the Social Housing Bill attempts to address an important issue across many local authorities, namely that we are not building enough social housing. And yet this bill goes about this issue in completely the wrong way. There are, of course, some measures that we welcome. In particular, we welcome the government's efforts to give landlords and the courts more powers to protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse.

It is absolutely crucial that victims do not fall through the cracks of the system, and we will support efforts to strengthen the bill in this regard. However, for the most part, this bill's focus is not on the development of new social housing. It merely moves the goalposts on the existing housing stock. This government came to power on specific promises in its manifesto to, and I quote, prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock by reviewing the increased rights to build discounts introduced in 2012 and increasing protections on newly built social housing.

My Lords, the first part of that pledge promises to prioritise the building of new socially rented homes. And yet this is not what is prioritised in the bill before us. Instead, the bill goes on into tweaking overdrive on the right to buy scheme. Whilst we recognise the government's promise to review the discounts introduced in 2012, other provisions within this bill represent an all out attack on the Right to Buy scheme, a key conservative legacy which has helped so many own their own home and which has transformed social mobility across this country.

Indeed, I heard the Minister describe the right to buy scheme as a leaky bucket from the view of a council which fails to build a new enough social housing. This may indeed be their point of view, but that is not whose side we are on, my Lords. We on these benches are on the side, not on the side of failing councils. We're on the side of hard working families who do not want to be dependent on the state for ever. To be clear, we do not dispute that we need more social housing.

Our population has grown rapidly and development has not kept up with that demand. Under this government, more landlords are exiting the market. Unemployment is on the rise, especially for young people, and more and more people may be forced to look for social housing. But what do they find? My Lords, they find the First Lady of Sierra Sierra Leone, who otherwise occupies a presidential palace. They find that social housing is being taken up by non-UK nationals, as was highlighted in the alternative King's Speech.

Approximately 33,000 new social tenancies each year are going to households where the lead tenant is a non-UK national. At the same time, the government invests around £4 billion annually to deliver roughly 30,000 new social homes. My Lords, this is neither sustainable, but neither is it fair for British citizens. According to the 2021 census for England and Wales, 72% of those who identified as Somalis live in social housing in the UK. My Lords, this is an example of a dependency culture right before our eyes.

This is not why the British taxpayer pays tax. This is not a functioning safety net, nor is it a welfare state working for its own citizens. Moreover, it is evidently not the right to buy scheme. That is the problem here. We conservatives know the solution. We need to build more new social homes for local people, not restrict their opportunities for home ownership. We need the opportunity of right to buy. But at least one new home must be built with the monies that is there from from from the right to Buy scheme.

And my Lords, if you do this then it's a win win outcome. We need an honest and mature conversation about whom social housing is actually for and what the state can afford. We need to recognise that it is a finite resource and should be reserved for those who truly need it, without needlessly trapping people into welfare indefinitely and with no way out. We also believe councils should have the powers to decide who to prioritise, such as those with existing connections to their local area, or my Lords veterans who have done so much for our country.

Reacting to The King's Speech at the start of this session, one Labour MP summed it up perfectly this is incrementalism. That is exactly what we are seeing with this bill before us now tweaking with a successful scheme in order to weaken a proud conservative legacy, rather than actually solving the problems that the country faces today. This is red meat to appease Labour backbenchers in the other place, who, let's be honest, would rather see the right to buy scheme abolished altogether.

This is not serious policy direction, my Lords, let alone a vision. This House and the British people, they deserve better. I repeat, there are measures in this bill we welcome particularly to protect victims. And there are certain measures that we, of course, recognise as manifesto commitments. But we do have serious concerns about significant aspects of this bill, its implementation and commencement, the powers being handed over to the Secretary of State and all that is currently absent from the Bill to properly and adequately address the problems we face.

Where are the measures, my Lords, to keep larger social housing providers accountable to their local communities, for example? How can we make shared ownership schemes more workable in practice? How can we enable councils to have more choice over what works best for their residents? My Lords, I look forward to hearing the contributions and the insights of other noble Lords across this House as to how we can make this a better bill for the other place, and I look forward to engaging constructively with the noble Baroness Limb Minister throughout the passage of the Bill.
16:38
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, my Lords, that has rather >> Well, my Lords, that has rather started the. Debate on this important Bill in a rather important Bill in a rather polarised way, I think, and I have to say, I found I was a bit disappointed in the response from the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook in no. Using some of the rhetoric of pointing fingers of blame at minorities when we should be talking about people in need of decent housing.

And I hope we can perhaps turn the reverse onto thinking about people who need social housing rather than who they might be. My Lord, I have both a practical and a direct interest in this bill. As a councillor serving on Kirklees Council, dare I say it? And as the noble Baroness, the Minister started her. Her introduction to this Second Reading. I concur with much of what she said in introduction, as I too spent all my childhood benefiting from the dignity and stability and quality of a council home.

Liberal Democrats largely welcome this bill. It's an important step in the right direction. Now, that is not to give the bill a complete stamp of approval. Rather, it is to acknowledge that fundamental reform of the provision of housing at social rents, and I emphasise social rents is long overdue. Now, the provision of good quality housing at a rent that is affordable and that is not affordable rents. Rent that is affordable is a basic human right and one that has been sorely neglected over the past 40 years.

There is a direct link between quality of housing and educational outcomes and long term health needs, and it is in society's interests as well as that of individual families, to provide good quality housing available at a cost for everyone. Everyone to afford a Liberal Democrat solution is for the building of 150,000 homes for social rent every year to meet the needs of the 1.34 million households in England on local housing registers. And that's likely to equate to over 4 million adults and children hoping wishing to be allocated a property at a social rent.

Now, the government's own estimate is that for larger family homes of four bedrooms, the wait can be as much as 18 years to be rehoused, and 28% of new. Let's. Again, government figures are for families who are statutorily homeless. So in my own council, there are 19,000 households on the housing register and the number of new lets each year is around 1700. So 2.4 million council houses have been sold under Right to Buy now in Kirklees, there were 46,000 council houses in 1980.

Now there are fewer than 22,000, with 19,000 households on the housing register. That alone puts into stark relief the acute problem of social housing provision. The fundamental failure of right to buy was that it was never accompanied by a right to build, using the income from sales, and the result is that the scandalous lack of genuinely affordable housing for so many families. Now, the bill does begin to address the lack of supply of social housing.

Firstly, by introducing the 35 year exemption for new builds, and it provides, which provides certainty that a council investing in building new homes is financially sustainable. The capital borrowed to build can be paid back from rental income over that period, and increasing the the qualifying period for the right to buy to ten years further protects the much reduced stock that remains. Now those are positive changes in our view. However, what the bill is failing to do is to substantially increase the supply of social housing.

Now, I know the government will point to the £39 billion allocated for construction of houses in the social rent and mixed tenure sector, and the aim is for just 180,000 new homes for social rent in a decade, a decade. My Lords, when the need is so great, measured against the scale of the challenge, that is a paltry response. Increasing the supply of housing at social rents benefits families who are in receipt of housing benefit. Their low income can then be spent on essentials for their family.

However, the lack of social housing has resulted in many families entering the private rented sector, where rents are not equivalent to housing benefit. For example, in my own town, a two bedroom back to back house for rent in a Victorian terrace will cost around £750 a month. Now, I know those of you who live in London think that's peanuts, but where I live that is a lot of money. Whereas the local housing allowance for claimants for a two bed property is under £650 a month, so there's £100 a month difference gap for a family claiming benefits, which makes a huge impact on their being able to afford basics for their family.

There is also an impact on the cost of government, which the noble Baroness Sater Minister pointed to this year. Spending on support for housing will reach £37 billion and the provision of housing at a social rent would reduce that revenue demand on government. It makes good sense to invest in more provision of social housing. Now, the other good thing in the bill is, is the indefinite right of first refusal to purchase a former council house in clause six, which provides a new route to increasing the supply of social housing and an.

And an additional benefit of this clause will to be be to provide greater stability in some council housing estates where private landlords have taken over houses that were formerly for social rent and having been bought under the right to buy and then sold on to private landlords, and often these private landlords are distant, some living in South Africa. In my experience and these situations do not provide the support and management that council housing providers and registered social landlords do.

There are other important changes in the bill, for instance, on responding to domestic violence, as well as the proposal for streamlining how streamline line housing consent. There is therefore much to support in the bill. However, the big. The gaping hole in the bill is a more ambitious plan to meet the need for genuinely, genuinely, genuinely affordable housing at a social rent, not affordable housing, which is very different and is not often not affordable. Doing so would transform the immediate lives and future prospects of so many of our fellow citizens against the magnitude of the need.

This bill provides important first steps, but falls mightily short of the real challenge, which is greater supply of social housing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I'm sorry. To. Interrupt, but can I just say, as we embark on the back bench as we embark on the back bench speeches, can I invite noble Lords to note the advisory speaking time to note the advisory speaking time of seven minutes? And if we can stick to that, all speakers will get a fair crack of the whip, get a fair crack of the whip, especially the later ones. And we can achieve a reasonable finish time. So I'd be grateful for your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. So I'd be grateful for your Lordships cooperation. Lords, it's a delight to follow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I declare. My housing interests as. As in the Register, my Lords, I as. As in the Register, my Lords, I commend this Bill, which introduces a number of legislative changes to enhance the quantity and quality of desperately needed affordable and social housing. I particularly welcome its provisions for constraining the right to buy for the repeal of the awful and never the repeal of the awful and never enacted measures to enforce sales of the best social housing.

For the next steps. In the endless story of
16:48
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
the Grenfell tragedy, and for greater security for domestic abuse greater security for domestic abuse victims. Together, this whole package of measures will make an package of measures will make an important difference at Committee stage. My Lords, I will be bringing forward some modest but important forward some modest but important amendments on points of detail. But for this Second Reading debate, perhaps I could set the Social perhaps I could set the Social Housing Bill in its wider context. My Lords Government has been taking significant steps to increase the output of councils and housing associations.

The social housing sector's subsidy settlement via Homes England at £39 billion for the next ten years, is the best since 2010. The National Housing Bank looks promising and the agreement for rents to be increased by CPI plus 1% annually for a decade, should ensure ongoing management and maintenance costs are properly funded. Other government measures aim to streamline planning consents and get the reluctant housebuilders to allocate a proper proportion of their new homes for social housing. All good stuff, which will hopefully produce around 50,000 new affordable homes per annum.

More than half had social rents. However, it is worth remembering that total investment in the social sector is a fraction of its level. In times past, the proportion of the nation's homes represented by council and housing association accommodation has fallen from its peak of 32% of the nation's homes to just 17% today. Partly this is due to the 2 million plus sales under the right to buy, and the bill seeks to address that problem of running the bath with the plug out, which should encourage councils to build once again.

Nevertheless, there is one serious omission in the government's support for the social housing sector. There is virtually no funding or strategy for the upgrading of hopelessly outdated current housing stock. The leftover 1960s and 70s prefabricated estates and tower blocks that now need renewing or replacing the flats over shops in half abandoned high streets. The unfit, privately rented pre 1919 properties that are long past their sell by date. So while the government's emphasis on adding 1.5 million extra homes over the life of this Parliament is to be greatly applauded, in particular with an emphasis on social housing, it has a serious hole.

There is a serious hole in the government's strategy that existing outdated housing is largely ignored. While I welcome the special help for particularly deprived neighbourhoods in the form of the government's Pride in Place initiative, this new funding does not stretch to improving existing accommodation. Sadly, the current absolute priority for new building is leaving tens of thousands of tenants in the sort of conditions that led to the untimely death from cold and mould of little Awaab Ishak in Rochdale, investment in housing led regeneration has its own paybacks, with beneficial side effects that are not always so apparent from the building of new homes.

The most hard hit local economies get a boost. Much needed opportunities emerge for training and apprenticeships for the growing number of NEETs communities can see and engage with the renewal of their local environments. Health and wellbeing can improve for populations with the worst health records, hope and aspiration after years of neglect can be restored. The Renew project, representing the social housing providers in the northern regions, shows what can be done using devolved powers and funding for pilot schemes.

In Greater Manchester. Mayoral development corporations with wide powers are busy with major regeneration projects in relation to private sector properties in urgent need of upgrading. Blackpool Council, for example, is putting pressure on the worst landlords and taking direct action of their own through a local housing company. Elsewhere, community based housing organisations are acquiring and modernising the poorest quality private rented housing. So much more could be done to improve neglected estates and neighbourhoods if regeneration was mainstreamed once again.

Maybe the government's overdue long term housing strategy will address this omission. Perhaps the shift in powers to the mayors and combined authorities will lead to greater priority for regeneration activity. It would be helpful to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, when the promised National Housing Strategy can now be expected. Finally, a comment on the state of the housing association sector itself. Mergers and takeovers have led to fewer and much larger organisations, which has brought some downsides. This trend has obvious financial advantages lower borrowing costs, economies of scale in procurement and employment.

But it has meant some housing associations are geographically widely dispersed. Decision making is distant from those affected, and some of the sector's broader housing related place shaping activity. Local employment schemes, partnerships with local homelessness charities, civic engagement of staff in local affairs etc. has unfortunately been lost. So in return for the help, the government is now providing and the extra support from this bill. I hope more of the housing associations will behave like the best in class and increase their sensitivity to their tenants and communities at the local level.

Regaining the trust and confidence this sector needs and deserves.
16:55
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
Lord, it's always daunting to follow the the noble Lord best on a matter to do with. With housing. I matter to do with. With housing. I begin by declaring my interest. I'm the chair of Church Housing Association, a recently formed, not for profit social housing provider. We're seeking to build, literally and metaphorically on the five core values that were set out in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Housing coming home. That was debated in your Lordships House a few years ago. I think those values that social housing should be safe, secure, sustainable, sociable and satisfying provide a set of tests against which any proposed legislation can be measured.

And hence I do warmly welcome this bill. It will make social housing better. My Lords, housing is a fundamental human right. It's a foundation for other core rights, including things like health, dignity, sanitation, and sometimes the right to life itself. This bill rightly addresses the concern that there's not enough stock in this country to house those in need. We've had some fights. Let me just offer 1 or 2 more. In June 2025, over 172,000 children in England alone were living in temporary accommodation in the last six months.

For the last six years, sorry, temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor to the deaths of at least 74 children. Those are all government figures. Lack of secure housing, moreover, is damaging our children's ability to learn. I speak to secondary school heads in Manchester, having to make special provision for study for children who have no permanent home, who sometimes arrive at school in the morning not knowing where a taxi will take them home to in the evening. We can't allow this to continue for protecting and increasing our housing stock is an essential step to reduce the waiting lists.

That's why I welcome this bill's commitment to exempt newly built homes from the Right to Buy scheme to streamline processes, which will incentivise local councils to build more homes. Indeed, I applaud what's already happening the increased investment in building housing for social rent that Manchester City Council has made in the last couple of years, supported by the Manchester Social Housing Commission, which has been my privilege to chair. Yet, my Lords, while building new homes and reducing leakage from the social housing sector are important, it's clear that the condition of our existing housing, as has already been mentioned, poses a very real threat to the health, wellbeing and lives of many social housing tenants.

And here I do turn, as I have done, to concerns not adequately addressed by the Bill. The measures introduced in Awaabs Lord Turnbull Lord Best referred to was in fact a direct response to the death of a young child in my diocese. These measures do hold social housing providers to account for addressing the root causes of damp and mould. Don't just blame it on the lifestyle of the tenants, but among those who are living in these conditions, the proportion with an occupant suffering from a health condition has now increased to 47%.

Almost half of those living in those conditions have a health condition. Yet alongside mould and damp, we're approaching a decade on from the Grenfell tragedy. Yet too many people are still living in homes that don't provide adequate protection against fire. 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding haven't yet even begun. Remediation works again. More official figures. So I do echo the noble Lord Best by inviting the Minister to set out for us how the government intends to prioritise the safety and condition of existing homes, alongside the delivering of new housing stock, conditions of poverty.

We are, my Lords, all created equal. We should all be afforded equal opportunities for children growing up in poverty. Their aspirations for the future are overshadowed by that constant burden their families face and making ends meet. Confronting food insecurity or unable to afford to heat the home properly. I've had to address this house too many times on the growth of food banks. The government doesn't prioritise making social homes more affordable and my Lords, genuinely affordable does not mean 80% of market rent.

When we define it like that, we're not only insulting Britain's households, we're abusing the Oxford English Dictionary. If we don't address this problem and the cycle of poor life outcomes for today's children, tomorrow's adults will only continue. And poverty isn't only a problem for social renters, but for those in the private sector, too. Currently, more than 45% of private renters are living in unaffordable housing. I-pr research. So might the government consider introducing double lock rent caps in private sector housing, not only to slow the growing number of private renters who are falling into poverty, but also to free up social housing stock by making this sector more accessible to low income families.

My Lord, sometimes over time, the unintended side effects of what was a well-intentioned piece of legislation might have done some good in its time can come to outweigh the merits of the policy behind it. Something around 40% of properties acquired through Right to Buy appear in the private rented sector within ten years, the noble Baroness Pinnock has reminded us. They do so at much higher rents and often much poorer standards, both of physical maintenance and support for tenants. And that was not the intention of right to buy, but that has been the outcome.

At the same time, it's now beyond any remaining doubt that subsidies to enable first time buyers to get onto the housing market have done little more to further inflate property values. That's all they've done. There was a report on it recently, just the last week or so. The real beneficiaries have been the volume builders and those with significant capital already in property money that could that should have been spent building more social housing or keeping rents lower has been wasted on pointless political posturing.

Can we be assured that that era is now over, and this housing crisis is not just a question of supply, but of dignity, health and justice. The church of which I'm proud to be a part, is committed to its long standing role in building communities and supporting social cohesion. But families can't participate in community life when their most basic needs are not being met. This bill will be judged not only by the number of homes it delivers, but whether those homes enable renters to feel safe and secure, to plan for their futures and nurture their communities.

Back in 1990, as a young parish priest inspired by Lord Best. He wasn't a Lord then, but he was a great campaigner for housing. I wrote to my then bishop. I warned him that the crisis of unemployment that had plagued the 1980s was about to be superseded by a crisis in social housing. My Lords, 25 years on, that crisis is still with us. This bill can be a big, big step towards addressing it. I look forward to its progress.
17:02
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Manchester, who has consistently championed the social housing sector. My Lords, social housing is sector. My Lords, social housing is a vital national asset built to provide families on low incomes a safe, secure, affordable place to live. After decades of marginalisation and underfunding. The tragic reality is that thousands of families still lack a safe and affordable home. Over 170,000 children currently live in temporary accommodation. I'm proud that after a regrettable period of decline and marginalisation under successive conservative governments, this government is once again asserting the value and importance of social housing.

The Social Housing Bill is an important pillar of this work. My noble friend has emphasised the targeted aims of this Bill. I welcome the narrow drafting the Bill. It's clear and precise. It aims to achieve three clear and laudable objectives protect existing social housing stock, protect victims of domestic abuse living in social housing and clarify the statute book. With 1.3 million households on social housing waitlists, all social housing sold off under the right to buy should have been replaced like for like.

That's just not happened under the present system. In its current form, right to buy has unsustainably depleted the stock of social homes and restricted confidence to build and invest, depriving so many families of a vital resource. Of course, social housing residents ability to buy their own home has an important role to play, but this must be done sustainably. Protecting social housing stock where necessary and with clear safeguards against misuse measures in the Bill to increase the qualifying period to ten years, reform discounts and introduce a 35 year exemption for newly built social housing will help ensure the policy is more sustainable and offers better value for taxpayers money.

These reforms will also give councils greater confidence to invest in new supply, which is essential if we're to begin reversing decades of lost stock. This is particularly important in rural areas, where pressures are especially acute. Research from English Rural found that while 17% of the population live in rural communities, they received just 7% of new affordable homes. Over 306 000 people are currently on rural waiting lists and current building rates. It would take nearly 90 years to clear that backlog.

Rural development is always more challenging due to the availability of land, amenities and resources, but low replacement rates against right to buy sales have exacerbated these challenges. Further. I therefore strongly support the provisions in clause seven to supply right to buy in National Parks, areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and designated Rural areas. These changes will help safeguard vital social homes and better reflect the realities of constrained rural housing markets. Among the most important protections are those contained in part two and schedule one of the bill, which confer new protections on victims of domestic abuse that live in social housing.

We know housing plays an important role in cases of domestic abuse, where housing uncertainty can be used by perpetrators to exert control. A lack of safe, secure and high quality housing can put people experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and therefore hesitant to speak out. While social landlords Lord Moore are well placed to identify domestic abuse and prevent escalation through offering support and guidance to survivors of domestic abuse. But at the present, legal framework doesn't always allow them to respond effectively, particularly in cases involving joint tenancies.

That's why the National Housing Federation has said that it strongly supports measures in this legislation, which allow survivors to apply to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy. Given this, giving the survivors greater housing security and the ability to remain safely in their homes where appropriate. This is a significant and welcome step forward. It is, however, a highly complex and sensitive area. In practice, it will be critical to work closely with social housing providers on the implementation of these changes. We need to ensure that staff are fully equipped to protect victims and support them in rebuilding their lives.

So can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, in her response to say a bit more about the government's plans to support the implementation of these changes? My Lords, finally, I want to turn to the topic of social homes being sold, referred to as disposals in the sector. We know that England to some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Many properties are ageing, require significant investment, are no longer meet modern standards or regulatory requirements. It is understandable that there are concerns about any social homes being sold in this context, but it is important to note that disposals act as a standard part of responsible asset management.

Crucially, proceeds from these sales are reinvested to build new high quality homes and improve housing stock. In some cases, a single sale can fund the building of more than one home, supporting the government's ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. This Parliament, the number of social homes, the number of social homes owned by social housing associations has consistently grown in recent years, increasing by over 26000 a year for the last three years. So the sale of housing associations homes out of the social rented sector has actually not resulted in any net loss of social homes.

But for some properties, regeneration could be desirable. Alternative to disposals and Lord Best emphasised this point very effectively, I felt. Can I suggest that the government could support housing associations and councils in increasing the rate of regeneration by introducing greater flexibility on net additionality rules in the Social and Affordable Homes programme and providing other forms of assistance. My Lords, in conclusion, the government's plan to put in place the foundations for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing can deliver lasting change and finally turn the tide on the housing crisis.

The package of long term investment announced that the spending review last year was the first step towards doing so. This legislation is another, I echo the National Housing Federation in saying that this legislation demonstrates the government's commitment to protecting the supply of social housing for future generations. I hope the social housing sector continues to work in partnership with government to deliver a decade of renewal for social housing and ultimately build the homes our country so desperately needs.
17:09
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
It is. >> It is. >> Always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness Warwick, and I want to develop part of the argument which she adduced, namely, that which she adduced, namely, that there is sometimes a case for disposing of social housing, and I want to address the ongoing want to address the ongoing controversy that the right to buy policy led directly to the shortage of social housing. I actually voted for the 1980 housing bill more relevant. I was a junior Minister under Michael Heseltine, responsible for implementing it and then defending it at that brought me into conflict with the late Baroness Hollins, then Councillor Hollis and chairman of the housing Committee in Norwich, who refused to implement the policy.

I had to put in the commissioners and suspend her 30 years later when I rejoined, when I joined your Lordships House, we met again. She was emollient if unrepentant, and we became good friends. The. I understand the argument that all the receipts should have been reinvested in social housing. Supposing I had gone to Geoffrey Howe, the Chancellor, at that time, and put that argument to him, he would have said, George, that is not how it works. When we privatise Heathrow and Gatwick airports, we don't we don't build more airports.

When we privatise the docks, we don't build more docks. What happens is the money goes into a pot, along with North Sea oil and income tax and everything else. And there is then a collective decision about how to spend it. You, George, have inherited from the outgoing Labour government very generous provision for social housing. You're telling me you want to keep the billions from right to buy receipts all to yourself, not just for this year, but for every subsequent year? That would be wholly unfair on the Secretary of State for health, who can't sell the hospitals and add to his baseline, are unfair on the Secretary of State for defence.

He can't sell the nuclear deterrent, so I would have come up against the policy that dare not speak its name in the Treasury, namely Hypothecation under Hypothecation, all the fuel duty and vehicle excise duty would go to transport and they'd spend it on potholes and health would have to survive on parking charges and prescription charges. So there are very good reasons why all the capital receipts did not automatically go back to the department. They generated it. And I see a former permanent Secretary of the Treasury, Lord Macpherson smiling, if not nodding so.

But my Lords, even if even if I had won that argument and all the receipts had been kept by my department, it would have made no sense in housing policy terms to allow each local authority to spend 100% of the receipts on housing. This is because in the 1980s, all the receipts stacked up in the shire districts where there were houses with gardens, where the housing pressure was much less, and the relatively little receipts in the inner cities where the predominant stock was flats, and what the policy of requiring local authority to reduce their debt by 80% of the receipts was this it enabled the department to recycle the receipts.

We would say to South Bucks, for example, you've got to use all the receipts to reduce your debt. And we would then say to Islington or Tower Hamlets or Southwark, you can increase your debt by the corresponding amount in order to invest in housing. It was a progressive policy which annoyed a lot of conservative councillors, but a policy which should be supported by the other, other side now Right to buy brought additional benefits. In addition to being popular so popular that no one has ever repealed it.

All the evidence I saw at the time was that those households who exercise their right to buy looked after their property better than the cash strapped local authority they had bought it from. They had a real incentive to do that as home owners. So the nation's housing stock benefited. Also, the newly enfranchised residents on the estates joined forces with existing tenants associations or in some cases, set up new ones to campaign for improved conditions on the estates. And everyone benefited from that.

I would also argue that there were wider social benefits in that the predominantly single tenure estates became paper potted with owner occupiers, leading to more diverse and less polarised communities. On some estates, there are now third generation owner occupiers, a continuity which the Minister herself commended in her opening speech. But I have to concede there was one consequence of the policy which we did not foresee and which has done much to discredit it. Once the properties had changed from tenancy to owner occupation, we assumed they would stay there.

The whole thrust of conservative policy was to promote owner occupation. We did not envisage, nor did I personally want properties then to be bought by landlords. Charging market rents, often underpinned by housing benefit. And for the first decade or so, that was not actually an issue. It became an issue after 1996, when buy to let mortgages were introduced. My Lords, this is not the right time to argue whether it makes sense for the nation's savings to be spent buying existing assets, pushing up the price, or whether the savings should be invested in government stock, and then in infrastructure or in stocks and shares, and then in industry providing wealth and jobs.

That imbalance is now being slowly put right by making ISAs more attractive than buy to let, and by encouraging institutional investment in new build. But my Lords, to conclude, what basically happened is that the right to buy receipts went into the pot. No homes were lost. The tenure simply changed. The pot was then spent on schools, hospitals, aircraft carriers and the rest from which everyone benefited. The decision not to spend enough on social housing after 1980 was a collective decision by successive governments, after considering all the other demands on the public purse as the no one Minister, noble Lady, the Minister said when she opened the debate and by when I started, the right to buy policy was not inevitably going to lead to the loss of social housing.

The consequence of enfranchising millions of tenants has been a bonus, and the lack of social housing, as I said, is a reflection on successive priorities by successive governments.
17:16
Baroness Shah Portrait Baroness Shah (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it is a privilege. To follow Lord. follow Lord. >> Young of Crookham. >> And whilst I may not agree with all his points, I certainly do respect his experience and views. I start by declaring that I am a work for the Local Government Association. My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, and I do so not only as a member of this House, but as someone who spent years working at the coalface of housing need. As a councillor who led on regeneration and planning for eight years, becoming one of London's largest housebuilders.

And I welcome the comments made by Baroness Warwick and by Lord Bowness on the importance of the value of regeneration I will. I will also start by welcoming this Bill and other measures the government has implemented to speed up house building to address the housing crisis, including the £39 billion for social housing. Social housing is a foundation on which people build lives. It is where children grow up, go to school and it is where families like mine put down roots. Our communities are built when we allow social housing stock to erode, we are not simply making a balance sheet error, we are narrowing life chances.

And as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mentioned by my friend the Minister earlier, the numbers are stark. It is a source of shame that stark. It is a source of shame that over 175,000 children are in temporary accommodation. More than 1.3 million households across England are currently on waiting England are currently on waiting lists for social home. We simply just don't have enough. My Lords, the temporary accommodation Bill alone should give us pause for concern. Government figures show that council spending on temporary that council spending on temporary accommodation has reached 2.8 billion in 20 2425.

This is not just a housing argument. It is a fiscal. It is a fiscal one. Research by the National Housing Federation and Shelter found that the government funding needed to build social homes would require. Would be fully paid back within 11 years through savings in housing benefit, NHS costs, homelessness expenditure and additional tax receipts from construction employment. So if the case is so clear, why have we not built? My Lords, I know from direct experience why councils find this so difficult.

Barriers such as the state of the Housing revenue account, cost of public borrowing and workforce shortages have all been challenges to councils who want to build. And I welcome the steps the government has taken to start to address these. Then there is right to buy which this bill rightly addresses. Right to buy was introduced in 1980, and today there are over 131,000 fewer affordable homes than they were at the start, driven largely by the failure to to replace homes under the scheme.

The measures in this bill extend eligibility to ten years, exempt newly built stock for 35 years, and provide a perpetual right of first refusal on resale are genuine improvements, and I welcome them wholeheartedly. There is, of course, a rich irony in the fact that those who argue most loudly on the opposite benches, for the right for every family to own, own home, have at the local level, spent years frustrating the very development that would give families somewhere to live in the first place. We've all watched a pattern support for housing in principle, objection to housing in practice, a planning application in a leafy ward that somehow never quite get backed.

The former government removed mandatory housing targets and saw new approvals collapse accordingly. In precisely those areas, the housing need was greatest. My Lords, we on this side of the House believe you cannot claim to support house building or blocking homes at every planning meeting. This bill is for those who are willing to follow this through. Addressing supply must meet demand. I want to offer two suggestions. The first concerns are replacement. Replacement ratio. Parliamentary scrutiny has previously found that the system should ensure any home sold by Via Right to Buy is replaced like for like, with local authorities retaining all receipts to enable them to do so.

A one for one replacement principle could be built into the framework, even implemented flexibly over a defined period, to give councils and communities the assurance that every sale is matched by a new beginning. The second. The second concerns the flexibility of right to buy receipts, and I raise this as someone who has seen first hand how the current rules interact with the real complexity of delivering housing at scale. A major regeneration scheme, the kind that genuinely transforms a community delivering hundreds of homes alongside schools, green spaces and new streets may take five, seven or even ten years from conception to completion.

Planning processes can be lengthy. Viability assessments contested development timelines are not solely within the council's control. Restrictions on the use of right to buy receipts have been identified as a key barrier to council house building, and whilst flexibilities have been introduced at various points, they have not provided the certainty or permanence and councils need to plan with confidence when receipts must be spent with fixed timelines or face clawback, councils are pushed to smaller, faster projects. They may not represent best long term value rather than a larger, more complex schemes that transform communities, allowing councils permanent flexibility to combine right to buy receipts with other government grants to spend receipts on a timescale that reflects local development realities, particularly when council can demonstrate receipts are committed to a named scheme could be a way forward.

My Lords, this is a good bill. It is overdue and it is needed. A good housing policy is not made in this chamber alone. It is made with. Legislation is matched by resources, by long term partnership between central and local government, and by a shared willingness at every level local, national, urban, suburban and rural to say yes to the homes our country needs. The National Housing Federation and Shelter estimate that 90,000 homes a year are needed to meet demand. This bill is another step in that.

This government is taking. Every measure we take in this House to build a home is a little closer. It. Every measure we take in this house to bring home a little closer is a measure worth taking. I look forward to engaging with this bill, and I commend it to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'm no expert. At. Housing, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Housing, as. today. And if some of my. Questions and. Comments appear naive, then I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comments appear naive, then I think it's because I'm reflecting what many of the general public think about social housing and think about social housing and understand about it. It's 30 years now since I was on the board of a now since I was on the board of a housing association in inner East London, and I joined because of my realisation of the importance of housing to the general health of the population, which was more my direct concern. I've never forgotten the enthusiasm and commitment of my colleagues on the Housing Association board, and I've never doubted that we will always need some kind of social subsidised housing.

And I'm going to keep saying subsidised because I'm going to. I think it's most important that we remember it is the taxpayer who is funding the majority of this social housing, and because the population at large do not understand the terms social housing, affordable housing, they really confusing these days to really get to grips with what they mean. Who is paying? Who is responsible? Does the general public know what they
17:23
Baroness Murphy Portrait Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
-
-
are? I should also declare that I was a beneficiary when the right to buy was introduced. We were renting buy was introduced. We were renting a flat in the Barbican Tower block. Indeed, I still live there. The Indeed, I still live there. The City of London Corporation in those days rented them out at economic days rented them out at economic market rents. But we were council tenants, of course, and we benefited phenomenally of this benefited phenomenally of this extraordinary policy. If the private rented sector, of course, had been able to use the descent, the receipts, or if receipts had been collected from the right to buy and then spent on other social housing or on private rental markets that would produce better quality housing or would have been fine.

But that never happened because, as the noble Lord young has said to us for very reasonable political reasons, and I do understand the Hypothecation problem, it never happened. And of course, we've lost so much housing stock and it's been pretty catastrophic. It has left an extraordinary number of people without any hope of being able to afford a home of their own, either rented or purchased. And I do welcome the narrow focus of this bill, and I shall certainly support it, although I wonder if the years of eligibility criteria for purchase should be even longer than they are suggesting.

I'm also concerned, though, about the quality of new homes, both private and public. Rented, social, rented. But I'm assured, reassured. When the noble Lady. The Minister waved her somewhat daunting spreadsheet of quality improvement work at US crossbenchers at a meeting. So I shall say no more about that at the moment and wish her luck in getting all those Brown tickets done. The other provisions of the Bill. Of course, we can debate a greater detail in at Committee stage, but I would like to ask why such a huge number of rental properties remain empty.

What the government is doing about that, when it's proposing that we should have a lot more social homes, and also thinking about where they should be built. We already heard about this somewhat catastrophic loss in rural areas where people have had to move away. And I do wonder whether we've got the balance right and where and the empty homes particularly I'm concerned about. But like many people, I wonder whether the government should examine more closely why such a high proportion of our population live in social rented housing compared to the rest of Europe.

Now the Netherlands is higher still at 20% of housing provision. And we are, as we heard, running at about 16%. Is the government giving any thought to this issue? Now, I do understand that the reasons are both historical and sadly also ideological, but I question whether it is necessary or desirable. It does seem to me that people staying in social rented accommodation, long after they can afford to move out is an imposition on other taxpayers. Now, I remember that the Cameron government tried to introduce legislation to change this, and it failed for practical reasons and because of disincentives in the system.

But when you are struggling to finance a steep mortgage, it comes to a bit of a shock to discover that the relatively well-off neighbours have such a public benefit. Of course, security tenure is one thing. Giving people security to know where they're going to live is, is, is good. But retention of the financial benefits over many years over that which is necessary is quite another. If the government wants to ensure that social housing policy is fair for all people, it must surely tackle the issue of homes left empty and question who is actually occupying those that are available.

But I end by repeating I shall support this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrow bill. So let's get it done. My Lords, I should declare an interest as. Chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and advisor to Development Forums in Norfolk and Suffolk, Cheshire and Thames Valley, and also as a member of the all party member of the all party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation. I'm very glad to follow Baroness Murphy very glad to follow Baroness Murphy because one of the. A number of. She made a number of interesting points, one of which I think I want to add to.

If I may, can I also say I was very pleased to be following
17:28
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham, because I think he said many things that will help to inform our debate and help to get us beyond what might otherwise be an unhelpful polarisation between an unhelpful polarisation between those of us who would say, we believe from experience that the right to buy is a successful policy right to buy is a successful policy that should be continued, and those for other reasons, perhaps for other reasons, perhaps ideological reasons, want to restrict the right to buy.

I think there is a practical point as to how right to buy should be managed. And so, for example, the question of if the government wants to reduce the discount and and chose to do so, I think there was a an unwelcome practical implication for those who had legitimate expectations that they would be able, after a number of years, to be able to exercise the right to buy. I think they should, at the very least, have been able to continue to exercise that right to buy on the understanding that they would continue to occupy that house for a long period of time.

And if they cannot commit to that, or for the right of repurchase by the local authority, then they should not be able to exercise the right to buy. There are ways in which we should be able to support right to buy, rather than simply to restrict it. But the point I wanted to come back to that Baroness Murphy, I thought very helpfully made, was the question of distinction between affordable and social housing. And I think where we are at the moment in this debate for this bill and associated with it, I hope, is looking at the question of increasing the supply of homes for social rent.

And I'm afraid we are very far from where we need to be through the section 106. And in my work in development forums, many developers are unable to secure the purchase by housing associations and registered providers of contracts for the supply of affordable housing, and that is impinging on the number of homes that are available for social rent. Because roughly a quarter of what they're providing is is for social rent. So that is probably 30,000 affordable homes coming through the section 106 route, of which probably no more than about 7000 are homes for social rent.

Now, Homes England are pursuing an increased correctly and increased social and affordable housing programme. But even 60% social rent composition that is being aimed for by Homes England that the maximum that would be is 18,000 homes for social rent a year. And I'll be very surprised if they manage to reach that figure. So we're probably looking at no more than about 25,000 homes for social rent in total. And I think the noble Lady Baroness Shah, who is not presently in her place, was talking about housing federations and the like, looking for up to 90,000 additional homes for social rent.

I don't know how we could possibly reach that figure, but I do want just to say to the noble Lady, the Minister, that if it is not even necessarily part of this scope of this bill, I think it is important for us to look at additional ways in which we can generate capital to support investment in additional, affordable and in particular, social housing. And what I would suggest is that she have a look at the legal and general.

Report in this year, which looked at the possibility of, as it were, energising the latent value in the social housing stock for the purposes of reinvestment into new social housing. Now, that, I think, is what many noble Lords in on all sides of the House are looking for, what they are proposing is essentially that housing associations and the same principle could be applied to council housing stock, where it exists, to take the latent value to say, let's transfer this as a large scale transfer into a partnership provider where the partnership is with institutional investors who are looking for long term investments with an index linked source of income, which of course, is what we now have by virtue of the CPI plus 1% increase in in rents.

So there is a possibility of generating additional capital, which can be then reinvested back directly through the housing associations into additional affordable housing. Their estimate is that if this was done for about a third of the total housing stock in housing associations, it could lead to as much as 18,000 additional homes per year, as I think the. Yes, the figure is nearly 18,000 additional social homes per year, representing roughly one third of the total of affordable homes that would be able to be funded.

As a consequence of such a major project. I can't go on at the time, wouldn't permit to talk more about it, but I do hope that Ministers will look actively at this, and I'd be very pleased if they were able, with officials, to engage with this report and with the possibilities and with the housing associations and local authority sector, to see whether we can create a new programme that would deliver that degree of value, because at the moment we have housing revenue accounts that are cash constrained.

We have housing registered providers who are cash constrained with all the costs of maintenance and building and so on. We have to find ways in which we can realise their asset value in order to overcome their present cash constraints.
17:34
Lord Babudu Portrait Lord Babudu (Labour)
-
-
It's a pleasure to speak at the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, even if noble Lord, Lord Lansley, even if we may not agree on everything. I think there was much in his remarks that that I do agree with. I strongly support this bill, both in its in its broad intention and in its specific provisions. Similarly to my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock, my support for this bill is rooted in my own experience and in the experience of many people.

I served as a local councillor growing up. When my family needed social housing, we were able to move into a decent quality flat in south London, near to where we had lived before, and this was shortly before I took my GCSEs. You know, frankly, I dread to think what it would have meant for me and my studies, for my parents and their work for my brother and his medical care. If we had to move much further afield to poor quality housing, and in my time as a local councillor, I met so many families living in conditions that just clearly were not suitable for them.

They were desperate for an opportunity like I had in the late 1990s, to get into decent social housing, where they and their families could thrive. Now I begin with that because I think it's important in discussing social housing, to put people at the centre and to keep in mind the health and wider implications of where you live. As some other noble Lords have touched on, your home is one of the most important determinants of your health the health of people of all ages. We know that for children staying in low quality, temporary accommodation in particular can mean disrupted access to primary care.

Delays in accessing developmental support, poorer mental health outcomes and reduced educational attainment. As I think the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock also mentioned. And that's before we get to elevated risks of respiratory illnesses and other conditions, the health impacts that we see from families living in inappropriate accommodation is substantial and accumulates, and it deserves to be named here. I asked noble Lords to keep these health impacts in mind throughout this debate. I do also recognise that increasing the social the supply of social homes is not the only route to addressing those harms, and many noble Lords have mentioned their conditions of of housing, but I think that the context we are in gives us good reason to do what we can with this bill to further increase and protect the supply of social homes.

My Lords, before I discuss the bill itself, could I just acknowledge, as others have highlighted, that the bill's properly understood as part of a much wider programme, the ten year rent resettlement, the 39 billion Social and Affordable Homes programme, the mechanisms to lower borrowing costs for social housing providers, both private and public. These are serious measures and I gladly welcome them. But turning to the bill itself, I think the the reforms to Right to Buy are comprehensive and strike the right balance.

The increase in the eligibility threshold from 3 to 10 years, the reforms to discounts, extending the right of first refusal on the onward sale of former right to buy properties, and the exemption of newly built social homes from right to buy for 35 years. These represent proportionate steps that address some of the aspects of Right to Buy that have proved most damaging to maintaining levels of social housing stock, while still maintaining what I agree is a valued route to home ownership for long standing tenants.

I also welcome the provisions protecting social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. I did see during my time as a local councillor the profound dilemma that current laws can put victims in, forced to choose between living in danger or losing their home. I'm really encouraged that the bill stands to help address those problems, and I know it has been welcomed across your Lordships' House. Taking these and other provisions of the bill together, I share the hopes of my noble friend, the Minister, that these measures will ultimately increase the supply of much needed social housing across the country.

However, I'd like to speak to an issue that several noble Lords have mentioned. Shelter's 2024 report on the need for social housing. Brick by brick, drawing on data from MCHLG, estimates that 260 social homes were lost over the decade prior. In that context, the government's wider programme currently indicates an ambition to support the building of at least 180,000 social rent homes over the next decade. But it seems that these plans would not even take us back to where we were. I recognise the government programme is ambitious, particularly by recent standards, but the scale of need does raise the question what are the government's success measures for this bill, and are the government's plans sufficient to give us the social housing we need? According to the government's own estimates? Turning to more of the detail of the bill, though, I note this isn't the time to do too much of that.

I do also welcome the requirement for private registered providers to notify local authorities and other known social housing providers in the area before they dispose of social social housing. Now, this may be a misunderstanding on my part, but could my noble friend the Minister, explain why the Bill does not seek to introduce a right of pre-emption here, as exists with formal right to buy homes, the same supply impact to our social housing stock applies in both circumstances, and a four week notice window seems quite tight in giving social housing providers enough time to decide, and then act on the opportunity to secure a social home.

My Lords, in conclusion, I look forward to seeing this bill return at Committee stage and to better understanding the success measures against which it will be judged. Most importantly, I look forward to seeing the necessary steps taken to achieve marked improvements in the supply of social of decent social housing in this country, and to the health benefits that will follow from that. For individuals and families who are so desperately in need of it.
17:40
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Hey my Lords, I empathise totally with the noble Lady, the Minister, because I too grew up in Minister, because I too grew up in a council home in Moscow and Brighton. It was part of the homes Brighton. It was part of the homes for heroes development in 1925, and my parents moved into it probably 25 years later. And the welcome feeling of stability and security and community and having shops close and having a garden and being able to actually plan for the future.

It was amazing. And I, I still remember it incredibly fondly. So I welcome this bill because any measure that strengthens social housing protects tenants and begins to repair decades of neglect is a step in the right direction. For example, the reforms to right to buy a long overdue. The stronger protections for survivors of domestic abuse are important and necessary, and I welcome the government's continued recognition that social housing must be part of the solution to the housing crisis we are in.

But while I welcome the bill, it doesn't match the scale of the problem. It's it's I'm going to repeat figures that that have already been mentioned, but they bear repeating because they are so shocking. We are facing a housing emergency, not in the future. An emergency happening now already devastating lives across the country. More than 1.3 million households sit on social housing waiting lists. Councils are spending billions of pounds every year on temporary accommodation. Families are raising children in cramped rooms with no security and no stability.

And young people, of course, are finding themselves locked out of affordable housing. Altogether. 1 in 50 Londoners is homeless and living in temporary accommodation. Among children, it's 1 in 21. How have we got to those figures when we live in one of the wealthiest countries, in the wealthiest cities in the world? The government describes this bill as the next step in the housing renewal programme, but the steps are simply too small. The private sector has never built enough houses, and Thatcher's right to buy has cost the taxpayer millions.

The government's housing benefit Bill has gone up and as social housing house building has collapsed to historically low levels, instead of the taxpayer building and owning the taxpayer now provides a subsidy for private landlords. We need to build council housing that people can be proud to call a home. It's warm in winter, cool in summer, free of damp and at a reasonable rent. In an age of billionaires, it's big corporations and investors who have driven up the price of homes that they call assets.

The housing market is broken, and it's the corporate investors who have broken it. We cannot solve the housing crisis by slowly reducing the rate at which we lose council social housing stock. We have to start providing homes at scale again, both with new homes in the right places and supporting councils to bring back what is already available. I mean, obviously, history shows us that this can be done after the Second World War, more than 150,000 social homes were built every year.

Councils were supported to build them, finance was provided. Housing was treated as the essential national infrastructure it should be. And that's the same ambition that we need now. The government's right reforms to right to buy welcome. But they should have happened years ago. I also welcome the bill's provisions relating to survivors of domestic abuse. That principle that victims should not be forced to lose their home because of someone else's abuse is absolutely right. However, I'm concerned that some of these measures might not work in practice.

The measures rely heavily on outcomes in a criminal justice system that too often fails victims of domestic abuse. Many survivors never see a conviction. Many survivors don't even see a prosecution. We need to hear from the government what alternative forms of evidence and protection can be used so that survivors are not excluded. And then there's, of course, the question of affordability. A survivor may obtain sole tenancy rights. But what happens if they can't actually meet the rent on a single income? And we must remember that removing a perpetrator from a property does not automatically make a survivor safe.

Post-separation abuse is a reality experienced by thousands of women, so they will probably need some support for these tenancy changes. And of course, young people experiencing homelessness, leaving care or escaping unsafe homes need access to social housing. Yet the stock available to them continues to shrink. The reforms in this bill alone will not change that reality. The bill contains worthwhile measures and I will support its progress. Obviously offering helpful advice and ideas at the same time. But we shouldn't pretend that it meets the scale of the problem.

The housing emergency that faces this country. And what frustrates me most is that the government's actually seen as a problem, but they're not doing enough to actually fix it. This should have been the bill that launched a new generation of council housing. The bill that committed to new build and the refurbishment of older housing stock at a rate we need. Instead, it feels like an opportunity only half taken. The housing emergency demands urgency and ambition. Millions of people can't afford for us to settle for anything less.

I hope that as this bill proceeds through Parliament, the government will listen carefully and find ways to strengthen it because the country needs more than baby steps to reform a broken system. It needs a housing, a social housing revolution. And this government must be braver.
17:46
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, there is actually. >> A lot to welcome in this bill. But I must admit, after clauses 1 to 4 on clause six, I then start to to 4 on clause six, I then start to find concerns about the bill. And the reason I say that is I'm all for trying to make sure that when people do buy the home for which they've been paying rent, there are good reasons for that to happen. And I can't explain any better than my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham did earlier.

But there's no doubt that being liberated from rules, restrictions, whatever there has been by the council or the housing provider and actually being able to do what you want in your own home was a big liberation for people. And as a consequence, I'm concerned about the changes that have been brought into place. If I start with clause five and the discount being reduced to 5%, going up to a maximum of 15%, well, it's my understanding when this was discount was originally introduced, I think under the Conservatives it was 32 and it was actually a Labour government in 2004 who put it up to 35%.

And then the consequential increases. And I wonder, really why it does feel like in this bill, the government is doing everything possible apart from removing the right to buy to make it as difficult for people to do that. And I think this will backfire on them, or perhaps a future government. This isn't a Labour government. When they start to realise that once people no longer are earning, once they become pensioners, if they're still in that social housing, what will start to happen is that a lot more money will need to be paid out in housing benefit, to allow people to stay in that home, because the reality is one of the things, of course, why young people have feels, feels like they've given up on being able to buy a home when they know that their particular they're paying more rent in rent than they are a mortgage would cost is about getting that deposit.

And the whole point I'd have thought about getting on to the ladder from the social housing, is that a lot, that first rung, in effect, that you've already been helped with? And I know that when I was in government in DWP, I did some work with MCHLG on a policy, and I have to say, Mhclg were never a very enthusiastic about this, but it was about how can we turn from benefits just being what gets paid in housing benefit? How do we turn that into effectively mortgage payments? So there's something here about what can we do when we're already helping people to live in a particular house or a flat? How can we actually genuinely make sure that, in effect, that only becomes something that we have to do for 30 years instead of potentially 60 or 70 years? And that is why there is a real economic challenge, I think, in aspects of this bill.

Now, in terms of other aspects that I think are missing. I am concerned, actually about the blocking the rural areas. It would be useful to understand that the government has considered something that isn't an AoNB today, but is in the future. What would that mean to existing rights that has happened? We have seen the expansion of Aonbs in recent years, and indeed it's intended to have more national parks. Also, there's no restriction on the housing association or the council from selling the house where I used to represent in Suffolk.

This happened. It happened in Orford, it happened in opera, and the money wasn't being used to rebuild homes locally. No, not at all. It was being used to build homes up to 100 miles away. Meanwhile, local communities, the children of people who want to stay in that area, who are currently in social housing, there was no social housing going to be left for them because they were being sold off. And one of the particular houses I recall was quite a large house with a large garden.

And that's no surprise. Post-World war II, a lot of social houses were built with large gardens so that people would be encouraged to grow their own food. But now this particular site could easily become the site of at least two new houses, if not three. Under modern designs. And yet the only answer was, well, we're putting out on the house for auction. And of course that housing association provide. I'm afraid I'm not a big fan of flagship. I think they're called New Tide.

They did it so that you could have an auction. You could buy actually, a very nice housing plot in this particular rural area in an AoNB if you had enough cash, because the way they did the auction was it was only available to those who could pay cash, not those who could get access to a mortgage. So if the government is intent on stopping the right to buy and rural houses from tenants, I do appreciate that they're not I don't think they're quite going so far as to even allow councils or other housing providers to be able to be required or to be, to be.

I think they can be enabling it, and they've always been able, but in effect, to take that out of the housing market, I don't think is right in addressing the needs of people in rural areas. In terms of one of the issues, I think also that is here is and Baroness Thornhill Baroness Lady Murphy picked up on this, and this was about the number of empty homes. Now, I believe that there's an annual requirement, but it's not very specific about where empty homes are.

I came across this when the new homes bonus was in place, and the new homes bonus was given to councils who built homes, but it was offset by the number of empty homes. And this is when we discovered that in that bit of Suffolk at the time, there were over 100 empty housing association homes. So it's absolutely paramount that we have more transparency on this and that, frankly, housing association and councils are held to account. And if they decided, as actually happened, they actually demolished about 30 homes.

So they didn't have to didn't count anymore. And I'm pleased that they did rebuild some homes there with which were well adapted. But these are the sorts of things which are happening locally. And I think that we what's missing is that if a housing association provider does sell a house, I do think the first dibs should go to the council or another housing provider or indeed the tenant, but also require that housing association provider to replace locally. And that means, let's be candid, within ten hours, we're not talking about a hundred miles as is happening with some of the housing association providers today.

So, my Lords, as I say, while there are aspects I welcome here, there's a lot that I don't welcome, and I think that the government will come to regret it in the future. It's no surprise that the social housing list is so high in terms of numbers. Having a subsidised rent is always very attractive, and the unfortunate break up of families has also come into effect and had that effect, as indeed has aspects of immigration. So, my Lords, I'm sure this will get the careful scrutiny it needs.

I know I won't be here day two of committee, I'm afraid, but I reserve the right to potentially bring reports for amendments at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first time at Report stage I. My Lords, I declare my register

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare my register of interests in property and as also a past chair of three housing associations. I'm actually fully supportive of this bill. There's supportive of this bill. There's very rare that you find a bill that you're so enthusiastic about, but I
17:53
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Portrait Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
you're so enthusiastic about, but I am. Because it supports my, my, my current thinking, the right to buy. And I certainly appreciated Lord Rook Lord Young of Cookham intellectual arguments on that. The right to buy is not responsible itself for the diminution of our public housing stock, I accept that, but the. The fact of the matter is that it has led to a huge decline in public housing stock, because politicians didn't use the money that should have been used.

And now we see the big social need for more social and public housing. And it has had unintended consequences. I think Lord young did hint at those. I got a housing estate in in Hampshire, in Winchester, where I live, which is almost dominated now by student rented accommodation because 40% of the stock is now back in the private rented sector. And that actually makes it more difficult, I believe, to keep the appearance and the pride of the estate as as they should be.

So it has had unintended consequences. I also support in this bill the protection, extra protection for victims of abuse. It's long overdue. But I think we're has to see this bill in the context of the government's delivering a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing document. I think the first thing that is a benefit in that is the recognition. It's a ten year plan, five year plans barely get off the ground, frankly, before the five years are over.

So I think that's important. And that does put into the question whether the government's going to achieve their 1.5 million homes in five years. I don't believe they will. Ten year plan is much more sensible. I think securing a firm, stable rental income increase policy to encourage investment is very important. And I thought a Lord Lansley comments on that I support. I think that does provide the opportunity for alternative capital sources. I think the government's boost to housing numbers not not enough yet, but given the financial state constraints are a start.

And the other important thing of the government's policy is a recognition that to get housing numbers up, you need a big contribution from the public sector and from housing associations. But I want, in the limited time, I've got to concentrate on three issues, which I think are important in social housing and what is needed now in the social housing sector. The first thing is to recognise that the housing market at the moment is in the doldrums, and the government's policy depends on half the social houses basically coming up, coming through the work of developers.

But frankly, in the current state of the market in London last year, in the last financial year, only 606,325 homes were completed. They need over 8000. Everywhere. There are unviable housing schemes because of the big increase in housing costs. The uncertainty in the market and the dominance of the six major developers whose business models still depend on house prices rising. So it's not surprising the housing market is in is in in the doldrums. So I'd like to ask the government is, are they looking at a contingency plan if this doldrums continues, will they be prepared to step in and buy houses from the private sector? If any of the private sector builders go into administration, and would they be prepared to accelerate? Not necessarily the total spending over ten years, but to get the housing market moving, they may need to accelerate the investment in in public housing, social housing.

In the short term, I share. The concern that the bill does, which Lord Best concentrated on, he said he talked about the caution of concentrating solely on new build. I. I share that improving stock is just as important. We've got to remember that the tenants are actually helping to fund investment and do in, in, in the associations and in through the Council housing revenue accounts, but through their rents. And they need to see some benefit.

They need to see some benefit in the stock they're living in. And we need to make sure that resources are going into this. So I ask, what plans do the government have keeping housing providers up to the mark and improving their stock? And then one final issue I'd like just to comment on, which is a concern to me. And that's the wellbeing of tenants and the sense of pride of community, because anybody who's been canvassing in social housing stock in recent years knows that they're also a part of the alienated electorate.

And that may it is the strongest feeling you get when you go around social housing. Now, why is that? Like, maybe it's not surprising that a lot of these people are struggling to make ends meet their most vulnerable in the jobs market. And they're cynical often of the management that they experience. I've spent time in housing associations countering the view. It's good enough for them. It isn't. They have to have the best quality of repair work, the best environment of their estates, which other estates, private estates could look up to.

And they need to also have some help and service in terms of encouragement through housing associations, with job training and training on it. And the use of facilities would actually should help their housing management as well. There is a danger in our social housing that alienation leads to non participation. It leads to people wanting to vote. Reform and regeneration is absolutely critical in some of these estates. So investment improving estates must be done to show that housing the housing managers care.

And this can be done through improving landscaping, sorting out parking, support services reinstated all of which in the private. Sector but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not in in the in. Can I invite the noble Lord?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I invite the noble Lord? So yes, I'm I'm just finishing. So what plans have the government So what plans have the government gained to bring forward to improve zinc estates generally restore the confidence, commitment and involvement of social tenants? My involvement of social tenants? My Lords, it is an honour to speak. In the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill, I'd like to share a story about Clara and Chloe. Some time ago, Clara became homeless following a relationship breakdown.

The traumatic aftermath of this personal tragedy is hard for many
18:01
Lord Rook Portrait Lord Rook (Labour)
-
-
of us to imagine. Two decades of homelessness ensued, with Carla homelessness ensued, with Carla searching night after night for a safe spot to sleep on the London streets. She would often pick a place near to a restaurant with outdoor heaters in a desperate outdoor heaters in a desperate attempt to find some kind of warmth in an otherwise cold world. We need in an otherwise cold world. We need this bill for Carla, and for many like her, we've rightly heard from noble colleagues about the scale of our housing crisis.

4.2 million citizens in need of social housing, 1.3 million stuck on waiting lists and more worrying still, 175 000 children who will go to bed again tonight in temporary accommodation. John Kirk, from Hope into action, says it is surely right to say that housing injustice is perhaps the greatest social policy we face. There are communities across this country where a lack of adequate social housing is the prime reason that families are trapped in poverty and communities are struggling to thrive.

By increasing the qualifying period for Right to Buy and introducing a 35 year exemption for newly built social homes, the government is protecting housing stock and giving confidence to councils to build more social housing, and also to be welcomed. As many noble Lords have mentioned, are the strengthened protections for those suffering domestic abuse. This will finally prevent victims from being forced to choose between their personal safety and the place they call home. In all this, the bill offers a timely response to a deeply human problem.

However, there is another lesson to be learned from Carla's story, and that's where Chloe enters. Carla's problems went beyond matters of bricks and mortar, and while housing is an essential part of the solution that she is looking for, the most decisive need for her was pastoral care and practical support. At this point, Chloe comes in as a caseworker for the connection at Saint Martin in the fields just down the road, Chloe built a relationship with Clara. She earned her trust, helped her to access a wide range of support and services, and ultimately helped her to secure a room in a woman only hospital hostel.

Sorry, the combination of a safe place to stay, if only temporarily, and someone she could depend upon, has been life changing for Carla. In the words of Bonnie Williams, the CEO of Housing Justice, a home is sustained not only through tenancy law but through relationship, through trust, community and belonging. You see, complex human problems require deeply relational solutions. Alongside the connection, the charity that helped Clara at Saint Martin in the fields runs the Front Line Network, the UK's largest network of professionals and volunteers working with the vulnerably housed.

The frontline network is generously supported by public donations to the BBC for Radio Christmas Appeal, the world's oldest fundraising media campaign, and a recent survey of those people working with people who are homeless, said this 80% of them believe homelessness is getting worse. 50% say that they themselves are at risk of burnout. 51% say that the immense challenge that they have in supporting clients is having a negative impact on their wellbeing, and 34% are struggling to pay their bills due to the salaries they receive, not covering their cost of living.

To maximise the social and economic return on the investment and outlined in this Bill, it is vital that His Majesty's Government increases funding to those in housing associations, local authorities, charities and faith communities who provide the essential human infrastructure that will enable this legislation to change lives. You see, it's not only flats and houses that we need. The government should not be wholly relying on charitable giving and the goodwill of charities to provide the decisive human interventions for those in greatest need, committing just a fraction of the overall budget to the human support that brilliant caseworkers like Chloe provides, would radically increase the number of sustainable tenants tenancies, while radically reducing the number of individuals and families who find housing only later to find themselves homeless all over again.

This tragic back and forth comes at a crippling cost to the state and does untold damage to the lives of individuals and families. Miriam Morris of the church Homeless Charity, points out. By investing in innovative local interventions and human to human support for people, we deliver much better outcomes and radically reduce our costs, both economically and socially. Carla needs this legislation to pass. For now, Chloe is continuing to support Carla in temporary accommodation and hope shortly to help her move into a safe and warm home of her own.

She will then no doubt continue to support Carla as she sustains that tenancy. Few of us in this Lordships house have shared Carla's experiences, but all of us know what it is to go through difficult times in our lives and to find someone who we can truly rely upon. I am wholly supportive of the government's attempts to deal with the social housing crisis through the legislation put before this House. In doing so, I look forward to hearing how we will help people like Carla by backing workers like Chloe alongside bricks and mortar.

How will we invest in those wonderful front line workers who provide a beautifully relational solution to a deeply human problem? If we can do this, then the legislation before us will change many, many lives. What's more, we will join heroes like Chloe and play our part in helping Carla and many others, both to find a house and to turn that house into a home. Thank you.
18:08
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I support this bill. I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support this bill. I think the provisions with it in it will will help within the operation of Right help within the operation of Right to Buy scheme. I was very doubtful about Right to Buy when it first came in, but I do not now support its abolition in any sense, although I do recognise that in Wales and Scotland they have found it necessary to do so. But I do think it needs to be subject to some additional measures.

The right. The provisions within this Bill. I support. I have long thought that the length of qualification of a person has to be a tenant of the Council before they have the right to buy has been too short, and we're addressing that. I recognise that the Bill also provides that new build is not subject to the immediate right to buy for 35 years, and I strongly support the provisions in this bill relating to. People suffering domestic abuse.

And I recognise also what others have said that that is not simply a question of giving the tenancy to the abused spouse or partner, but also making sure that she normally, sometimes he does not suffer additional abuse by finding an alternative and safer location for them. I think these measures are strongly important for making right to buy operate more easily and to protect existing tenants. However, I cannot help feeling a little bit of disappointment that the social housing bill that I saw in the initial list of provision for this session of Parliament is so limited because, my Lords, we've got a situation where every form of tenure, the market in every form of tenure, of housing in this country is in total crisis, where particularly the social housing element is in crisis.

We have thousands of people who cannot ever envisage being given any social housing. We have councils which do not provide any social housing, and we have numbers of people who are stuck in property, which is which requires new input to it, to bring it up to the same standards that are required. We see the the health of our children being being endangered by the dampness and the unhealthy conditions in some of our social housing. All of those things need addressing, but all of those things need money.

And I do think that's Baroness Pinnock said right at the beginning, that we need to have a guarantee that there is money going back into the social housing sector. Now, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Young's clear exposition as to why the need to recycle the money was not actually followed by successive governments, whether it was in the hands of the Treasury or the hands of local authorities. And we deplore that. But from now on, should we not be ensuring by some mechanism or another, the Treasury, after all, have mechanisms for ensuring that departments and local authorities spend money in many different directions? Should we not at least establish the principle that the money that is received for the disposal of right to buy homes goes back to create greater and more improved social housing? If that is not done, it will.

We will again go through the process which the noble Lord young described, and end up with the fact that social housing for those that really need it is not available. I therefore think that if, say, we require in a broader housing bill, which I hope the Minister will be able to produce in the coming months, or at least for the next session of Parliament, there is a new approach to social housing and I mean social housing. I don't mean the broad definition of affordable housing.

I think Baroness Murphy was absolutely right to say this is confusing the issue. We mean social housing, and we need to ensure that the resources are directed to deliver people who can deliver social housing. That requires a lot of things to happen. It requires changes in planning laws. It requires changes in the. To ensure that the construction industry itself is capable of doing this. And that probably requires tackling the oligopoly of big house builders and developers who tend to dominate and persuade local authorities that actually social housing is not a good idea because they cannot make enough money out of it.

So we need to make an approach on lots of different fronts in order to actually get the the new social housing delivered. But we start from the premise that what goes out of the social housing sector sector should go back in. And that's the. The obligation of local authorities and on the department must be to produce a new form of legislation, a new mechanisms which ensure that that happens. I hope, therefore, the noble Baroness Meyer noble friend the Minister can give me the assurance that at some time within the foreseeable.

We will see another Bill which ensures that the level of social housing and therefore the level of social housing is kept up, and that therefore, the level of misery which. The lack of social housing at present creates is seen. We see the end of that terrible situation, a failure in housing policy for many, many years needs to be addressed by this government. And I would hope the noble Lady, the Minister, could give an assurance that that will indeed happen.
18:14
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I would remind you of my register of interests and the fact that I was the previous leader and that I was the previous leader and councillor for London Borough of Bexley and Vice president of London Councils, and have involvement in the Local Government Association. I must admit, when I heard the title of this bill I was really quite intrigued, as in my opinion, there are so many avenues it could have gone down. But for a government that say they want to solve the housing crisis, I was so disappointed when I read that the main focus seemed to be about the right to buy.

To put that into context, I grew up on a council estate in Lewisham. In the very early days of the Right to Buy scheme. I recall the aspirational conversations of my parents and their peers that this was their opportunity to own their own homes. That discussion wasn't about making profits. They fully intended to remain in those homes in which they were raising their families. None of them were high earning people, but they were prepared for mortgages and taking responsibility for their home and improving it.

I'm sure many from that time will recall that the first thing in the majority of them did was change the front door. Didn't we all recognise it came in years later, but it wasn't just the front doors, as they also had a sense of pride in their surroundings and put many hours into helping with the maintenance of the area. As my hon. Friend Lord Young of Cookham referenced earlier, the other thing it did was it gave them independence. As my hon.

Friend Baroness Coffey referenced, so that as they got older and circumstances changed, there were options about the possibility of moving to more appropriate accommodation to ensure they could continue to live independent lives. That probably saved a lot in social care support that will never recognise. So you won't be surprised to know I'm a supporter of the right to buy policy. And for every story you'll hear of people making profits and being greedy, we shouldn't forget the reality of the majority of cases who actually remained in the property, and they intended to continue to do so.

However, given this bill is supposed to be about delivering on the government's manifesto to prioritise the building of new social rented houses and better protect existing stock, there seems to be a number of important aspects missing, as my hon. Friend Lady Scott referenced earlier. So the first one, from my perspective, is making sure that social housing is being used by those for whom it was intended. I vividly recall a conversation with a local housing association when we were embarking on a large regeneration scheme in Bexley.

When I asked how they could, they could be sure that the people living in the properties were who they thought they were. I'm afraid digital communications and electronic banking have meant that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the days of the rent man calling regularly and seeing the tenants That's meant that the system is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's meant that the system is open to abuse and the term key job, where social housing can be separate to another race is a very real risk. He looked at me as if I had two heads at the time, but once had two heads at the time, but once the work started in earnest to establish decant need, he actually establish decant need, he actually admitted I was right and he was amazed at what they found. The second aspect is the council waiting risk that's been referenced here many times this afternoon.

It appears that the size of waiting lists is sometimes championed in the same way as my dad is bigger than your dad arena. However, if those lists aren't regularly revisited, they're not only going to continue to grow, but they've become inaccurate and they lead people into a false sense of security. A regularly refreshed list means that the right priorities are used when nominations are being considered. More accurate information could also ensure that the right people are getting the nominations.

And probably most important of all, it would mean that those on the list would have a more accurate view of the possibility of housing becoming available. The next issue is where the tenancy of social housing should be assumed to be lifelong. This bill seeks to repeal addressing the lifetime tenancy that was introduced in the 2016 Housing and Planning Act. Is it right that high income earners remain in subsidised housing that the less fortunate can't access due to unavailability? Whilst the government suggests that addressing high income tenants could bring about disincentives, do they really believe that the viability of increasing the supply of new social housing, whether through new build or regeneration, needs a mature conversation and we should recognise that regeneration means decanting, which actually makes it even more costly.

Yes, right. To buy receipts as well as section 106 and CIL monies can be used. But is it sufficient? If it's not viable then does there need to be a conversation about the cost of building or the cost of not building? That needs to be a grown up conversation? And if social housing is to be created, why not seek to ensure that good tenants can be rewarded and backfill with new nominations, which could often mean downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family homes? The cost of creating supporting supported accommodation is not viable, either for the elderly or for those or for others that may need support, that needs that short sighted and that needs addressing.

Again, because that could actually free up family accommodation. But also it means pushing costs into other areas such as social care. Two of the proposals in this bill that concern me are the proposal around domestic violence. For although I agree there's a need to address tenancy issues, the suggestion is that the perpetrator has to be convicted, which could take some time to come about. So that needs to be considered, as does whether the person who's been abused needs to move from the area.

Two things I'm sure will come out through the passage. The other issue is the disposal disposal of social housing through sale. I very much agree with this proposal, as we found out that one of our local housing associations was selling ex-council properties as a consequence of seeing them pop up on auction sites.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bearing in mind Bexley's social housing stock is held by registered. Excuse me. Excuse me. Could the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me. Could the noble. Lady wind up, please? That means that that's actually taxpayers money. There are many taxpayers money. There are many other things that this bill could go into. It does seem a shame that the bill presents an opportunity to the bill presents an opportunity to address some of those issues that really impact people, but I'm sure the Minister will be open to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister will be open to conversations as it goes through the passage of the bill. Thank you. Thanks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a pleasure to speak. After Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. I fondly recall the Times in London councils meetings when we would sit around the table and agree on around the table and agree on virtually everything. Sadly, probably not so this afternoon. But it's still a pleasure to speak it's still a pleasure to speak after her. My Lords, I'm pleased to speak in this debate in support of speak in this debate in support of the Social Housing Bill and in particular, the restrictions which the Bill introduces on the exercise of the right to buy.

And in doing so, I declare my interests as non-executive chair of homes for Life in Coin Partners and as a member of the advisory board of LH
18:23
18:23
18:23
Lord John of Southwark Portrait Lord John of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
policies and they become enshrined in our body politic. But they were the answer to the question of a the answer to the question of a different era. And right to buy is one such policy. Now, that doesn't one such policy. Now, that doesn't mean that conservatives cannot be proud of that policy, but it doesn't mean it's the right policy for today. Let's look at the differences between then and now. In 1980, London was a city whose population was declining down to 6.8 million, from 7.5 million in the previous decade.

Councils had vacant council housing stock and can you believe heart to let properties. The average property price in London was about 22,500 pounds. That's £75,000 in today's money. So for this city, the policy of right to buy met a number of challenges. The realistic aspiration which many people had of owning their own home at a time when property prices were relatively low and there were surplus housing stock across the capital. Today, the figures are starkly different.

London's population is 9.1 million, having risen from 8.2 million ten years ago. That's an increase of a third from 1981. Councils have ever increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation. There's no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let. There's a housing shortage and the average property price, well, that's £542,000, more than seven times in real terms. The cost of a home in 1980.

And sadly, the aspiration of owning your own home is something which many young people regard as being a wholly unrealistic prospect. Renting their own home is their property ambition rather than a room. So, my Lords, it's in this context that we consider this bill. It is plainly right that local authorities should be allowed to protect their existing stock when it is such a scarce and valuable commodity. And so I welcome the extension of the qualifying period from 3 to 10 years.

It's clearly right. I was also struck by the comments of Baroness Murphy that maybe we should be looking for a longer period as a qualifying period. I particularly welcome the indefinite right of first refusal, which will be given to those local authorities who have had to sell property under the right to buy, bringing former social housing stock back into use as general needs. Housing is often a speedy and a cost effective way to increase council housing stock, and if it can be used as a way to help regenerate estates and provide more housing for future needs, that must be a good thing, and I'm pleased to see the protections given to newly built stock in clause 18 of the bill.

When I was a leader in Southwark and we embarked upon our Council house building programme, which was and remains the largest programme in the country. A commitment to build 11,000 new homes. We were concerned that we would be building stock, which we might lose relatively swiftly, to right to buy. So, my Lords, the proposed protection of that stock for 35 years will give some reassurance not only to Southwark but to those local authorities across the country which are building new stock, and it will convince them that they are right to build.

I think there is an argument, even so, for considering a longer period, because quite often the cost of build has not been repaid after that 35 years. Let us look at the real terms period when those costs will be repaid. My Lords, many problems remain with our ability as a country to deliver the new social housing which we need, not just social housing, housing as a whole. The money spent by local authorities on building new homes is undermined by the amount which we seem content to spend on temporary accommodation and homelessness.

But importantly, with that restriction on right to buy, this bill protects what we do have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And for that reason it should be hugely welcomed. By Lord Stone. I declare an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By Lord Stone. I declare an interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association and the part owner of rented property the part owner of rented property in West Yorkshire. In my contribution to the Queen's Speech contribution to the Queen's Speech debate last month, I referenced how disappointing it was that the government would bring forward legislation to further curtail property ownership through a diminishing right to buy policy. The Social Housing Bill is a narrow minded piece of legislation which misses huge opportunities to rectify many of the ongoing issues
18:28
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
in the social housing sector. Issues this side of the House will seek to rectify in the Bill's committee and report stages. committee and report stages. Property ownership is not a bad thing. It gives families a sense of thing. It gives families a sense of security in life and a stake in society. You cannot make a modern society. You cannot make a modern day case for capitalism if the individual doesn't own capital. And I refer noble Lords to the paper commissioned by the London School of Economics in December 2020 for human capital, from childhood exposure to home ownership evidenced from right to buy.

And there are some notable points to consider. The Right to buy scheme has generated detectable, sizeable school performance gains. The policy gave rise to improved educational outcomes via improvements in the local community. Right to buy policy had positive effects on educational and downstream labour market outcomes. The Right to Buy experiment shows that increasing home ownership generates greater human capital accumulation. To curtail the ability of residents in social housing to purchase property through Right to Buy is immoral and goes against every fabric this government was Is to retain 100% of right to buy receipts.

The people opposite may be surprised to know it was a decision made by the previous conservative government. And it is right. The days where local authorities were forced into pooling right to buy receipts onto national schemes undermined the principle of the scheme, namely, that a right to buy receipt be used to build new social housing to replace stock that had been purchased privately. I hope that this government will consider using the bill before us to put place into the legislation that the 100% retention of right to buy receipts be made permanent.

On a similar point. The government announced that the right to buy receipts would need to be spent by local authorities within a ten year period. I would ask the government if this legislation could could include an ability for local authorities to seek an exemption from the Secretary of State, where they may perhaps have right to buy receipts linked to future regeneration schemes coming down the line. As I am sure the Minister will understand, given supply chain constraints in the construction sector, this is having a knock on impact amongst local authorities.

Following my contribution in the King's Speech debate, I would like to reiterate my interest in the upcoming Law Commission consultation on state land, which is transferred to the Crown Estate. I understand the Commission will be looking at looking about the feasibility of transferring us cheap land to other public bodies other than the Crown Estate. I would welcome confirmation from the noble Baroness, the Minister, in her summing up on whether her Department will be pushing for housing revenue accounts to be included in this on the basis that local authorities agreed to use such land for building social housing where practical.

On a final point. Clause nine to this bill is of concern to me and I would seek clarification on the necessity of it. This clause gives the power to the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to contribute right to buy receipts towards national pooling schemes. My Lords, given the government has said it would like to keep the 100% of right to buy receipts for local authorities, I would welcome some clarification on why why clause nine is therefore needed unless, of course, the government plans to reallocate localised right to buy receipts to national pooling schemes.

The bill, on the face of it, is wrong, undermines the principle of home ownership, and I believe significant work will need to take place in the committee and report stages of this Bill to bring it to a satisfactory condition.
18:33
Baroness Teather Portrait Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is a privilege to take part in >> Is a privilege to take part in this debate. There have been some very thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I contributions from all sides. I particularly enjoyed Lord Best's passionate defence and argument for passionate defence and argument for regeneration to take priority, and I do hope that the Minister heard those comments and will respond to that. My Lords, I intend to confine my remarks to welcoming provisions in this Bill relating to survivors of domestic abuse and to raising two areas I think would help the government meet its ambition of tackling housing insecurity by supporting people to remain in their tenancies and their communities.

Again, something that the Minister spoke about at the outset of this debate. First, let me state my support for the provisions in this bill for survivors of domestic abuse. The barriers people face when trying to leave an abusive household, whether navigating tenancy arrangements, securing alternative accommodation or avoiding financial penalties can keep people trapped in dangerous situations for a very long period. Provisions to tackle that are hugely welcome. It will be good to hear more about how the government foresee these measures, working for people in practice in a timely way, and I imagine that will be part of our discussions at committee.

I want, though, to focus on two areas I think would help the government achieve its ambitions of supporting greater housing security. The government recognises the fear that some people need lifetime secure tenancies, and is repealing mandatory fixed terms created by the 2016 act. However, it isn't a tenancy agreement alone that limits people's ability to stay in their home and community. We need systemic thinking about the kinds of homes we're building, whether they're appropriate for people's needs as they age, as our climate changes, and how we support people to maintain health and wellbeing throughout their life.

There's nothing in this bill about that. When I was an MP in Brent, around half of my constituency casework was about housing. The most desperate situations were almost always families whose needs had changed because of disability. Families had to wait years for housing that met their needs, and without it, children were dependent on others to shower, get to the toilet, or even to get out of their property to get to school when they should have been exploring their own independence. For adults, it limited their ability to go to work and indeed for others in their household.

To my Lords, I also have some personal experience of these struggles. My husband is a wheelchair user. When we could no longer make our our flat work after a series of mishaps, including being stuck inside for a week after the lift broke and nights sleeping on the sofa after the internal Stairlift went on the blink again, we were thankfully financially secure enough to make them move elsewhere and pay for our own adaptations. But I have other relatives whose experience has been different.

One who became a wheelchair user after a serious accident got stuck in hospital for months after he was ready for discharge because no accessible social housing was available. He was discharged several times to a Travelodge without care, as it was the only available accommodation with level entry and a wet room. Both chaotic discharges resulted in fairly rapid, further emergency hospital readmissions. With all the misery and NHS cost involved. In my role as a board member on two NHS trusts, Barts and Eput, both listed in my register of interests, I'm conscious of the pressures on NHS trusts to discharge patients and conscious about how too often it is lack of suitable housing that is the main barrier.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission state that 1 in 5 disabled people living in social housing are in accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs. The centre for ageing Better say that only 13% of homes in England in 2005 met the four most basic accessibility criteria needed for someone to visit or live independently in a property with dignity. Almost 13 million people may now be living in homes that do not meet their accessibility needs, with lack of accessible private accommodation.

Of course, only adding to the pressure on social housing lists, the government's own recent Healthy Homes guidance recognises this, recommending that all new homes should meet accessible and adaptable standards, and apart M42 of the building regs. Yet this Bill contains no serious attempt to drive that transition at scale. I want also to say something briefly about green space, because this too is an issue of inequality that too often disappears from housing debates. Social housing policy cannot simply concern itself with the existence of housing units in isolation from the environment around them.

Where people live affects physical health, mental wellbeing, childhood development and community cohesion. Access to green space must not be an optional extra or the preserve of affluent neighbourhoods. It should be part of healthy social infrastructure. Inequalities on this are stark. Research consistently shows that poorer communities and communities with higher proportions of social housing have significantly worse access to quality green space. Nearly 3 million people in England live more than a ten minute walk from a public park, while those in deprived urban areas experience some of the worst environmental inequalities in the country.

This matters because the evidence on health outcomes is overwhelming. Studies published in the BMJ have linked increased access to green space, with significantly lower levels of preventable illness and premature mortality in deprived communities. In other words, access to nature is not an aesthetic nice to have. It's a core part of preventative, preventative public health policy. My Lords, there is much in this bill that I support, but I concern that it lacks the scale and urgency that the situation demands and misses areas that would support the government to meet its ambitions to tackle housing security.

I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the minister's response. It is a pleasure to take part in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to follow the the noble opportunity to follow the the noble Ladies additional points which need to be taken on board. I'm going to to be taken on board. I'm going to provide a general welcome to the bill, and particularly the changes
18:40
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
that it makes to the right to buy, but I'm also going to use it as an opportunity to highlight the relationship between housing tenure and the quest to provide all pensioners with an adequate income. Now on the sale of council housing, social housing. I'm sorry that that my noble friend the Minister isn't present, because I was going to say some nice things about her introductory speech. It was a powerful and effective speech, came from the heart, but came with clear policy content.

I almost felt like perhaps they do in in, in the Commons that leaping to my feet and waving the Order Paper. It was exactly the sort of thing that I want to hear from the front bench, and I thank her very much indeed for the way in which she presented this bill. I also agree with much of what else has been said by my noble friends. Now, I am a long term opponent of the right to buy. I respect my noble friends who take a broader view of the issue, and I accept that this is a fight where we have to accept what is being proposed in terms of the mechanics of right to buy.

I was impressed, indeed, by the contribution from noble Lord Young of Cookham and his exposition of the justification for the right to buy process. The important point that he missed from his exposition, the one that doesn't get mentioned, is that this is fundamentally on the part of the Conservative Party, a political project. It was an attempt to social engineer under the belief that it would have an adverse effect on support for the Labour Party.

This is clearly a fact. In Westminster, they were caught out and they paid the price. But clearly, and I was around about. I was a local councillor at the time with a large quantity of council housing in my estate, so I was aware of the debates which took place. So it's undeniable that political pressure for this policy was about social engineering to try and disadvantage the Labour Party. Don't try and deny it. But it not Don't try and deny it.

But it not only failed to obey the law in that particular case, it also had a destructive effect on social housing and a destructive effect on the finances of local government because it the net effect on their finances was adverse and it most importantly had an adverse effect on the social housing stock and the end result. We've ended up hasn't been with more owner occupation. The proportion of houses owned by owner occupiers is in long term decline now, but instead we are seeing this shift to expensive, low quality private rental accommodation, much of which is Ex-council stock and should be available to social ventures.

So let's be honest about the nature of right to Buy. I just want to put it into context of the specific issues that affect pensioners. Last week we had published the. Two weeks ago we had published the second the first report of the Second Pensions Commission. And the match in there is about tenure. The nature of people's tenure and the effect it has on their incomes as certain items in the report that they were filing, highlighting that they say, I'm just going to quote a couple of phrases.

They find two key groups with a higher risk of poverty are those without private pension income. No surprise there. And renters, particularly in the private sector. And they also go on to tell us that the number of non-home owning pensioners is expected to grow by 2050, which is the end of their period of remit. Half of pensioners in poverty are projected to be renters. The problem is particularly acute in the private rental sector, and so the development and expansion of social housing is a crucial element in developing decent, adequate incomes in retirement for pensioners.

I very much hope that the ministerial team will take this on board. It will be worth them and the officials reading what they say about what the report says about social housing and the impact that will have long term on the standing standard of living of pensioners. And the more we're able to develop social housing and offer it at social rents, the better the lower will be the level of poverty amongst pensioners. I hope that's an objective that we can all support.
18:47
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Portrait Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's a pleasure to >> My Lord, it's a pleasure to contribute to this debate that so many people have made important many people have made important points in. I declare my interests as chair of Look Ahead, a social housing provider that works with homeless people and those with mental health problems, and also as a previous non-executive director of Asda and Southern Housing Associations. This bill is designed to protect existing social housing stock and to respond to long standing challenges in the number of homes available.

By reducing the number of social homes sold through the Right to Buy scheme and removing significant disincentives for councils to build new supply, with receipts received from such sales. The Bill is also designed as a a route to home ownership for eligible long standing tenants. All social housing stock should provide, as other noble Lords have said, safe, secure homes for individuals and families in which to live. Evidence demonstrated as so well described by Baroness Teather earlier, that there is a significant relationship between people's physical and mental health and the security of a well maintained flat or house in which to live.

The new consumer standard for social housing is resulting in greater investment in many of our current homes, but that actually means that we many housing associations are building less new homes because of the investment in current stock, as many other noble Lords have said, there have been opportunities for people to buy their social homes at substantial discount, though in principle an extremely good concept. We know that it has been open to abuse through individuals exercising the right to buy and then subletting and ultimately using the increase in property value to benefit either other family members or some tenants.

Even borrowing money from unscrupulous lenders to purchase their homes, and then have been held in effect to ransom, and some forced to sell their homes at less than market value to repay the debt to some of those lenders, effectively making so-called purchase purchasers homeless or having to move to a less suitable property with any remaining funds that they have available. After such a transaction, the new bill will make the minimum qualifying period for exercising the right to buy for secure tenants from the current three year period to a ten year tenancy.

This may result in those individuals who can saving a deposit and choosing to leave their social homes and buy independently or through a shared ownership arrangement, thus releasing social housing provision for those on the waiting list. The proposed act, however, makes little mention of tenants dwelling under a shared ownership arrangement except regarding disposals. Notification requirement. Could the noble Lady, the Minister, indicate whether His Majesty's Government could consider an amendment to the Bill that people who have bought a percentage of their property through shared ownership and paid rent on the other element of their home for ten years, to also be granted a discount reduction of the 5% on the remaining property value after the ten year qualifying period.

Many shared ownership tenants have gone down this route due to inability to access rented social housing, particularly single people. A change to enable shared owners to be part of a discount scheme would include many essential workers, such as paramedics or teachers, who could then take advantage of the proposed scheme. Indeed, the optimist in me thinks it may encourage young people in essential occupations to stay in hard to recruit to expensive areas when they have purchased a shared ownership property and feel that they could get discount at a later date.

Depending on the minister's response, it is an issue that I hope to work with in others in this House on an amendment to reflect parity of discounts for shared ownership residents. I welcome the content of this bill and passionately believe that it will result in less families, in more expensive private rental accommodation or in the worst case scenarios, living in bed and breakfast due to a lack of availability of social housing stock in the areas in which they live.

Finally, my Lords, can this Bill make provision for councils to consider purchasing additional social housing stock that is currently vacant? The latest data that I was so kindly referred to by Baroness Taylor of Stevens reads thus I only received her note this afternoon. The overall number of unsold units increased by December of last year by 11% from the previous 6:45 thousand 313, with the number of unsold units empty for over six months increasing to 3016 units, the highest number since December 2023, indicating the points that other noble Lords have made about the difficulty of selling stock at the moment.

Isn't it time we bought this stock and put it into social ownership for rent? There are, I think, further investigations that we could do across England to understand the detail more fully. My Lords, how can we allow such properties to remain vacant for prolonged periods after completion, while families with children live in temporary accommodation? The Lord, the Bishop of Manchester, identified this challenge. This bill is welcomed. But to let. Let us swiftly try to improve the Bill's intentions so that we genuinely increase social housing stock at pace and make life happier and healthier for many of our population.
18:54
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to begin my remarks by supporting my noble friend on the front bench and to friend on the front bench and to make the point that it's quite right to debate the effective allocation of scarce public allocation of scarce public resources. And I think that needs to be said. The government has brought forward this bill, ostensibly with the desire to protect social housing, facilitate the building of new supply, and it's an admirable goal. We need more houses. The UK is only building 200 homes a year per ten 000 people added to the population over the last 20 years.

The. However, there is an aspect of this discussion which does not receive the attention it deserves, which I would like to highlight later in my remarks. And it relates to population and housing tenure. I welcome in particular clause 12 and schedule one on victims of domestic abuse. However, the tenure of the bill is generally hostile to right to buy and seeks, particularly in part one, to circumscribe and curtail the rights of those seeking to exercise their rights under the scheme.

I know that for many people in the Labour Party, Right to Buy is a totemic scheme to which they've been opposed by habit and tradition with tribal hostility. But for many of us it represented and still represents the greatest and most profound transfer of capital via property rights in our country's history to working people away from state oligopoly and sometimes municipal slum landlords. It gave a pathway to prosperity, self-reliance and family stability and success to thousands of British citizens of modest means from 1980 onwards, and boosted home ownership to almost 70% by the year by the early 2000.

Now, I accept it was no means by no means perfect. A more emphasis should have been placed not merely on paying off local authority debt, but also building good quality homes for working families and not merely substandard properties for those on welfare, which exacerbated multi-generational generational welfarism. So it's important to dispel the myths about right to buy. Your Lordships house will no doubt have been aware of research published by the Centre of Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, entitled Human Capital From Childhood exposure to Home Ownership.

Evidence from Right to Buy, which demonstrated strong empirical evidence not just of increased prosperity and financial stability, but real demonstrable improvements in educational attainment and generating detectable, sizeable school performance gains amongst young people exposed to home ownership. Increasing the number of good grades in high stakes exams, and reducing crime to. For all that, my Lords, I want to leave the ideological debate for Committee stage of this bill and instead ask a fundamental question about housing and particularly social housing.

What sort of housing do we want? What sort of homes would best serve the needs of the British people? What do we want our housing to do? The ONS has argued that from about now mid 2026 onwards, deaths in the UK are projected to exceed births. The BBC reported two weeks ago that births have fallen to the lowest level in 50 years. The UK is facing an unprecedented situation which will have a significant impact upon the strength and viability of our economy. Between mid 24 and mid 2034, there are projected to be 450 000 more deaths than births.

We all want economic growth, but low birth rates create an ageing population increasingly dependent on the state, leading to a vicious circle of higher government spending and a weaker economy. So how do we address this? Families, my Lords, are the building blocks upon which a society is built. A 2026 poll commissioned by the New Statesman found that 81% of men and 82% of women between the ages of 18 and 30 said that they would like to be married or in a civil partnership one day.

It also found that 75% of young women and 80% of young men wanted to have children at some point in their life. Analysis of the 2025 Multifamily Housing Survey and historic surveys indicated that the perceived ideal family size has mostly stayed similar. Since 1945. British men and women in the 2025 survey, on average, said that they would be happiest with 2.1 or 2.2 children. But one significant issue, which is not often factored, is housing tenure. The analysis of the Multifamily Housing Survey found that housing was a significant factor in how the British people approach having families.

81% believe that the cost and availability of family homes is making it harder for people to marry and start families. Only 9% disagreed. 74% said that the type and size of housing available has a major impact on people's decisions about having children. 65% of the public agreed that too many new homes are small flats, and that they are unsuitable. These are unsuitable for raising families, and more than half of the people personally know young people or couples who are delaying having children because they cannot afford a suitable home.

But the public also views on how to address the problem. Many a majority wanted new housing developments to include a higher proportion of family sized homes, and 65% wanted three bedroom homes to be prioritised in the planning rules for new developments. These were so that families can put down roots and become part of a stable local community. A survey of people's preferences from the Institute for Family Studies found that those who wanted to have children saw having a two bedroom property instead of a one bedroom property property as having the same impact on their confidence in having children.

As a 1900 to £2600 reduction in a monthly housing costs policy should not and cannot tell people whether they should have children, but it can make it easier for those who want to. In 2023, flats have risen to almost 22% of housing stock, whilst detached homes and bungalows have fallen to 25 to 26. Our policies under both parties have focussed on the number of houses and not on those that are compatible with the family. So as we think about housing and social stock in particular, including the aesthetics of new housing developments, we should be looking to support the family.

Local plans and housing needs assessment should track and plan for the number of bedrooms and family sized properties. Local and national policy should plan for the building of family sized homes. Our planning policy should focus on schemes which are viable and conducive to families. My Lords. My Lords, finally, as I've exceeded my time. Britain is facing a crisis of the family and a. And significant housing challenges. The policies which we discussed in this House should attempt to deal with both those problems.

So for no other reason, I welcome this bill and hope it gives rise to opportunities for the government to begin to solve these pressing, significant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

societal issues. Yeah. My Lords, I declare my interest as a landlord, leaseholder, former renter and co-chair of the all party group on Leasehold and Commonhold reform, the Social Commonhold reform, the Social Housing Bill before your Lordships House is to be welcomed, particularly changes to the right particularly changes to the right to buy system and provisions intended to protect protect victims of domestic abuse. The Bill should of domestic abuse. The Bill should be read alongside His Majesty's Government plan to build 1.5 million homes in England by the end of this Parliament, including some 300,000 social and affordable homes under the Affordable Homes Programme.

Of these, at least 60% are intended for social rent over five years, just less than 4000 a year. HMG has committed 39,000,000,000/10 years for the new Social and Affordable Homes programme. So far, so good, my Lords. However, when you drill land into what is actually happening in the housing sector, the picture is not so rosy. Shelter estimates estimates that 90,000 social rent homes are needed every year for the next ten years. The reality is that just about 12,000 social rent homes were completed in 2425 in England.

Over the same period, around 21,000 social homes were lost, almost double. The impression is that the government are tinkering around the edges, where what is needed is a radical improvement in the delivery of affordable homes to buy and rent to tackle the current housing crisis. Head on right to buy should not just be restricted, it should be banned outright as a first step. And in that I agree with the noble Lord Lord Davies of Brixton. The housing crisis has not been helped by a clear downturn in housing starts over the previous year.

In 2025, starts were still 21% below pre-pandemic levels. The housing market is the worst that I have seen in my lifetime for sellers, buyers and renters, we are witnessing a catastrophic situation in London. We have witnessed a near collapse in housing starts. Less than 6000 homes were started in London in 2025, about 94% below the level needed. The impact on supply of affordable homes and sky high rents is obvious. At the beginning of last year, 23 of the 33 London boroughs recorded zero starts, the lowest level since 2010.

In terms of affordable housing, the picture was even worse, with the second lowest starts on record. What does this mean for the overall million target of 1.5 million homes, my Lords? Well, London is supposed to deliver a large share of this target about a third. But current building implies a large national shortfall. Baked in starts to drive completion in the next couple of years with starts this low. Completions will drop sharply later this decade, blowing a hole in government targets and the housing crisis will only get worse.

What is needed is a massive post-war style building programme of social housing and a regulatory and financial environment which allows this to happen. Housing has to be built and viable, eventually relaxing the planning application process as proposed in London will not suffice. Delivery, not targets and endless consultations are required. His Majesty's Government needs to wake up to the scale of this crisis and adopt immediate, radical measures to deal with it. At the moment, it is in denial over the scale of the housing crisis and adopting piecemeal policies to deal with it.

Another case in point is the state of the existing rental market, in which long term rental properties are becoming increasingly rare and landlords turn to virtually unregulated, short let platforms like Airbnb, they are doing that because they are bound by few rules are more lucrative than long term. Lets can avoid costly measures like EPCs and are easy to avoid. Tax the short let platforms only really took off in the last decade. I don't think the Ministry for housing, Communities and Local Government understands the scale of the problem and the impact on the long term rental market.

There are over 100,000 Airbnb short style lets in London alone in the city of bath, which I know well with a population of about 100,000 people, there are up to 1700 Airbnb style short lets. That is bad for local hotel, hotels and B&Bs, let alone people looking for a long term rental home. Barcelona is phasing out all short term tourist flats by 2028, and there are strict restrictions or bans in Florence, New York, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Las Vegas, Penang and others.

A register is proposed by the government will merely record the problem and do nothing to ease it in one block in London, which I know well, it took two years and a thread of flat forfeiture to stop a landlord from renting through Airbnb, so causing excessive wear and tear, noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour, with visitors. Visitors arriving at all hours with their suitcases and sometimes staying just a day or two. I look forward to the government's new plans to enforce leases in the absence of forfeiture, to protect our residents in cities and resorts throughout the UK, His Majesty's Government should institute an immediate ban on these types of short lets and encourage landlords to return to affordable long term rentals.

Some of these landlord properties will undoubtedly be sold, although anecdotal evidence suggests many landlords are unable to sell in the current dire market conditions. Currently, the private sector accounts for 1.1 out of five households, but the private rental sector has shrunk by 250,000 in the last 12 months. Now, the Minister may continue to deny that, but Savills estimates another 800,000 to 1 million additional private rented homes will be required by 2031. Even if the PRS doesn't shrink by then, which I doubt given population affordability pressures, where are those extra homes to come from? Unlike Airbnb, the PRS is heavily regulated and taxed.

Buy to let mortgages have gone through the roof, and interest is no longer tax deductible. What is His Majesty's Government doing to expand the PRS? I suspect nothing. In conclusion, my Lords, we need to see radical action from this government to solve our housing crisis. No more delay, no more dither, delivery of a massive affordable and social housing programme. And yes, a more supportive role for PRS. My Lords, I welcome this pragmatic Bill as it seeks to protect social housing, stock and tenants.

It is shameful that due to low wages and profiteering, too many people
19:08
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
cannot afford decent housing. Some 330,410 households need 330,410 households need homelessness support, 134,760 households are living in temporary accommodation. An estimated 172,420 children are living in temporary accommodation. Social housing accommodation. Social housing matters because it enables local authorities and housing associations to address homelessness, provide secure accommodation for families, provide affordable housing to millions of people, provide provide competition for the private sector and reduce cost of living crisis. The depletion of social housing stock forces families to enter private rented sector, which is more expensive.

Some 4.4 million new social homes, or around 126 000 a year, were built in the 35 years following the end of the Second World War. By 1983, in the aftermath of the conservative policies, social house building declined to 44,240 a year, and by the end of the conservative rule in 2024, it was down to 10,000 a year. The right to buy for sitting council tenants did not start with the Conservative Party, though they like to take credit for it.

It has existed since the 19th century, the Housing Act 1936 and the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959 affirmed that commitment. The biggest change came in in the. In 1980, when the Thatcher government offered tenants massive discounts, which my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton might say were actually bribes. By March 2025, 2.8 million homes were sold to tenants across the UK at an average discount of 44% of market value. The discounted sales generated £62 billion, which local councils could not use to replenish the stock.

1.9 million council homes were sold by England's local authorities for £51 billion in 2024. The same houses were worth £430 billion. Commenting on this, Commonwealth, which is a think tank, said in 2024 it said 194 billion corresponds to the equity that was effectively given away for free through the discount. Only 236 billion corresponds to the equity that was compensated, that was compensated at market value at the time of sale, for which councils received only 51 billion in nominal terms, or 104 billion in terms of 2024 money.

So this was a massive giveaway by the Conservative Party. The housing stock has not been replenished in 44 years after the conservative Right to Buy councils built a total of 300,000 new homes, severely restricting their capacity to provide affordable accommodation to millions. The total number of housing, stock, social homes housing stock has declined from 6.8 million at its peak to 5.4 million, insufficient social house building, plus too many homes being sold or demolished means that there has been a net loss of social housing stock in almost every year since 1981 in some years, so social homes are being sold, more social homes are being sold than actually built.

Around 18,500 council homes were planned to be sold off in 2025 six, 2020 526. This is almost eight times more than the numbers built in 2020 425. The housing crisis has been deepened by legacy of the conservative policies. It has pushed more people into poverty and expensive private sector. Nearly 41% of council homes sold under the right to buy are now being let in in the private market, so that hasn't really actually increased the home ownership at all.

In 2025, England had a waiting list of 1.34 million households in 2020 425 alone, England's council spent £2,842,091 on temporary and emergency accommodation, which could have been avoided if there was adequate stock of social housing. This drain on public housing has more than doubled in five years. So, against the background of the conservative legacy, I welcome the constraints in the bill on the sale of social housing and profit making from it. I welcome the government's 2025 announcement to build 300,000 social and affordable homes over a ten year period, of which some one some 180,000, are for social rent.

In my opinion, that is not enough. Civil society organisations are calling for 150,000 new social homes a year. Can the Minister explain why the government is not being ambitious and how this such tiny target is going to address the social housing crisis? Can I also urge the Minister to amend the Bill to ensure that the number of social housing units sold in any two year period do not exceed the numbers actually built during the preceding two years? Otherwise, we will never be able to fully replenish the housing stock.

I look forward to hearing the minister's reply.
19:14
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill. But before I Social Housing Bill. But before I come to my main comments, I just want to address the what feels to me the demonisation of the right to buy. I come from a very, very poor community and I recognise the comments that my noble friend Baroness O'Neill made that our community purchased those houses to live in. They didn't purchase those houses to become stockbrokers. They purchased their houses to live in.

And if you move on to the comments made by my noble friend Baron Lord Jackson, they boosted great social outcomes. Not only did they boost the economy of those local economies, they boosted the confidence of those families. It was a launching of those families into better exam results for their children and better social outcomes. I wonder how many people who sit in either of these two houses could point to the fact that their grandparents or their parents bought their house, and that was the beginning of their journey to these benches.

I think we do this country a great disservice when we talk about those people as if they were profiteering. They bought their home to support their families. And I go to Baroness Sheehan Coffey's comments, what are we going to do with a huge amount of people when they become elderly, if they're all on in social housing, we already spend 37 billion, I believe is the figure I heard mentioned in this House about supporting people in their homes, which is great, but that number will grow significantly if we do not help people onto the housing ladder.

My main thrust of my speech today will be about young people and getting them on that ladder. So let me start by saying many of the things in this bill I think that I personally can support. I believe the government is genuine when it tries to say it's trying to protect social housing, something that I grew up in. I grew up in social housing, but I also had the misfortune of being homeless for a long time. I sofa surfed for many, many years, and anybody from my background would tell you, the older you get, the less cute you are, the less prepared people are to put you up.

Can you imagine coming home and finding me lying on your sofa? So you have to sit in your bedroom? That is what many young people are facing in this country today. So it's right to protect newly built social homes from being lost too quickly to the right to buy. It is right that we look again at how homes are sold under the right to buy scheme. Where possible, it is right to bring them back into the social housing sector, and it's absolutely right to protect the victims of domestic abuse so they are not forced to choose between remaining trapped in that situation or giving up their housing.

Those are sensible and humane provisions. But my concern today lies that the bill is too narrow in in in its in its outlook to address the scale of the housing crisis we face today. It protects parts of the existing system, but it does not yet answer the bigger question how do we build enough genuinely affordable homes for people who need them now, and for the generation to follow them? You only have to look at London and the staggering failure of the Mayor of London to produce in enough homes.

He was given a very generous settlement by the previous government and an equally generous settlement by this government, and he is utterly refused to do that. Housebuilding in London has collapsed, and young people at the forefront of bearing that. Changing the right to buy rules may slow the loss of social housing, but it will not by itself create the homes we need. The problem this country faces is, is not simply the loss of homes from social housing sector. It is the failure to deliver enough homes over decades.

But protecting the stock is not the same as expanding to the stock. That distinction matters. So my first challenge to the Minister is where are the hard delivery mechanisms in this bill? Where is the clear link between protection of the social housing stock and the building of new homes at scale? If this bill is to be credible, it must be accompanied by a serious long term plan for delivery, not simply warm words about renewal, but actual homes in actual places with infrastructure to make this actually happen.

So while I welcome the bill's protection for social housing, I ask the Minister, how will this legislation help young, a young person who needs social housing today and is not yet on the housing list? And how and how will that be delivered if the bill only protects those already inside the system, then it will fail. A generation outside the gates. The test of this bill should not be whether it. It preserves social housing stock only. The test should be whether it improves housing opportunities for those currently locked in the system and those locked out of the system all together.

The bill needs to have stronger accountability and clearer outcomes. The House of Lords library briefing notes that the government has not published an impact assessment for the Bill. This is a serious omission. We are being asked to support legislation that changes property rights, local authority powers, tenant expectations, provider behaviour and the long term economics of social housing. Yet we do not have a clear assessment of what the government thinks the impact of those changes could be. So how many additional homes does the government believe will remain in the social housing sector because of this bill? How many homes does it expect local authorities or providers to repurchase through the extended rights first right of refusal? How will the 35 year exemption for newly built social homes affect councils and housing associations? Investment decisions, and how will Ministers measure whether young people, care leavers, survivors of domestic abuse and homeless households are actually benefited from the results of this bill? These are not technical questions.

They go to the heart of whether the bill will work or not. Also urge the government to be careful about process without added capacity, for example, requiring notification before disposal may be sensible, but if councils and providers do not have the funding or the speed or the infrastructural capacity to act on those notifications, then the right to be notified risks becoming the right to watch those homes leave the sector anyway. My Lords, the crisis we face now in social housing is not just in social housing, it's in housing in general.

Many, particularly of the young people who have great housing need, will never get anywhere near a social tenancy. So this bill has to affect the whole of the housing crisis that we have now, not just social housing. I'm a massive fan of social housing. I am the product of social housing, but I've also lived through the nightmare of when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

social housing is inadequately resourced. Good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good. My Lords, it really is a privilege to be part of this debate. As somebody still pretty new here. The sheer range of expertise and The sheer range of expertise and experience is still really striking to me. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Octavia Housing Association. My Lords, we live in a country where people on a low income simply cannot afford a decent place to live, where 1.3 million people are on council waiting lists for social housing,
19:22
Baroness Neate Portrait Baroness Neate (Crossbench)
-
-
we're well over 350 000 people are homeless in temporary accommodation. Many millions are in poor quality homes that they cannot truly afford. homes that they cannot truly afford. As I saw many times while I was chief executive of shelter, the chief executive of shelter, the lack of a secure home breaks people's sense that their country people's sense that their country has any investment in their future. It breaks communities, damages trust and destroys people's sense of belonging. Can you imagine how this entirely justified sense of unfairness could be weaponised to exacerbate blame, scapegoating and division? My Lords, you don't have to imagine it.

That's exactly what's happening in many of our communities right now. As a country. We can't afford to let this continue. For decades and successive governments, we have failed to build the social homes that are the only solution to this emergency. Independent analysis commissioned by shelter, shows that if this failure continues for another decade, the cost to the economy and our public services will exceed £117 billion. This is why I very much welcome the current government's much increased investment in building social housing, and particularly the way it has rebalanced the priority of the so-called Affordable Homes programme towards the only genuinely affordable form of housing for people on low incomes, social homes.

Our communities desperately need even more and they need it soon. I urge the government to make bolder, faster and more ambitious changes in order to get councils building social homes at scale once more. To turn to this bill. The reforms it introduces Right to Buy are critical and much to be welcomed. What we also need to see is the replacement of homes already lost to Right to Buy, which has meant that over many years we've actually been losing more social homes than we've built.

The bill's measures to protect survivors of domestic abuse will transform the prospects of many abuse survivors and their children, and are very welcome in order to achieve its aims. The measures in the bill will require significant cooperation between social landlords, the criminal justice system and local specialist organisations that support survivors. Post-separation abuse makes up 40% of calls to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline, according to the charity refuge. This could even be exacerbated if perpetrators are forced from their home.

As I know well from my time at chief executive. As chief executive of Women's Aid, the measures in this bill are a major step forward, but they require significant local cooperation and resources to be implemented successfully. There is also a major challenge in terms of survivors ability to afford a tenancy on their own, particularly if the abuse has included financial exploitation and saddling the victim with debt, as is very common indeed. I would like to propose that the bill could be strengthened still further by ensuring that domestic abuse survivors are exempt from housing related debt rules, which are currently denying them access to social housing.

This measure, my Lords, if added to the bill, would be a huge step towards ensuring that domestic abuse is no longer a precursor to homelessness. As I've seen throughout my career, I would really welcome the opportunity to talk to the noble Lady, the Minister, about this. When I first joined shelter in 2017, I met a woman who had fled an abusive relationship, losing her job and social housing tenancy in the process to another city over 100 miles away.

She and her three children were living in one room in temporary accommodation, nowhere near friends or school. She was desperately isolated and fearful. Shelter helped her into new temporary accommodation that was somewhat better. The shocking thing is, however, that when I left shelter last year, nearly eight years later, she and her children were still there. They still had nowhere to call home. The measures in this bill, particularly with the additions I've suggested, will hopefully mean that a woman going through the same experience now would have a different story.

That is truly an achievement. But for that family themselves and hundreds of thousands like them now and in the future, only a new generation of social homes will make the difference they need and repair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people's sense that their community and country It's somewhere they can put down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's somewhere they can put down roots, feel secure and respected, and achieve their potential. This and achieve their potential. This is not about the dream of home ownership. This is about the reality of working hard, paying reality of working hard, paying your rent and getting security in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your rent and getting security in return. My Lords. For years I fought on the front lines of housing crisis. That is why I rise today in support of the
19:28
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
bill. It tackles one of the most pressing issues facing our country pressing issues facing our country the shortage of safe, secure and affordable housing. Housing should affordable housing. Housing should be more than a privilege available to a fortunate few. It should be a to a fortunate few. It should be a foundation upon which people can build stable, productive, and build stable, productive, and fulfilling lives. Good housing, build thriving societies by improving health outcomes, educational attainment, employment opportunities, and community cohesion.

The benefits extend beyond the housing sector itself. Investing in social housing is therefore simply not just a housing policy. It is an investment in the social and economic future of our nation. As Baroness Nye has very much emphasised, and I commend her for it, because for too long the social housing has outstripped supply. Families spend years on waiting lists. Councils face mounting costs for temporary accommodation. Young people struggle to find affordable place to live, and vulnerable individuals often lack the housing security they need to rebuild their lives.

This bill addresses these problems directly. At its core, the legislation recognises a simple truth. We cannot solve the housing crisis if we continue losing social homes faster than we can replace them. Social housing is a finite resource. Every home sold without adequate replacement means one fewer opportunity for a family in need. The critics lament the restrictions on right to buy. But if every social home sold is one less home available to a family on a waiting list, how exactly does their approach solve the housing crisis that this country is facing? Furthermore, why should the taxpayers fund construction of social housing if those homes are not guaranteed to remain available to future families who need them? That is why the bill's reforms to Right to buy are so important.

By extending the qualifying period before purchase and ending protecting new build social homes from immediate sale, the government is ensuring that public investment remains available to the communities it was intended to serve. When taxpayers fund the construction of affordable housing, it is only reasonable that those homes continue providing affordable accommodation for future generations, rather than disappearing from the social housing stock within a few years. So I asked the opponents of the proposals, do they accept that the current housing shortage requires us to protect existing social housing stock? And if not, what are the alternative solutions? What do they offer? Because these measures are not about preventing aspiration, they're about balancing individual opportunity with the wider public good.

Home ownership remains an important goal, but so too is ensuring that thousands of families have access to affordable housing in the first place. I welcome that this bill also creates the stability needed for local authorities and housing associations to plan for the future, when housing providers know that newly built homes will remain within social housing sector, they can invest with greater confidence, develop long term strategy and borrow to build the additional homes our communities desperately need.

I like someone to explain to me how preserving newly built social housing for future generations is less beneficial than allowing it to leave the social housing sector. Shortly after construction. But beyond individual measures, this bill represents something larger a commitment to fairness, a fair society in which people have access to stable housing. It is one in which children can grow up in secure homes, where families can put down roots in their communities, and where older residents can live with dignity and a peace of mind.

My Lords, what is fairer? Preserve affordable homes for thousands of families over decades, or prioritising the sale of those homes to a smaller number of individuals? If social homes continue to be sold faster than they are replaced. How do the naysayers propose to reduce the waiting list for thousands of families currently in need of affordable housing? Importantly, this legislation also strengthens protections for some of the most vulnerable members of society. Victims of domestic abuse should never have to choose between their safety and their housing security.

By improving protections for tenants facing these circumstances, the bill provides practical support to those who need it most and helps ensuring that housing serves as a source of safety rather than uncertainty. This bill, I believe, offers practical and sustainable way forward. It protects existing social housing, supports the delivery of new homes, strengthens tenant protections and ensures that the public investment produces long term benefits. My Lords, the question before us is not whether we can afford to protect and expand social housing.

The real question is whether we can afford not to. I believe this bill provides a step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.
19:35
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. The degree. quite entertaining this afternoon, and I was terribly tempted to wade in, especially when my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord young, talked about where the money went. But I'm going to resist that temptation. Presently, I believe, or at least I might just cheat if I got enough space at the end to be just the odd little bit of dagger between the ribs. I personally believe this bill is very welcome. It helps put a knife through the heart of a highly damaging Thatcherite right to buy policy that persisted from the 1980s onwards, and that has seen the total number of social homes in the UK decline from 6.8 million in 1981 to 5.2 million in 2025.

I think particularly important in the measures are the measures in the bill that disapply the right to buy and protected landscapes, and in wider rural areas, that's absolutely vital. Government has also promised a decade of renewable social housing, so I hope that we can see additional action to support local authorities and housing associations to build more social homes, as well as taking the measures that are in this bill. But I want to take a different tack and ask the Minister some important questions, not about how many social homes are to be restored or created, but about the quality of these homes.

Firstly, I believe it's the government's position that the social housing sector needs to have a minimum energy efficiency standard set, and that this should be at EPC level C or equivalent. I hope the Minister can confirm that that's the government's position, but could she also say how this is going to be implemented? And if it's going to be something that the government has existing powers to do, or if it's going to need further legislation, if it's the latter and further legislation is required.

This bill would seem to me to provide an opportunity to legislate, though the social housing sector is not the worst sector in terms of energy efficiency, the private rented sector is notably worse. May I say it's even more important that social homes are efficiently warm and reduced bills to those least well-off residents. The second issue of quality is alongside the commitment to more social homes. Can the Minister say what steps are planned to enable those homes to have their energy provided by smaller scale renewable energy energy generators, particularly community run ones? At the moment, there are crippling financial and bureaucratic obstacles to community energy generators being able to sell their energy direct to local homes, funding issues, planning permissions, grid access, market access all these make it impossible for community energy companies to sell to local homes direct.

Yet such local provision would provide cheaper energy bills as well as a healthier environment and energy that would be independent of the Straits of Hormuz. Local community energy projects were supported in DESNZ Local Power Plan, which was published just in February. There was a promise of £1 billion of funding, hands on support and regulatory reform so that community energy could grow at pace and scale. Will the Minister undertake to speak to her DESNZ colleagues to ensure that social housing residents can benefit as soon as possible from the cheaper energy that local community energy can provide? The third point I want to make is, as you might have guessed about trees and can I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission and past chair of the Woodland Trust? Can the Minister give the House some assurances about grasping further opportunities from this commitment to social housing and gaining further public benefits? In considering how the social homes will be built, houses built with timber reduce reliance on high carbon concrete and steel, they lock up the carbon for the duration of the houses life, which is in many cases, several generations.

In addition, wood is a natural insulator, reduces energy needs and lowers energy costs in Scotland. 92% of all houses are timber framed. In England, only 9% are timber framed. Can I ask the Minister what plans there are to use the push for social housing to make a reality of the proposals that are in the government's timber and construction roadmap, which was published last year? And will the Minister take account of the work of the Woodland Trust on tree equity? The Tree Equity project shows that rich areas have lots of trees and a nice environment, and poor areas have next to no trees and have a crap technical term environment.

The noble Lady, the Minister spoke very passionately from her direct experience about the benefits of social housing in Stevenage for giving a sense of security and a sense of belonging. Can the Minister give assurances that that those disadvantaged areas most in need of social housing are also get the concomitant tree planting that's required to improve their environment, to reduce heat effects, to improve air quality, to reduce flood risks and provide well documented health and mental health benefits for those who are most at need.

They need the social housing, but they also need the tree equity. I have got some time, so I might just make two last remarks about the political debate. I was brought up in Scotland quite a long time ago. At that stage there were 55% of all housing was social housing, and it wasn't regarded as a sort of last resort for poor and disadvantaged communities. It was regarded as the bedrock of housing provision for people on low wages who were going to continue to be on low wages, and there was the degree of security and stability that that housing provided was immense, immense.

And I don't think we should forget about that. And for me, it fits very closely with the future role of local authorities. Returning to the days of being substantial housing providers for a group of people who are not ever going to be in a position to see an uplift in their housing ability because of their persistent low wages. I also have a piece of history to talk about. I, I ran health Service, the health service for Westminster, when Dame Shirley Porter was leader of Westminster City Council, conservative leader of the Westminster City Council.

I keep forgetting that I'm supposed to be unaffiliated at the moment. The right to buy was very, very, very much pressurised in in Westminster City Council and I, I said to Shirley at one point, Shirley, why are you doing this? And she said, because I want to get good conservative voters into the borough. And before the whip stops me, I shall just say that I bought, 30 years later a right to buy house in Westminster. And I wrote to Shirley in Israel and say, Shirley, the policies failed.
19:42
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, it's a pleasure to follow Baroness Sugg and I endorse the comments that she's made. Decent, affordable and secure housing is a basic human right. To housing is a basic human right. To start with, I want to give to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister, for the way that she introduced this bill and particularly sharing her personal experience and for the briefing that's been offered to noble Lords in advance of today's Second Reading at the start as well, I declare my own housing interests as set out in the register on these benches.

We broadly welcome this legislation, but we will scrutinise it carefully. After decades of ever decreasing social housing stock under Right to Buy a scheme which, regardless of its original intentions, has depleted one of our most precious public assets. We welcome that this government is moving rather decisively to stem that flow, extending the minimum eligibility period for from three years to ten, reducing maximum discounts and exempting newly built social homes from sale for 35 years after construction.

Our substantive reforms, the Chartered Institute of Housing, is right to call them a positive step. And Kate Henderson, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, spoke for many when she said that with 4.2 million people in need of social housing in England, these measures should make right to buy a far more sustainable scheme. I add my voice to that welcome, as I do to the extension in perpetuity of the right of first refusal. But, my Lords, what concerns me is not so much what is in this Bill as is what is conspicuously absent.

Last week the UK broke the record for the hottest ever day in May, and a week long heat wave caused the UK Health Security Agency to issue amber heat alerts. Heat. My Lords, is a slow motion and inescapable killer that preys most on those who are financially poor or in ill health. The Guardian reported that in 2024, the summer heat in the EU claimed roughly three times more lives than car crashes, 16 times more than murders and more than 10,000 times more than terrorists.

The Climate Change Committee has just published a well adapted UK, the fourth assessment of the UK climate risk. Its findings for social housing tenants are alarming. We already know that not one of our adaption pathways is adequate. Our climate is changing faster than our policies. The committee warned that by 2050, 92% of existing homes are likely to overheat 92%. My Lords, the central assessment of the most rigorous independent scientific analysis available to Parliament during the summer of 2022, UK has estimated that 2803 excess deaths among people aged over 65 and over in England, the climate for which our housing stock was designed no longer exists.

Labour planned to build 1.5 million new homes, many of them social or affordable. They must be climate ready to be fit for purpose. Social housing tenants are disproportionately elderly, disabled and or suffer from chronic illness. They are more likely to live in flats which overheat faster than homes. They live predominantly in urban areas where temperatures are higher. They cannot in Maine afford the cost of air conditioning. We are debating the homes of the people most at risk of dying from extreme heat.

The government will point to part O of the building regulations, which already requires new homes to be designed to mitigate overheating risk, and to the technical review, I acknowledge this, but part O is a building regulation. It sets a designed floor, not a statutory duty, tied to social to a social housing programme. It is not specific to social housing. It carries no enhanced standard for vulnerability, and it lacks the weight of primary legislation. I do not dismiss what this government is doing elsewhere either.

The warm home plan is genuinely ambitious. £15 billion programme and the Energy Independence Bill, announced in the King's Speech is likewise welcome, but neither is sufficient. The warm home plan acknowledges the overheating problem and commits to incorporate passive cooling measures. But they are an aspiration, not a duty, and it applies primarily to retrofit. I see no evidence that the Energy Independence Bill will enact the required powers. The Minister will argue that this bill is deliberately narrow in scope, but a simple provision here would not expand the bill unduly, and his absence would be a missed opportunity.

The Climate Change Committee's well adapted UK report recommends approximately £11 billion of annual adaptation investment, with around two thirds directly to the built environment. This is a recommendation of the Statutory Adviser to Parliament. What I want to see is this government being prepared to translate that advice into a binding duty, where it matters the most. What I intend to pursue in committee is a statutory obligation requiring that all new social housing, whether built by local authorities or registered providers, be designed and constructed to reduce the risk of overheating, building overheating prevention is at the.

At the design stage cost a fraction of retrofitting. Every home built today without these standards is a home that will need costly remediation. My Lords, this bill will be judged not only by what it contains, but by what it chooses not to. Without additional adaption, heat related deaths in the UK could increase sixfold from around 1600 a year today to 10,000 a year by the 2050s. We have a social housing bill, a major house building programme and the most authoritative climate risk assessment this country has ever produced.

Published just days ago. The question Parliament must answer is this knowing all of that, are we going to build the same dangerous homes over again? I say we must not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here, here. My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a retired member of my interest as a retired member of a farming family who still rent out some domestic property. Now, my some domestic property. Now, my Lords, I can't say how much I welcome this bill. For over 40 years now, I've been struggling years now, I've been struggling against the almost total lack of affordable housing in rural areas affordable housing in rural areas and trying to limit the damage done to our rural communities by the right to buy.

It has been obvious to me for some time that however much we allow for the building of new homes in the countryside, we
19:49
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
will never get to the point where less well-off families, rural families, will be able to buy their own homes. And why should they have own homes. And why should they have to buy? Why can't they rent? And the answer to that at the moment is the answer to that at the moment is because there are hardly any houses to rent in rural areas. There are to rent in rural areas. There are some housing association rentals, but very few private landlords, usually farmers with spare cottages usually farmers with spare cottages and.

But as rural house prices soar ever higher than their urban equivalents, research shows that a village house can be over 40% higher than a similar urban dwelling. The sale of these rented houses, rural rented houses becomes ever more likely and also puts them ever more out of reach of local working families. So, as I've said many times in this House, the answer lies in the provision by local authorities of affordable housing to rent council houses really worked, my Lords, and I would like to stress the very real need for more rural council houses.

Currently, 17% of the population live in rural areas, but they receive just 7% of any new affordable homes. Rural council houses were among the first to go under the right to buy in the 1980s. And who wouldn't want to live in the countryside, my Lords? And there are hardly any left now. There are currently 306,000 families on rural housing waiting lists, and DEFRA research indicates that council house waiting lists in mainly rural areas increased by 32% in the four years to 2023, while in the same period there was no increase in predominantly urban areas, and the effect of this has been disastrous for rural England, leading to rapidly ageing communities.

A loss of local services, a breakdown of social networks and a complete absence of the necessary vigour that young families give to any community. Lack of housing is also undermined, the rural economy making it harder for businesses to find a good workforce and of course, ultimately making it harder for any remaining workforce to find businesses. The rural housing crisis, my Lords and I emphasise that word is now of epidemic proportions, and this bill could be like the arrival of a long awaited first ambulance at a rural motorway pile up.

Note the first ambulance, my Lord, there is lot more to be done, but briefly running through some of the clauses of the Bill, extending the qualified period from 3 to 10 years. Good. I'd have gone for 12, but ten is good. Reducing the discounts available. Good. Also extending the period from 5 to 10 years when that discount given to a purchaser can be reclaimed from a subsequent sale. Also good. Clause six I approve the right of first refusal up to 20 years.

Whilst we need more of all types of housing everywhere, it seems right to allow for social landlords to be able to retain what was social housing within the sector. Rural England attracts rich retirees buying into the market whenever and wherever they can, so such a right of first refusal will be very useful. Clause seven exempting all our national landscapes from the right to buy good. And I would hope that the reference to exempting areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State means that it applies to any community with a population of under 3000, as in the 1996 act.

I'd be grateful if the noble Lady. The Minister could confirm that I'm happy if she wants to write. Also in clause seven. I was surprised by the exemption for new housing being as high as 35 years. That would seem to be a bit long if you were at all interested in any form of social mobility. But then I understood when I got to clause nine, because if there is any doubt that the local housing authority is not going to be in receipt of the sale proceeds from the right to buy in the future, it will need to have a long time to get some return on its new housing investment.

This clause nine, to me is the weak point of the bill. I detect the obfuscatory hand of the Treasury all over it. My Lord, there was is nothing wrong with the right to buy. It is just that there was no long term thinking about the way it was introduced. And by far the biggest problem with the old right to buy was that all the sale receipts went to the Treasury, and the local housing authority never saw the money and therefore could never reinvest.

They couldn't waste council tax money by building council houses, only to have them bought out at below cost at a discount a few years later. And clause nine is a golden opportunity to definitively put this right. I have to say, I'm not convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Young's antihypoxic hypothecation arguments. There is no right to buy in hospitals or nuclear power stations. To use his examples. We're not going to lose those assets from use by society as a whole.

But we have lost all our council houses by society as a whole, and if we are going to replace that loss, we need to change the way we do things. We do have a housing crisis, my Lords. Now I'm assured that all receipts from the right to buy will in future be going to the local housing authority. But why not just say so? Clause nine is so hedged about with ifs and what ifs and what nots, that it would appear that the Treasury is keeping open the right in future to once again steal money from the local authority housing budgets, as it has done for the past few decades? I know that's rather simplistically put, but if we are trying to serve a lot, solve a long term housing problem, please let us think long term.

So we must state firmly on the face of the bill that all receipts from the right to buy belong to the local housing authority or the housing provider, and they should be ring fenced for future local housing investment. So to sum up, my Lords, I really approve of this bill, but only if it leads to widespread investment in rural council houses in the future. And I am forever hopeful, my Lords.
19:56
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I have previous experience in the delivery of social housing. During the 20 tens, when I was During the 20 tens, when I was leader of South Norfolk Council, we consistently delivered 1% of the entire national affordable housing in England. Each and every year, my council built more homes to rent council built more homes to rent than the rest of Norfolk put together. Every home lost to the right to buy was replaced, and then some. After nearly 20 years as the council leader, the number of affordable houses in South Norfolk went up from 4188 to over 7000.

I say to the noble Lady Baroness Gill, the amount of social housing isn't a finite resource. It can be built. And we had an ambitious plan that could be delivered through the development proceeds from a position of negotiating strength, and of course, the Planning and Infrastructure bill and community empowerment bills have weakened that power. When I was leader of the council, I held all the cards. Now those cards are held by developers on undeliverable housing targets under the five year land supply.

So the government has made its task harder. And the irony is that this bill has never been more needed, not since the private rented sector has been decimated by the Rents Renters Rights Act, which is turbo charged rents to to new highs. Who knew? That said, I do welcome the measures for the 35 year lockout for new homes on right to buy, and the probability that brand new homes could be acquired under Right to Buy has chilled new investment and has spawned no end of avoidance structures from within local authorities.

And that's diverting. So it's a shame in some respects that the right to buy will be diluted. It should be stated clearly and loudly that the ability to buy your own home has been one of the most empowering success stories of the last 40 years, done right as I did when as leader of the council, a social home that is bought houses, two families, the the family that bought the house and another one in the new house that replaces it. Now I have my concerns that the bill will prevent.

And it plays to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one, even if. Even if they are in the same housing market area. Now, when my neighbour Norwich City Council, couldn't build houses or spend the receipts, they lent the money to us and we built some affordable houses within a mile of the city boundary. Now, my reading of the bill is that this desirable behaviour will be banned. And that's crazy.

Which leads me to the subject of locality. Now, I understand this is a limited scope bill, but protecting the stock can't just be a national numbers game. Housing is more local than that and that's not what is envisaged. As I read the bill, there are general freedoms for social providers to recycle funds not within a specific area, but across their entire estate. Now, as part of my ward work last month, I was surprised that a home in Brook in my ward where I live, was under the management of Victory housing was actually managed from Gloucester.

So the freedom to move receipts within the RSL from Norfolk to Gloucester without challenge doesn't help local people at all. And unless we protect the stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it's cheaper, not where it's needed. So this is different. The rsls to the councils now. I was grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for the drop in before the recess, where she explained it's very difficult to define territories, but for one ex-council leader to another.

I say she must know that's incorrect. We both developed local plans based on housing market areas. They're defined. They exist. It's just not the case that area management is not part of this bill. The principle of locality is established. There are welcome carve outs for national parks. I just wish they'd go further on National Landscapes Committee. I will seek to probe how receipts can be recycled locally by default before being snaffled by the centre. Now, none of this would be necessary had social housing providers not become so large in scale, has not been good for the tenants.

It's led to a lack of local accountability. National rsls populating their boards with the great and the good, acting as poundshop developers on the government dime, it seemed tenant reps excised from the landscape, and the consequence is that the focus on local matters, like anti-social behaviour, has been dropped. As I know from my own ward casework, this bill could have been stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate there are government that's on the side of the law abiding resident. But it isn't.

And candidly, there's been far too great a focus on development that's led to a loss of the social purpose by these rsls of providing social homes. Our cells can't even sell houses. They developed initially for the private market to be to be used for social use. And that's wrong. And instead, one of the effects of the liberalisation of certain financial powers in this bill may be to drive financial engineering to new heights, because the truth is that as Rsls have become over leveraged, they've been caught out by the increase in build costs, by finance and land costs.

And now, quite simply, there's no space for the social purpose for these organisations. And that's an omission this bill should correct, but doesn't. I'm disappointed that the Bill purports to protect the supply of new homes, but fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. Now, I spent about £3 million a year adapting homes for an ageing population. In some cases, it might have been a grab rail or a rank a ramp in. In one case, a 7500 £0 extension was required.

Now when, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised. No credit can be given for those adaptations, so the new tenant can ask for them to be removed. And they do. It's crazy. It's a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes. It's bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who has to pay twice, once to put the adaptation in and again to take it out again. So where are the provisions in this bill to protect the supply of adapted homes for the ageing population? I've heard it said that this is an allocations issue and we're not going there.

And I say, well, why not? Because as I warm to my allocations theme, where are the protections of veterans? Where's the assertion that those with local needs should be prioritised? Where's the preference for the indigenous population where protections for the local needs affordable housing in our villages, small developments in places like Berghaupten, where local people actually campaigned for, not against, and where are the stronger fiscal incentives for people to downsize from the family home as they age? Look, this bill is deficient, that it doesn't even look at the totality of the supply and certainly fails on the demand side, partial supply without looking at the demand is no solution at all.

So, my Lords, this bill is incomplete. It only looks at the home, but not really the people who live in it. It does half the job. And at committee we will attempt to make it whole.
20:03
Lord Sahota Portrait Lord Sahota (Labour)
-
-
Lord. I'm another former council leader. When I was a leader of the leader. When I was a leader of the Wrekin Council that's in a county of Shropshire, we took a bold and of Shropshire, we took a bold and innovative decision to address the growing shortage of good quality, affordable homes for local people, rather than simply discussing the housing crisis, we decided to act. We established a wholly owned housing company called New Place, with a clear and practical purpose to build high quality homes for rent on council owned brownfield sites to regenerate neglected land, to provide homes for local families and at the same time, to generate income that would support vital local services.

At the time, some questioned whether council should be involved directly in housing delivery in this way. However, I'm proud to say that the result has been more than more than justified. Our decision so far. So far around thousands have been built or are in the process of being completed in the near future. Through this scheme. Tenant demands, demand has remained constantly high, which demonstrate the real need for well-managed, affordable rental homes. Approximately 25 acres of previously underused derelict land has been regenerated, transforming eyesores into thriving communities.

Our policy focussed on delivering high standard, energy efficient property that local people were proud to live in. Tenant satisfaction rate, I am told, remain at around 96%, which is a remarkable achievement by any standard. The financial benefit also also have been substantial. The scheme has generated. This is for our council in Telford and Wrekin. Some years ago, when I was a leader of the Council. The scheme has also has generated more than £8 million in net income for the council, alongside over 3 million through council tax receipts and new homes.

Bonus fund, new homes, bonus funding. At a time when councils across the country were facing several financial pressures, our innovative housing policy met both social needs and strengthening our council finances. Although I am no longer with Telford and Wrekin Council anymore, I'm told that the scheme continues to perform strongly with high demand. Does my noble friend the Minister, agrees with me that the council across the country should seriously examine. Model such as that of Telford and Wrekin Council.

It is not a complete solution, my Lords. It is not a complete solution to the national housing shortage, but it is certainly a part of the answer. This approach delivered multiple public benefits simultaneously. It increases housing supply, regenerates brownfield land, improves local environment, creates construction jobs and apprenticeships, support local economy economic growth, provide secure homes for working families, and generate long term revenue stream for local authorities. It also demonstrates something very important that local authorities, when given the freedom, when given the freedom and confidence to innovate, can become active partner in solving national problem rather than just waiting for a dictate from central government.

At a time when housing pressure continue to affect so many families, particularly young people and key workers, we should encourage practical, locally driven solution that combines social purpose with financial sustainability. I hope the government will continue to support councils that are prepared to take this kind of ambitious and entrepreneurial approach to the meeting, to the to all this and support the local council and the local housing policies. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To follow Lord Sahota. And to hear his own contribution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And to hear his own contribution to the housing problems in his area. I'd like to endorse our own I'd like to endorse our own frontbench and particularly. And the opening speech we heard on some the opening speech we heard on some of the problems with this bill and
20:09
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
in passing, take up the noble Baroness reference to veterans and the importance of helping veterans. Some time ago at King's Cross Station, I was sitting on a bench waiting for my train, and a man came up and sat beside me and we got chatting. He was a veteran. He had served in the Royal Marines for over 11 years, including in Afghanistan, and had been shot in the back. He lived in social housing with his daughter and shortly afterwards, before we spoke, his daughter had been killed in a taxi accident.

The driver was found guilty of reckless driving and and sent to prison. But the man lost not only his daughter but his home and had no never knew where he was going to spend the night. Which station, but I haven't seen him since then. Kings cross and I felt that this is a very important priority should. Which should be given the same priority and protection of law as other categories that the. This bill addresses. But on the bill itself, one of the central premises of the bill is that there should be more state housing and more.

And the more social housing there is, the better. This is to be promoted by restricting the right to buy and putting more obstacles in the way of tenants trying to buy their own homes. These obstacles include exercising, obstructing the right to buy, and include increasing the number of years, as we've heard, from 3 to 10, making it expensive, as we've also heard, for tenants to buy by amending the percentage discounts. So cutting the tenant's stake in the the value of the tenant's stake in the homes they may have lived in over decades, perhaps reducing the stock of right to buy homes as a proportion of overall council housing.

For instance, no newly built homes will be available to buy for the first 35 years, so you may. If you are a tenant there in your working life, never be able to aspire to buy that home. If you settle in that house in that area, and by injecting delay and uncertainty for applicants, by increasing the time landlords can take to respond to applicants and both on eligibility from 4 to 8 weeks or 8 to 12, depending on the sort of tenancy they have and on the price.

Giving information on the price and details from 8 to 12 weeks for freehold or 12 to 16 for leasehold. In the light of these changes, can the Minister please let us know whether the government considers the increase in right to buy sales that we have seen? Will, will continue or decline as a result of this measure and what the estimated figures are over the first five years after the bill becomes law, the bill will have further damaging costs effects first, in terms of cost, it will increase the stock of housing owned, managed and run by local councils and those or those registered by them, thus augmenting the power of the state over men and women and their families, and augmenting the costs for taxpayers.

This year, the DWP estimates that the rising that the housing Bill will be almost £39 billion, a rise of 913 million on last year, the highest in today's prices since 1970. Measured on similar data. That is, by contrast, the taxpayer receives a significant. As things stand, return from social housing sales receipts and. We've heard from Lord Young of Cookham that what is done with these housing receipts, which can alleviate the tax burden on other.

On taxpayers who might have to meet other needs. Or perhaps they might even help to lower taxes in the financial year ending March 2025 alone, local authorities received 798 million from a reported 7494 eligible sales, an increase of 7% compared to 2020 324. So I'd like to ask the Minister, on a per annum basis, for the first five years of the operation of this Bill, in respect of the decline in sales and the maintenance and overhead, which must now be borne by council and taxpayer.

What is the estimated additional cost? Second, the Bill will undermine, and I think this is a very serious problem. The incentive, and we've heard about it today from noble Lords working. It will undermine incentive of working people to be independent, support themselves and their family, not only preventing dependency on benefit during working life, but well into old age and retirement. As we have heard already in 2026 across England, Wales and Scotland. Almost 6 million people, a record 5.95 million people will receive housing support from the taxpayer this year.

This is 1.2 million more than in 2019 to 20 in Cambridge, where I live, around 65% of tenants receive some form of benefit, with 55% on maximum housing benefit or Universal Credit. And third, and it will undermine overall economic growth and increase overall, the ever growing burden of taxation. This, my Lords, is an attack on property rights. By taxing the earnings of working men and women to subsidise the unproductive public sector and a benefits culture.

I don't, therefore share the government's enthusiasm for increasing the size and power of the state over people's lives, turning individual men and women into supplicants dependence on the state, potentially for the rest of their lives without the incentive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry my Lord, I'm. Ready to draw her remarks to a close.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or earn enough to pay a market rent and take responsibilities for themselves and their families. themselves and their families. State housing subsidised by the taxpayer, owned and managed by the state is not a home, is home is not state is not a home, is home is not home ownership. It is state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dependency. So it's either the market or the state. That seems to be the argument. In 2017, I, I went to a
20:17
Lord Bird Portrait Lord Bird (Crossbench)
-
-
city that was having problems with a whole bevy of people. And what we a whole bevy of people. And what we did was we tried to re-orientate the way that local charities work the way that local charities work together. And one of the things together. And one of the things that really interested me was getting charities, working with businesses, because I'm very businesses, because I'm very interested in the idea that you get businesses to trade with charities, so that money doesn't really pass hands because the businesses have to spend and the charities have the need.

What we did was we identified a housing association who wanted to expand its work. It had gardening facilities, it had painting and decorating and repairing and all that. And they wanted to expand that. But it was very limited in this very small town. I went to talk to estate agents, the most evil people on God's earth, according to some people. And I went to talk to them and I said, look, you know, what you're doing is you're buying services because you've got 150 or 250 buy to rents.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you bought the services from a housing association and you would, you know, pay the same rate and all that, and you would help the housing association to address a problem that nobody talks about? I haven't heard anybody. Excuse me. Sorry. I, I put too much glue in my teeth. So. I'm getting them redone in Turkey soon so I won't have the problem. Anyway. So so address a problem which I don't, I haven't heard anybody mention.

Why is it that if you live in social housing and you're the child of social housing? I talked to Lord Best about this when I first came into the house. Why is it that you have about two about 2% chance as a child of finishing your levels or whatever you to do to leave school and getting into university or getting into a highly skilled job. The problem we were trying to address in this little city was that 70% of the people who were living in social housing were unemployed.

We have to face that. I don't see any provision in this bill for creating the opportunity. I believe in social mobility, like Lord Bailey. What I don't like about what Lord Bailey says, I mean, well, he's a conservative. I can't agree with him. Forgive me trespasses, even though we come from the same neck of the woods up there in Notting Hill and all that. But why is it that the only way you can get social mobility is through housing purchase by your family? And I know this is true.

I know hundreds of people who've done this, but why is it that social housing has changed so much from the days when Baroness, our noble Minister, was moving to Stevenage? Why is it that actually social housing now is nothing like what it was when, having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill and then stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years, and then moved to Fulham and having a a block of flats and a toilet that we shared with no one.

Whereas when we were living in the slums, we had to queue up. If we wanted to do our business, we might have to wait two days for certain services that you'd want in a toilet. But we had our own beautiful piece of social housing, and in the block of flats were police officers, training police officers, trainee teachers, drivers, all sorts of people, disabled people, people who were old. It was sociable, it was socially mixed. Unfortunately, what's happened to social housing is that it is under threat.

And the reason it's under threat is because the bar has been raised by local authorities. And now, largely, it only takes the most desperate. Whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of working class, upper working class, even lower middle class. And until we address the issues, around 70% of people living in social housing, not having a job stuck and their children stuck until we address that issue. Then arguments around social housing will go on.

But we need to address the poverty that is thrown up and is not addressed at this moment, and certainly not addressed in this bill. Now, I am a great believer in social mobility. I'm a perfect example of it. I'm as posh as anything now. I wasn't I didn't start partially, but I would love to see a situation where social housing was addressed as a place of great opportunity, of great security and of great comfort, so that it does become what virtually everybody here today has described as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beginning of a new future. Unfortunately, for too many people, it is not a beginning of a new it is not a beginning of a new future. It is a place where you and future. It is a place where you and your family are apart for maybe the next 100 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's quite overwhelming to speak after such an expert on housing and homelessness as Lord Bird. Thank you, my noble as Lord Bird. Thank you, my noble Lord, for his speech. I welcome this bill, and I thank my noble
20:24
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton Portrait Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)
-
-
friend, the Minister for her work on it. I have just finished eight years as a councillor in the London borough of Islington, and I really welcome these moves to retain social housing and encourage the building of it, because a lot of the casework in my time over eight years as a local authority councillor was trying to help councillor was trying to help people on housing waiting list of 16,000. Even with our boroughs 16,000. Even with our boroughs country leading buyback scheme, where we had a grant from the Mayor of London to buy back right to buy properties and bring them back under council ownership, we still struggled to get those waiting list numbers down, so I am delighted that this Labour government has included right to buy reform in this bill.

As part of that suite of policies that is there to tackle the housing crisis, before I move to my substantive points about the bill, I wanted to say this. When I entered your Lordships House, I understood that this was a place prized as a place of evidence based scrutiny, robust evidence and expertise. So I have to take note and challenge when I hear casual tropes being deployed. I lived on the Bemerton Estate, a council housing estate, for over 13 years, and in that time I had the honour of getting to know my neighbours, who became my friends, some of whom were incredible Somali women.

And time constrains me from telling you in detail about Mana, Hannah, Safiya and others. That is for another day. But suffice to say that Mana is referred to by many as the godmother of the estate or by others as the Queen of the Bemerton because of her service to generations of residents and her key role in interfaith initiatives. She is a brilliant woman who instinctively builds community. So I do implore noble Lords on all sides of this House to urge on the side of thoroughness and evidence when speaking in this place, to return to my substantive points about this bill.

I am proud of this Labour government and the work of many, both here and in the other place, that has created a plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Working in prisons repeatedly brought me face to face with women who suffered the most appalling violence and survived it mostly at the hands of men. 68% of women in prison have suffered domestic abuse, and certainly almost all of the women I worked with in my decade of working in and after prison disclosed sexual or domestic abuse as part of their life stories.

And this has made me a passionate advocate for the survivors of that abuse. And this government's ambitious strategy is rightly across governmental strategy. It can't just sit in the Home Office, and it is entirely appropriate that this narrowly drawn bill does include provisions to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse and their access to housing. It is linked in council. Our primary reason for people becoming homelessness was parental alienation. The second most common reason was domestic abuse. As such, there are parts of the country that have been tackling this in innovative ways for many years, and taking a whole housing approach for survivors of domestic abuse.

Both Cheshire East and Islington Council have been platinum accredited by the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance for their work in this field. So this is a plea in seeking to refine this bill to my noble friend, the Minister and the team to make sure that they have thoroughly reviewed the best practice that is already available, and make sure that this legislation complements and turbocharges the work that is already going on in many local authorities to achieve that whole housing approach and the accreditation from Daraa.

In brief and Islington Council put on extensive staff training. So even if it was somebody coming to repair a light, there might be an opportunity to speak to somebody that needed help regarding a domestic abuse scenario. So they made sure that any contact they had with the council might be a pathway to a safer life for that person. They also had a collaborative daily safeguarding meeting. They advocated for strong and inclusive partnership working with the voluntary sector, and they pursued really robust relocation policies.

So they developed a high risk move policy so they could quickly rehouse individuals who were fleeing violence. In addition to providing flexible funding to assist those transitions. So the bill does many, many things well. But I did want to add to my noble friend the Minister, when considering reviewing the grounds required for moving somebody from a joint to a single tenancy, that if we wait for people to breach an order, rather than just have an order, something like a non-molestation order, for example.

And when you have those orders, you already have to have proved that domestic abuse has taken place. So perhaps having an order may be enough, rather than putting a survivor victim at further risk by demanding that they breach that order before being able to transfer their tenancy. This is just to ensure that everybody that might need this kind of help to move to a single tenancy or to move is able to do so without putting themselves at further risk. As I said, this is a welcome and very long overdue and overdue sorry suite of measures to address many of the problems with our social housing stock, and particularly these measures around domestic abuse, are very welcome.

These stronger legal mechanisms that remove perpetrators from social housing tenancies and will enable more survivors to stay in their home if it is safe to do so, or move to different accommodation as the sole tenant. So I do commend this bill to the House and the brilliant measures therein that I think actually enable autonomy and interdependence. They enable the dignity of the individual through the dignity of social housing, including for all of those, whatever their country of birth, who are fleeing from domestic abuse.

My Lords.
20:30
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister particularly for her very clear and particularly for her very clear and very personal introduction to this bill, and I feel I'll be the first bill, and I feel I'll be the first person to stand up and say I wasn't brought up in a council house, but brought up in a council house, but I looked with envy upon those who were. When we were evicted from our home in Wales. We came up north to my father's family in Preston, where we lived in a house.

The sink was on bricks in the kitchen. They still had what I call Bunsen burners on their side, gas lights, and there was no plumbed in bath, and the. There was the luxury of one toilet outside and just for us, and I made friends with people who lived on the Larches Estate there at my primary school. And that really was a real exemplar of brilliant council housing at at its peak. And I have to say that if my father.

If we'd have had one of those houses, my father would have right about. I. I'm absolutely convinced of that. My Lords, I'm grateful to follow all the contributions that everyone's made. And I did start off making notes of what people were saying, because the seven minutes has actually given us time to get some detail and some quality. So I'm not going to make a list of everybody, but I would like to just very quickly go through some thoughts outside the scope of the bill that I think are quite interesting.

I'm going to kick off by saying I was quite troubled, and I echoed what the noble Lady over there said. I was troubled by some of the comments that have been made in the House during the course of this bill, particularly comments around who were the true people, the true people who need social housing and, you know, talking about the most vulnerable people in society being state dependent. I just want to register that that has made me feel really uncomfortable.

However, I was greatly enlightened by Lord Rook and the Bishop of Manchester who brought together housing, injustice and poverty, and of course, most most poignantly by Lord bird, the connections between health and housing and poverty were very ably brought out by my noble friend Baroness Teather Baroness Murphy and Lord Babudu, and they are inextricably linked. And as people who are in this world, we absolutely know that Lord best and my noble friend Lord Stoneham and Baroness Shah brought out the importance of the regeneration of estates and neighbourhoods.

That is totally missing from the bill, and I hope the Minister will tell us where it is, because I think it's important when people open their front door that they feel they are living in a safe, clean and green neighbourhood and I think we would all want to inspire, aspire to that, and let's throw in rural issues. Lord Cameron and others, it keeps coming up, doesn't it? All the time. All the time. It's clearly an area that we're neglecting.

And of course, environmental issues. Baroness Sheehan and Earl Russell. I can see this Christmas tree is going to have lots of baubles hung on it, and the noble Lord is shaking his head. We'll have to see how we go. But there was certainly real quality there. OK, let's let's begin by saying, as several colleagues have said, there are elements here that we on these benches really welcome, particularly the provisions intended to strengthen protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse.

And Baroness Hydes last comments were really pertinent to that intention. And, of course, the steps to slow down the loss of much needed social housing stock. But my Lords, context is everything now. The Bill does sit within a wider and in many respects ambitious programme. The government's decade of renewal is backed by significant investment, the most for a long time, and a commitment to expand supply at scale alongside reforms to the private rented sector and to housing quality and standard.

So credit where it's due. Taken together, it suggests a government that is seeking to grapple seriously with the housing crisis that has occurred over decades and under governments of all stripes. The crisis that we've had expanded by many is profound. Over a million households waiting for social housing, more than 134,000 in temporary accommodation, and the eye watering cost of that to society and decades of undersupply, combined with the steady depletion of social housing stock. So I think we are very clear on these benches.

This is not a moment for incremental change. It's a moment that demands systemic delivery. And that's going to be a word that I use a lot. So when we turn to the bill itself, however, we encounter something a little bit more limited. Some might say tame, deliberately. So it would seem from the minister's introduction, because this at best is a fragment of a much larger cloth. The strategy, however, speaks of scale delivery, renewal over a decade, and the bill speaks largely frameworks, adjustments, protections.

These are relevant, but not sufficient to meet the challenge. And this was a theme that was echoed by many noble Lords, not least of all my friend Baroness Pinnock, the Bishop of Manchester, Lord Whitty Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, to name but a few. So I would say that, even judged on its own terms, the Bill could and should be stronger. Now we're not going to get a consensus on everything. Let's take Right to Buy. I was particularly struck by Lord John of Southwark explanation about Right to Buy.

I think that really nailed it. The times they have changed. And who was it who famously said, when the facts change, I change my mind? I think that's absolutely what's happened with policy. And that's what you were saying about how council housing has really changed from what it was to what it is. So therefore, we have to change our policies. The reforms here are really sensible. They recognise the long term damage done and the lack of social loss of social housing stock, millions of homes sold and not replaced.

And actually look at last year's figures, 10,000 homes for social rent, give or take a few built, but a net loss of 4000 after sales and demolition against a recognised need of 90,000 a year. So the core problem remains unresolved, which the Bill is genuinely trying to address. We have a system that allows homes to leave a sector in acute shortage without any reliable enforcement, enforceable guarantee of replacement. The Local Government Association saying the bill could go further.

So we want to strengthen this bill in committee by giving councils greater flexibility to exempt properties based on local need and the tightening of a link between homes sold and homes replaced, which has been mentioned by several. Moving much closer to a truer one for one requirement. But protecting stock must mean a must mean actually protecting it. Totally agree on the domestic abuse. Time is flying, so I'll be quick. The intent here is welcome. But as was said, I think we really do need to listen to the people who work in this area, because I think there are things that we can do to actually make that even better.

But still to us, the fundamental issue is that this bill does not deliver any single home. The wider programme is focussed on increasing supply, but this just protects it clarifies, it adjusts, but it does not build. And that matters because delivery depends not just on policy intent, but on the capacity, capability and the workforce. And I was surprised that nobody really went into today the fact that we're facing a serious skills shortage in construction, with tens of thousands of vacancies and a need for hundreds of thousands of additional workers without a credible skills pipeline, we simply will never deliver the houses that we've all said today that we need.

So I'll be very interested in the minister's answer to that. I loved the conversation about money Lord Lansley, Lord young and Baroness Warwick having completely different perspectives on that, and I'm sure that we'll go into that even further. There is definitely reoccurring themes about the ability to deliver at pace and scale, and for certain sections, most forcibly put by Lord Fuller in his usual inimitable style. Look, my Lords, we do not oppose this bill.

It moves in the right direction and it contains sensible provisions, and I look forward to us getting into the detail as as we go into committee, because, as we all know, it's a social housing blockage at that end of of the housing crisis that actually we need to unblock to actually move people, move people on, move people on. And I, and we will support the government as far as possible. But of course, we're going to push them to go faster and further because that's our job.

Thank you.
20:41
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to declare my >> My Lords, I'd like to declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to Lords who have contributed to today's debate. There does at least seem to be a fair degree of consensus that we have a housing consensus that we have a housing crisis and that something needs to be done about it. So we may differ on what the solutions are. I'd like in particular to say that we welcome those speeches that are focussed on protecting vulnerable tenants and strengthening safeguards for victims of domestic abuse.

Those protections matter, and we will continue to engage constructively as this bill progresses to ensure that they are as robust and as effective as possible. But as the noble Lord Rook and other noble Lords raise, it isn't just about bricks and mortar, it's also about the need for social support. However, having listened carefully to the debate, we remain concerned that this bill does not adequately address the fundamental causes of pressures facing social housing. The central challenge is not difficult to identify.

We have a housing crisis because this country has not built enough homes that people can afford. We have not built enough homes for ownership, for private rent or social housing to meet demand. Yet instead of focusing relentlessly on increasing supply, this bill concentrates largely on restricting existing routes into home ownership and expanding municipal powers. As the noble Baroness Thornton just raised, this bill is not about building one extra home. That is why we believe it risks treating some of the symptoms rather than the fundamental cause.

The answer to a housing shortage is straightforward build more homes that people can afford. That requires political will, difficult decisions, and a willingness to support development where it is needed. As an example, my own authority, Central Bedfordshire, has delivered more than a thousand homes in the last six months alone. The noble Lord John raised increasing costs of housing in London. Well, London has registered fewer than 1000 homes in the last quarter of this year across the entire capital.

That is a build out rate around a 20th of that of Central Bedfordshire. Is it any surprise that housing is so expensive in London and Central Bedfordshire is not unique? I can name a list of neighbouring authorities such as Milton Keynes, Bedford, Northamptonshire and South Cambridgeshire which have all had good build out rates and there are many others across the country. So I'm not quite as familiar with them. Too often we see Labour councils resisting development locally while demanding more powers and more funding nationally, when areas with the greatest housing demand fail to build enough homes.

Those pressures do not disappear. They're simply transferred to neighbouring authorities and communities who are forced to build, often on green fields. That is not a sustainable approach to solving national housing crisis. My Lords, much of this bill is centred on weakening the right to buy scheme. We believe that that is a mistake. The right to buy was one of the most significant social mobility policies of recent decades. As mentioned by the noble Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness O'Neill and Lord Bailey of Paddington, it gave millions of people, many from working class backgrounds, the opportunity to own a home for the first time, build security for their families, and establish a greater stake in their communities.

And as my noble friends, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Baroness Eaton raised the research from the London School of Economics, how it enabled an increase in human capital when managed properly, with receipts reinvested effectively, it can also lead to an increase in housing supply. Surely it is better to have two homes, one with the existing tenant exercising their right to buy, and a second new home funded by the proceeds from that right to buy for a family on the waiting list.

That's known as a buy one, get one free. Two homes must be better than one. It also has the benefit of allowing specialist accommodation. Baroness Teather raised this, the issue of disability accommodation and so forth. Well, if you get those proceeds you can start doing that. Now, I don't say this in isolation. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire, we used the proceeds to build more homes than we sold. Is that not a win win? It can be done as we did in Central Bedfordshire and has been done elsewhere.

We have a generation of young people who increasingly feel locked out of ownership altogether. Many are paying substantial rents every month while finding impossible to save for a deposit or satisfy affordability requirements. In 1980, London renters spent on average 14% of their income on rent. Today, private renters in London are paying close to 50%. Is it not surprising that council housing waiting lists continue to grow? My Lords, the right to buy is not the primary cause of the pressures facing social housing.

The deeper problem is that housing stock has too often not been replaced, and the overall housing delivery has lagged behind for many years. My Lords, we need to have an honest discussion about the management of social housing itself, as raised by Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above 5000, while approximately 389 000 households are under occupying social housing. Now, these figures are not to criticise the tenants.

They simply illustrate the scale of the mismatch that can emerge over time if scarce housing stock is not managed actively and fairly. Social housing is supported by substantial public subsidy. It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to expect that it is allocated fairly, managed effectively and focussed on those in greatest need. As was mentioned by Baroness Murphy, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord bird also mentioned focus on the unemployed at a time when many families remain on waiting lists for years.

These are questions Parliament should not shy away from addressing. The Bill also misses opportunities elsewhere, as Baroness Watkins of Tavistock raised. This bill does not tackle. Sorry does, little to tackle the well known shortcomings of shared ownership, despite the fact that many shared owners continue to face significant costs while enjoying only limited benefits of ownership. My Lords, as raised by Baroness Coffey and Lord Stoneham of Droxford, while there are many excellent housing associations, there is insufficient focus on accountability where housing associations or registered providers not only fail tenants through poor management or declining standards, but we also need to ensure efficient and effective operation and delivery.

As my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook said, they need to be accountable and alongside new housing delivery. Also raised by the noble Lord Best, we should be thinking much more seriously about regeneration. Across the country, there are communities with enormous potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement. And yes, this largely remains absent from the Bill. My Lords, there is a broader difference of principle at the heart of this debate. We believe more homes of all tenures are needed.

We on these benches believe home ownership matters. We believe in aspiration. We believe in regeneration. We believe people should have the opportunity to build stability, independence, and security for themselves and their families. Of course, social housing has a vital role to play. Nobody disputes that. It provides an essential safety net for those facing hardship and circumstances beyond their control. But a successful housing system should do both provide support for those who need it, while helping those who aspire to homeownership to achieve it.

This bill does not strike that balance. As my noble friend Baroness Boycott said in the opening. There are elements of this bill that we welcome and we will support constructively. But there are also significant concerns that this House has a duty to examine carefully, because ultimately, the public want more homes. They want regeneration, they want greater affordability. They want fair access to social housing and wherever possible, the opportunity to own a home of their own. That is a principle on these benches we will continue to defend.

My Lords, I look forward to the further scrutiny of this bill in committee.
20:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very thoughtful contributed to this very thoughtful and constructive debate. As ever, there's been an incredibly wide range of experience and insight brought by this House, and I really welcome the scrutiny given to the bill today. We have covered a very varied range of issues during the debate, and I will do my best to respond to as many of those issues as I can in the time allowed, but please be assured I will check Hansard at the end.

And if there's anything I don't get the chance to respond to, I will reply in writing. I did want to just give one piece of statistical information in relation to the impact of the bill, because under previous Pre-reform baseline, the system was projected to deliver a net loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036 due to right to buy sales. By contrast, following implementation of the measures in this bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period.

I hope it will be many more than that, but even the provisions in the bill will deliver that. And I'm now going to turn to the specific points that have been raised. Before I do, can I just make one general point, and I was very keen to stress in my introduction that this bill is a range of very specific measures in relation to right to buy, to domestic abuse and to removing some of the bureaucracy around around social housing. It doesn't cover all of the government's programme on social housing, because much of that program doesn't need a legislative framework.

In fact, we've already started to deliver much of it with a £39 billion investment, and the social and affordable housing programme is already under way and will be delivering very soon, as will much of the the quality issues that have been raised during the course of the debate are already being dealt with. There are extensive programmes to deliver them, and that reform is on its way already. However, the Bill does attempt to start easing some of the pressure on social housing that's being caused by the specific issues that are contained within the bill.

And I, I know that the noble Lady Baroness Boycott will sympathise when I say, if you bring an enormous bill before this House and we did go through the process of the levelling up Bill together, you get criticised for doing a Christmas tree bill if you bring a narrowly, tightly focussed bill Pinnock, Lord Best, Bishop of Manchester. Baroness Shah. Baroness Murphy. Lord Lansley. Lord Babudu. Baroness Bowles. Lord Sikka. Baroness Neate. Lord Bailey. Baroness Gill, Baroness Laing, Earl Russell, Lord Bird and Baroness Thornhill.

All talked about housing supply and the. The ability to deliver increased social housing supply. And I think the fact that so many noble Lords mention this do highlight the great importance of that issue. The Bill does strengthen our commitment to building more social rented homes and to delivering what we all want to do, which is the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Now, Baroness Scott spoke about the conservative legacy, and Lord Jamieson has just repeated that theme.

Well, I would say we wouldn't be where we are now if we hadn't had 14 years when this problem was pushed under the carpet. We have in the time that the Labour government's been in power, we've delivered the Renters Rights Bill, which is tackling the problems that private rented tenants have in their tenancies. We've published the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which has swept away some of the the planning bureaucracies that were preventing housing getting built. And we are now approaching this social housing bill, as well as empowering local councils and strategic authorities to deliver the both the infrastructure and the homes we need to grow our country.

So I don't think I'll be taking any lectures from the other side of the House about their legacy, their legacy as as caused the housing crisis that we are now trying to fix. Our reforms to right to buy, notably, the 35 year exemption for new build social homes will directly support our ambition by ensuring councils have the competence to deliver the bills. Changes will stop homes being sold before councils have recovered the costs of building them, and anybody that's been a council leader will know the pain of building homes and having them sold for less than they cost to build.

Crucially, the bill builds on the funding and regulatory certainty we've already given the sector to boost supply, including that 39 billion of investment and the biggest long term investment in recent memory. And the programme aims to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes, including at least 180,000 for social rent. And can I say, as other noble Lords have said, I've been somewhat disturbed at some of the comments around, for example, allocations to non UK nationals. Eligibility for social housing is tightly, tightly controlled.

If a person's visa means they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for allocation of social housing and for all social housing. The overwhelming majority, 88% of social housing tenants are UK nationals, according to the 252425 English Housing Survey. And I don't think it's at all helpful to be using some of the derogatory and mischaracterising tropes that are often accompany discussions around social housing. That is just not helpful, and I hope we can avoid that in future discussions.

There are, of course, sometimes fraudulent tenancies obtained and where they are, councils have very strong powers to deal with fraudulent tenancies, and I hope anybody who is listening or watching this debate, anybody in this chamber who is concerned about fraudulent tenancy will do what they need to do, which is report it to the local authority concerned. But I hope we can avoid comments like that during the rest of the discussion of the bill. And of course, we've got to support councils to build more homes.

Baroness Shah Baroness Jones, The noble Lord Whitty Baroness Neate noble. Baroness Laing Lord Cashman Lord Fuller Lord Sahota Baroness Lawlor all spoke about this and in 24 to 25 councils completed 10,480 homes, the highest number achieved in over 30 years. The government is committed to reinvigorating council house building and councils are central to our efforts to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing. We have already taken decisive action to maximise Council's engagement with our new social and Affordable Homes programme, and since April, for the first time, councils can mix right to buy receipts, with grant funding helping to improve the financial viability of their bids.

We have also allocated almost £9 million to 44 councils to support bid development through the Council House Building Support Fund, and this funding forms part of a £63 million four year programme to support councils to improve their skills and capacity to build housing themselves. There's also a great deal going on in response to the noble Baroness Thornhill in terms of skills and capacity more generally in the in the construction sector, there's a great deal of work going on in that area as well.

And finally, we are helping councils to borrow more cheaply to finance house building by extending the preferential lending rate from the Public Works Loan Board for another year until March 2027. And now Lord Fuller, Lord Sahota and Baroness O'Neill and the noble Lord Jamieson clearly highlighted the need to that for providing support. LAS local authorities need to deliver programmes that are right for their areas, and I think it's about the government providing that support, providing the funding and then letting local authorities do it in the right way for their local authority.

And of course, we are all concerned about the safety and decency of social housing, including and there have been a number of mentions of Awaabs law during our debate this afternoon. The noble Lord Best Bishop of Manchester Lord Babudu Baroness Murphy. Baroness Jay, Lord Stoneham all highlighted these issues. Well, reforms are already underway which will deliver transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The new updated Decent Homes standard will ensure all rented homes in England are decent, safe and warm, designed with tenant safety at their core, while remaining proportionate and affordable for providers to deliver.

In addition, the government has legislated on Awaabs law, requiring social landlords to investigate and fix damp and mould and emergency hazards within strict time frames, and we have committed to bring forward regulations for further hazards. Using a test and learn approach, we'll announce timings for the implementation of phase two in due course. The government's published a draft update to National Design Planning Practice Guidance, which consolidates key existing guides and tools into one document, and the updated guidance illustrates the government's priorities for well-designed places, helping local authorities make planning decisions, as well as developers and architects to submit planning applications to local planning authorities.

And it highlights that well-designed, liveable places should have a mix of house types and tenures to suit people of all ages, all stages of life according to different needs and integrated with other facilities. We are clear that this guidance should be applied across all housing sectors in this country, including social homes and a consultation seeking views on that guidance closed on the 10th of March, so we'll be publishing a final version in due course. I think Baroness Murphy referred to my spreadsheet about the quality of homes.

I've just taken on this responsibility. I take it very seriously and there is a lot of work to do. Baroness Teather, Baroness Laing and Earl Russell referred to energy efficiency in social housing, and we are committed to ensuring every tenant has a decent, warm and comfortable home. We are implementing new minimum energy efficiency standards in the social rented sector, requiring all social homes to meet the new energy performance metrics, and they will help make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants, reduce fuel poverty and make homes warmer, more comfortable and less susceptible to damp and mould.

We've also published the Future Home Standard, which comes into force in March 27th. For Non-high risk building work. All new homes will have excellent insulation, low carbon heating systems and in most cases, solar panels and social. And to answer, my noble friend. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't call her that now, but she still is my noble friend. Baroness Laing. Social landlords will be required to meet one of the new Energy Performance Certificate metrics. We've listened to the sector's concerns about affordability and delivery and deliverability, and we've introduced two compliance dates to address these concerns, allowing providers to balance their time and financial capacity across other housing priorities.

The noble Lord Lansley raised a very key issue around investment in social housing, and mentioned additional ways to generate capital to support investment in social housing. We are open to hearing innovative ideas that meet our core principles, delivering more homes for social rent and creating high quality, sustainable places. So my officials are very happy to follow up with the noble Lord on specific proposals, and I hope he'll he will be happy to discuss those with us. The noble Lord Cameron raised an issue about clause nine in the bill.

Clause nine doesn't affect the increased flexibility. As we introduced in July 2025, councils will continue to retain 100% of right to buy receipts, and those flexibilities will remain in place indefinitely from 2627. Councils will also, for the first time, be able to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes. The purpose of clause nine is to reduce administrative burdens for councils and central government, because currently, whenever the rules on receipts change, the department must reissue retention agreements to every stockholding authority.

Clause nine streamlined streamlines this by allowing the Secretary of State to modify the requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements while maintaining oversight. So it's a safeguard power rather than something that takes away that important retention of receipts. A number of noble Lords mentioned the very important issue of estate regeneration. Lord Best, Baroness Mobarik, Lord Stone and Baroness Teather, Baroness Watkins and Baroness Thornhill. And we're clear that increasing supply and improving the quality of existing homes must go hand in hand.

Too many tenants are living in homes that fall short of modern expectations, and we're determined to increase the number of social and affordable homes, and to drive up the standards across the homes that already exist. And that is why those reforms that I've already mentioned are underway to improve the quality and safety of social housing. And we're committed to supporting estate regeneration schemes to transform neighbourhoods and deliver well-designed housing with a better quality of life for tenants. So the core strategic objective of the new 39 billion social and affordable homes programme is to maximise supply, but it will also support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in affordable homes.

On a right to buy the noble Lord Jackson, Lord Leong, Lord Truscott and Earl Russell all spoke on these amongst other peers. On the question of Right to Buy, I want to be absolutely clear the government is not seeking to abolish the scheme. For many social tenants, it remains a crucial route into home ownership, opening the door to greater security and opportunity. But as the noble Lord John highlighted, we must also confront the reality before us. For too long, homes sold under Right to Buy haven't been replaced at the rate needed, contributing to growing pressures on social housing supply and waiting lists across the country.

And that's why this bill takes a balanced and responsible approach, retaining the opportunity for long standing tenants to buy their homes while protecting vital stock and ensuring councils can replace homes sold so they're practical and necessary reforms designed to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme on the issues around home ownership and social mobility. Raised by Baroness Eaton, the noble Lord Bailey and Baroness Gill Right to Buy does provide a pathway for social housing tenants to own their own home.

But as I said, too many homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced. And so we are reforming this as we set out that we would do in our manifesto, but we're not shutting the door on home ownership. That pathway will remain for tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for a long time. And just on the wider issue of home ownership, there is an extensive programme going on now with the sector to make the buying and selling of homes much less complicated and much easier for first time buyers.

So you'll hear more about that in weeks to come on 1 to 1 replacement of homes raised by Baroness Boycott Baroness Mobarik Baroness Shah Baroness Neate. We are moving away from the previous one for one replacement of target sorry, replacement target for homes, because that was introduced when there was no wider expectation placed on councils to build. We know Right to Buy has acted as a strong disincentive to council house building, which our reforms will unleash. And we're calling on councils not just to replace homes sold, but to go further and play a central role in delivering a generational increase in social and affordable house building.

So that reflects our wider, wider programme and objective. And we will continue to monitor right to buy sales and council housing delivery to make sure that this continues to be the case. I do want to speak briefly about the rural exemption that was raised by Baroness Coffey, Earl Russell and Baroness Thornhill. Excluding areas from right to buy reflects the very real and unique challenges of replacing social and affordable homes in these communities. Constraints on land planning and supply means once homes are lost, they are often extremely difficult to replace.

And for that reason, we have taken the targeted decision to exempt designated rural areas from the scheme. We are not proposing to exempt any further areas from the scheme. I I've already spoken a bit about allocations, but I know that the noble Baroness O'Neill was very concerned about these issues. The allocations framework is not included in this bill, but there is work going on at the moment to work with the sector to discuss further issues around allocations, but the allocations framework gives priority to the groups who are most in need, and local councils have the freedom to manage their own waiting lists so they can develop solutions that make best use of their social housing stock.

They are required by law to give priority to certain categories of people, for example, those who are homeless, as I know, the noble Lady will be very well aware, and we committed in our National Plan to End Homelessness, to work with partners to update statutory guidance on social housing allocations, to make sure the framework is working effectively and to support vulnerable households. I'll just briefly mention the mergers of housing associations, which was a common theme that's come out during the debate.

Housing associations, of course, play a vital role in delivering good quality homes and services, and landlords sometimes conclude the best way to do this is through a merger with another housing association. They are independent organisations that make their own commercial decisions, and we don't direct how they run their businesses. But all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards before and after any merger. And in addition, under the transparency and accountability standards set by the regulator, where a merger is being considered, tenants must be given the opportunity to influence and be involved in that process.

A landlord must also be able to demonstrate to affected tenants how they have taken the outcome of the consultation into account when reaching a decision. I wasn't going to get to all the points I wanted to make, but I will respond to noble Lords in writing for those I've missed. But fundamentally, this bill is really key to ensuring that social housing continues to play the role it should in our society, not just for today, but going forward into the future.

As I reflected at the beginning of this debate, social housing has long provided more than just a roof over people's heads. It supports stable, connected communities, places where people can put down roots, build their lives and remain close to family and support networks. The bill is a step towards restoring that stability. I think what Lord Bird called opportunity, security and comfort. I thought those were good words. Protecting the homes we have, supporting the building of the homes we need, ensuring the system works fairly for those who rely on it most.

And in doing so, it seeks to ensure future generations can once again enjoy the security, opportunity and sense of belonging that I had growing up in Stevenage, and that social housing is provided for so many in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the past. I beg to move to. The question is that this bill be now read a second time, as that opinion will say, content not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents habit. I beg to move the house. Oh, sorry. Hang on, hang on. Oh, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. Hang on, hang on. Oh, sorry. I beg to move the commitment motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. Question is that this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content and not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents habit. Nearly killed the bill. I beg to move the house. Do now adjourn.
00:00
None Portrait Peers taking the oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page