Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Pharmaceutical and medical technology industries: diagnosis and treatment of rare cancers Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

Paper. >> My Lords, improving diagnosis and treatment for rare cancer patients is a priority for this government. Through the National Cancer Plan. The Department is

14:49

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

exploring procurement mechanisms to stimulate techno technological breakthroughs to tackle rare cancers with the lowest survival cancers with the lowest survival rates. The MHRA launched a public consultation in May seeking views consultation in May seeking views on how rare cancer, how rare disease therapies are regulated. The government will implement the The government will implement the Rare Cancers Act 2026 to ensure our regulatory framework delivers for rare cancer patients.

14:50

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

I'm grateful to the Minister for outlining what are actually laudable aims, but the reality is that every year, about 67,000 people die from rare cancers. About 10,500 of those have got brain tumours. And of all those patients, many are young. They're children or young people. 82% say they were never offered a trial, often because no trial exists that they could even go into. And half of them feel that their diagnosis was late, leaving them to have end stage cancers.

So with the cancer plan, plans for early detection and a trials accelerator and thrive, will the government ensure that all cancers, particularly rare cancers, have a comprehensive genomics testing and that there is tissue freezing as appropriate so there can be targeted drug development by pharmaceutical industries and develop personalised treatments. And secondly, will the government strengthen bench to bedside so that there is a stronger clinical academic force, both in oncology and in pathology in particular, to increase set up times for trials and drug and radiotherapy trials, in particular to have hub and spoke models so that patients living at a distance from the research centre can still benefit from going into a trial and that the bureaucracy will be decreased.

14:51

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, the noble Lady is quite right to talk about acceleration of clinical trials. And indeed, as the clinical trials. And indeed, as the noble Lady and your Lordships' House is aware, that's exactly what we are doing, not least our turbo charging of clinical trials has already meant that set up is now an average of 122 days, which is down from 169 days last year and indeed exceeds what the government wish was, which was 150 days.

I do share the view on early diagnosis, which again, why in the cancer plan that's covered, and indeed on genomics, the National Cancer Plan does set out a major expansion in the use of genomics in order to do exactly as the noble Lady says, support earlier diagnosis and more personalised treatment.

14:52

Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

- -

In January, the government announced faster access to clinical announced faster access to clinical trials via the NHS app for rare cancers. So is this live yet? And if not by when, will patients be able to use this innovation to take part in suitable drug trials? And how will those who are digitally excluded have access?

14:52

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> In all cases, with our development of the NHS app, which development of the NHS app, which is the front door to the NHS and has been already made tremendous steps forward in terms of access, we already build in that those who are not able, for whatever reason, to use the NHS app, will continue to get personalised support. But it is true that we will be offering those with rare and less common cancers, in particular the opportunity to take part in clinical trials through the NHS app.

And I'll be pleased to keep the noble Lady informed of the timetable we want to see, and will get faster access indeed to the most innovative treatments and technologies that are available.

14:53

Lord Winston (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the noble Lady with >> My Lords, the noble Lady with her attempt to get early treatment, is commendable and we're very glad to hear what the government is saying. But does she agree that one saying. But does she agree that one of the problems is that cancer is really a multi-morbidity? So often a number of different organs will be affected by it. And I wonder whether she might agree that we might do more to hasten diagnosis to patients who may be expected of having cancer, but it takes often a long time to get those connections to see the oncologist who eventually decides whether or not to give these very, very expensive drugs, which are much needed.

Would she ensure or can she ensure, as far as she can, that speed between services is really undertaken?

14:54

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Indeed. So, and I'm pleased to give that assurance to my noble give that assurance to my noble friend, which is which is actually at the core of the National Cancer at the core of the National Cancer Plan. And it's worth saying that many rare and less common cancers, for example, including those that can't be staged, are diagnosed in emergency settings, which is far from ideal. Our outcomes are far worse. So we have committed and have a plan to reduce the number of rare cancers that are diagnosed in emergency settings, but we will also provide improved screening and surveillance, and we will help GPS to support to spot harder to recognise rare cancer cases through AI driven decision support tools and new approaches.

I think all of that will be of great assistance in the way my noble friend seeks.

14:55

Lord Kamall (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, a number of life >> My Lords, a number of life sciences companies have warned that the recent HMRC VAT rulings on compassionate use and early access compassionate use and early access medicine schemes, which can result in companies being charged VAT even when they provide medicines free of charge. This could lead to them withdrawing programs that provide innovative treatments to patients with rare conditions before routine NHS funding is available. So has the government looked at the impact of charging VAT on drugs that are available for free through the compassionate use and early access schemes? And what's the impact of that on the government's stated ambition to encourage more innovation in diagnosis and treatment of rare conditions?

14:56

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, considerations about >> Well, considerations about taxation are always, as the noble Lord is aware, always are Lord is aware, always are considered. When we make plans in respect of where it applies. I know that there was an urgent question in the House of Commons which the Minister concerned, Karen Smith, answered. But let me just say that nice. In evaluating all new medicines, including for rare cancers, is able to recommend many new treatments for rare cancers that are now available to NHS patients that were not.

So I do take the point of the question, but also, and I would want to emphasise this the Cancer Drugs Fund means that there is funding for promising new cancer drugs. And again, that does mean that patients can get earlier access to treatments that wouldn't have otherwise been available to NHS patients. And so we are also, through the MHRA designing a new framework for regulation of rare diseases in all these ways, that will certainly support the point that the noble Lord rightly makes.

14:57

Lord Patel (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords will lead in genomic science. We lead in genomic structure by establishing seven structure by establishing seven hubs of genomic testing. We know hubs of genomic testing. We know despite this, that we fall behind testing for liquid biopsies of DNA, for circulating DNA, for histology, testing, for molecular testing of cancer tissues, and in testing of genetically inherited genes to test for families. All of these are because of bottlenecks, not because the machines can't do the test. What we need is somebody to get a grip of the administrative backlog that occurs because we are failing in timelines on all of these, which are government targets.

Can the Minister, the Baroness Stowell of Beeston, answer that?

14:58

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, indeed, I do recognise what the noble Lord says about bottlenecks, and that is why the National Cancer Plan is quite clear about the changes that we will see. And I should say to the point in this question, there is for the first time, specific reference to rare cancers. I always think rare cancers is a bit of a misnomer. In any case, if one looks at the statistics. But it is also the case that the National Cancer Plan does set out a major expansion in the use of genomics, and that will support earlier diagnosis and more personalised treatment.

And that is what we need to see.

14:58

Baroness Nargund (Labour)

- -

My Lord, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Finlay for this very Baroness Finlay for this very important question and also raising the issue of hub and spoke model the issue of hub and spoke model for cancer trials. Rare cancer trials involve fewer patients and less data, which makes it very difficult to conduct large randomised studies that are needed for SIS approval to produce evidence for innovative treatments. Can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, if the government is considering to ask? Nice to review or revise its assessment methods so that innovative treatments can be approved with fewer patients and less data? Because of the difficulties in doing large, large trials and patients have not left behind.

14:59

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

It is absolutely key that we we actually continue our commitment and speeding up in terms of research and clinical trials. We have already cut unnecessary bureaucracy. We've also standardised processes. We've also freed up workforce capacity as well as, as I said earlier, seeking to use the NHS app as a way forward. But that's just the beginning of an ambition to accelerate start up times. We do need to strengthen our position as a global force in respect of clinical trials and the hub and spoke model that my noble friend and the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay, both spoke to, are possibilities about how we could take that forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Oral Question Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I need to ask the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name on today's Order Paper. The government are committed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government are committed to enhancing reciprocal data exchange with the EU for border security and public safety purposes through the UK. EU reset, including commitments made at last year's summit. We're making progress on biometric and criminal records data and continue to work closely with the Commission to identify and pursue further practical opportunities, including on real time alert sharing and asylum data, Eurodac insists raise different legal and operational issues. So we're taking a pragmatic, issues. So we're taking a pragmatic, incremental approach, but prioritising border security and law enforcement.

15:01

Lord Hanson of Flint, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Labour)

- -

I thank the Minister for that. As a member of the EU, the UK was, of course, entitled to Eurodac to share in the fingerprint information from illegal migrants, which, with the Dublin Convention, gave us the means of identifying and removing them from his country

15:01

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)

- -

with Sis two, which I know from my own work on it, we had a means of getting. The Minister has touched getting. The Minister has touched on this real time information on the movements of terrorists and serious criminals who might serious criminals who might threaten us here. Without either of those provisions fully in place, we are a greater risk. Can I therefore are a greater risk. Can I therefore press the Minister at the forthcoming EU UK summit on that forthcoming EU UK summit on that agenda? Can we press very strongly indeed to get the real time information which is so vital to our security?

15:02

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Lord, >> I'm grateful to the noble Lord, as he clearly mentions, the loss of that information was one of the Brexit downsides that happened, one Brexit downsides that happened, one that in fact, many of us warned about before we left the European Union. But we are now where we are. And what the government is trying to do is to ensure that we get that access back as soon as possible. So at the forthcoming summit and at the EU summit in May 25th, we have indicated previously our commitment to try to ensure we get that real time data back as soon as possible.

It's in all of our interests to do so, but there are still some happen.

15:02

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

- -

I know, Lord, the Minister confirm that the benefits of confirm that the benefits of rejoining SIS II and DAC to this country is go much wider than simply immigration issues, and cover the whole range of law enforcement cooperation, which is so vital to us and to our EU partners. And would he also confirm that the benefits from our rejoining these two schemes would also accrue to the other members, the other European countries who are already members of them, because they too would benefit.

15:03

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Absolutely. It's a really >> Absolutely. It's a really important issue that we do try and get back into Sis as a matter of get back into Sis as a matter of some urgency. Last year there were 95 million alerts, 2 million of which related to persons of which related to persons of interest for law enforcement and immigration purposes. And in 2025, there were 17.8 billion searches on Sis by EU member states. Now that is an issue we need to get back to, and we did have access between 215 and 220.

We lost it with Brexit. We need to get back into that position as a matter of some urgency. There are some challenges, particularly with relation to the question of the Eurodac, because there is legislation that is required by the European Union to make that change, but it is the government's intention to try to reset that as a matter of some urgency.

15:04

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. >> My interest. I am supported by the ramp organisation. >> Given the increased significance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given the increased significance of Eurodac in the EU's new migration pact. Does the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that having the Minister, agree that having access to Eurodac would significantly improve the tools in the toolbox to deal with irregular migration? And also, does the noble Lord the Minister, agree that in order to address the Eurodac issue, we will need to be closer to the EU, not further away from it, as suggested by some parties, by being ejected from the Council of Europe by us leaving the ECHR here.

15:04

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Well, we're not going to leave the EU under this government, and the EU under this government, and the noble Lord knows that other parties can speak for themselves. In fact, other parties have spoken In fact, other parties have spoken for themselves in getting us into this difficult position, potentially in the first place. There is a question with Eurodac, which I think the noble Lord will be aware of, that it does require EU legislation and that EU legislation currently prohibits the sharing of Eurodac data with third countries.

So that's a difficult thing that we have to overcome, but it is absolutely vital that we try and get back as much of that data as possible. And as the previous noble Lord mentioned, it's in everybody's interests to share data because criminality and immigration abuse is transnational.

15:05

Lord Redwood (Conservative)

- -

And every migrant arriving by boat, we are paid. Who told them about the service and who was driving the boat. And if they don't cooperate, shouldn't the authorities look at their bank records and their phone records? Well.

15:05

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord wasn't here when >> The noble Lord wasn't here when we passed the Immigration Act last year, which agreed to do a number of things which are improving the situation as a whole and so much improving the situation that in fact, we have deported 13% more foreign criminals than we did under his government previously. We've reduced by a third the amount of asylum decisions that have taken place from a peak of 56,000 in 20 23 to 35% fewer in 2025.

We've reduced the number of people claiming asylum down by 12%, and we've reduced the initial time weight by 55%. And we've done all that whilst facing the difficulties of not being in the European Union, able to share the data that we did when the noble Lord actually advocated leaving the European Union, was there any thought to the loss of that data and its impact on society and our safety as a whole?

15:06

Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, to return to sensible questions about Eurodac rather than the the festering sore that is, the the festering sore that is, that is Brexit or real Brexit and leaving the UK given given everybody's interest in multilateral cooperation around these these global issues, isn't it worth remembering that Norway, Liechtenstein, other non-EU countries are part of Eurodac. And so it's perfectly possible to come to sensible agreement about this. Yeah.

15:07

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

We are trying and we will continue to try through efforts both at last year's EU summit and this year's EU summit, to improve the position on both SIS II and on Eurodac. There are some logistical legislative challenges with Eurodac in particular, but I say to my noble friend, it is the government's intention to secure for the benefit of both the EU and the United Kingdom a closer cooperation as possible on both of those issues.

15:07

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

With. Minister, to confirm that it's always been very strongly in it's always been very strongly in the interest of British police and other authorities to promote closer cooperation with our neighbours. I remember when I was a very junior Minister being told in Yorkshire that there was no organised crime in Britain, which was not international. I remember much earlier in 1989, when I was director of research at Chatham House, being approached by the Metropolitan Police to ask if we would go on a seminar on how to build police cooperation with our European neighbours, after which the British police played an active role in the establishment of Europol.

This is all very much, strongly in our national interest, and we ought to be pursuing it as closely as we can.

15:08

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Yeah, absolutely. when a UK citizen was head of Europol and worked in cooperation with our European partners to with our European partners to reduce crime, which is transnational. And when we had access to Sis two between 2015 and 2020, we had access to those police records. They were lost at Brexit. I'm not going to revisit the Brexit debate. We all voted our different ways. We all voted our different ways. But I know which way I voted and which way has proved to be right in the long term.

And ultimately, and ultimately, we will do what we can to get closer cooperation to achieve the objectives the noble Lord has outlined.

15:09

Baroness Williams of Trafford (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, is the noble Lady, Lady Chakrabarti said. SIS II is available to non-schengen countries, so surely the discussion with the so surely the discussion with the EU is not Schengen or Non-schengen EU or non-EU, but it's one. It's a system that benefits us all.

15:09

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

No, it is a system. It benefits us all. And it's a system we want us all. And it's a system we want to see back in place. And I, I welcome the noble Ladies support for that objective. But the government has to negotiate with government has to negotiate with European partners to achieve that. Now we are outside of the EU, but I hope I hope that we can achieve that. And we've started that with the EU reset. We intend to see it through. And my objective is to make sure we have access to the information we had access to between 215 and 220.

15:10

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Hello. Just the case that we need a closer relationship with need a closer relationship with Europe financially, and also on security issues. And the people who talk down that relationship are Well.

15:10

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful that my noble friend will know that terrorism, international crime, that cross-border migration frauds, that all of the issues that are exercising the British public and this House and the House of Commons are issues which have at their central heart the need to cooperate across the European Union and with the United Kingdom as a whole. And that's the government's objective in the European Union reset to make sure that we can get the best deal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible on those issues that matter on the ground. Fourth Oral Question Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anelay of St Johns. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name. MoD. Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. My Lords, the UK plays a leading. International role in marine conservation, working with partners to tackle pollution, protect

15:11

Oral questions: World Ocean Day Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

vulnerable ecosystems and promote sustainable ocean governance. To mark World Ocean Day, we

15:11

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

highlighted action at home and abroad, and that included legislation to implement the legislation to implement the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement at the Blue Belt programme's 10th anniversary

15:12

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

- -

Belt programme's 10th anniversary event, it was announced that Montserrat will join the initiative,

15:11

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

expanding protection of over 4 million km2 of ocean. And my colleague in DEFRA, Minister Hardy, colleague in DEFRA, Minister Hardy, will also engage global leaders at our at our Ocean conference tomorrow and announce further Blue Planet Fund commitments.

15:11

Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, whilst welcoming, I'm >> My Lords, whilst welcoming, I'm sure with my own colleagues who are involved in promoting the Bill on involved in promoting the Bill on ensuring there was a treaty to protect the oceans and welcoming that. I do note that the government has merely made just the first step in going towards ratification. Before that, we have to have secondary legislation. There's no sign of it. The government says it just needs a bit more time. But why? What is the problem in getting on the real road to ratification? Is it that the government has found a problem in sorting out its policy on bottom trawling? Yes.

15:12

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Well, can I reassure the noble Lady that the government is completely committed to ratifying completely committed to ratifying the Bbng agreement? As she knows, I'm sure we introduced the legislation on the 10th of September to enable the UK to implement its obligations under the agreement and move towards ratification, and that received Royal Assent on the 12th of February. As she's aware, we need to now bring in further secondary legislation before the Bbng agreement can be ratified formally by the UK, and I can absolutely confirm this process is currently underway.

15:13

Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The Blue. >> Belt is. >> The government's programme to assist the. >> The UK Overseas Territories in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The UK Overseas Territories in protecting and enhancing ocean health and enabling sustainable growth through evidence based marine management and protection. Last week, I had the pleasure to meet with the representative of the Cayman Islands Doctor, Minister Eubank Wilkes, and former premier Wayne Panton MP. So may I ask the Minister a question arising out of that meeting? How is the government ensuring that the Blue Belt programme strengthens compliance, surveillance and management capacity in the overseas territories, for example, protection of mangroves rather than focusing just on MPA designations?

15:13

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Absolutely. Well done. >> Well, we do of course, through the blue belt subprogrammes of the Blue Belt Ocean Shield, which are the compliance and enforcement the compliance and enforcement capabilities, and through the Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network, which is about non-invasive scientific surveys, support the programme of of Blue Belt and ensure that enforcement happens as it needs to. But as also as part of that, we also provide support to the British, British Indian Ocean Territory, to Bermuda, to British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar.

And we do also put in, I think, more than £60 million of UK government support to the Blue Belt programme in order to underpin the protection and sustainable management of an enormous amount of our oceans now. And we as far as we're concerned in the government, this is a cornerstone of the UK's contribution to our global ambition to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring enforcement is in place.

15:14

Lord Sikka (Labour)

- -

Carbon emissions from the carbon >> Carbon emissions from the carbon emissions harm the oceans through warming, acidification and deoxygenation, and threatened deoxygenation, and threatened climate, food and jobs. Since 1990, the carbon emissions of the UK's richest 0.1% have increased by 53%, while the bottom 90% have cut theirs by 26%. Can the Minister explain how the government kerbs carbon emissions by the super rich and makes them bear the cost of their pollution?

15:15

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Well, we are working through a >> Well, we are working through a sustainable ocean plan, which will make a really big difference to the make a really big difference to the environment and in the areas that he's talking about. We're currently in the scoping phase of this, and we're looking at the guidance on the the the high level panel that for sustainable ocean economy that also supports other other countries to develop their plans. There is a lot of that plan already in place, and it is through plans like that that we will make a real difference to the environment of the ocean.

Friend referred to.

15:16

Baroness Sugg (Conservative)

- -

Bottom trawling, and I. >> Previously asked the. >> Noble Lady, the Minister, about the government response to bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, which is causing extreme areas, which is causing extreme damage to the ecosystem. The noble Lady pointed to a record number of responses. I'm not sure if that still stands, given the 116,000 responses to the social media ban that the government was able to come up with an initial response and a new policy in just three short weeks. So I wondered if the noble Lady could provide any update to when the government will respond to the marine protected areas, bottom trawling consultation?

15:16

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Yes. I am very aware that members are keen to hear about progress on the consultation on this. We are. We are progressing all steps and the idea is to to to introduce byelaws by the end of 2026. By the end of this year. Absolutely mindful of the importance that the noble Lady holds this, this issue in as as do other noble Lords. And we are working directly with the Marine Management Organisation to move this along.

15:17

Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Give them give. Them one of the increasing issues for our purposes, increasing issues for our purposes, for our dolphins, for our whales, is that of increasing marine noise. Now, the Defra created or published a policy document at the beginning of last year, which I welcomed. But could the Minister tell us what progress has been made so that we protect all our marine mammals, so that it can survive and thrive in our national waters? Yes.

15:17

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of noise. I think we're learning more and I think we're learning more and more about that as time goes on, because I don't think it was taken seriously for quite a long time. I don't have an update at my fingertips today, but I'm more than happy to keep the noble Lord informed as we as we make progress in this area.

15:17

Lord Roborough (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords, my Lords, it is all very well the government celebrating World Ocean Day and also passing the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act. But this government has surrendered 40% of our national fishing rights for the next 12 years to the EU. French vessels are the largest bottom trawlers in our marine protected areas. Both my noble friends have asked about MPAs. Has the government given up our ability to control the exploitation of our own small part of the ocean?

15:18

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

I would say absolutely not. No, we haven't given up at all. We are aware that there are still decisions to be made on fisheries management, particularly around measures for the highly protected marine areas, which I'm sure the fishing industry is looking at and waiting for very, very closely. We are going to be looking at this through a very clear, evidence based approach, and we'll be making decisions shortly. I think the key thing is, is that we have been working very closely with fishers.

We've been talking to people impacted by this because it is a complex area where you're looking at the needs of fishermen and the fact that we want to eat fish in this country, compared with how do we manage our environment and particularly our marine protected areas. So it is something we're working through at the moment.

15:19

Lord Hintze (Conservative)

- -

House of Lords protecting our >> House of Lords protecting our marine environment and marine animals is probably one of the most animals is probably one of the most important things we can do. Would the noble Baroness, the Minister, agree to do that? We need a very strong navy.

15:19

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Well, I'm very disappointed that my noble friend Lord West is not here, because I'm sure he would be here, because I'm sure he would be be very, very keen to encourage me to answer that question in the affirmative, I. Shall I actually share an office with the Minister for defence, so I shall raise that issue with him.

15:19

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

- -

There is currently evidence to prove that the noise and sonic boom prove that the noise and sonic boom from offshore wind farms is causing damage to porpoises and dolphins and whales. Would it not therefore make sense to have a moratorium on future offshore wind farms? Until we have more knowledge of what the damage to our marine life is actually being caused by these offshore wind farms?

15:20

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Yeah, we like that. Yes. >> Yeah, we like that. Yes. >> Well, I think what we need to do is we need to look at how do we move forward with actually building move forward with actually building more renewable energy in this country, because we need to do that. And that includes both onshore and offshore wind. But as with anything, we need to ensure that it's built in the right places, that the right impact statements are done, and that we also continue to understand more about what noise pollution, particularly what that what impact that has on seabirds, on sea life, on whales, on porpoises, and so on.

That work is ongoing. It is important that we understand these things better, so that we build things in the right way, as well as in the right place.

15:21

Urgent Question Repeat: Defence Investment Plan Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

Private notice question on the >> Private notice question on the situation in the Middle East. Lord Abbott of Wimbledon. >> My Lords, I beg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg. Leave to ask a question of which I've given private notice. The I've given private notice. The question is as follows to ask His Majesty's Government further to the announcement of the US and Iran of an agreement to end the conflict in the Middle East, what plans they have, if any, to one support the reopening of the Straits of Hormuz, and secondly, to address the wider issues of defence and security of the United Kingdom's Gulf partners.

And I draw attention to my register entry as an adviser to the Arab Ambassadors Council and organisations working on conflict resolution in the Middle East.

15:21

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the. >> The agreement between the United States and Iran and commends all involved in securing this diplomatic breakthrough. Our diplomatic breakthrough. Our priority now is to support the full implementation of the agreement and reopen the Strait of Hormuz without conditions or restrictions in line with international law, we stand ready to support the right of transit passage, including through a multinational military mission which will lead, which we will lead with France, which will be deployed when conditions allow.

We will continue to work closely with our Gulf partners to support security and stability for the region.

15:22

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lady, the Minister, and indeed all will join me in recognising the will join me in recognising the important role of Pakistan. Both bought Shukria to them and shukran also to Qatar for their support in getting to where we are. But the agreement is still to be signed on Friday, as we know, and the vulnerable nature of these agreements we're all too familiar with. So in that respect, I note what the noble Lady has said, but if I could push her further, when are we going to deploy specifically on the minesweepers in which the UK and France have expertise, what additional support can we give in terms of naval assets to our Gulf partners in support of agreements such as CCP? And thirdly, also, how can we also extend this agreement? It includes Lebanon in terms of long standing support the previous government did, and the government before that to the Lebanese armed forces, so they can pursue a lasting and sustainable peace, including the disarming of Hezbollah.

15:23

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I mean, these are great questions, and they're the exact questions we've been asking questions we've been asking ourselves in the department. I think when this is a framework agreement that we have at the moment, and I absolutely echo what he said shukran to Pakistan for the role that they have played in bringing the US and Iran to this point. And we do need to see this more detailed negotiation take place. And we do need to see this as a lasting ceasefire that we can use to then do the work that needs to be done to enable safe passage through the strait.

This will include, among other things, checking for mines and minesweeping. We have the necessary equipment to be able to do that jointly with others, and we are readying ourselves to do that. When he said and when he asked also about Lebanon, yes, it is vital that we see the ceasefire extend to Lebanon, because I believe, as we discussed, I think it was last week, the the governme supported in order to fight Hezbollah. And actually what has been happening has been undermining the government and reducing their capacity to do so.

15:24

Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-affiliated)

- -

The Lord Vaux needs to be welcomed that the Strait of Hormuz seem to be open. But will the seem to be open. But will the Minister confirm that this deal does not cover Iran's ballistic missiles programme, nor its sponsorship of regional terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, nor its the terrorism it organises across Middle East, here in Europe and even in the UK. It doesn't cover its internal repression. And as I understand it, the Iranian regime are saying they're not going to give up their enriched their stockpiles of enriched uranium either.

So if all that is the case, how can this possibly be regarded as a foundation on which peace and stability can be built in the Middle East? Yes.

15:25

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

Well, it's a deal that we have today. It's a framework. It's a today. It's a framework. It's a start. It is better than we had previously, and it is enabling for now a ceasefire. The challenge, as I think is alluded to by my noble friend, is that this is just the beginning. And there are many, many things that need to be discussed and agreed upon in order for this ceasefire to have any durability, and it's the long standing position of this government and our predecessor governments that we do not wish to see Iran take forward any ambitions that it may have with regard to nuclear weaponry.

15:25

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

A long way before we will know whether or not this will be a sustainable end to the conflict, as sustainable end to the conflict, as the question asks. But if there is a welcoming opening of the Strait, will the government work with other governments to ensure that a priority for shipping would be those that have humanitarian cargo, especially food supplies for the World Food Programme, which has been held up, which is so desperately needed to be distributed, and also if there is to be a UK involvement, will the Minister agree with me that it should be underpinned by the United Nations? Because if this is this should be multilateral international law of the seas and it shouldn't be pegged with what could well be a fragile and transactional bilateral agreement between America and Iran.

15:26

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

Well, we've been. >> Well, we've been. >> Very clear. What we want to see is a strait opening, and we want this to be free of condition and open for all passage. And that is a position that is shared widely. He's absolutely right to remind us of the humanitarian needs at stake here. The impact of this closure not is not just felt because of the supplies that are held in terms of fertiliser, food and other goods, although that is certainly an issue.

And also the impact this is having on seafarers who've been held there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the The impact on long term growth and access to those things was particularly not only but particularly for sub-Saharan Africa and is something that, you know, let us hope that this straight can let us hope that this straight can be kept open so that those goods can flow and those economies and those people can be supported.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those people can be supported. Could the noble Baroness just clarify just one point? I'm slightly confused on if the United

15:27

Lord Bridges of Headley (Conservative)

- -

slightly confused on if the United States signs a deal in which ships will be paying a toll. Is it the position of His Majesty's Government and that of the French government? I think that they will be deploying forces to ensure that ships do not pay tolls.

15:27

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

Well, I don't think anyone is talking about tolls or us patrolling in order to secure payment of tolls. I don't know where he's got this from. This is not anything that anyone is seriously considering in the government.

15:28

Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Crossbench)

- -

My Lord, my Lord. >> My Lords. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to some shortages in critical supply chains, and particularly thinking at the and particularly thinking at the moment of fertiliser, which is important for food production, both here but globally. Has the government made any assessment how long it would take, assuming that the current agreement actually held for the status quo and normal supplies to be reinstated?

15:28

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I mean, I think this is really important. And I think even if the important. And I think even if the strait is to open immediately and for goods to flow, there will. There is already a scarring on many economies. We are particularly concerned about a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It. You know, the impact will depend on planting seasons and agricultural practices. But it is likely that there is already going to be an impact on food security in some way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or another. In some countries. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Is it on the labour benches next?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, isn't it the case that. My Lord. Would the Minister. Please

15:29

Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)

- -

>> Would the Minister. Please assure me that she and the government at the highest levels intend to congratulate the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shahbaz Minister of Pakistan, Shahbaz Sharif, on an awesome achievement, not just on what's going to be signed on Friday, but on his commitment long term to an enduring peace. Mr.

15:29

Lord Swire (Conservative)

- -

I'm very happy to assure my noble friend of that. I think the Mr. Sharif in Pakistan has done a good job here, and he deserves the commendation of all of those of us who wish to see the strait reopened.

15:29

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

I Lord Forsyth Lord Case. to see the release of billions of millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, which are currently blocked back to the Iranian regime from the US and other places. And if that is the case, does she share my concern that unless we watch very, very carefully and work very closely with our allies, some of that money could end up in places that we would rather it didn't?

15:30

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I'm not aware that that is the case, so I'm unable to confirm that. And I think there is a great deal of speculation at the moment before the detail of this is worked through, and I would guard against that in this House, but I think there will, of course, be. This is a framework. It is a beginning. It is a very important step forward that we have. There is now a ceasefire. There was not a ceasefire previously. That is why this is a positive development.

But I think, as he rightly alludes to, there are many, many issues still yet to be resolved.

15:30

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. beginning of this invasion, I asked her about the treaty between Bahrain, the United Kingdom and the United States. I followed that up with a letter with detailed questions and was promised a response which I have yet to receive. So perhaps she can answer now, given that this is a treaty of mutual support, at what point does it become relevant and why has it not been relevant to date in the keeping of that, those waters clear? Yes.

15:31

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I sincerely apologise to noble Lord about a failure to respond to his letter, and I will go back to his letter, and I will go back to the department and find out why that has not been replied to. And that's most discourteous, and I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure he gets his response promptly. Hello. Isn't it the case that after all the death and destruction after all the death and destruction that we've seen, that we appear to be backward to the Biden deal and at the same negotiations that were going place, were going forward, have now got to restart the position and start from afresh. position and start from afresh.

15:31

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Yeah, yeah. just don't know at this stage what the final agreement is going to look like. And as I responded to a question earlier, this is a framework at this point. It does enable a ceasefire to take place, enable a ceasefire to take place, which is incredibly positive. But the details of exactly what has been is going to be agreed. We don't yet know.

15:32

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

From Ben. that this is indeed a positive step, although we still need to see a lot of the detail. Could I ask the noble Baroness to say whether, if the strait is fully reopened, that will enable the government to bring will enable the government to bring forward the ban on imports of Russian diesel and jet fuel via third countries? third countries?

15:32

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

I would encourage the noble Lord to attend an. See that we shall be discussing in about 20 minutes time where we'll. We will where we will be dealing with this issue of be dealing with this issue of product from Russia and Belarus that then is refined in third countries and has been able to be imported into this country in the future. That will no longer be the case. case.

15:32

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

Lord Hoffmann my Lords, we would all agree that a toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz would be a

15:32

Lord Ricketts (Crossbench)

- -

great advantage for the world, of course. But surely, strategically, Iran has demonstrated a capacity to control close the strait, which will continue a capacity to hold the Gulf petrochemical areas at risk. Is it not therefore important that European diplomacy, British diplomacy, is involved in the discussions with the Gulf countries to move on from what has been to move on from what has been called a very fragile cease fire to a more durable settlement in the region, which means that we won't have to live through this again.

15:33

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think noble Lord has made a very astute observation about exactly where we are in relation to where we were a few relation to where we were a few months ago. But he's he's also right to say that we must work closely with our Gulf partners and others to ensure that the free passage through the Strait is maintained, and that this is a stable settlement. This is this is very, very early stages. But the ambition that I think we all have is that the Straits are open because we know we do not want to find ourselves repeatedly in this level of disruption.

15:34

Baroness Helic (Conservative)

- -

Bearing in mind. >> The immense losses that this war has caused to the peoples in the region. For people around the world, especially the poorest, and for the especially the poorest, and for the global economy on which the United Kingdom depends, and for which British people will also pay a price. What steps will the government take to promote security cooperation among the countries in the Arabian stroke, Persian Gulf and beyond to ensure that there are no further wars in the region and uphold once again universally recognised principle that a peaceful resolution of disputes.

15:34

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

We work through many different agencies, as the noble Lady knows, to do this. But specifically on to do this. But specifically on this issue just recently, I know my hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met. I think it's now 11 different foreign Ministers to discuss this issue. The Prime Minister, along with President Macron in France, has convened 50 plus countries to make sure that there is this broad based international coalition, which is specifically organised in order to secure long lasting peace.

15:35

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

- -

As my noble friend agree with, >> As my noble friend agree with, the United Kingdom, government is now able to play a far more positive part in relation to this issue than if it had followed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and supported the ill advised invasion by Donald Trump. Yeah.

15:35

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I'm very. advice that he was given from the Leader of the Opposition and others Leader of the Opposition and others to involve this country in in a ill thought out proposition. And I think that I think that that was the right decision for him to take for the country and also to enable him to play the role that he has now in bringing out, bringing about the situation where we're able to contribute to keeping the strait open, to clearing mines, to deploying the equipment that we have, to securing safe passage for those ships that are contained.

And we need to get that fertiliser, we need to get that fertiliser, food and other goods moving.

15:36

Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

- -

But we must never forget that >> But we must never forget that Iran holds innocent British citizens as political hostages in that country. And I very much hope that country. And I very much hope that the Foreign Office, given an increased stability, perhaps in the region, can work harder to release people like the foreman that have been unjustifiably detained and imprisoned in Iran. Yeah.

15:36

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

There are. I mean, I every time >> There are. I mean, I every time we hear Craig and Lindsey and their the ordeal that they are suffering, we, you know, we must remember that we, you know, we must remember that point as much as we do admire their strength and stoicism, that they show every time they're able to communicate, it is wrong that they are held. And it's not just Craig and Lindsey Foreman. There are many others, too, who were held in Iran who should be released immediately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. If there are any noble Lords who wish to leave the chamber before next business is called, I suggest next business is called, I suggest this would be a good moment to do My My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we come My Lords, we come now My Lords, we come now to My Lords, we come now to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first reading. Baroness Blower my Lords, I beg to. Introduce a Bill.

15:38

Business of the House

15:41

Urgent Question Repeat: Defence Investment Plan

ago, the funding of the plan has been dogged by delay and uncertainty. Now, whatever the Defence Investment Plan contains, Defence Investment Plan contains, the financial settlement was deemed to be inadequate by the previous defence secretary, himself a widely respected Minister. To the extent that he resigned, we are now told his successor is to work within that same financial envelope, the one already rejected by his predecessor, Lords. In the space of predecessor, Lords. In the space of this last year, we have come in a complete circle.

Does the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that this Lord, the Minister, agree that this is an impossible situation for the Mod? And may I ask him what is his solution to this conundrum? solution to this conundrum?

15:42

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

Well. remarks that she started with? Can I also start by thanking the former Secretary of State for his work and

15:42

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

indeed, wishing the the former Armed Forces Minister well as well. And also I know the whole House And also I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the UK commando forces who intercepted a Russian shadow fleet intercepted a Russian shadow fleet vessel over the weekend. There. Their courage, skill and professionalism is what we've come professionalism is what we've come to accept, to expect. But we should not just accept it. Can I can I say to the noble Baroness, the dip is now being finalised and the details of that will emerge in in due course, as they say.

But in terms of the conundrum that the noble Baroness mentioned, I would draw attention of the House to the comments made to the BBC by the Prime Minister on Friday, where he said directly to Chris Mason and I quote, we have another spending review coming up before the end of this Parliament and defence will be a number one priority in that spending review, which of course, is 2027. The particular defence investment plan is outside of a spending review. So all I would say to the noble Baroness is we have already increased defence spending.

The whatever the outcome of finalising the details around the dip at the moment, there will be additional money contained within that. And as the Prime Minister said, the spending review in 2027 defence will be a number one priority for that.

15:44

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

PM has promised that the dip will be delivered before the July NATO summit. It's already a year NATO summit. It's already a year late, but all we get is promises and rhetoric, and also the threat and rhetoric, and also the threat of further cuts to the already hollowed out aid programme. So firstly, does the government no longer believe that aid contributes to our nation's security and cutting it to almost zero compromises, rather than reinforces the effectiveness of our defence leadership? Don't we need leadership? Where is it? And as the drift continues, are we advertising weakness to our enemies and undermining the confidence of our allies?

15:44

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

We know is the answer to the >> We know is the answer to the last part of the noble Lords Lords question and in terms of aid and development, we are spending still development, we are spending still spending a significant sum of money with respect to to aid and development. But let me just say this around the dip. It does require a reprioritisation of resources. That is what we're looking at at the current time and how we ensure that we get the resources needed to do that within an affordable framework to the aid and development that he talks about has led already to billions of pounds of additional money, because that was a year or so ago that that changed to the priorities of government meant that huge sums of additional money could be added to the defence budget for that.

And all I would say is money has to come from somewhere. And I'll tell you, one of the biggest development programs you can have is to create security in various countries of the world. We see conflicts at the moment.

15:45

My Lord, my Lord. >> Can I pray? >> The dip has had a gestation period longer than an African period longer than an African elephant, and we are still no further forward. When it came into power, this government said it was power, this government said it was about growth and that was a growth agenda for Britain. Does my noble friend agree with me that growth agenda would be if we actually invested in our defence industries in this country, as opposed to doing what the Treasury keep doing, of going to the lowest bidder and moving those some of those contracts abroad.

This is a great uncertainty for UK industry. If we uncertainty for UK industry. If we are going to get those world changing technologies we need for our defence, we need to get on with our defence, we need to get on with it. Well.

15:46

Lord Beamish (Labour)

- -

So we're finalising the details of the as as it stands at the moment with the new Secretary of State in post. But can I agree wholeheartedly with the point that

15:46

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

my noble friend has made just now, but always makes, quite rightly, about the need to ensure that any about the need to ensure that any increase in defence investment makes sure that it supports jobs and industry, both small and large, and industry, both small and large, within this country. And the other point I would make that my noble friend makes from the from his knowledge of the North East is we have to ensure that that growth is around the whole of the UK, around the regions and the nations of the UK to ensure that we all benefit from that increase in spending.

15:46

Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)

- -

Baroness Suttie can I. Minister has rightly. from somewhere. So may I make a suggestion? Why won't the government reduce current government reduce current departmental spending, not capital, current departmental spending by 1% a year, little more than a rounding error for more depart for most departments, which would free up over £35 billion over the planned period, more than enough to pay for the Defence Investment Plan.

15:47

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

That that argument that the noble Lord has made a number of times as one way of funding any increase in defence spending, will have been looked at by the Treasury. What the government has done, the way the government has done it is, way the government has done it is, is to to look at money that has available as well as reprioritize reprioritizing various programs within, within a cross-government. And that's that's being done. But I'm sure that the suggestion, as well as other suggestions that many people have made as to how any increase in defence spending could be funded, will be another idea that can be looked at.

15:48

Lord Birt (Crossbench)

- -

Thank you. >> My Lords. I was very sad indeed to see such a capable and committed group of defence Ministers depleted by resignation, but very pleased, as was the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, to see the noble Lord. The Minister remains in his place with us today at the 2025 NATO summit, all allies agreed a core defence target spend for 2035 of 3.5% of GDP, which the Prime Minister explicitly accepted at the time. Is that still our target?

15:48

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, it's NATO target. So obviously remains the the the obviously remains the the the government's target of 3.5% by 2035. And what I did in the answer to And what I did in the answer to Baroness Goldie was to outline what the Prime Minister said on Friday in answer to a particular question from Chris Mason, which actually talked about the 3.5%. He said the current discussions that are taking place around the spending for the dip, the dip is outside of the spending review process.

We have another spending review in 2027 which can consider that as well. But of course, 2035 is a significant is a further eight years beyond that. So other spending reviews will take place, but it does remain the the policy of the government to reach that NATO objective. Yes.

15:49

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

My Lord, my Lord. >> This has been a bit of an omnishambles. Other terms, of course, are available. I won't ask course, are available. I won't ask my noble friend to agree with me, because that's probably a bit tricky, but could he confirm that already this government has invested substantially in defence, unlike the previous government which ran it down consistently. And can he also confirm that the national conversation and I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission, that the national conversation to bring the realities of the situation that we face in the forefront of the public's mind will be commencing within the next few months, and that that will include not just defence, but also the need for homeland resilience.

15:50

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Or just to deal with the last point first. Yes, the national conversation will commence within the next few months, and we hope to involve a wide range of people. Can involve a wide range of people. Can I can I just say to my my noble friend, this is before the dip process and any further changes with respect to spending reviews in 2027. In 2020 425, the total deal was 60.2. In 2829, the total deal would be 73.5. So, as my noble friend points out, there's already been a significant increase in defence spending.

That's before any additional funds from the Dip or anything that may come from the spending review.

15:50

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, my Lords, Minister, I'm sure, will be aware that the nature of war, as we're seeing in Ukraine, has substantially changed and is substantially changed and is changing with almost every week that passes. In order for us to meet that challenge, we need innovation. So coming back to the noble Lord Beamish question, how will the Ministry of Defence change the way in which it procures things to make sure that Britain's innovative supply chain can contribute fully to our defence?

15:51

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

The way we're going to do that is to make small, small industries can also contribute because they make a massive, a massive contribution to the to the defence contribution to the to the defence of our country. And if you look in all of the whether it be the strategic defence review in all of the various policy papers that are produced by by the Mod, it's also about buying British. But it's also about making sure that small and medium sized countries companies have the option as well, because one of the lessons from Ukraine is you don't necessarily need huge multi multi-billion pound conglomerates or the big companies of the of today that many of the, the small companies of that which are providing the fighting material that's needed on the front line.

And that certainly is something a lesson that the dip will take forward as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the House is about to move into committee. So I would suggest if there are noble Lords suggest if there are noble Lords who wish to leave, and this is For For my For my Lords. My Lords has to be in committee on

15:53

Legislation: Social Housing Bill - committee stage (day 1) - part one

the Social Housing Bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage my Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee upon the bill that the House resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As

15:53

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

into a committee upon the Bill. As many as have that opinion will say. Content to Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

15:53

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

- -

Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I rise to remind the House of the rules on to remind the House of the rules on declaring interests. Noble Lord should declare any relevant financial interest the first time financial interest the first time they speak at each stage of a bill. This means that in committee, This means that in committee, relevant financial interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. Thereafter, the declaration does not need to be repeated at Committee stage.

Declaration should be specific and brief. Members should briefly indicate the nature of their financial interest, and not simply refer to their entry in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Register of the Lords interest. My Lords Social Housing Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Social Housing Bill before clause one, amendment one. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. My Lords, I begin with an apology for not taking part in the Second Reading of this bill. My Second Reading of this bill. My fellow Green Peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend, she

15:54

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

Moulsecoomb, my noble friend, she took part that that she's unable to be here today. So we're doing a little tag team effort, and I'm afraid I won't be able to be here on Wednesday, but I expect Jenny will be back at the Report stage of the bill. I also feel that I need to begin with a little bit of explanation, because the groupings today are a little technically complicated. This is a clause, clause one that would abolish the right to buy, to introduce that.

That involves me also in at least three subsequent groups opposing various clauses. So I'm actually opposing clauses 1 to 9. This is all for technical reasons. I have not pulled this out as a separate group. That's the way it was arranged. So that's why we have this slightly odd looking arrangements for technical reasons. So having said all of that out, as I said, clause one as I tabled it provides for the abolition of right to buy. I think it's worth noting that this is heading in the kind of direction that the government proposes from this bill.

It's just actually going further. Other people who are opposing other elements of clauses of this bill are indeed seeking to reverse the government's direction. But just to be absolutely clear, what I'm aiming to see is for us to go further, and I want to begin by stressing that the case for abolishing right to buy is not some theoretical proposal. Scotland and Wales have already done it successfully. We have a central question here. Should social housing be treated as a long term public asset or continue to be sold off during a housing crisis? Now, if we look to Scotland, Right to Buy ended there on the 1st of August 2016, it's been estimated that since then, 15,500 social homes in Scotland have been saved.

For the public, that is a lot of housing. That's a lot of households living in their community, children being able to continue to go to the same school, the sort of stability that social Housing Council housing has provided has continued in Scotland. But here in England we continue to see families torn out of their communities a continual turnover. I note that in Scotland, Doctor Mary Taylor, the CEO of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, said it is delighted that all forms of right to buy policy in Scotland have now come to an end, and this hasn't come a moment too soon.

Right to buy has had its day and has no place in a modern Scotland. Now if we turn now to Wales, which came somewhat after Scotland, with the abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights Wales Act 2018, and what the Welsh Government, the Labour Welsh Government said was that these sales were increasing waiting times for social housing and reducing the access to affordable housing, which is kind of a statement of the obvious. The Ministers also argue, and I acknowledge that the the government is doing something about this, that councils and housing associations had the confidence to build without fear they would immediately lose that housing.

Now, I quote the Labour then Welsh Housing Minister, Rebecca Evans, who said by protecting the stock of social housing in Wales, we are ensuring it is available for the long term to provide safe, secure and affordable homes for the people of Wales. This is no longer an experiment. It is established policy across much of the UK now. We discussed the impacts, the negative impacts of of the right to buy policy extensively at Second Reading. So I'm not intending to go over all of the same ground.

I just want to highlight a couple of points, and I draw first on the public health aspect of this. A report from the Commonwealth think tank. Wrong to sell how Right to Buy gave away billions in public wealth. And that report, described Right to Buy as one of the largest giveaways in UK history. So and it's led to a situation now where 1 in 6 private tenants in England rents a former local authority home, much greater cost, often worse maintenance, without the kind of democratic oversight that you get from council housing.

And if you think of the overall value of that, this report estimated that homes sold by English local authorities through Right to Buy are now worth £430 billion in 2024 prices. This, of course, is only part of the great privatisation, but this estimate says that's a bit more than the 400 billion that we have lost by selling off private public land into private hands. This is meant also a structural shift towards higher cost private renting, and we know how much the cost of private renting is affecting so many households, so many communities, but particularly the young, increased long term housing benefit expenditure.

I hear from my right a lot of concern about the welfare bill. That's one of the very significant drivers of it. And of course, the exposure to market volatility. I come to, just very briefly, one more report, the UK housing Review from the Chartered Institute of Housing. It notes, of course, are now very well known. Figure that 40% of Right to buy homes are now privately rented. So that is just a very straight privatisation out of public hands and affordable rent into sky high rents.

And that then going to private benefit. And what does this actually mean? I come back to the contrast. I started with Scotland's earlier policy change and comparatively strong social housing completions mean that new lettings to new social tenants have only fallen by 3% there since 2014. 2015. By contrast, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have seen about a quarter fewer lettings during the same period. That means that so many people are in insecure, often all to unaffordable housing.

This surely is time, past time, for England to follow the lead of Scotland and Wales, and end right to buy altogether, rather than simply attenuate it as the government's planning. I beg to move.

16:01

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed before clause one. Insert the new clause as one. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I hope. The House will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I hope. The House will not agree with amendment number one. I feel a little bit personal about this because the amendment knocks this because the amendment knocks out huge chunks of the Housing Act 1985, which I put on the statute book about 40 years ago, just as a background to what the noble Lady has said, that she talked about the erosion of of the social housing stock, 17% of the housing stock in this country is social housing.

That's roughly double the EU average of 9.3%. So already we are way out of line with our European neighbours in our provision of social housing. But the reason I want to oppose it is because if one looks at clause nine, it makes it clear that 100% of capital receipts from the right to buy will be ploughed back into social housing. So it is exactly the opposite of what the noble Lady said when she said that the right to buy would increase the waiting time.

What would increase the waiting time is acceptance of this amendment, because it would deny local authorities the capital receipts, which would still accrue to them. So I disagree with her. Fundamentally, there are other reasons for disagreeing with amendment one. For millions of people, 1.8 million people. It was a foot on the property ladder for many people who simply couldn't otherwise afford it. And many of those against the right to buy are actually people who own their own home. It gave people financial security, which they wouldn't otherwise have been able to have.

It became no longer the preserve of the those on middle or higher incomes, and it gave something back after paying years of of rent. Also, in the long term, it can reduce dependency because those who bought their home now have an asset that can be taken into account if and when they move into care. And there are wider benefits which I won't repeat, which we touched on at Second Reading, the right to buy help to help break down the monolithic nature of some of our local authority estates.

So I very much hope the government and indeed others in the House will resist amendment one. My, my Lords.

16:03

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to take part in this opportunity to take part in this Committee stage debate, and I won't reiterate the comments I made at Second Reading, because I talked then about family provision in social housing, and we will discuss that specific issue in later groups. My Lords, I'll begin by saying at the outset a congratulations to my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of Bexley for her promotion to the frontbench. Yeah. And also it would be remiss not to congratulate the noble Baroness Curran for her promotion.

It's. I think it's a promotion. Anyway, she's back on the frontbench. My Lords. As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, Right to buy was one of the most transformative policies in British political history, and it resulted in 58% of people owning their homes in 1981 being boosted to 69% by 2001. It's now fallen back to 63%. The boosting home ownership boosts self-reliance, and 81% of people in most recent polls support the concept of owning their own home and being part of a property owning democracy.

And in fact, 1.9 million homes are sold following the Housing Act of 1980 to date, affecting 4.5 million social tenants, as we heard also at Second Reading. Of course, it improves social mobility, especially for those working people on low or modest incomes. And we also heard, of course, demonstrable evidence, empirical evidence from the London School of Economics about the impact it had on children and young people in terms of their educational attainment as a result of being in homes that were brought under right to buy.

And this was a longitudinal study, as noble Lords will remember, and I must say, in passing, as always with the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, her views are always very sincere and always very well resourced with research, but on this occasion I can't agree with her for the reasons that my noble friend have made clear. Capital receipts from Right to buy were £51 billion, of which 47 billion was retained and remitted to His Majesty's Treasury. Even the most recent sales in England in, say, 2425, almost £800 million has been raised from 7494 sales.

And the important point to remember is that between 2012 and 2025, 48000 units were replaced directly from recycled right to buy receipts back into the social housing stock. And I think it's also important to to nuance the arguments to remember that we had the renaissance of housing associations as an alternative housing providers in that period. So it's it's not altogether correct just to look at the council housing and social housing, just within the context of local authority housing.

And there are a number of myths about right to buy, which is one of the reasons I opposed the noble Baroness amendments. As my noble friend said, we are still high by international standards in the level of social housing we have. I think we're fourth in Europe out of about 25 countries, significantly more than France, Italy, Germany and other large countries. And the fall in public sector housing construction began well before the advent of right to buy in 1980, social housing waiting lists were in fact bizarrely stable.

When Right to Buy was was at its most popular in the 1980s. And there's a reason for that, that that social housing waiting lists were derived as a function of demand and not supply. And so in that period between 1981 and 1997, social housing waiting lists actually fell from 1.2 million to 1 million in a period where we were selling off 100,000 homes, council homes under right to buy in that time. The problem being, of course, the wider housing market was overheating, with a rise in was overheating, with a rise in real housing prices of 108% between 1997 and 2009.

And the final myth is about discounts. Yes, you can say that discounted money is dead money to the taxpayer, but I think that criticism has to be misplaced. Because if one looks at the costs of, for instance, significant maintenance by local authorities and the payment of housing benefit, then those costs, alleged costs are significantly lower than is claimed by those who oppose right to buy. My final point, my Lords, is that, as my noble friend said, by abolishing right to buy, we will remove the revenue and income stream, building more social homes.

And that can't be right. We have to have an alternative if we're going to get rid of right to buy. Whilst I might not wholly agree with this government's objectives in terms as outlined in this Bill at the moment, the proposal by the noble Lady doesn't make sense because it would mean fewer homes for people who need them, and that can't be good. So on that basis, I oppose this amendment. as.

16:09

A vice President. >> Government Association and also a part owner of rented property in West Yorkshire. My Lords, one of West Yorkshire. My Lords, one of the strikingly important things for me, and I hope for all your Lordships, are the positive outcomes to young people exposed to the right to buy scheme from the 1980s. This is not wishful thinking on my part, but is clearly shown by

16:10

Baroness Eaton (Conservative)

- -

research from the London School of Economics. I did refer to this in my Second Reading speech, but I my Second Reading speech, but I think it is worthy of reminding you all Lordships about it. The right all Lordships about it. The right to buy guaranteed, detectable, sizeable school performance gains sizeable school performance gains amongst young people exposed to it, increasing the good grades in high increasing the good grades in high stakes exams. There is evidence also that there is an income effect, which gives more financial stability to households through home ownership, and there is a crime reduction effect from public housing tenants becoming owners of their own home.

It is disappointing that such prejudice against right to buy is likely to remove from social housing tenants the opportunities which Right to Buy has created for so many.

16:11

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, it's good to kick off our first day of report on this our first day of report on this important bill. As noble Lords will know from our comments and speeches at Second Reading, we broadly support this Bill. So what I will endeavour to do is not to make Second Reading speeches and to be as brief as possible, given the. Given our support for the Bill, we do support tighter restrictions on right to buy. I think the evidence is clear, but we do not believe in the total abolition of right to buy.

Now, as was said over and over by noble Lords at Second Reading, over 2 million houses have been sold since 1980, but nearly. But nearly 1 million more have been sold than replaced. And if we just look at last year's figures, 7500 homes were sold and only 3600 replaced. But more worrying was the net loss of nearly 4000 homes last year. Losses outstripped gains. This is not sustainable, and yet the need grows. Homelessness is growing. Numbers of families in temporary accommodation is growing.

My own local authority is now reaching the point that many others have already reached about the impact of their budget on temporary accommodation, but we believe that a total ban is not the right answer, which is why we can't support amendment one in the name of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, because housing need is not the same everywhere, and local councils understand their own housing pressures best. In some areas, right to buy should definitely be paused. There should be a moratorium in others more tightly controlled, but always from our benches with one condition homes sold must at least be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis, if not better.

A blanket ban would remove that flexibility. It replaces local judgement with central diktat, and we believe that some transition to home ownership is aspirational and desirable, and we are certainly not coming from the same place as conservative colleagues in it being a holy grail, a healthy housing market should be able to staircase ownership for some people without a significant loss of much needed social homes. Hence, some of our amendments later on, which I hope will make sense as we go through.

Because be assured, what we don't mean is it to enable some local authorities to actually abrogate their responsibility to provide social housing of all types? And we definitely would encourage more than one for one replacement replacement. So it's reform, not abolition and devolution, not abolition and devolution, not central diktat.

16:14

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, may. councillor in Central Bedfordshire? Can I also pass on my congratulations to the noble Baroness Curran for her returning to the front benches? My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution on this first day of this Committee stage. This amendment would abolish the right to buy altogether, and in doing so would remove one of the most significant routes into home ownership available to social housing tenants. The conservative government introduced the right to buy, founded on the simple belief that ownership should not be the preserve of the wealthy or the fortunate, few conservatives have long believed that people should have the opportunity to own their own home, build an asset and enjoy the security and independence that home ownership brings.

It's a hand up, not a hand out. More than 2 million households have benefited from right to buy ordinary working families, who in many cases had never previously imagined home ownership was within their reach. Growing up, I had many friends whose families benefited from this, including some noble Lords in this House, and I've personally seen the transformational benefits it gave them security, independence, a greater stake in their community that they could pass on to their children, a rung up the ladder to improve their lives and that of their families.

And as was raised by my noble friend Baroness Eating, LSE research has showed the significant educational benefits for those children who exercised the right to buy in the Black Country in mining communities across Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and County Durham, and in towns and cities across the Midlands and north. Families who had rented for decades became homeowners for the first time. My Lords, that social mobility. In practice, it's not a policy failure, I say, with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of Manor Castle and to the Labour government, who, while not seeking an outright ban, is seeking to significantly confer sorry, curtail right to buy.

But this amendment illustrates the fundamental difference in our traditional use. We in these benches have long believed that ownership should be extended as widely as possible across society. We do not view housing primarily through the lens of public ownership. My Lords, we have a housing crisis in this country. Housing is simply unaffordable for many, particularly so in London and the South east. And the reason is simple house building of all tenures has not kept pace with housing growth. Banning the right to buy will not build one extra home.

In fact, it will mean fewer homes overall. And this gets to the heart of what we believe is the real issue to be. It is not a failure. It is the failure to use the funding from right to resources. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned, to build more social homes. And as we will come on to later in this bill, we believe, as does the noble Baroness Thornhill in at least a one for one replacement. That means two homes rather than one.

That means two families having a home rather than one family, and a reduction in the council waiting lists. Now, in discussions with the Minister that. The noble Baroness Minister has said that the government wants to exceed that target and we would share that ambition and we would be very pleased if it was achieved. But if that is the case, how does it make sense to ban or curtail right to buy if that would actually deliver more social housing? All rather puzzling.

Banning right to buy benefits, not only the existing tenants, it will result in more additional social homes. So why would you ban it or restrict it? Building new homes also has other advantages, such as the opportunities for estate regeneration, more energy efficiency and the ability to focus on those homes in greatest need, such as supported housing. As I commented in Second Reading in 1980, the average renter was paying 14% of their income on rent in London. Today, for many, that is more than 50%.

And the gap between social rents and private rents in England has increased significantly. Since 1988, social rents have gone from 65% of market rent to 38% of market rent, according to House of Lords research. Is it any surprise that when the financial benefits are so huge, council waiting lists are increasing and tenants are increasingly reluctant to move on, even when they have the financial capacity? Of course, we should not ignore the challenges. Replacement rates have for too long been inadequate. Too many councils have been unable to deliver the new social homes needed to achieve that.

They will need to establish building programmes, but that requires, amongst other things, certainty of funding and support for regeneration issues that we will come on to later in that debate. Sorry. This debate. I confess that I find it difficult to understand why, at a time when younger generations already face huge barriers to home ownership and much greater than their parents and grandparents? The answer proposed is to remove one of the few established routes into ownership that remains available for those on lower incomes.

Whatever the

16:21

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

challenges facing social housing and there are many, the solution cannot be reducing the opportunity further. Now, whilst the noble Baroness may see a house leaving Baroness may see a house leaving the public ownership, we on these benches see a family entering home ownership. We. On these benches see social housing and the benefits in general as a stepping stone. It general as a stepping stone. It should be there when you need it. The aim should be to help you move on in your life, to become financially secure and independent.

It should not leave you in a lifetime of state dependency. Now, exercising a right to buy will not be right for everyone, but to deny the opportunity for those who can simply for ideological reasons. Is that right? Is that fair and has been said earlier? It will mean fewer homes. It will mean longer council waiting lists. That is why I say with respect that while there may be many constructive debates during this committee about the operation of the scheme and the future of social housing, it is fundamentally not right to abolish the right to buy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I address the the amendment. Firstly, can I declare an interest, and in doing declare an interest, and in doing so apologise that I neglected to declare this interest at Second Reading. One of my daughters works Reading. One of my daughters works for a housing association, so I should have said that. Second Reading. I declare that interest now is in the register of interest. Can I also add my congratulations to my noble friend Baroness Curran, to my noble friend Baroness Curran, who is appearing on the front bench for the first time today? And can I thank.

Also, I've already had a chance to welcome the noble Baroness O'Neill to her new role, but can I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who's not in her place today? But we've worked together for all the time. I've been in the house on some very long and complicated bills, and I'm very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful to her, and I'd like to put that on the record too. My Lords. I want to thank all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Before I respond on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, I'm pleased to open this first day of Committee on the first day of Committee on the Social Housing Bill. As I set out at Second Reading of the bill, this at Second Reading of the bill, this is a critical piece of that goes right to the heart of our current housing crisis. While over 1.3 million families in need of a home languish on local authority housing, waiting lists and the number of

16:26

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

children growing up in temporary accommodation continues to climb. So we must act now to turn around decades of losing more social homes than we are building. This than we are building. This legislation brings forward measures to protect much needed social housing and incentivise new housing and incentivise new building, as well as groundbreaking reforms to create safer and fairer system for those experiencing system for those experiencing domestic abuse. At Second Reading, I was very clear that this social housing bill sits within a much wider programme of social housing action, which clearly demonstrates our government's ambition and commitment to deliver the hope for the future that decent, affordable social housing represents.

Together with government's wider package of reforms and the £39 billion of investment this government. This bill will ensure that we can provide decent, safe, secure and affordable housing for generations to come. I look forward to getting into detail of the bill's provisions over the course of committee, and to engaging with noble Lords on these important measures. My Lords, Amendment one, tabled by the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, intends to abolish right to buy. The noble Baroness has also given notice of her intention to oppose that.

All the right to buy clauses stand part in the Bill, with the exception of clause six, making it clear that this amendment accompanies that intention. My Lords, the government has no plans to abolish the right to buy. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership. Boosting social mobility and opportunity, and supporting aspiration for families across the country. Following the commitment in our manifesto, we are reforming right to buy through this bill.

This will deliver a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme where long standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes but crucially, where for many years can buy their own homes, but crucially, where

16:31

Amdt 2

councils can replace them and contribute to the urgent and rising need for social and affordable homes. The noble Lord Leong referred to the long called for ability for councils to retain 100%

16:31

Baroness Eaton (Conservative)

- -

of receipts, and this government has facilitated that by reforming the right to buy scheme, much needed housing stock will be protected and, as Baroness Thornhill said, there will be more Thornhill said, there will be more homes available to house those on waiting lists and who are homeless. We have committed to the biggest funding boost for social and affordable housing for a generation, and I would remind the noble Lord Jackson and the noble Lord Jamieson that many of the homes sold have never been replaced.

Between April 2012 and March 2025. There were around 133,000 council right to buy sales, with only around 51,000 homes replaced over the same period. And not only has this depleted much needed homes for households in need, but it's also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build and restricted broader investment in council housing. I would also remind the noble Baroness Bennett and the noble Lord Jamieson that through the Renters Rights Act, this government has significantly strengthened renters rights, including with regard to rent increases.

So we think we've got the we've got the balance right here of making sure we address some of the issues around right to buy, but also continuing to give that opportunity and aspiration for those who want to purchase their own homes. We therefore oppose this amendment. And I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

16:34

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her response and everyone who has contributed to everyone who has contributed to this short, but I think, quite passionate debate at Committee stage. I join others in welcoming the noble Ladies Baroness Curran and O'Neill to the front benches. Starting with the response of the noble Lady, the Minister. I think the noble Lady agreed with me that right to buy and the way has been implemented up to now has done enormous damage. We are in agreement on that stage.

The loss without replacement of so much social housing. And I also acknowledge the points made by the noble Lady about the Renters Rights bill, which is again a step in the right direction, although the Green Party would like to see this going much further in terms of rent caps. And in saying that, I respond a little to the comment from the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have the greatest of respect. But the noble Lord compared the percentage of social renters in the UK versus other parts of Europe.

Of course, the conditions. The arrangements for private renting in most parts of Europe give people far greater security of tenure, far greater security of life, than. Than have our arrangements and will indeed our arrangements, even with the Renters Rights Bill or act just to pick up a couple of other points from noble Lord Dear young that I think really need to be referred to the idea that the housing is going to be sold and then ploughed back. Now we're going to get later to amendment 16, which talks about buyback.

And it's possible to imagine if we see an extension of buyback, that we might see a home sold under right to buy. And very quickly the council buys a house and there's another one available immediately. But I think probably the more typical situation is going to be a house is sold under Right to Buy. And maybe ten years later, a new social housing unit appears as a result of that money. That's a very long gap. And of course, it's also still the disruption to the community.

It's it's not very often going to be an immediate response just to pick up on a couple of

16:38

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

points from the noble Lord Lord Jamieson, I think we're not I'm not going to start a whole debate here going to start a whole debate here about where the where the rising house prices come from. But I do house prices come from. But I do particularly want to refer to a study from King's College London in 2018, which estimated that foreign money coming in. Without that, foreign investment prices would have been 19% lower then. And of have been 19% lower then.

And of course, we saw a great financial liberalisation, part of the whole right to buy scenario where we have turned what had been secure, affordable places for people to live into something being regarded primarily as a financial asset. And I'm also going to agree with the noble Lord Lord Jamieson, who suggested that social housing should only be a short term replacement until you move on with your life. Well, we want people to have a secure, affordable place to live for life if that's what they want.

That should be the foundation of our communities, and I think we're not stressing enough. The impact on communities of Right to Buy. We're focussed very much on the impacts of individuals. But the the turmoil that Right to buy has brought in communities, I think should not be ignored. And just one final point, and I say this as someone who has lived in three separate homes, all in London, that

16:41

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

had at some point gone from the social sector through Right to Buy. And each one of those blocks, I And each one of those blocks, I knew people who ended up in the most enormously difficult circumstances with Right to Buy because they borrowed a great deal because they borrowed a great deal of money, and then they suddenly got a huge bill from the council to replace the roof or fix the lift or replace the roof or fix the lift or whatever, and they were just not able to stay in the home that they'd hoped to stay in.

So what we they'd hoped to stay in. So what we have under Right to Buy is a lottery from which some people have benefited. A lot of people have suffered in the whole community has suffered. So of course, this being Committee stage, it's my intention to withdraw this amendment. But I think we do have to have to keep having this argument. Is housing having this argument. Is housing primarily a financial asset or is it a secure, affordable place to it a secure, affordable place to live? Is it a human right for people to have decent, secure housing? I beg to withdraw the amendment.

16:42

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn in clause one. Amendment two. Baroness Eaton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a pleasure to start this debate on this second group of thoughtful and varied amendments. We have just heard a spectacular defence of the right to spectacular defence of the right to buy scheme from noble Lords, which the government seems determined to restrict quite drastically throughout the provisions in this Bill. In clause one, the Bill Bill. In clause one, the Bill proposes to extend the qualifying period for right to buy from 3 to 10 years.

I will focus on amendment two in my name, which is a probing amendment as to what the rationale behind this extension is. I already have concerns that tenants of social housing who are able and willing to buy their property should be forced to wait longer. I understand that the government, in their manifesto, committed to increase the protections on newly built social housing, but this provision would affect existing social housing tenants to. There may be many tenants right now who are on the cusp of reaching the three year eligibility requirement, with high hopes of finally being able to own their own home.

But who will have to wait an additional seven years when this bill becomes law, unless it is amended? That is a long time to remain and wait and be on welfare. If the government insists on an extension to the qualifying, why not extend it to

16:46

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

five years rather than ten years, as my amendment suggests? Could the as my amendment suggests? Could the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what evidence base there is explain what evidence base there is behind that number? In addition, exactly how much social housing exactly how much social housing stock is a ten year extension expected to protect to protect, sorry, protect us opposed to, say, five. And how has the impact on existing tenants been assessed, if at all? We must ensure that ten years is not just an arbitrary number chosen randomly.

And if there is a justification, then it should be outlined and explained clearly. For the House to scrutinise. We must also remember that we are talking about real people living in social housing right now, people with hopes and aspirations who rights to buy a property should not be treated carelessly or without thought. What data does the government have, if any, as to how many tenants are about to reach the three year qualifying period? And could the Minister please share that data with the House? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, as well as from other noble Lords who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have tabled amendments in this group. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line six. Leave out ten and insert five.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert five. It's a pleasure to take part in this Committee stage of the Bill. Can I apologise to noble Lords? I Can I apologise to noble Lords? I wasn't able to be in your Lordships House for Second Reading. My Lords, House for Second Reading. My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the Register on Technology. Variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, Simmons and Simmons LLP and as Non-Executive director of avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.

My Lords, in my set of Committee stage amendments, I want to assist the bill by bringing the strands of inclusion and innovation, talent and technology through every possible supportive part and clause of the bill. In this group, I'd like to speak to amendments three, ten and 13 in my name. Amendment three sets out the provisions to establish a digital lifecycle service for right to Buy. In doing this, it provides greater empowerment, knowledge, connection and communication to those who may wish to avail themselves of the right to buy service.

This would be an effective and important use of digital technology, and through that could play a positive part in enabling digital inclusion. But critically, it doesn't seek to rely just on digital and sets out provisions where alternative means of connection to ensure this life cycle service can be achieved through such systems as text messaging. My Lords, Amendment ten develops this in the context of fraud requirements, clearly supporting the measures currently in the Bill at clause 124 A, an amendment 13 further seeks to use the benefits of technology to provide an immutable record and audit trail.

Tamper proof for all section one, two, two applications. In 2017, I wrote a report on blockchain called Distributed Ledger Technologies for Public Good because at that stage, I wanted to set out the potential public, not just use cases, but public value cases, the distributed ledger and other technologies could assist across the state. My fear was if these potential use cases, these value cases, weren't set out, the debate would get stuck. Where whenever blockchain was mentioned, it was naturally assumed that just meant Bitcoin, which had nothing to say in terms of beneficial provision for the operations of the state across potentially all government departments and indeed local authorities.

So amendment 13 is one such potential use case. One such potential value case where there could be a clear audit trail available for all of use to the department and indeed the regulator to have that safety, that security and that knowledge that the record was clear, accurate, immutable record of the applications, any potential fraud hearings and investigations which had happened around right to buy. So as three amendments looking to deploy the benefits of such potential technologies, I believe these three amendments would greatly support the provisions as set out in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. If I move my government amendments now and then I'll come back to close at the end, if that's all right with noble Lords. My all right with noble Lords. My Lords, I now beg to move government amendments four, six and 122 in my name. The government clearly set out in our response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy, that we would prevent to buy, that we would prevent existing property owners, or those that have previously benefited from the scheme, from exercising right to buy, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

This was supported by 91% of respondents to the consultation, including 86% of social tenants who responded. We have already drawn up the latter part of this commitment through clause two of the Bill, and intend to add to this by including a provision as New clause two to prevent existing residential property owners from exercising the right to buy. The committee will appreciate that defining residential property ownership is complex, given the many forms that property ownership can take. Capturing this complexity in legal drafting required additional time, meaning that this clause was not present at introduction.

Given that the intent behind the right to buy is to enable tenants of social housing to become home owners, preventing existing property owners from using the scheme is a fair and rational approach. We have set out what we think is a reasonable definition of a residential property owner. In this amendment, the new clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured with exceptions for short term leases under 21 years, as will joint ownership and any properties owned outside of England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad.

As in clause two of the Bill. Exemptions will be made for victims of domestic abuse who have moved from the accommodation that they were occupying for reasons connected to the abuse. As part of the application process, tenants will be required to declare to the landlord whether they own another property, and landlords will be able to check the information that the tenant provides. If tenants are seeking, exceptionally to buy under a Right to Buy scheme where they already own a residential property because they have been a victim of domestic abuse, they will be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord.

Amendment four thus follows through with our commitment to exclude existing property owners from using right to buy, and is accompanied by amendment six and 122, which are consequential and enable the clause to operate as intended. I commend these amendments to the Committee. My Lords, I wanted to hear from the Minister first about. The G. Four government amendment four, to try and understand a bit more about Cohabitees. Now, there are other legal rulings which have been made, and I'm led to believe that the Lord Chancellor will be bringing forward some legislation about Cohabitees.

But the definition isn't particularly strong. So I wanted to understand how, in practice, the government intends to put this in place. It's suggesting it's somebody who lives with somebody as if they're married. But there are other benefit rulings where that bringing entitlement was only brought in because of children involved. So I just wanted to get a better understanding because on that particular case, the ruling is that you only have to have lived somebody for a single day. I hear that the Lord Chancellor may be talking about something like three years, so I'd be grateful if the Minister and her final wind up could elaborate further on how they will determine accurately whether somebody is a cohabiting.

16:53

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

17:06

Baroness Eaton (Conservative)

- -

Was not my understanding. Noble Baroness, the Minister. Baroness, the Minister. >> My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response and to all noble members who have tabled amendments and provided insight in this debate, and provided insight in this debate, it is clear that the changes to Right to Buy need to be properly, thoroughly thought through, not only to ensure they are backed by sufficient evidence, but that they consider the real life consequences.

This is certainly true for those existing tenants of social housing who may not be aware of upcoming changes, and may have hopes of owning their own home for the first time. I think my noble friend lady O'Neill of Bexley and my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I thank them for considering how tenants can be better protected in their amendments in this group, particularly by promoting greater financial literacy and looking in detail at the commencement of this bill's provisions. I also thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her answers, but I do hope that they look further into the evidence behind extending the qualifying period to properly assess if ten years really is the most effective and necessary number.

If the differences in predicted outcomes between 5 and 10 year periods are marginal, then the period should not be extended more than is absolutely necessary. We should not treat people's aspirations with contempt and restrict their rights purely to undermine a scheme for the sake of it. More broadly. Therefore, I hope the government will reflect on what these changes mean for existing tenants whose hopes and dreams of owning a home should not be treated as moving chess pieces or indeed being looked down on at this point at the Committee stage, however, I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment three Lord Holmes of Richmond not moved. The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion shall say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause one. Amendment four Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally, but happy to discuss further with noble Lords if they have concerns about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

definition. The question is that amendment four be agreed to as many as that four be agreed to as many as that opinion shall say content. The contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment five Baroness have it. Amendment five Baroness O'Neill of Bexley not moved, and in clause two, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage amendment six. The question is that amendment six be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content.

The contents have it. Amendment seven Baroness O'Neill of Bexley not moved. Amendment eight not moved. Amendment nine not moved. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. In clause three. We move on to now. And the question is that clause three stand part of the bill.

17:10

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

I rise very briefly, having already outlined in our first discussion of the group, the reason why I'm opposing all of these why I'm opposing all of these clauses and clauses, and specifically clause three and clause four in this group. And just clause four in this group. And just to also respond to the noble Lady, the Minister, and to stress that my opposition to clause two was because I wanted to go further, not that I felt that there was a a not a need to ensure there's not double dipping within households or individuals.

Just to make that clear. Also make it clear in terms of clause three, not opposed to the extension of the period of eligibility, and clause four, of course, not opposed to anti anti-fraud measures. So just to very simply make that clear, there are people opposing these clauses are people opposing these clauses for different reasons. But the reason for my opposing this is the desire to stop, right to buy altogether. And having made that clear, I beg to move. clear, I beg to move.

17:11

Clause 3

I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think Lord Holmes of Richmond had his name on amendment ten, so perhaps we might move on to ten, so perhaps we might move on to amendment 11. Which is Baroness amendment 11. Which is Baroness O'Neill of Bexley and. Right. So we then may move on. So the question then may move on. So the question is clause three stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. Amendment ten not moved. Amendment 11 is then now not moved. Not moved. Not moved. Amendment 12 not moved. Amendment 13 Lord Holmes of Richmond then not moved. The question is that clause four stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will. I beg your pardon? The question. Yes, it is. The question is that clause four stand part of the Bill? As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content.

The contents have it in clause five. Baroness Coffey amendment 14.

17:13

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the intention of the government is to change the government is to change the discount on right to buy, dropping it from the current 35% rate for houses and 50% for flats all the way down to 5%. So putting 14 and 15 together. I agree with the 15 together. I agree with the intention to add percentages as the number of years of accommodation is covered, but I do think that going all the way down to requiring 95% of the purchase rates, the market rate to be paid was some somewhat strong.

Recognising how quickly. Also, it is intended for this clause of the Bill to come into practice. I went for seeking perhaps a bit of a halfway house to 20%, based on the fact that other social housing providers. The affordable rent is currently basically capped at 80% of market rent. As a consequence, I thought this might prove a sensible way to help people acquire a home by going for that 20% discount, similar to the discount that happens for the same property, quite possibly when it comes to rent.

So whereas why is this not everybody who lives in social housing actually is on benefits. Quite a lot of people aren't quite a high proportion. So there's this somewhat of an assumption that it doesn't matter anyway. And I appreciate not everybody who lives in a social housing council home, whichever it is, housing association provider wants to buy where they live. But I fear this will put a lot of people out. I'm actually very supportive of some of the earlier clauses where we've extended the length of how long somebody needs to be living in that home, and I wonder if the government would consider something that's in parallel in parity, rather, with the approach to rent, should also be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

approach on the discount to buy. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause five,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause five, page five. Line four leave out five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert 20. I just want to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to. Intervene briefly to support my noble friend in her amendment. I noble friend in her amendment. I should declare this first time at committee my interests as recorded

17:15

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

in the Register. As chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and adviser to other development and adviser to other development forums. Although just. If I can further reiterate, all the views I would express would be entirely my would express would be entirely my own and not attributable to any of the members of those forums, I felt the members of those forums, I felt very strongly as I think my noble friend did, that we arrived at a friend did, that we arrived at a position it would have been back in 2024, when the government radically reduced the discount rate for existing tenants, and I felt very strongly that there was significant, legitimate expectations on the part of those who were tenants, that they would be saving over a period of time and have the opportunity to buy at a significant discount.

Now, I can see that the government had the right, as an incoming government to adjust the discount and and they chose to do that. But I think they went too far. And I firmly support my noble friend in saying we want to continue to give tenants the feeling that they can can continue to have the hope that they will buy, and that they have to have a sufficient discount to make it worth their while to do so, especially in in many parts of the country where the prices of property these days are not necessarily increasing, we don't want them to be not taking the opportunity to buy, because they fear that the house or the property that they would buy would no longer be of the value that they've paid.

And I think the the discount that my noble friend is advise is recommending in amendments 14 and 15 that do firmly put us in the right sort of territory for continuing to meet, to some extent, the legitimate expectations of many tenants and are sufficient to to make it clear that we're not giving them an undue incentive to buy. And, of course, when when you combine my noble friend's amendments with some of the other of the government's amendments and others which mean a right to buy is only able to be established over a significant period of time, which we've just recently discussed.

I think that is a quite a manageable combination, where the government should be willing to entertain that people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who have for a long time or in the future for a A long period. Of time. Our tenants should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of time. Our tenants should be given a worthwhile discount of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given a worthwhile discount of the kind my noble friend proposes. My Lords, I. Rise to speak in. Support of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support of. My noble friend. Baroness Coffey to make the simple point that whilst the government does seem to be trying to reduce the ability of be trying to reduce the ability of right to buy, to make that astonishingly important way for people to invest for their retirements, to buy a stake in society security for their family,

17:18

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

and so forth. The key point has been forgotten. That right to buy when the receipts are recycled is a very good way of renewing our social housing stock. For somebody to buy an older house, and there to buy an older house, and there are provisions in this bill to lengthen the terms of which a new house may be purchased up to 35 years when an old house, a home, somebody who's been living there for a long time is acquired.

It releases incrementally the funds to improve the stock over many years. So this is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. And the purpose of Lady Coffey's amendment is to provide a meaningful incentive, but not an overly generous one. It balances the rights of the individual. As my noble friend Lord Lansley has said, to save over a long period of time in the expectation that they may acquire the home which they have previously rented with the ability of sufficient funds, 80% of the value, which is more or less the cost of producing a replacement.

So so that it balances that private interest with the public good. And I strongly support the amendment from Lady Coffey. It does the right thing in the right way, in the right quantum. That ensures there is a source of funding to upgrade and replace that core housing stock. Otherwise, it'll fossilise and get all old together. And that's not in anybody's interests.

17:20

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I'll stick to my words at the beginning and be as brief as beginning and be as brief as possible, but to the point, if the aim is to actually preserve existing stock, then absolutely, existing stock, then absolutely, clearly this is a lever you have to pull and you pull it. And we would pull and you pull it. And we would not disagree with that, even that it's so low. But let's be clear, if an average house price in my area, an average perhaps isn't a good way of looking at a median house price, which is about 450 000, you're still getting a discount of 900 £0.

I mean, how many of us would say no to that? And I think the other question we have to ask ourselves is who pays for the discount? And then the next question after that is whatever detail we want to get in about finances, we know that the bottom line is that a sale doesn't build another house, and that money has to be added to it. So those are quite simple things as to why we support this particular direction in the bill.

Hear, hear.

17:21

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> I add my congratulations. >> To the lady on her return to the front bench. Can I also declare my front bench. Can I also declare my interests as Vice President of London Councils? I will be there tomorrow morning. And also being a part owner of a rented property in Bexley. I would also put on record my parents actually had a right to buy and my dad was a bus conductor and I'm proud of that. My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on what is ultimately a question of proportionality.

The government believes that the current level of discounts is too generous, and that they need to be reduced. The question raised by these amendments is whether the reductions proposed in the bill go further than is necessary, hence why we have probed the inclusion of clause five. My noble friend Lady Coffey's amendments do not seek to preserve the status quo. Rather, they offer an alternative approach that would reduce discounts while retaining a meaningful incentive for tenants considering home ownership.

As the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Fuller has already said, in that sense, they seek a compromise between the current arrangements and the considerably lower levels proposed by the government. Noble Lords have referred to the importance of preserving the viability of the scheme. That's a legitimate concern. If discounts are reduced to the point where the financial advantage of exercising right to buy becomes marginal, there's a risk that the policy ceases to operate as intended. The issue before the committee is therefore not whether discounts should ever change, but whether the government has adequately justified reductions of the scale proposed in the Bill.

Having listened to the debate, I'm not yet persuaded it has. For that reason, I hope the Minister will give further consideration to a more measured approach to better preserve the opportunities the Right to buy scheme has offered to many tenants over the years.

17:23

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to noble Lords have spoken in this debate. Baroness Coffey, Lord Lansley, Lord Fuller, Baroness Thornhill and Baroness O'Neill. First of all, I'm going to look to defend why clause five should stand part of the bill. The Right to Buy scheme continues to provide an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. However, we must ensure that the scheme remains sustainable. This includes ensuring that discount levels are set at the right level to enable long standing tenants to buy under the scheme, but without depleting levels of social housing stock.

The government has already taken action to reduce the maximum cash discounts in November 2024 by returning these to pre 2012 levels. We committed to revise the discounts available as a percentage of the property value, so that these align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause five delivers on our commitment to do this by reducing the percentage discounts, so they start at 5% of the property value. After ten years of public sector tenancy and increase for every extra year of tenancy, up to a maximum of 15%, as is the case now.

These percentage discounts will be subject to the cash caps, which set out the maximum cash discount that a tenant can receive in their local authority area. Aligning the discounts available as a percentage of the property value with the cash caps ensures that those who have been in their homes the longest benefit the most, while also avoiding disproportionately large discounts in high value areas. The revised percentage discount levels aim to strike a balance between the responses received during the Right to Buy consultation, where many respondents supported setting the percentage discounts lower than is proposed by this clause.

We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to both houses and flats, making the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants. This clause also extends the discount repayment period to ten years after the original sale from the current five years, during which a purchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. The measure this measure was supported by 72% of all respondents to our consultation, and it will ensure that there is less incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme and will encourage people buying under the scheme to retain the property and discourage some of the profiteering that we have seen with this explanation.

I would therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her operation to sorry, her opposition to this clause, to this clause standing part of the Bill. Turning now to amendments 14 and 15, as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The intention of these amendments to set the minimum percentage discount at 20% and the maximum at 30%, would undermine the core aims of this clause that I have just set out, and will keep the percentage discounts too high in practice.

It would also be the case that the lower maximum cash discounts would take effect over the percentage amounts, as the cash cap would often be the lesser of the two discounts, and would determine the discount that the tenant would receive. This would also mean that tenants with longer tenancies would be less likely to benefit. So, because the cash cap will bite sooner on the actual discount received. So I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. I am grateful to the.

17:27

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

Minister for her response. I don't think we can base every decision or amendment on exactly decision or amendment on exactly where one lives. Recognising that there are parts of the country where there are significantly lower costs, low market prices to be had. And also, I will go back partly to what I said in Second Reading. There is a risk that as people retire, they will start to then claim benefits, to continue to live in the places where they are currently. Social housing tenants.

So I think it would be worth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

looking at the maths again, but with that I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 15. Not not moved. The question is that clause five stand question is that clause five stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion shall say. Content. The contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it. Clause six. The question is that this Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. The question is that clause six stand part of the bill.

17:28

Clause 6

My Lords, I'd like to begin this debate by stating our concerns with debate by stating our concerns with clause six. Perhaps they are the same concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor

17:28

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

Castle, has also. The right of first refusal dictates that if you bought a property through Right to bought a property through Right to Buy scheme and decide to sell it within ten years, you are required to offer the property back to your former social landlord before former social landlord before putting it onto the open market. The current measure provides an opportunity for previous social opportunity for previous social landlords to reacquire. However, extending it indefinitely raises a extending it indefinitely raises a number of potential complexities and practical issues.

It also undermines the principle of property ownership. What happens if you leave the property to your children? Does it impact any subsequent sales? If the landlord decides not to require reacquire the first time, many owners will decide to stay in their properties well beyond the ten years before they even think of selling, or may decide, as I mentioned, to pass on to their children if the right of first refusal is extended to perpetuity. What happens if a former social housing landlord has changed? A council may have merged with another, or split into two, or in some cases, three.

Under the current local government reorganisation, and it's not clear who the former landlord is. The housing association may have closed. Has the government considered these practicalities and scenarios, and who is responsible in each of them for ensuring the right to first refusal is upheld? Perhaps that is one for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to consider. With technology and blockchain. Turning to clause seven, we have several concerns. Amendment 17 in my name probes the necessity of replacing the specific and widely understood term warden with the general and less specific term manager.

I'd appreciate if the noble Baroness, the Minister could provide some justification for this change. Amendments 18 and 2025 address a more fundamental concern. Clause seven will mean those living in rural areas will not have access to the right to buy. Whilst we appreciate the challenges of building new social housing and rural areas again, we believe the government's focus should be on overcoming those challenges. Secondly, there may be very good reasons why an authority would want to sell housing through Right to Buy, in order to make better use of the proceeds elsewhere, where demand may be greater.

On principle two, why should social housing tenants have fewer rights to home ownership simply because of where they currently happen to be housed? We do not think that is fair on the individual. My noble friend Lord Fuller amendment 19 also notes an issue in how national parks are defined and the noble Lords Lord Cameron of Dillington Lord Best and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also raised the issue in their amendment of how rural areas are defined in relation to population density as currently drafted, rural areas as a whole will be defined by the Secretary of State through regulations.

What counts as rural is disputed and will now have consequences for those tenants who live there. Our amendment 25 will require an affirmative procedure for such regulations to ensure Parliament has stronger oversight over how rural areas are defined, and I hope this will have support of other noble Lords. Lastly, amendment 22 in my name probes the rationale behind setting a 35 year time limit before the right to buy arises on newly built social housing. To be clear, we recognise the manifesto commitment to increase protections on newly built social housing.

But why 35 landlords are already protected by a floor price, which should reflect the cost of building that home. Now, we appreciate that the calculation of fraud prices could be improved, for instance, taking into account the value of land that has been transferred to a housing revenue account at zero cost. But why is there a need for a 35 year time period? Why not five or 10 or 15? I'd be interested to hear what evidence base is behind setting a 35 year limit, or is this just a further attempt to undermine Right to buy? I hope the Minister can provide some further details on this.

I look forward to her response and to the contributions of other noble Lords to this group. I beg to move.

17:33

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. >> I have a. >> Contrary view to that of the noble Lord Jamieson. Clause six, noble Lord Jamieson. Clause six, and I start by reminding committee that I do have a registered interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council, which directly manages council housing in the borough. So the amendment in my name is related only to clause six. There is. Which is about. The first right of refusal to social landlords to buy back properties.

So there's a. The reason I have this amendment is this. First of all, there's a wide agreement that there's a national housing emergency. Despite what we've heard in earlier amendments, and it's due to a chronic lack of properties at a social rent. And as we've heard from my noble friend Baroness Thornhill, we on the Liberal Democrat benches support the principles underpinning the bill. Now, although the primary purpose of the bill relate to constraining the right to buy, there is unfortunately very little ambition in rapidly increasing the supply and that is desperately needed given the numbers on housing waiting lists.

Over a million. The increasing number of people who are homeless, and the absolute scandal of over 170,000 children living for long periods in temporary accommodation. So clause six does provide a route by which councils are able to increase their supply of housing at social rent relatively quickly, and the clause six changes. The right of first refusal are significant by removing the previous ten year time limit. The bill grants local authorities an indefinite right to repurchase former council homes every time they are resold on the open market.

Now that, in my view, is a powerful mechanism to reclaim lost stock and ensure these homes return to the social housing sector, where they are so desperately needed. However, a right is only as effective as the resources available to exercise it. So while clause nine helpfully allows the Secretary of State to let councils retain more of their right to buy receipts by modifying the pooling requirements, although welcome, it is but a drop in the ocean, I'm afraid retention of receipts alone is not enough, and what is needed is a dedicated additional funding stream to support clause six repurchases for the following reasons.

First of all, market value realities. Clause six allows councils to buy back homes at market value. Homes sold decades ago have appreciated appreciated significantly, meaning the retained receipts from a limited number of current sales under clause nine will be insufficient to buy back a meaningful volume of older stock, so not enough cash available. The second reason is this there are significant financial savings both for councils and government, because these can be achieved by investing in repurchases.

Local authorities currently spend £1.7 billion on temporary accommodation every year, and that has. That was a figures from two years ago. So. And there's been a 62% increase in that figure in just five years. So but excuse me, by providing additional central funding to buy back permanent social homes would drastically reduce this unsustainable cost to local, local government. And the third reason is this by stopping the private transfer of homes, currently, 4 in 10 homes sold under Right to Buy end up in the hands of private landlords, which rather undermines the argument we heard earlier.

When they are sold to private landlords, rents inevitably rise significantly and support for tenants is much reduced without additional funding. Beyond the provisions in clause nine, councils will be forced to watch as these homes are sold to the highest private bidder because they lack the immediate capital to exercise their new indefinite right of first refusal, which we support. Clause six is a positive change and clause nine provides a helpful start for self-funding. But to truly end the housing emergency emergency and deliver the 90,000 new social homes every year that advocates like shelter call for, let alone the 150 000 that Liberal Democrats want.

Councils must be given access to supplementary grant funding specifically for repurchases. It is a win win. Having the funding to buy back former former social houses rapidly increases desperately needed supply, and it enables families in temporary accommodation to be housed permanently, which both saves expenditure on temporary accommodation and provides families and, my Lords, especially children, with the stability of a permanent home, which is very important to young people. I hope the Minister will be able to provide a positive response and open those government purses so we can achieve a greater number of former council homes being bought back to house folk who desperately need it.

17:40

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 19. But before I do so, I would just like to support my noble friend Lord Jamieson in his promotion of Amendment number 25 in respect of rural areas. Now, my Lords, I've been in enough debates Lords, I've been in enough debates in this House to know how hard it is for the term rural to be defined. But the lamented Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Saint Albans, entertained us all with a debate about 18 months ago on what Rurality meant, and there is no definition in the government or in this country about what rural is.

There were a lot of contended assertions that rurality might be this thing or that. So unclear is the term rural that the. The right reverend Prelate Bishop of Saint Albans commissioned his own research and we debated it, and I'm bound to say we were no further forward at the end of the beginning, although last week in the debate on the rural economy, I did advance the definition as the noble Lord Katz who was in his place will recall that the definition of virality is that place where, at 11:00 at night, you can't get an Uber to take you home from the pub because in the sticks we do things differently.

Look, I make this point because if we are to have the the term rural in clause seven, it should be much more tightly defined. So we know exactly what we're getting. And it goes beyond the term of can you get an Uber or not? Are you in the town or not? Where does the town begin? Where does the suburbs and so forth. Look, I've made that point. I would now want to really dwell on my amendment 19, and I'm trying to be helpful here because later on in amendment 52, in the next group, I will talk about the concept of locality and recycling the right to buy receipts.

It has been said that Rurality sorry that locality isn't part of this bill, but here it is in clause seven where the right to buy carbides exist for social homes in national parks, and these places have some of the greatest housing pressures, as well as the restrictions on new build because, well, new homes are restricted in housing in national parks. Now, my amendment is aimed to be helpful because when we have the ministerial drop in before Second Reading, there was a slip of the tongue and the words national parks and national landscapes were used interchangeably.

So I've sort of taken that as my cue because here in clause seven, it mentions areas of outstanding natural beauty. And of course, I'm entirely in accordance with those. But there are only 34 of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but there are 46 national landscapes. Collectively, they make up 15% of England, and there are other places in Wales, in the Gower and Northern Ireland there's about half a dozen, including the Antrim Coast and Glens. So what I'm seeking to do here is to avoid confusion between what I believe is the old term areas of outstanding natural beauty and the new term, which is now preferred by government national landscape.

So that's why I've got my little a, a, it makes it quite clear on the face of the bill that that where there is a national landscape which includes areas of outstanding Natural Beauty covered in little C, it also really means national landscape. This small amendment seeks to extend the provisions of clause seven, paragraph three, from National parks to the A to avoid giving a gap between them and the areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and to provide the clarity and certainty that to make it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consistent with the government's new nomenclature. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to move. My amendment 20. And before I do so, I must refer

17:44

Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)

- -

>> And before I do so, I must refer to my interests for the purposes of the Committee stage of this Bill. As a retired member of a Somerset

17:44

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

As a retired member of a Somerset farming family, which lets some houses on the farm, I must also

17:44

Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)

- -

houses on the farm, I must also thank those noble Lords who have supported this amendment, notably the noble Lord Lord Best, noble Lady Baroness Thornhill, and also the noble Lady Baroness Royall, who is not in her place, but. And also. Unfortunately, Baroness Royall was late with her timing, so didn't make it to the Marshalled List. Now, my Lords, at Second Reading I outlined the affordable housing crisis and I don't think that's overstating the case. That has overtaken many parts of rural England and how rural housing waiting lists are larger or growing faster than their urban equivalents.

I explained that rural communities, rural social networks and even rural services have broken down. While the rural economy is stuttering, with businesses finding it harder to recruit their necessary workforce, and all of this being caused by a lack of affordable housing in the countryside. So it is vital that the local authority housing in rural England is protected from the right to buy. And all the evidence suggests that there are particular challenges of a lack of affordable housing in parishes of less than 3000 population, only 9% of housing stock in these parishes is owned by local authorities or housing associations, compared with 17% in urban areas.

New build rates of affordable housing in these rural communities is also much lower, reflecting the constraints on delivery. And as a result, the calculations of affordable housing need. Unquote shows that the need is far greater in rural parishes than urban. So my first instinct, my Lord, was to put down an amendment which simply stated that parishes with less than 3000 people should be exempt from the right to buy a clear definition, which I'm sure that local law Lord Fuller will approve of.

As a definition, it is simple to understand. It is also simple to designate, and I might add that it is also fairly simple to designate when a parish grows too large, and thus hopefully no longer needs the protection such an amendment might give. Furthermore, it would also have given certainty an instant understanding to all involved, both the local authorities and indeed the tenants, which, in terms of giving the right signals to get on and build houses in these parishes, was an important consideration to me.

My next thought was that we should stick to the tried and tested wording, and so I turned to the 1996 Housing Act, and this exempted settlements from the right to acquire from four registered providers, i.e parishes with populations of less than 3000 and certain areas and parts of specific parishes. And this amendment would have nearly covered the same areas as my simple 3000 description. But then we received the Minister's letter setting out what was intended by the current wording in the bill, and so it seemed logical to me to use the words in her letter, her words, my Lord, in my amendment, because in that way neither she nor her team could possibly reject it.

However, I should say that I still have that sinking feeling. My Lords, the noble Lord. The Minister is not known for her acceptance of amendments. I suspect that the Minister will want the Secretary of State to have powers of flexibility and discretion to make up his or her mind in future, to fit in with other agendas and priorities. Don't forget that these powers will not only apply to this Secretary of State, my Lords, but also to future governments and who knows what they will want.

I, on the other hand, would like the rural definition to be instantly clear to everyone and on the face of the Bill, and bearing in mind that the Minister's definition given in her letter would include 91% of all parishes of less than 3000 population, that is acceptable to me. I'm happy to accept her definition. Sadly, the original designation in section 157 of the 85 act, as implemented, excluded more than 60% of parishes with less than a 3000 population. This was because the relevant section required local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State, and most local authorities, in their ignorance, failed to do so.

So this time, my Lords, let's get the definition clear and on the face of the bill so everyone understands where they are government, local authorities and above all tenants. Now, as I say, the noble Lady, the minister's normal starting position is to repel all amendments. Hence my sinking feeling. So can I put in a plea that if this amendment is not acceptable to her and her government in this form, that we can get round the table to discuss a way forward that does give rural local authorities and their tenants something a bit clearer and more understandable than we currently have on the face of the bill.

17:49

Lord Best (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington, and I declare my various housing interests as in the Register. But before considering amendment 20, perhaps I could extend a word of dissent to the amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness O'Neill of Bexley opposing clause six and part of the Bill. Her amendment would remove the proposed extension of the right of first refusal, enabling the obligation to last in perpetuity.

It does seem a helpful change to enable the local authority, or more likely, a nominated housing association, to have a long lasting opportunity to reacquire a right to buy property when it is being sold. The price paid would be the full market value, and it would be determined independently and so would involve no loss to the outgoing occupier. Indeed, the vendor could expect to save on fees to estate agents, although a social landlord buying a full price at full price, a home that they previously sold at a substantial discount sounds like a nonsense.

This may well be the only or best way of securing the affordable homes that are so badly needed. Indeed, the government has a fund, the Local Authority Housing Fund, specifically to enable councils to buy and modernise existing property. My Lords, if, as is likely, the property in question is on an estate or in a block of other homes managed by the local authority or by a housing association, the management and maintenance costs will be more economical for a social landlord than for anyone else.

In the case of major upgrades to existing houses or flats, on social housing estates, or even their redevelopment, being able to acquire the property will be essential, and the right of first refusal means they cannot be held to ransom, extending the right in perpetuity sounds sensible to me, but turning to the amendment 20 of Lord Cameron of Dillington to which I have added my name, the bill, enlisting exceptions to the right to Buy, includes an area designated by regulations made by the Secretary of State as a rural area.

In the past, the areas designated as rural exceptions have only covered barely 60% of council homes in rural areas. My noble friend's amendment seeks to define in a fuller way what a rural area should mean. In this context. The case made by my noble friend is twofold. First, that rural areas at large have a particular problem with the right to buy, and second, that for many years those working in rural areas have grappled with an inadequate definition of what comprises a rural area.

The amendment makes plain that the exception to the right to buy would cover all sparsely populated areas, with populations below 3000. Clarity on this exemption would be greatly welcome, and I see the case for the widest possible exemption as very necessary. The extraordinary difficulty for the next generation of finding anywhere affordable to live in the rural communities of North Yorkshire, for example, was highlighted at an illuminating event at Ripon

17:56

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

Cathedral just last Friday. We learnt that while social housing comprises 17% of the nation's homes, comprises 17% of the nation's homes, I should just, in passing, make the point that social housing is point that social housing is divided, determined, defined in different countries in different ways. And although the noble Lord, ways. And although the noble Lord, Lord young, was making the point that in this country, social that in this country, social housing at 17% sounds rather high compared with some European comparators.

In reality, in Europe, the housing cooperatives and the co-ownership housing schemes which are subsidised social, social housing, in our sense are not counted in those same statistics, giving a rather different comparison between us and other countries. But the extraordinary difficulty for the next generation of finding anywhere in North Yorkshire to make their home and remain in an area where they've been born and brought up and now they are working, was highlighted at this event. And we learned that while social housing comprises 17% of the nation's homes across the country, in North Yorkshire, the figure is only 6.7%.

Local people, supported by the excellent rural housing enablers, funded in part by DEFRA, have struggled to secure a small number of new homes for rent and shared ownership. They have required the bringing together of willing landowners, committed housing associations, the local authority and the combined authority for York and North Yorkshire as behaving in an exemplary fashion, and parish councils no small feat. The loss of homes for future generations in these projects is not only a bitter blow. After all the work that has gone into their development, but poses an insuperable problem in trying to repeat the exercise to replace the homes that are sold under the right to buy.

Remembering that 40% of all right to buy homes sold in now owned by private landlords, letting at rents of up to three times the previous council social rents and in many rural areas, permanent social housing lettings purchases under the right to buy have gone for air B and B and other short term lets. Where can another site be found to build replacement homes for those that are sold, it may have taken five or even ten years of persistence to achieve the development for local people.

Can this effort be repeated to compensate for the loss of such badly needed accommodation? While there are question marks hanging over the long term usefulness of homes in these rural developments, how many landowners can be expected to donate sites for them or make them available? Make land available on very favourable terms? I strongly support the clarity which we hope this amendment would bring. As I understand it, this chimes with the position of the noble Baroness, the Minister who has herself commented on this issue earlier, and I have not found so resistant to amendments that are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed by noble colleagues. I tabled amendments 21, 23 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I tabled amendments 21, 23 and 2421 is designed just to try and understand how the bill works. It's my understanding there already are regulations on what is defining rural and as set out as the noble rural and as set out as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron referred to, and that uses the 3000 population as a that uses the 3000 population as a base. What doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware, is that when the population of that parish or village goes over, that it isn't automatically removed as being rural, far from it.

It requires, at the moment more regulation to be undertaken. So that's why I'm trying to understand why the power under subparagraph two B includes the power to repeal something that isn't yet already law. I'd just like to understand really how that's going to work in practice. Contrary to other noble Lords, I'm generally supportive of the right to buy and rural areas, and I have heard the arguments multiple times about land. And I do get that. I do understand the issue about land, but I'm also conscious that a lot of villages, a lot of small rural places are also built as the risk is that they start to become dormitory towns and actually local families.

And I strongly support wanting to see what we can do to acquire more land, to get more homes. But one of the things that often is happening, and this is a mixture of just where there are jobs, where there actually is affordability issues in regards to LH. A but also, you know, frankly, people want to be able to have that family continue in that particular small village or small town. The what ends up happening is that, of course, there's no right to pass on the council house, the social housing to your children.

What then? Wouldn't it be better if we had in some ways, of keeping the character and that sense of community that by allowing parents and perhaps the family clubbing together to help buy that social house, that there will be that sense of continuity from generation to generation. And it's quite often it is the same families who are the ones who are the volunteers for the RNLI, it's the ones who are the same volunteers. And I appreciate there's a technical or operational challenge of people who are perhaps the volunteer firefighters.

Let's just bear in mind, most of the countryside doesn't have a fire station unless it's manned or staffed by local volunteers. It's quite extraordinary. The constituency I used to represent of 280miÂ² didn't have a single full time firefighter in it. It's entirely relied on people who lived and worked locally, and it's that lack of that lack of continuity of community and families who have lived there some time that I'm concerned will be lost if somehow there isn't this element of being able to try and pass on one property from one family, from generation to the next.

Now my Lord Singh turning to clause amendment 23 quite straightforwardly, I've never really understood why. Thinking of the escalator to home ownership, the shared cost or shared ownership accommodation. Why that just stops at 75%. So you're given part way of a bit of home ownership. It does make you think, what on earth is the point, especially when quite often it is pretty difficult to pass on and to sell a lot of these homes. And people have gone into them thinking that this is their way to get onto the home ownership ladder, only literally for the ladder to be cut off before they can reach the end.

That's also challenging when it comes to getting things like

18:00

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

mortgages and selling on. So I'm just wanting to understand why we can't do something more about that. can't do something more about that. And then finally, I'm a little bit And then finally, I'm a little bit suspicious about this new part of the clause. And this is a probing amendment to test what would be amendment to test what would be deemed practical completion, because basically saying that we've got all these newly built, got all these newly built, affordable houses coming. What's to stop housing providers right now stopping completing accommodation? What is in terms of fit for occupation as housing, accommodation? They might just decide they're not going to install the bathrooms.

They're not going to install the kitchen just so none of these will be eligible for right to buy in the future. I'm not sure I like the sound of that. And I wanted to test with the Minister how she would be certain that this sort of behaviour would not happen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the clause six, not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause six, not. Stand apart and indeed clause seven and clause eight, and also to amendment 16 from the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock, to which I attached my name. And just for clarity, for the noble Lord Lord clarity, for the noble Lord Lord Jamieson his reasons and mine for signing clause six not stand apart are, I think you could safely say, are, I think you could safely say, directly opposed, as I have made clear all the way through all of my not clause not stand part amendments here, because I was seeking to end ride to buy all the entirely.

As with amendment one, I think that's made obvious by my signing of amendment 16, a buy back rights to buy. This is also known as by the supply. And my hon. Friend Sian Berry and the other place has been a particular leader in this area. Not surprisingly, when you look at Brighton and Hove, which has lost almost a third of its social housing since Right to Buy came in in 1980. And if you put the figures across the across England by the end of this Parliament, we are talking about more than 1.3 million homes lost.

What we want to do is get some of those homes back, those homes that were built very often with very high quality of build standards, very high quality of size of rooms, of provision, of housing. Better, I would dare say, than pretty well anything we're likely to build today. We want to get those homes designed for social housing back into social housing. And I note also that my hon. Friend was previously a London Assembly member and the Housing Committee of the London Assembly very much urged the need for us to be able to buy back those lost homes.

And the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock referred to families in temporary accommodation. And of course, this is a huge issue, particularly for London, and it is everywhere, but particularly in London, where we are seeing often very vulnerable families shipped out of the city, shipped very far away to produce huge profits for private landlords in far flung parts of the country. And if London could buy back the supply, that would be potentially Lord Tyrie, either for permanent homes or for being able to provide that temporary accommodation.

And I think it's also worth noting that my hon. Friend for noble Lords who haven't seen it, has a z n out urging by the supply. It's a lovely, cheerful cartoon publication that you might like to look up, and I just want to make one other comment about the state of where we are now. We have, of course, a struggling housing market. Broadly, the average price of homes in England has not changed in the past. From March 2025 to March 2026.

In fact, there's been a decrease to May. There's actually been a decrease in the price, I note one market commentator said. We are in the strongest buyers market we have seen in years. Surely this is a great time for the for the local councils to be able to be the buyers, to start to restore some of the damage that has been done. Now, I think the structure of this amendment reflects the limitations in your Lordships House of what we can do in terms of directing the government to spend money.

I will put this on the record here to notice that I think my hon. Friend in the other place will be going further. But I think the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock has given us a very good start.

18:04

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I Lord Watts indeed, I agree >> I Lord Watts indeed, I agree that my noble friend Baroness Pinnock has given us a very good start, and she was indeed quite start, and she was indeed quite passionate in in what she was saying, and I did tell her there'd be a. But, but it's only a very small one. We absolutely agree in principle that the right of first refusal should apply in perpetuity, but I have concerns about how this would work in reality, and I have raised these with the Minister.

I think Lord Jamieson did outline some very serious questions and points that I think we would all appreciate being answered. Just about the sheer logistics of how this would actually work as as buyers and as years go, go, go down the line. I'm worried that there would be unintended consequences. And I, I'm looking forward to the answer from the noble Lady. But in reality, my fear is that this will actually be less effective as a means of getting social housing than we might wish it to be.

And I think if a council does have a buyback fund, then there absolutely is no reason why it can't buy houses on the open market, as indeed I did when I was mayor of Watford. And, and so I'm, I, I, I just think this one sounds like something that's really going to be good and should happen. And I do believe that. I just think there may be unintended consequences. Logistics might be difficult and it might not be the silver bullet, but because I believe in retaining social housing stock, I will hope that I'm wrong about that.

I do want to just pull together a few thoughts about the rural amendments, because one thing I think that we've all noticed over the bills that we've done first with Baroness Scott of Bybrook and now with the Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, rural housing and rural issues do not seem to be given the importance that they absolutely deserve. Now, I'm an overnight, but I sit here time after time listening to those who know better than I and colleagues on my own benches that feel very strongly about this.

And I guess my message to the Minister is, you know, the nettle must be grabbed on rural issues. And I think we would all appreciate seeing a real improvement in that, which is why I signed Lord Cameron's amendment. And I felt Lord Best, as ever, brought clarity and expertise to this group of amendments that I actually can't better. But I felt with amendment 20, it's actually a modest, targeted fix to stop the right to buy quietly hollowing out our rural communities, which is happening.

But I'm also going to be a bit controversial, because one thing I do follow very closely with my housing brief is planning issues. And I note that there are very often major planning disputes. In fact, councils have changed control over rural communities. Stop the housing development in our village. We don't need this sort of housing. And it's really worrying to me that that is often the case. And and and it's evidentially the case. We absolutely have got the NIMBYs going bananas.

There's no there's no there's no doubt, no doubt about that. And I think somewhere we need some leadership around those areas. You know, if you haven't got a house in a state that has got homes for children, then the local school will undoubtedly die. There is real issues for regenerating our rural communities, and I think, unfortunately, they are being hollowed out. And what I feel very much is that the need is greater. Somebody mentioned that phrase in rural communities, but I would also say that the consequence of not doing so are also of greater significance.

You know, the, the, the young people who can't get to the college in the nearest city or big town, the issues around Rurality are huge. So I that would be my oh, I've just written here, warden amendment 17, I, I think wardens is a horrible word. I absolutely agree that the government should change the word warden. I'm not sure about managing because I'm not sure of the context, but I absolutely understand why you but I absolutely understand why you don't want wardens.

18:09

My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, can I say I do agree with much of what the Lady Baroness Thornhill said about the issues around housing in

18:09

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

rural areas, but I might send her a few of the focus leaflets that I've seen objecting to rural seen objecting to rural developments. OK, my Lords, can I begin by focusing on clause six of begin by focusing on clause six of the Bill regarding the right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes and sold under Right to back homes and sold under Right to Buy? And I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what's been a very thoughtful what's been a very thoughtful debate on these amendments in this group.

I would just point out Baroness Pinnock made a fairly sweeping statement about very little ambition for increasing supply. Well, I hope that she will have noted the both the letter I sent in response to Second Reading and the annexe that was attached to that which set out in great detail, and again, I mentioned it at the start of today's committee. Some of the action that government's taking in order to increase supply. First of all, the retention of 100% receipts by councils for right to buy receipts.

That was a big step forward when I've campaigned for probably for about 15 years, the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation, rebuilding the sector's capacity to borrow and invest. A roadmap for section 106 delivery, which has been a constant theme of discussions in this House and elsewhere. A complete renewal of the planning framework, £16 billion of National Housing Bank funding and an ambitious package of support for London and London's been mentioned a couple of times in this debate, and the government's put £11.7 billion worth of funding into support the building of housing in London.

I don't consider that a lack of ambition for housing delivery. Of course, we're constrained by the finances that are available.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the Baroness Lister. All those are positive moves, but how those are positive moves, but how much do they add up to? Is the question, so that the enormous sum question, so that the enormous sum of money for the. That the government has made available for government has made available for affordable. I hate that word. And social housing adds up to 180 000 social housing adds up to 180 000 new homes over ten years, whereas shelter are advocating 9000 is essential for new social homes to rent every year.

So that's that's the scale of the the problem and that's the scale. That's why I used the word that I did to criticise the government for lack of ambition. We are desperate for increasing numbers of social homes, and I appreciate what the government is doing, but I'm I'm pretty sure it doesn't add up to anywhere near enough.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I accept to a certain extent what the noble Lady is saying. No one would be more ambitious than me to deliver more social housing. We were in government and we have to deal with the financial circumstances that we inherited, which included an enormous financial black hole in enormous financial black hole in that. In that context, the amount of funding that we've allocated for social housing is very significant. social housing is very significant. It's the biggest amount of funding for a generation, as well as the other steps that we've taken to move the housing market along, not just in social housing, but in other areas as well.

Of course, when the economy starts to grow again and we've already seen green shoots there, we'll be able to put more in. But for the moment, I think we've indicated what the ambition is for increasing supply by what we've done already, and we continue to be ambitious, and we will continue to support the growth of affordable and social housing alongside the growth of right across the housing market, which I think is really important. And I you know, I was delighted to see the wraparound on the Metro this morning from Lloyds Bank talking about for the first time since 1996, they've produced a £5,000 starter mortgage for young people.

I think that's brilliant. And all of these steps that we're taking to increase housing supply across the board show a great deal of ambition. So I just wanted to challenge her, her her sweeping statement about little ambition for increasing supply. Now, the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill of Bexley, proposes to remove clause six entirely from the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled amendment 16 regarding the resourcing and monitoring of the first right of first refusal. Let me start by setting out that the right of first refusal offers an opportunity for social landlords to buy back homes, which have been sold under right to buy a full market value when they're resold.

The right of first refusal period is currently ten years after the original sale. Councils have eight weeks to decide whether or not to purchase the home. When informed by the owner that they are planning to sell, following which, the property can be sold on the open market. Under clause six, the period will be increased to in perpetuity, so councils will have the opportunity to buy back the property every time it's resold. This will give councils much more opportunity to buy back future properties sold under the scheme.

The change will only apply to applications to exercise. The right to buy after the measure comes into force. Homes already sold under Right to Buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold. Under the scheme, where the right of refusal is for ten years as it is currently, that will continue to apply. I hope that clarifies that point. It is for local authorities to decide whether to exercise the right of first refusal, taking into account their local priorities and their financial position.

The amendment from Baroness Pinnock would require the Secretary of State to determine whether authorities have sufficient resources, which would be difficult given the locally determined nature of council housing finances. It would also create an expectation of further central intervention where constraints are identified. So government is instead strengthening the existing framework, including by extending the right of first refusal in perpetuity to give councils more opportunity to buy back homes. For these reasons, I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments, and I commend this clause to the House.

I turn now to clause seven, which again has been opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. My Lords, as part of our reforms to Right to buy, we have looked at the current exceptions to the scheme under which specified types of property cannot be sold. As with our overall approach to reforms, this is necessary to ensure the scheme remains fair and sustainable, that councils are able to replace the homes that are sold, and also that councils have the confidence to build new social homes.

Under the scheme, exceptions already include home suitable for occupation by the elderly, sheltered housing and homes due to be demolished. 76% of respondents to our consultation agreed that the existing exceptions should be retained. The clause does make a small change to amend outdated terminology in the current exemption for dwellings for persons of pensionable age to update the reference to resident or non-resident wardens to resident or non-resident managers. Clause seven also introduces three new exceptions. First, it exempts newly built social homes from the scheme for 35 years, giving councils the confidence to invest in new supply.

At present, councils are disincentivized from building because homes can be sold before costs are recovered through rent. This is a significant supply side reform, and I can tell you from my own experience that the frustration of seeing newly homes built sold off immediately before they can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meet local need is extensive. So I think this is the right step to take. The government's manifesto

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government's manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the right to buy, and introducing an exemption, was supported by the vast majority of respondents to our vast majority of respondents to our consultation. 78% of them. Secondly, clause seven exempts homes in clause seven exempts homes in national parks, areas of national beauty and designated rural areas from the right to buy. This recognises the particular pressures in rural areas where land and planning constraints mean homes are significantly harder to replace once lost from the rental sector.

Now there was clear recognition of these challenges during Second Reading, where noble Lords highlighted the difficulty of replacing rural homes and the importance of protecting stock in these areas. The exemption for rural homes responds directly to those concerns and will help safeguard much needed rural social housing. Existing rural designations will continue to have an effect under the amended scheme. The covenants attached to homes which have been sold under Right to Buy in rural areas, which restrict the resale to a local person or a social landlord, will also continue to apply.

Thirdly, clause seven exempts council owned market rent homes from the right to buy, supporting councils to use mixed tenure and cross-subsidy models to deliver more housing. This recognises the important role that market rent plays in enabling councils to generate additional income to reinvest in new social and affordable homes. As I continue to emphasise, these changes are part of a wider package of reforms to ensure more homes are built than lost, while maintaining a route to home ownership for long standing tenants.

Turning now to amendment 17. My Lords, I am grateful to noble Baroness lady O'Neill for this amendment which seeks to retain the term warden in the legislation. However, the change made by clause seven is a straightforward and sensible update to modernise the housing for persons of pensionable age. The term warden was historically used to describe the support arrangements in sheltered housing, but it is no longer commonly used across the sector. In practice, services are now delivered in a range of different ways, often by individuals or teams whose roles are more accurately described as managers.

The intention of this provision is not to change the substance of the exemption, but simply to ensure the language used in legislation reflects current practice and is clear and accessible. For these reasons, the government considers this amendment is not necessary, focusing now on the exemptions in relation to newly built social homes. I am grateful to the noble Baroness O'Neill for this probing amendment on the length of the exemption period. Our starting point is that any exemption period should reflect the time it takes for rental income to repay the costs of building a home.

This payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on the viability of the site, and of course, that will vary around the country. We therefore concluded that a 35 year exemption strikes the right balance. It ensures that councils are not losing homes prematurely while maintaining a route to home ownership for tenants over the longer term, reducing that period to 15 years would not provide sufficient protection for councils investment and would risk undermining confidence to build, which is central to the objectives of these reforms.

And for these reasons, the government cannot accept this amendment. My Lords, amendment 24 seeks to remove the definition of. When a newly constructed dwelling is to be considered practically complete for the purposes of the right to buy new build exemption. The definition makes clear that practical completion occurs when the dwelling first becomes fit for occupation as housing accommodation. This provides a clear and objective trigger point for when a property can be included in the exemption for newly built affordable housing. This is an important definition to ensure consistency and transparency across the sector.

It avoids ambiguity and subjective or inconsistent interpretations of completion, and it also provides a clear and verifiable standard that landlords must apply. Removing this definition would introduce uncertainty and increase the risk of dispute, which could in fact slow down the process and undermine the effective operation of the scheme. I recognise the concern that social landlords may seek to delay completion in order to avoid the property becoming eligible for right to buy. However, there always has to be a date on which new legislation comes into force.

This measure will also come into force upon Royal Assent, which will reduce the risk that landlords could seek to delay occupation. Moving on to amendment 23. Also tabled by the noble Baroness Baroness Coffey. My understanding of the purpose of this amendment from Baroness Coffey is to seek to bring shared ownership within the scope of Right to Buy by removing the reference in clause seven to low cost home ownership accommodation. The lines which the amendment proposes to remove are included only to define social housing in relation to the newly built social homes that will be covered by the 35 year exemption, which is defined as social housing within the meaning of part two of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

That is not low cost home ownership accommodation within the meaning given by section 70 of that act. The consequence of removing that reference would be that low cost home ownership accommodation could, in theory, be captured within that new build exemption, but that would have no impact in bringing shared owners within the right to buy scheme, as they are not included as eligible within the eligibility criteria for the scheme. It could also create some unhelpful confusion in relation to defining the new build homes included under the exemption.

More broadly, the government is not in favour of bringing shared owners into the right to buy scheme. Right to buy is limited to social homes for rent and low cost home ownership accommodation, as defined in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. It is deliberately excluded from the scheme. This distinction is fundamental to the policy. Right to buy is designed to support tenants who do not currently have an ownership stake in their home to take their first step into home ownership. Shared ownership, by contrast, is already a home ownership product.

Individuals purchase a share in their home and can increase that share over time through Staircasing, including shared ownership within Right to Buy would blur these distinct policy objectives. It could create a two tier market and, more broadly, sees cause unnecessary overlap between the schemes and risk destabilising a key affordable home ownership product. And for these reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Turning to amendments 18 and 19, tabled by Baroness O'Neill and Lord Fuller respectively, which relate to the exemption from the right to buy homes in rural and protected areas.

Amendment 18 would remove the new exemption from right to buy for homes in national parks, areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and designated rural areas. The government does not consider this to be the right approach. These exemptions reflect the reality that homes in rural and protected landscapes are significantly harder to replace. Once lost from social housing stock. Land constraints, planning restrictions and limited development opportunities mean that in many cases, replacement is simply not feasible. Without this protection, there is a clear risk that social and affordable homes in these areas will continue to be lost, exacerbating shortages and reducing access to housing for local communities, with all the consequences that the noble Baroness Thornhill rightly highlighted about the loss of housing affecting the loss of other amenities as well.

Turning to amendment 19 on national landscapes, I recognise the intention to reflect updated terminology. National landscapes is the new name by which areas of outstanding Natural beauty are now known. However, the legal name for these areas continues to be areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, it is not necessary to make this change as these areas will be fully captured in the exemption. The. The areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty map exactly across to national landscapes. I think the confusion in numbers may have occurred because we have 34 in England, but there are of course a further 12 in the UK.

But housing policy is devolved, so there is a difference in the numbers. For these reasons, the government considers that the current drafting of these provisions strikes the right balance, and I would kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendments 20 and 25, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Dillington and the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill of Bexley. My Lord, these amendments take different approaches, but relate to the same underlying issue how rural areas should be defined within the Right to Buy framework.

Amendment 25, tabled by Baroness O'Neill, seeks to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny by requiring regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the subsection of the bill, which the amendment seeks to change, is concerned with section 37 of the Housing Act 1985, which covers disposals in rural areas rather than the right to buy. That said, I recognise the intention may be to apply this to right to buy provisions more broadly and I will address it on that basis. The approach set out in the Bill is designed to ensure that rural exemptions can be aligned with existing designation frameworks and updated where necessary, timely and proportionate way, and the designations are technical and evidence based.

The current criteria apply to applications for rural designation under section 157 of the Housing Act 1985 are that an area should have a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3000 or fewer. These are well-established criteria which were introduced to protect affordable housing in rural communities. The government has no current plans to amend them, as set out in the Delegated Powers Memorandum for the bill, which has since been cleared by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The negative resolution procedure is considered appropriate for Rural Designation regulations, which is the long established approach that has been taken to date for existing rural designations. It is appropriate that regulations are subject to the negative procedure. This will allow for designated areas to be updated and added where they meet long established criteria, and we cannot see the need for additional parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 20, tabled by Lord Cameron of Dillington, would place the criteria for rural designation directly on the face of the bill.

Using the existing population density and settlement size thresholds, while, as he says, it reflects long standing established criteria, placing these thresholds in legislation could risk the criteria becoming outdated. I am afraid he would guess my words here and reduce the government's ability to ensure rural protections remain effective and appropriately targeted. Retaining the criteria in regulations ensures they can be updated where necessary, while still being subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative procedure. And for those reasons, the government cannot accept these amendments.

Turning to amendment 21, tabled by Baroness Coffey, this is a probing amendment to test the interaction between clause seven and section eight two of the Social Housing Act. The lines the amendment seeks to remove perform an important function. The new regulation making power in clause seven will allow the Secretary of State to specify and, where appropriate, update the areas to which the new rural exception to the right to buy applies. Clause eight ensures continuity during that transition. In particular, clause eight two provides the existing rural designations will continue to have effect after commencement, as if they were made under the new powers introduced by clause seven.

This means there is no gap for protection in rural areas. The government will then bring forward new secondary legislation after commencement to formally restate and update rural designations under the new framework, including the ability to add further areas where appropriate. And the bill also includes a power for the Secretary of State to repeal this transitional provision. Once regulations designating rural areas have been made. It's this power that the amendment is probing. And finally, my Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, opposes the question.

That clause eight is part of the Bill. As I've set out already in my response to the previous amendment, clause eight ensures that the reforms to right to buy are applied fairly and consistency consistently, and together, these provisions ensure a smooth and legally certain transition, protecting both tenants rights and the integrity of rural housing protections. I commend it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the committee. The noble Baroness, the Minister, sits down. I believe you made a very helpful clarification. I just very helpful clarification. I just want to ensure that I heard correctly, under the right of first refusal, you I believe you. The refusal, you I believe you. The noble Baroness said that the local noble Baroness said that the local council. It would be up to them to have that first right of refusal. Therefore, somebody who is owning a Therefore, somebody who is owning a right to buy house would only have to contact the local council and give them the opportunity of first right of refusal.

Just for clarity, I'm assuming in, say, two tier areas, it would be the council that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has the housing responsibilities. As well as the noble Lord will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As well as the noble Lord will be aware we are moving to single tier councils across the country. However, yes, he's quite correct in his assumption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his assumption. Thank you very much for that clarification. It certainly would make it easier that somebody doesn't have to go and chase around doesn't have to go and chase around 15 different housing associations that have merged, demerged and whatever. My Lords, this has been

18:30

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

an insightful debate and I thank noble Lords for their points that they have raised. There are evidently some concerns about this evidently some concerns about this bill's implications across the House, and not just about the practicalities, but about fairness practicalities, but about fairness and things like definitions of rurality. I'm grateful for the noble Baroness, the Minister, for noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response to our concerns. However, we do still have concerns about extending the right of first about extending the right of first refusal in perpetuity and how this will affect families in the future and indeed firm former landlords.

And certainly the clarification certainly addresses some of the complexities. But that's still basic principle that if you own a house at some period of time, that should truly become yours, and I would ask the government to look again. Clause seven is certainly controversial, and we've heard a number of Lords speaking about the definition of morality. I don't think we've heard many Lords in this House saying that they really want to give that opportunity to be solely in the definition of the Secretary of State without sufficient parliamentary oversight and indeed, without a proposed definition accompanying this bill.

And we appreciate that defining morality is not straightforward, and I am very pleased with my noble friend Lord Fuller's definition of of can you get an Uber? So on that basis, I'm definitely in a rural area. I think this does require further debate, and I'm sure that we will come back to this at a later stage. The point for us is also, while we recognise the challenges of delivering homes in rural areas, we do not believe that removing the right to buy is fair on those tenants.

And I'm in agreement with the noble Baroness Thornhill on this one. We do need to find ways of building new homes in rural areas, because the demand is there and without having ensuring that we have a thriving community. Those schools, those pubs and those shops will shut. And I just give an example. In one of my villages, we are having built 100 new homes in a new housing estate. And when I was knocking on doors, as I do quite regularly, people were saying, oh, the school can't cope.

I actually had to inform the school was half full and without that housing estate it would shut. You know, we are having fewer children per household and we do need to think about having a thriving community, which in some cases needs more houses. I think we need to think about that more. On the question of the 35 year restriction for newly built social housing, I think there is a genuine lack of clarity. I appreciate what the noble Baroness, the Minister said that that 30, 35 years is often the case, the period for which you recover the full cost of the House, but actually you're selling the house.

So in selling that house with the appropriate full price, you would recover the funding anyway. So it's not very clear to me why that is necessary. Moving on to amendment 16 and the label of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It does raise some interesting questions, and I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and as a councillor, I am all in favour of councils receiving more resources for the good work that they do. But I'd like to understand the implications of this amendment financially.

How many homes would this apply to? What level of resource would it involve? Is it a few million pounds or could it be billions of pounds a year? There are times when it will be right to buy an existing home. However, I would ask the question at a time when we have a housing shortage and desperately need to build more homes, should we really be focusing limited resources on buying existing homes rather than building new social homes? I think we need to do more than just thinking about how do we move around the ownership.

We need to look at how do we increase the number of homes. And that's one of the reasons that we're in favour of right to buy, because it provides more resources. Rather than calling on governments limited resources. I hope the government will reflect further on the points raised across the House, and ensure that these various amendments are duly considered before Report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

DESNZ, clause 610 part of the bill. As many as I have that opinion will say content, not opinion will say content, not content. The contents have it after content. The contents have it after clause six. Amendment 16 Baroness Pinnock not moved. Not moved. Pinnock not moved. Not moved. Clause seven, amendment 17 and 18. Baroness O'Neill not moved. Baroness O'Neill not moved. Amendment 19. Lord Fuller not moved. Amendment 20. Lord Cameron not moved. Amendment 21. Baroness Coffey not moved.

Amendment 23 Baroness O'Neill not moved. Amendments 23 and 24. Baroness Coffey not moved. Amendment 25 Baroness O'Neill not moved. Christian is that clause seven stem part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content, not content. The contents have it. the question is that clause eight stem part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, not content. The contents have it in clause nine, amendment 26 a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness O'Neill. Sorry. And the next thing. Lord Jamieson is moving.

18:36

AMDT 26

>> Lord Jamieson is moving. Amendment 26. >> Thank you, >> My Lords. I rise to speak to the

18:36

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

>> My Lords. I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend, Baroness lady O'Neill, in this group. Our amendments are in this group. Our amendments are concerned with the governance of capital receipts and in particular, the scope of the Secretary of the scope of the Secretary of State's powers under clause nine to determine their use as currently drafted. Clause nine covers a very wide discretion, including the ability to vary provisions between local authorities to apply determinations retrospectively.

Our concern is not with the principle of having some flexibility, but with a balance of power between the executive powers and parliamentary scrutiny, and the need to provide certainty to councils who are seeking to build new social homes to replace those sold through Right to Buy. We have had discussions earlier in this bill about the difficulty of getting new social homes built, and I can attest from my time leading Central Bedfordshire Council, setting up a programme to build new council homes is not easy.

It involves building a team with the appropriate skills. It involves acquiring sites to build on and generating a pipeline of projects and the financing to fund it. The key to this is a good degree of funding certainty, and that means ensuring that certainty of right to buy receipts, making these potentially subject to the whim of a Secretary of State, can fundamentally undermine any such council house building programme. These amendments, therefore, provide that changes to the use of capital receipts should instead be made through regulation rather than by determination.

This ensures that changes affecting local authority finances are set out in a transparent framework, subject to appropriate scrutiny and clearly understood by those required to operate within it. Of course, my Lords, it might have been better for the government to put its planned level of capital receipt retention on the face of the bill, so we could debate that today. Well, the government has chosen not to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister or the noble Lord, the Minister will be able to tell the House at what level it intends to set the capital retention.

Will local authorities retain 100% of these receipts, or in future, will it be set at a lower level, at the whim of a Secretary of State? Amendment 30 is particularly important. It would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to apply different provisions to different local authorities through determination. I mean, quite clearly, if a council is seeking to build homes in its area and putting in all the effort and potentially funding, and the last thing that it would want to see is right to buy receipts, then transferred to another authority.

While we recognise fully that housing pressures vary across the country, the principle remains that differentiation should be achieved through considered and published frameworks, not through ad hoc determinations decided solely by the Secretary of State. Consistency of framework is the foundation of fairness between authorities. Amendment 33 introduces a requirement for consultation prior to determination that reflects a basic principle of good governance that local authorities who. Financial capacity and housing delivery are directly affected should have the opportunity to contribute before decisions are made, not simply respond afterwards.

Amendment 34 provides for a review of the impact of the act on home ownership rates. This is a sensible accountability measure. If the policy is intended to support and support. Sorry. Support and sustain routes into ownership. Parliament should be able to assess whether it is achieving that objective in Paris practice. Taken together, these amendments are not about constraining government unnecessarily. They are about ensuring the significant financial decisions in the housing system are taken within a framework that is transparent, consistent and properly accountable to Parliament and to provide greater certainty for councils seeking to establish their own council house building programme.

I look forward to hearing the insights of other noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords on this subject. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause nine,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause nine, page eight. Line seven. Leave out a determination and insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

determination and insert regulations. Amendment 26. I rise. To speak to my amendment number 52. Before I do so, I'm sure that 52. Before I do so, I'm sure that my noble friend, the Lord Jamieson, misspoke because when he referred to 34, that's actually the next group. Now at at committee, I did explain that I have a bit of

18:41

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

previous in the delivery of social housing. When I was the leader of a council in South Norfolk, we council in South Norfolk, we consistently delivered more than 1% of the entire national social housing stock in each and every housing stock in each and every year of the 20 tens, we built more homes affordable than the rest of homes affordable than the rest of Norfolk put together. It can be done, and part of the way we were done, and part of the way we were able to do that is because that I welcome the way in which receipts received by council can be recycled by that Council.

In pursuance of the replacement principle. That method, which is our home, is sold and a new one is built. We refresh the stock of social housing in general, but I do have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority from being applied to a neighbouring one, even if they're in the same housing market assessment area. Now, let me explain. When my neighbour, Norwich City Council, couldn't spend the right to buy receipts in time, they were transferred to me as their neighbour.

A new social homes were built in my district, but no more than a mile from the city boundary. Now my reading of the bill and I'm quite happy to be corrected on this, is that this desirable substitution behaviour would be left to chance under the Bill, and this is an omission that would see receipts that could really be helped in a local area being grabbed by Ministers instead. Separately, councils aside, we know that Rsls can allow homes to be acquired and sometimes those RSL homes are lost to do so.

My amendment would ensure that for both councils and Rsls, the receipts should be applied to the replacement in the same strategic housing market area. By default, the Qma. Now the Qma is a technical study used by planning authorities to understand current and future housing needs. It evaluates population growth, economic projections, market trends to inform the Local Plan and housing policies. Such a thing. But rather. And it exists rather over a housing market area. Rather than respect respecting the particular administrative boundaries of individual councils, they provide the natural canvas over which people live their lives.

So if you're in the housing or planning game, you know what one of these is. Your plan is based on the boundary of the qma, not necessarily the administrative boundary of the council. And the numbers for today and tomorrow are predicated on it. So I was grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for the drop in, where she explained it was very difficult to define these territories, but I disagree. It's easy. It's in the qma. That's how we define housing need.

Now, we've heard in the previous group that the government has defined place based carve outs for national parks and areas of outstanding natural Beauty, so it's not that hard to define these territories after all. So my amendment will ensure that receipts must be recycled locally by default in a cascade, initially within the council and then between neighbouring councils before being snaffled by the centre. And in the case of the RSL within that area. Because as part of my ward work last week, I was surprised that a home in Brooke in Norfolk, in my ward where I live, is now actually managed or directed from Gloucester.

So the freedom to move receipts from Norfolk to Gloucester within the RSL estate doesn't really help local people at all. And unless we protect stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it's cheaper, not where it's needed. So recognising that protecting the stock can't just be a national numbers game and housing is more local than that. We there's a sense of, you know, housing isn't just part of a place. It defines the place and ensuring that recycled right to buy receipts are recycled within that place, the place that is defined by the strategic housing market assessment that all the players in the housing market and the planning market know.

You can see why my amendment is so important.

18:45

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. >> There are a lot of amendments in this group, and I don't intend to comment on them all. But this group, comment on them all. But this group, to me is less about the principle of right to buy and more about what happens to the money that is raised happens to the money that is raised from it, and more importantly, who controls it. The amendments from the conservative benches broadly move in one direction towards greater transparency, clearer rules through regulations rather than determinations, and more involvement of local authorities and receipts spent locally.

Therefore, I hope it is not surprising from these benches that we have some sympathy with that approach, and particularly with amendment 52 from the noble Lord Lord Fuller, which I think is. Argument about the Qma is certainly something I'd be willing to engage in further. We do believe that decisions about receipt should be transparent and properly scrutinised, and that local authorities should have a meaningful voice in how they are used. These are the principles that we would naturally support.

However, we are equally clear and would exercise caution in that we should not over constrain flexibility or make it harder to use receipts effectively to deliver new homes. As those of us who've tried to do that know that there is many a slip twixt cup and lip, and some schemes can take a lot longer to build out than others, and particularly the need for mixed tenure in order to make schemes stack up. So I think a degree of flexibility is clearly required.

But the real issue to us is not just process, it's about outcome. And spoiler alert, this is where my amendment 53 speaks directly to this group. It's not enough to argue about how receipts are controlled, though. That is important, but we must be able to show what they actually deliver. We can refine governance, we can tighten rules, and we can definitely improve consultation. But unless we can see year by year authority by authority, whether receipts are translating into new social housing, we are still in the dark.

Transparency about process is important, but transparency about outcomes is essential. So yes, let's discuss how receipts are managed. But we would prefer to have strong checks on whether these receipts actually replace the homes that we are losing.

18:48

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

Before the Minister responds to the debate. Can I just say I've listened. I wasn't planning to listened. I wasn't planning to speak in this group, but I just listening to my noble friend and other contributions and reading other contributions and reading clause nine, I just cannot I clearly what the government is intending to do is to take what is intending to do is to take what is effectively a power to reduce the amount that is payable to the Secretary of State by way of.

Under the regulations. I'm just not clear why the why that power is being taken and for what purposes, under what circumstances, that payment is going to be reduced. Clearly, there's going to be a method for making a determination, but I don't think we know what it is, and it'd be really helpful, I think, if we were told what it is and in particular, why the Localism Act insertion in what is currently section 11, five, six, where the Secretary of State could enter into an agreement with the local authority about this as being taken out, it seems to me that that is exactly the sort of.

An agreement of that kind. It's the sort of way in which the Secretary of State might want to enter into. Means of supporting particular use of capital receipts, in particular local authorities.

18:49

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

18:55

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

I'm grateful for all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. >> Much of the discussion has centred on the proper balance between flexibility and accountability. No one disputes that government requires a degree of flexibility in managing housing, finance and for minor technical changes. There is reasonable grounds for a determination or something similar, and there is no disagreement that local circumstances differ across the country. However, I appreciate while this is a complex area and some of these things may require a degree of complexity, the basic principle that the right to buy receipts should be recycled and reused in the area in which they arise is something that we feel is important, and it should not be subject to a Secretary of State determination without consultation and without some affirmative procedure in the House.

That's the key question here. And if the noble Baroness, the Minister, is going to bring forward suggestions at a later stage that differentiates between a minor technical change and this principle that we're talking about, that would be, I think, a much better solution than those that we have seen here, which potentially give the Secretary of State much greater powers than many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of us would like to see. What we would like to do with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What we would like to do with this amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure, but amendment 26 be withdrawn. Amendment is by 26 be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 27, 28, leave withdrawn. Amendments 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33. Baroness O'Neill and Lord Jamieson. Not O'Neill and Lord Jamieson. Not moved, not moved. Question is that clause nine stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content and not content. The contents have it after clause nine, amendment 34, Baroness O'Neill and Baroness O'Neill of Bexley.

18:57

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to >> My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 34 and 73 in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord that of my noble friend Lord Jameson. Too often housing legislation is judged by the intentions rather than the results intentions rather than the results it produces. Yet it's the outcomes that matter. As Baroness Thornhill said earlier on, whether we are considering home ownership, social housing provision, affordability, public expenditure or the impact of the policy on different groups within the society, Parliament should have access to the evidence necessary to determine whether reforms are working in practice, beginning with amendment 34, home ownership remains one of the most important aspirations for many people across this country.

Amendment 34 would require a review of the impact this act has on those very ambitions. This bill contains a number of significant reforms to a system that has aided home ownership. Thus, it's entirely reasonable that Parliament should understand what effect those reforms have on people's ability to own their own home. I was also pleased to see amendment 58 a in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawler, there is a clear connection between her amendment and amendment 34.

If Parliament is to understand the impact of this legislation on home ownership, it should also understand the impact on right to Buy and the opportunities available to social tenants who aspire to own their own home. Amendment 73 would require a fiscal impact assessment of the act. My Lords, this is not an onerous request. The measures in this Bill will have implications for housing providers, local authorities, taxpayers and wider public finances. Parliament should be able to assess those impacts in a systematic and transparent manner.

My Lords, these amendments are not about frustrating the implementation of the Bill. Rather, they are about ensuring that Parliament retains the ability to evaluate its effectiveness. Good policies should not just withstand detailed scrutiny, but should be rooted in evidence. If this bill succeeds. Excuse me, the government should be able to demonstrate that success. If it falls short, Parliament should have the evidence necessary to understand why and to make improvements. That's the purpose of these amendments.

I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed after clause nine. Insert the following new nine. Insert the following new clause review of the impact of this act on home ownership, as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to. Move my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move my amendment. 95 and as. Is clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is clear. It's a probing amendment and a permissive amendment that requires

19:00

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

the government to make regulations. To make provision for acquiring social housing providers, to social housing providers, to publish data and evaluation on publish data and evaluation on policies in respect of developing social rented housing for families. social rented housing for families. My Lords, this amendment clearly is in scope, but the important thing in scope, but the important thing to remember is that the context is that housing is an important part of economic and social policy, particularly social housing, and to get the housing policy right does have an economic impact.

It has an impact on population, on public services, on economic growth. And the reason that this is a very important amendment and will require debate and discussion within government is because we do have a crisis of family formation. The total fertility rate at the moment is 1.39 per child per woman, compared to the 1960s, when it was 2.9 per child, per woman, and even in the 1970s was 1.7. And it's been declining since 2012. There were 585,396 live births last year, which again is a reduction in the previous years.

Now, there are societal reasons for that, principally around childcare costs, but also specifically to around housing costs. But there are other societal issues around financial uncertainty about delayed parenthood and more women being involved in the labour market than they were, for instance, in the 1960s and 70s. And this amendment isn't about saying that women should have more children per se, but it's actually saying that it's good policy for the government to be in a position where it understands its duties and responsibilities in a wider economic sense, to collate and collect and analyse information and to try and encourage registered social providers and local authorities to help families who want to get into social housing.

So, for instance, my Lords, it might require local plans and housing needs assessments to track and plan for bedrooms and family sized homes, not only total dwelling numbers. And we know that the experience over the last 10 or 15 years has been that there has always been a drive because of affordability issues, in terms of planning policy across different local authorities, towards flats and smaller units, which is essentially inimicable to families being able to move into social housing accommodation.

So we would expect local plans and housing needs assessments to specify an evidence led bedroom mix in areas with strong family demand from young families, and to use policy design codes and public funding levers, particularly in social housing, to secure adequate supply of three bedroom homes in both urban and suburban locations. Planning policy should actively favour small and medium sized schemes, which deliver an above average share of three bedroom homes and usable private or shared play space, especially where developments are under 50 units and local impacts are modest, and national planning policy and local design codes should encourage mid-rise terraces and mansion block style flats with shared gardens, courtyards and safe streets, rather than long corridors of single aspect one bedroom units.

So, my Lords, I don't expect the Minister to answer in detail this amendment, but I do think it's a good start to enable local authorities and the government to get a handle on trying to encourage families to access social housing, and I think that would make a big contribution to a good social mix, a good community mix across all communities, rural, suburban and urban. And I look forward very much to listening to the noble Lady, the minister's response to this, and I hope this begins a useful debate on an issue which is important to all of us, and particularly important as we head towards an ageing population and fewer young people in the workforce to to resolving the very significant issues we have around family formation and the provision of social housing.

19:06

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. this group, number 58 A, and I'm delighted to support the amendment. The other amendments in the group The other amendments in the group about which the noble Lady, Baroness O'Neill, has spoken, requiring asking the government for various assessments of impact. The government contends it wants to protect the stock of social housing, but also to maintain the right to buy scheme. But the bill. Under the bill, the tenants are likely to be discouraged from exercising the right to buy by the obstacles, delays and uncertainties posed for a renter, restricted rent, aspiring to home ownership.

Now, my amendment requires the government to provide on an annual basis, once the act comes into operation, an analysis of the income to the public purse as a result of any change in the number of sales, giving a breakdown on an annual basis, the numbers sold, the resulting income and additional income resulting from cost savings, overhead and maintenance when a property is sold, and the longer a charge on council. This should equip the government to assess the scheme and its costs in the round against competing commitments.

When establishing an order of priority and spending, as governments must do, and the arrangements and overall budget councils two will have the essential figures to judge how best to meet their competing commitments and responsibilities. And indeed, for a democratic system such as the UK, Parliament should also be given the full picture to assess matters and judge how the legislation is operating. Above all, the public who foot the bills through council tax rates and general taxation, and who face the highest overall levels of tax, certain taxes, income tax etc.

in the UK since records began in 1948. Should also know what impact these changes will have in respect to right to buy sales. One of the most popular measures passed by any government since the 1980s, enabling a 1.9 million council homes alone in England to be sold to tenants so that they can stand on their own two feet. There are two deeper reasons for my amendment. First, there is the imperative of obliging any government to take account of the finances of the country in making policy, the income and of the burdens the policy might place on the economy and so on.

The people and businesses who work and pay the taxes. Second, there is a need to reduce benefit dependency. Yet one of the most effective ways of reducing dependency is to ensure people help people to buy their own homes. By contrast, one of the most dangerous ways of encouraging dependency is to put increasing numbers of people in the socially rented sector, where already 25% of households fall into the economically inactive category and other inactive categories. If, and this is excluding people who are retired or have a physical or impairment.

If the government is serious about reducing dependency, it should not be putting new obstacles in the way of people who want to buy their council houses. I hope the government will accept this modest amendment for an impact statement on the results of the bill to ensure that government itself. The Council and everybody who needs to know has the knowledge of the outcomes of the new arrangements so that we have the evidence to measure the impact of these bills on right to buy sales and associated finances.

And on that basis, we can review the Bill and indeed, if necessary, make any changes.

19:10

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 101 104 in my name in amendment 101 104 in my name in this group, and quite simply, they impose equality, impact assessment impose equality, impact assessment and an ESG assessment. So ensuring this important area of work, local this important area of work, local authorities and landlords are doing the right thing by tenants, but doing it in a way which is equitable across all protected characteristics and indeed across many vulnerable people who they have in their care in the social housing sector, critically important.

Without an AIA, it's impossible to say and have the evidence that this is occurring. So not only good for tenants, not only good for people who want to see the right things being done, but good for landlords and those who have responsibilities to have the evidence brought to bear that they are operating in a way which is equitable and accessible, and that they can bring the evidence to prove that point. And if the EIA demonstrates that isn't the case, action could be taken to address those inequalities on 104.

In terms of ESG, the environmental case is clear with housing and the energy crisis we currently have, but equally important is the S and the G of ESG, which often doesn't get the same focus. So looking at board composition of housing boards in this section, critically important as well. So quite simply, the two amendments fit together to ensure that there is clarity as to EIA and also ESG when it comes to this important part of work.

19:12

Lord Deben (Conservative)

- -

To support Lord Jones amendments, but particularly on the ESG framework. And the reason is, frankly, that I do think we need better figures about what is actually happening. And I say to the Minister, this is not because I disagree with this bill. I think in many ways it's a perfectly reasonable bill. I just do think that Parliament needs to know more about what happens when we make decisions and what is actually on, rather than what we hoped was going to happen.

And that's why I think these two amendments are particularly valuable now. I hope the Minister will not be disappointed if I say I'm very much concerned about the protected characteristics, but I also want to say to her I was disappointed that in her summing up at the Second Reading, she did not refer in any way to the problems of rural housing. And we talk about protected characteristics, but really it is a disgrace. The way in which this House is increasingly ignoring what is happening in rural areas now, the ESG bit, which has been put 104, is important for this because there is a particular problem in the countryside about the quality of the social housing that is provided, and I do hope that the Minister will in future, always think about the particularities and worries of the countryside.

But above all, we do need to know because then we can assess whether this is as good a bill as we hope it will be, or whether in fact it will need changes in the future. But if we don't have the figures, then we can't possibly make proper statements. And I do hope that housing can be more and more understood as something that can be cross-party, agreed, disagreed, argued and then come down to the facts being far too long. We've argued about housing from principle and public and party political views, and not got down to where we actually are.

So I think Lord Jones has done the House a great service in asking that we get facts and know about what is actually happening in order that we can make decisions in the future.

19:15

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, as this group of >> My Lords, as this group of amendments focuses on the outcomes and impacts of the measures in this bill, I would like to like to start bill, I would like to like to start by drawing the attention of noble Lords to the economic impact assessment of this Bill that has been published today on gov.uk. I know this will be greatly welcomed by many in this House, and I believe the noble Lord Jamieson actually asked me about when it was going to be published during Second Reading, so I'm pleased to say it is now on the government's website.

England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through this package of right to buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all receipts from sales and reducing cash discounts alongside the provisions in the bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period instead of a loss. That's a 44000 home turnaround, marking a clear shift towards rebuilding social housing and replenishing depleted stock at scale. This demonstrates the significant impact our bill, in combination with the government's wider package of right to buy reforms, will have in turning around decades of social homes being lost and not replaced.

My Lords, I will speak to amendments 34, 58 and 73, tabled by noble Baroness, lady O'Neill and Lady Lawler, which are well intentioned. I know and reflect a shared desire to ensure that the financial and wider impacts of the Bill are properly understood. As I have already set out, the government has now published our economic impact assessment alongside the bill's parliamentary passage, and we have established arrangements to monitor the effects of the act on the social housing sector and those affected by it.

These three amendments would require additional statutory reporting shortly after commencement and as soon as six months following Royal Assent. However, many of the measures in the bill we know will take time to emerge in practice and cannot be meaningfully assessed within that time frame. A further statutory review risk duplicating existing analysis while providing only a partial and potentially misleading picture of the Act's true impact. I would also point the noble Baroness to the comprehensive suite of published statistics already available, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, right to buy sales and replacement data and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply, all published on gov.uk.

These datasets provide detailed information at local authority level, including applications completed, sales replacements, discounts, property characteristics and will continue to offer a clear and transparent overview of the impact of the act, including on home ownership. As it comes into force, we are aligned in wanting a clear understanding of the Act's effects, but we differ on whether additional statutory reporting requirements are the best way to achieve that aim. Given the recently published assessment and our ongoing commitment to monitoring and reporting on the impact of the package of right to buy reforms and the wider act, I hope the noble Baroness will reflect on these points and agree to withdraw their amendments.

My Lords, Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord Holmes, seeks to require local authorities and registered providers to publish the annual annually Social housing annual social housing outcomes broken down by protected characteristics. While the government strongly supports transparency and the importance of monitoring equalities outcomes, we do not consider this amendment necessary or proportionate. There are already existing statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the Public Sector Equality Duty, which require local authorities and registered providers to have due regard to equalities impacts in exercising their functions.

In addition, providers are already subject to regulatory oversight and data collection requirements, and we are mindful of the need to avoid imposing duplicative reporting burdens that would divert resources away from frontline delivery. The amendment would also introduce a prescriptive and potentially rigid framework, including requirements around statistical thresholds and impact assessments, which may not be proportionate in all cases. We therefore consider that the objectives of the amendment are better achieved through existing duties and the ongoing work we do with the regulator, rather than through additional primary legislation, and we would ask that the amendment be withdrawn on amendment 104, also tabled by the noble Lord Holmes.

While we support absolutely the ambition to improve energy efficiency and ensure better outcomes for tenants, we do not consider a statutory ESG framework to be the right approach. The government is committed to ensuring everyone has access to a warm and safe home, which is why we are introducing new minimum energy efficiency standard for social housing as part of the Decent Homes standard. This will require all social housing landlords to bring new and existing social homes up to reform standards that will keep homes warmer and help make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants.

The amendment would introduce a broad and undefined set of obligations under a single framework, which, given we have already confirmed our new minimum energy efficiency standards for social housing risk, creating uncertainty for providers about how these requirements would operate in practice and how they would interact with existing standards and investment programmes. The amendment also seeks to combine environmental requirements with equalities reporting into a single legislative framework, which may not be the most effective way to drive progress in either area.

These issues are best addressed through targeted policy levers and sector specific regulation, where expectations can be updated over time to reflect changing evidence and priorities. The noble Lord Deben referred to issues around rural housing. I can't remember whether he was in the chamber earlier when we had a short debate about rural housing, but also I would say that following at Second Reading, I wasn't able to respond to all of the points that have been made. So I wrote out to all members that were present during that debate on the 8th of June, including a whole paragraph about rural housing.

So I hope he feels I haven't ignored the points that were raised during the debate. Certainly, we will continue, I'm sure, to discuss rural housing in your Lordships House. In terms of going back to Lord Jones amendment on the ESG framework, we don't consider it appropriate to legislate for a new framework in this form, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on amendments 117 A and 119 A. The government is fully committed to considering equalities impacts through the development and delivery of policy.

We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to place a requirement of this breadth on the face of the Bill, nor to link it directly to commencement. Equalities considerations are already embedded through the Public Sector Equality Duty, which requires ongoing proportionate and responsive assessment rather than a single static exercise covering every provision in detail. This ensures that analysis can evolve in the light of new evidence and real world implementation, rather than relying on a single static assessment of the entire act.

By contrast, amendment 117 would require a full retrospective assessment of the entire act in a highly prescriptive form. This risk creating a resource intensive process that may have limited practical value, particularly where impacts are already understood or mitigated through existing safeguards, and it could reduce the ability to refine analysis over time. For those reasons, we believe the equalities impacts are most effectively addressed through the existing framework, which supports continuous, responsive decision making rather than through a one off statutory requirement linked to commencement.

And so I would ask the noble Lord Holmes to withdraw his amendments. I thank the noble Lord Jackson for his amendment A 95, which would introduce a requirement for social housing providers to assess and report on the impact of changes in planning, policy, funding and standards on the availability and affordability of family sized social rented homes. I agree with the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient availability of social rent homes for young families. However, I do not believe this amendment is the right way forward.

It would. It risks creating a burdensome new requirement for providers and many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of its aims are already achieved through other means. The National Planning Policy framework already requires local authorities to requires local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including in the community, including families and children and those who require social and affordable housing. The assessment should be informed by estimates of current and projected number of households who lack their own housing, or who cannot afford to meet their housing cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market, taking into account the number of households in overcrowded housing and those householders currently housed in unsuitable dwellings.

I'm sure in his time as a council leader, he'll remember this process very well. Local plan should reflect this assessment in their planning policies, including by specifying the type of mix of affordable housing that should be delivered on new development in order to meet those identified local needs. And the government already publishes statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, showing the gross annual supply of affordable homes. Information on the number of affordable homes delivered under the Homes England Affordable Housing Programs is also published twice a year.

Social housing providers would cover both registered providers and local authority registered providers, and there are over 1300 of the former and over 200 of the latter. It would be a significant ask to require registered providers to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of planning policy in the way suggested in this amendment. I would therefore have a significant concern about the potential burden imposed by such a requirement. The government is rightly demanding more than ever from our social landlords in particular, that they deliver quality homes and services their tenants deserve and build the social homes we need so much.

Providers need to be able to focus on those priorities, and we need to be cautious about imposing additional duties on them that might be better delivered through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other means. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Concludes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concludes. She's referred a number of times to the publication of the impact assessment. I'm not aware that the assessment. I'm not aware that the Minister wrote to members of this House who spoke at Second Reading House who spoke at Second Reading or might be tabling amendments this evening to draw attention to the fact of this being published. I fact of this being published. I can't. It's not to be found amongst the Lords papers on the table

19:25

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

outside, so we were not aware of it coming into the House for this purpose, and I have looked at the website, parliamentary website, and it's not to be found on the parliamentary website. I understand parliamentary website. I understand that it is to be found on the gov UK website, but I don't think that is satisfactory. My expectation

19:25

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

is satisfactory. My expectation would be that if a Minister at the despatch box refers to a paper, that paper should have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that paper should have been provided to Parliament. I appreciate the noble Lords comments. I will check why that hasn't happened, but it's certainly on the gov.uk website.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel duty bound to correct her. She promoted me to being a former She promoted me to being a former leader of a council. I had the honour to be a borough councillor for eight years and a constituency member of Parliament and a leader member of Parliament and a leader of the council, and I also want to put on record, if I may, the very put on record, if I may, the very helpful and comprehensive letter that the noble Lady the Minister sent to other noble Lords in the wake of the Second Reading, was helpful and the best letter I've received from the Minister, so I'd like to thank her for that.

19:26

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

My my apologies for the for the error. Lord Jackson, and thank you for your kind comments. >> It's certainly one to note,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's certainly one to note, isn't it? My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for this debate and to the Minister for their response. The amendments in this group all seek to understand how we will know whether this legislation has succeeded. My noble friend Lady Lawler rightly focussed on the impact of the right to buy scheme and the opportunities for home ownership, and I thank her for her work on this.

I was also interested in amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peter Peterborough, who wasn't the council leader, which raises important questions about the availability of homes delivered and whether the housing stock being provided actually meets the needs of families and communities. Understanding the impact of policy on the availability and affordability of larger social rented homes is certainly worthwhile. The amendments tabled by My Noble by the noble Lord Lord Holmes of Richmond, raise broader questions about transparency, accountability and how Parliament monitors the impact of housing policy across different communities.

Noble Lords may have differing views on the precise mechanisms proposed, but these amendments seek to ensure that the consequences of the policy are properly understood and that disparities are identified where they exist. I listened carefully to the minister's response and will reflect on the points that have been made during this debate, as well as looking at the equality impact assessment. However, I hope that the government will also reflect on the broader principle that sits behind this group, namely that Parliament should not simply legislate and move on, but retain the means to assess whether its legislation is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivering the outcomes intended. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 35 Baroness O'Neill. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that clause ten stamp part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords are back to me to be resumed. We will then move to dinner, break business. We will therefore not return to the bill before 8:29.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. I think there's probably a quick moment to allow those noble Lords who may wish to do so, to leave the. The House as the chamber as quickly and quietly as possible

19:30

Short debate: Change in the number of diagnoses of mental health conditions (dinner break business)

Question Question for Question for short Question for short debate. Question for short debate. Mental health condition diagnoses. health condition diagnoses. Baroness Maclean of Redditch. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. I'm extremely grateful to the House for allowing time for this debate. And to all noble Lords who will be speaking noble Lords who will be speaking tonight. Something has gone wrong when more than 1 in 5 adults in

19:31

Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)

- -

when more than 1 in 5 adults in England now lives with a common mental health condition, such as anxiety and depression, with diagnoses of ADHD and autism also climbing steeply among young people. It's 1 in 4. The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey shows it's climbing from 1 in 6 a generation ago. Today, nearly half of young people who are Neet not in education, employment or training are classed as disabled. But the single largest reason for that is a mental health condition such as anxiety.

And 4 in 5 of those on health related universal credit are therefore a mental health or neurodevelopmental condition. But, my Lords, here is the bit that should make us ask questions. While these conditions have surged, the most serious illnesses schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and the psychoses, together with the most severe of the learning disabilities, have stayed almost flat. Were we truly in the grip of a new epidemic of disease, we would expect it at the most serious end as well.

This strongly suggests that what's changed is not our human biology, but our understanding and where we draw the line between health and sickness. And of course, it's right to look at many factors for this, and I don't dismiss them. But time doesn't allow me to explore the impact of the pandemic or social media, for instance. But my Lords, I don't hear us in our debates talk about something that I believe is very important. And so I do want to mention it this evening.

It's the importance of importance of what we used to call grit, self-sacrifice, and discipline. It was something integral to our culture and to what it meant to be British. It meant that work was not a curse, nor only a wage, but a calling and a source of deep pride. Our Protestant work ethic laid the foundations of so many things that we Revere today. It built the mills and it dug the mines. It underwrote the Victorian gospel of self-improvement.

It built the chapels and the friendly societies. And it was the spirit that rebuilt our bombed cities after the war. Now, I'm sure that some will accuse me of turning back the clock or trying to. And they point to government schemes in schools and interventions in businesses, mental health counselling and awareness days. But if all of those schemes actually worked, they would be reducing mental health problems and sickness benefits, not driving them up. And we wouldn't today be spending twice as much on working age welfare as we do on defence.

The OBR expects spending on sickness and disability benefits alone to climb past £100 billion by the end of this decade. And just last week, the defence secretary and the junior Minister both resigned from their posts because neither of them could in all conscience defend this position. I believe the reason we've been so willing to sign people off work for mild conditions is that we have forgotten that work is the best way to heal from many troubles. As Barry Ingleton, who runs the mental health charity Silos in Oxfordshire, puts it, not every emotion is an illness, but every emotion deserves to be heard.

He works constantly with clients who have serious mental health conditions, but they go on to find purpose and joy in meaningful roles. We don't talk enough about the culture behind our Protestant work ethic and how any kind of work, including all kinds of manual labour done well, can give dignity and purpose to a life. Of course we should experience emotions. That's what being human means. But an emotion is an emotion, not a life limiting condition. Meaning you are permanently ill or disabled.

Now, in the policy space, I'm honest that the last government didn't get everything right, but this government knows it has the support of our benches to do the right thing on welfare, and it must start by telling the truth about this. Common mental health conditions, including neuro neurodiversity and the benefit system. My Lords, I hold two psychology degrees for my sins, and before politics, I spent 30 years running a small business in Birmingham. So I do understand what people get from work and how a good employer accommodates someone going through a hard time.

And it isn't by mandating more mental health awareness days or taxing businesses more. And many professionals are raising this alarm. So Simon Wesley, a former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, warns against the over medicalisation of normal emotion. The neurologist, Suzanne O'Sullivan, argues that our obsession with the medical label is making us sicker, not better. And Alan Milburn's review, commissioned by the government, describes a system in which a life on benefits for mental health condition is more lucrative and far less hassle than work.

We seem to have come to confuse workplaces, schools and universities with therapeutic services. Yes, I agree we originally needed to remove stigma from mental health, but I think we've overcorrected. We started with being kind and well intentioned, but I believe it's cruel to tell people that they are so fragile or ill or even neurodivergent, which is a label that simply means our brains are different, and it's now stretched so wide that those people can't ever work. And I don't blame people for doing what the system incentivises them to do.

But our system now means that those with the most serious conditions are at the back of the queue for the help that the state should rightly provide. And I think this is morally wrong. So I ask the noble Lady, the Minister with who has a huge amount of experience, does the government accept that reform is desperately needed to reduce the ballooning rise in less serious mental health and neurodiversity conditions that underpin our out of control welfare bill? And does she agree with me that it's time for a truthful conversation about the best form of help for these conditions, so that our budget can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be targeted at the most vulnerable, seriously ill and disabled. My Lords, I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank. The noble Baroness, lady McLean, for securing this very important for securing this very important debate. While mental ill health is rising across our society. The deterioration has been particularly deterioration has been particularly marked among girls and women. My Lords, I do not for one moment

19:38

Baroness Nargund (Labour)

- -

Lords, I do not for one moment minimise the crisis in male mental health. The persistently high suicide rate among men demands urgent action and sustained attention. Today, however, I wish to focus on the mental health of girls and women. Around 1 in 4 women now experiences a common mental health condition, compared with around 1 in 7 men. Nearly 1 in 4 girls aged 17 to 19 has a probable mental health condition, more than double the rate among boys of the same age.

Eating disorders affect more than 1 in 5 young women, four times the rate among young men. More than 30% of women aged 16 to 24 report having self-harmed. My Lords, these are not isolated statistics. Together they point to a profound and worsening trend. Many young women are growing up in an environment where social media can amplify pressure around appearance, achievement and self-worth. While technology brings many benefits, we cannot ignore the growing evidence linking excessive social media use to anxiety, depression and eating disorders, particularly amongst adolescent girls.

I welcome the proposed social media ban for under 16. Professor Nagy's interim report shows that young people now report higher levels of psychological distress than older adults. Reversing histologic historical patterns. We must also acknowledge that acknowledge the profound impact of violence against women and girls. Women who experienced domestic abuse, sexual violence, harassment are a substantially increased risk of depression, anxiety and self-harm. For women. Mental health is also shaped by factors that are unique to women's health across the reproductive life course, from premenstrual dysmorphic disorder to mental health impacts of menopause, mental health and physical health are inseparable.

Pregnancy related mental health problems affect around 1 in 4 women. My Lords, maternal suicide remains one of the leading causes of death. Between six weeks and one year after childbirth. Although awareness has improved. Too many women still struggle to obtain timely diagnosis and support. They need. The consequences extend far beyond the individual woman. Poor maternal mental health can affect infant development, family relationships and long term life chances of children. My Lords, if we are to reverse the deterioration in the mental health of girls and women, services alone will not be enough.

The true measure of our commitment to mental health is not how we respond when people reach crisis, but how we prevent them from getting there in the first place. People living in the most deprived communities are almost twice as likely to experience a common mental health condition as those living in the least deprived. We must address social determinants of health, poverty, financial insecurity, loneliness and erosion of community support. That requires more than increasing capacity. It requires a healthcare system that understands the causes of mental health problems and understands gender specific presentations of mental illness, and ensures that women are listened to when they describe their symptoms and experiences.

I therefore welcome the government's commitment to community mental health centres. School mental health support teams, our neighbourhood health service. These are important steps forward. Can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, to ensure that the rollout of these services will be explicitly designed to address inequalities, and that women's physical health and mental health services are connected? I welcome.

19:43

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

This timely and important debate. I want to start by addressing head I want to start by addressing head on the issue of the so-called overdiagnosis of mental health conditions in these increasingly conditions in these increasingly contested and often divisive debates. I find it hugely helpful to look at the facts. That's why I very much welcome the government's independent review into the prevalence of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, alongside existing national survey data and academic research on the issue.

My Lord, simply put, the strongest available evidence does not support claims that rising mental health diagnoses, which undoubtedly exists, is simply being driven by widespread overdiagnosis. Population surveys, clinical evidence and service use data all point to a genuine increase in mental health need over time, and a worsening of the social determinants of mental health, alongside improved recognition, reduced stigma and greater willingness to help. Now, as we've already heard in this debate, 1 in 5 adults now live with a common mental health condition, up from 1 in 610 years ago.

And according to the King's Fund, 1 in 5 children in England now have a probable mental health condition, up from 1 in 810 years ago. And yes, the increase in serious mental health illness is less sharp, but it is still going up. In short, the best available evidence suggests that mental health need has increased over time, particularly for common mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. So to my mind, the key policy challenge is not whether diagnosis rates are too high or too low, it's whether people can access timely, appropriate and effective support.

And that's where I will focus the rest of my remarks. Firstly, children and young people, charities such as Barnardo's. With many years of first hand experience in this field, are clear that the number of children and young people being diagnosed with mental health conditions primarily reflect a rapidly changing world, particularly the digital world. Greater need and improved awareness. And as the Prime Minister himself acknowledged this morning, a rise in online and social media use can be a driver of poor mental health in some children.

That's why, in principle, I welcome today's announcement on a social media ban for under 16. Indeed, access was. Action was long overdue, but. And it's a big but. We need to see far more details on how it's going to be implemented and enforced. We need to make sure we learn the lessons from Australia, and we must never shy away from holding big tech companies feet to the fire for peddling harmful content and addictive algorithms. According to a recently commissioned report by the Children and Young People's Mental Health Coalition with Mumsnet, 87% of parents say today's children face more mental health pressures than they did.

And what parents say they really want is more schools based mental health staff and shorter NHS waiting times, particularly for specialist services. My Lords, I've always supported the government's commitment to expanding enhanced mental health support teams for all schools and colleges in London and the enhanced pilot. But the model is not effective for all children and young people. There are those for whom mental health support teams do not provide sufficient support, but whose needs are not acute enough to meet the threshold for child and adolescent mental health services.

And in my various private member's bills on this issue and my recent amendment to the Children and Wellbeing Act, I have caught unsuccessful, I have to say I called these children the missing middle because they're falling through the gap in support and were greatly benefit from access to a school based counsellor. As part of the funded rollout of mental health support teams. Sadly, I haven't been able to persuade Ministers of this yet, but I will continue my campaign. My Lords mental health currently only gets 10% of total NHS funding, but provides 20% of the disease burden and has costly knock on effects on physical health.

That's why I want to see the mental health investment standard reinstated. The government dropped it quietly last year. We also need to see waiting time targets reintroduced and access standards introduced for community mental health services for adults with severe mental illness and urgent crisis care for all ages. The Minister, I'm sure, will be delighted to hear also that I haven't given up my campaign for an independent mental Health Commissioner to represent patients and families and carers. I conclude by emphasising we urgently need a new mental health strategy with a strong focus on community services, early intervention and prevention.

The government recently issued a call for evidence, which I welcome, of course, but it must be followed up with action. Indeed, the government are more than welcome to borrow from the wealth of ideas and evidence in the Liberal Democrats recent policy paper entitled Whole Person Mental Health, including a new offer for young people, mental health, walk in hubs in all communities, and the introduction of mental health check-ups for adults going through major life events. And there's lots more to say.

19:48

Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)

- -

I'm a fellow of the Royal >> I'm a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but what I'm going to say this evening will, I fear, be unpopular in some quarters, including with my own Royal College, who broadly say that these rising figures merely expose unmet need? And I disagree, but rather I agree almost entirely with the noble Lady McClain. I'm going to talk this evening about just particularly about children, because of the horrendous impact that this diagnosis problem is having for children and their futures.

We have engineered a situation where far too many children are labelled as mentally disordered, whereas they are indeed troubled and they do need support, but not a medical diagnosis. Since the early 19th century, every generation has believed that mental ill health was on the rise. Even those who had pointed out epidemiological studies prevalence has remained remarkably stably stable throughout the generations. What we see now was has been referred to as the cultural inflation of morbidity includes the rise in so-called autistic spectrum disorder in children, average or superior intellectual gifts, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and if noble Lords would like to test themselves on the myriad of online websites, they will find, we've all got it, and a range of other disruptive and distressing behavioural abnormalities, plus depression and anxiety all have been accepted as a suitable case for treatment.

Indeed, prescriptions of stimulants for ADHD have gone up by 50% since 2019. There's no such thing as bad behaviour anymore. It is oppositional oppositional defiant disorder. And yes, there is a DSM five and an ICD diagnostic category for it. And society, of course, has made it a lot worse by providing huge financial incentives for parents and children to insist on being labelled in this way. It's much worse in the United States, where there was recently a series of articles in The New Scientist pointing out how disastrous the mental therapy mania is for young people, and it's unfortunate impact on other children.

By spring this year in the UK, over 700 mental health support teams are now operational and accessible to well over half the students in schools and colleges. Utterly predictably, they keep finding more customers to label and put on waiting lists with this so-called undiagnosed middle who are not yet being tackled. The cost of nearly £500 £500 million annually across the country. Is it cost effective? Well, the evidence is very poor. Not surprisingly, those engaged in the services, teachers and parents love it.

But I am sceptical and astonished that the government would expand these teams on such flimsy evidence. I want to emphasise that I do not underestimate the problems that many children face, especially inadequate parenting, but also profound poverty, housing, health challenges, bereavement, being at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation, or having caring responsibilities. These are real problems, and I do not doubt that early years and older children's support of some kind is very worthwhile for these children who live in.

These are normal responses to often appalling circumstances, and is the kind of thing, of course, that really effective social workers used to tackle, but now do not. There are two major adverse consequences to this problem. The less important, perhaps, is the extra time. Children with children that children with problems are given to complete exams and tasks with the consequences that are believed to be capable of a lot more than they can achieve, leading to the truth of inadequacy only emerging on employment or higher education.

But much more importantly, though, children and young people with serious mental illness, like an incipient psychosis or learning disability with associated serious mental disorder have huge difficulties accessing care. It's they who need mental health support, but they get lost in the morass of others with less profound problems. These children are buried in a tight waiting to see a specialist. It's these young people we should prioritise first. I would close these mental health teams and concentrate on the seriously unwell.

19:53

Baroness Shah (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I welcome this debate and the opportunity to speak in support of the government's approach to one of the most approach to one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time. And I do so not as a politician, but as someone who has politician, but as someone who has the personal experience of what it means to love somebody with a serious mental health condition. My serious mental health condition. My late husband was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 29, following a long process in trying to find answers in how he felt, but also because he knew he had to learn how to manage things, particularly for our daughter.

Looking back, we came to recognise that many of the symptoms, like anxiety and depression, had been present since his early teens. He was fortunate he had a good support network around him, and I learned how to be there for him through his manic episodes, through his depressive states, and through the darkest moments when he was living through suicidal thoughts. Not every family has that, and that is why this debate matters so much. I am actually glad that more people are looking for help for their mental health.

It shows the stigma around mental wellbeing is dissipating and hopefully not manifesting in other ways. The crucial thing will now be in how they are helped, whether it's in the home, in school, in the community or through a medical specialist. The Mental Health Act of 2025, among many things, crucially enhances the rights of children and young people, ensuring their wishes and those of people close to them are central to decision making. That matters deeply to me, not only because of my husband's experience, but because I'm also the mother of a 17 year old daughter who struggles with anxiety.

And I can assure this house there's plenty of grit. My husband's journey has given me tools that many parents simply do not have. I understand the signs. I know how to have the conversations. But what I cannot protect her is from the environment in which she's growing up in. And that environment is far more exposing than anything her father or I faced at her age. NHS England's Mental Health Children and Young People report found that 20.3% of 8 to 16 year olds had a probable mental disorder in 2023, and the pandemic accelerated a crisis that was already building.

And into that fragile landscape came the relentless, and, I would argue, deliberately engineered pressure of social media. The Mental Health Foundation has warned that social media has contributed to a 47% increase in young people experiencing mental health harm in England. Since 2007, most young people aged 16 to 21 have been exposed to harmful or disturbing content online, with over a third having encountered suicide or harm or self-harm content and more than a quarter exposed to pro eating disorder material.

And the algorithms make it worse. These platforms are not neutral. They're designed to maximise engagement, and parents cannot just simply switch it off. The exposure is constant. Ofcom research shows that a third of 18, 8 to 17 year olds say that they have seen something online they found worrying or nasty in the past 12 months. That is not an accident. That is a design by choice, by technology companies that have for far too long faced far too consequence, far too few consequences.

And I welcome the approach the government is taking on this, on this social media cannot can be a benefit, but must be. We all must be alive to the very real harms and the consequences for young people are. Stark young minds report that a number of young. The number of young children and young people referred to emergency mental health care rose by 10% between 2023 and 24, with many stuck on waiting lists for months and years. The human cost of delay is not abstract.

It is measured in school days lost in futures diminished and families left to cope alone. I welcome the government response with extra mental health care workers and, crucially, by 2029, national coverage of pupils covered by mental health support team something my my daughter had the benefit of when her father passed away to manage her grief. My Lords, even if one young person gets the support they need earlier through this support from the government before a crisis deepens, then these reforms will have made a difference.

I know from my own family what early identification and proper support can mean. This government is moving in the right direction with within health and online. Our duty now is to ensure that it sees its commitment. These commitments, through fully resourced and understood, reaching every community in this country.

19:57

Baroness Cash (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Maclean for securing this debate, and also very grateful to my noble friends for their contributions so far, and particularly for their citation of the data, which will save me from the data, which will save me from repeating it. Also very grateful to noble Baroness Lady Sha for sharing her own personal story, which brings to life some of the challenges faced by families in extreme circumstances. But given the extraordinary rise in diagnosis of mental illness among young people, I want to address young adults in particular this evening.

I think we need to ask, as the noble Baroness Lady Murphy, has said, whether we have fundamentally altered how a generation defines mental ill health and how they handle it. Now, it's absolutely not the case that there aren't serious conditions and children in desperate and young adults in desperate need of help, but there is also a vast increase in the number of young adults who are meeting the threshold for a common mental health condition, most commonly anxiety and depression.

At the same time, among the category of disabled young people who are not in education, employment or training, the proportion citing mental health is their primary condition has rocketed from 24.3% in 2011 to 42.6% in 2025. That's an extraordinary rise, as the Milbourne review has reported, we're seeing a generation of young adults at what should be the beginning of their working lives, increasingly defined by psychiatric diagnoses and increasingly absent from education and work. They're absent from their own lives, and the rocketing numbers are a warning for us as a society.

And we need to examine very carefully, as the noble Baroness has said, whether the definitions of mental illness have expanded too far, in some cases, because a diagnosis isn't a neutral thing, it has the power to shape how a young person defines themselves and how others then treat them. Some of you know that I co-founded a behavioural science business and spent ten years immersed in the research. What the body of science now shows us is that how we treat people and how they define themselves has a massive impact on their life and and health outcomes.

Professor Langer's work has showed the profound influence of context and expectation on human functioning. Albert Bandura demonstrated self-efficacy. The belief that I can do this is a powerful predictor of whether people persist through difficulty. We are not giving this whole generation of troubled young people those messages anymore. Martin Seligman's famous work on learned helplessness showed the very opposite that when people come to believe, they have little control over their circumstances and this is what we're telling them, they stop trying, even when improvement is possible, or there is such a profound difference between telling a young person you're experiencing anxiety, but with support, you can learn strategies to manage it or face the situations and that frighten you and telling them you have an anxiety disorder, which explains why these situations are too difficult for you to take on.

One message reinforces agency and the other victimhood. And sometimes children get told one thing, but two too many young adults are being told the opposite. The government deserves enormous credit for commissioning Professor Fonagy to Simon Wesley and colleagues to ask the difficult questions about excessive diagnosis, medicalisation and whether our systems have really become far too dependent on labels. And I would ask that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will confirm to the House that we will she will pursue the outcome of that review and its findings in full, and ensure that those findings are communicated and collaborated with the other relevant departments.

20:02

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

There is a real concern that some mental health conditions are some mental health conditions are being diagnosed too broadly, and it's worth giving the matter a serious discussion. So we do our serious discussion. So we do our thanks to the noble Baroness, lady McLean, for raising the issue this evening, but that concern should never become a barrier for someone who's struggling and prevent them seeking the help that they required. As my noble friend Baroness Nargund explained, there are pressures on young people today and from my perspective, it is tougher now.

Overdiagnosis is a systemic issue. It's something that clinicians, researchers and policy makers need to work through. And they are. They're not unaware that these are real issues, but it's not something that a person in pain should factor into their decision before reaching out to a professional. They are completely separate conversations, and I have to say that grit and the Protestant work ethic aren't really part of either conversation. If you're finding it hard to function, to sleep, to feel OK on most days, that matters.

Whatever label ends up being attached to it or doesn't, the experience is real. A good clinician won't just hand out a diagnosis. They'll listen, ask questions, and work with you over time. Attention has been drawn to the remarks of a professor, Sir Simon Wesley, who drew attention to the overmedicalization of everyday problems. And I support that characterisation. But we're talking here about the diagnosis by medical professionals, trained medical professionals, not talking about self-diagnosis.

There's already enough shame attached to mental health struggles. I know the situation is improving, but it's still a big barrier without adding an extra layer. That worry, a worry that your problem isn't real enough, or that you're somehow contributing to a broader diagnostic trend. That's not a burden anyone should be carrying. So I asked my noble friend, the Minister, that she understands the issues in her reply, and that the resources will be committed to provide a mental health service across the range of mental problems, serious problems clearly should be a priority, but that does not preclude the need to provide a range of services.

I actually think that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, is right, that the goal of mental health care isn't to provide a diagnosis, it's to help people to feel better and to function well. And ultimately, you don't need a label for that. But the problems are real, and we should not do anything which would suggest to people that their problems aren't real here.

20:05

Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I'd like to thank Baroness Maclean for securing this important debate today. And there are around 1.8 million people waiting for mental health services waiting for mental health services in quarter one of this year, and long waits for access to mental

20:06

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

health services seem to have become normalised. But rather than looking at the numbers negatively, as I

20:06

Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

- -

at the numbers negatively, as I think Baroness Murphy and Baroness Cash seem to have, I see this as people starting to seek help as people starting to seek help as they would for their physical health. Removing that stigma stigma in my lifetime has been a positive in my lifetime has been a positive move. As people understand more and are willing to come forward when they're in need of help with their they're in need of help with their mental health. I would like to thank Baroness Shah for her very personal and powerful contribution in this debate.

As mind, the mental health charity, have advised, and I quote, the strongest available evidence does not support claims that rising mental health diagnosis is being driven by widespread overdiagnosis, population surveys, clinical evidence and service data point to a genuine increase in mental health need over time, alongside improved recognition, reduced stigma and greater willingness to seek help. And as my noble friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield rightly stressed, the key issue we should be debating is not whether diagnosis rates are too high or too low, but how can we ensure that people are able to access timely and appropriate support? And I don't agree with Baroness Maclean and her talk that something has somehow gone wrong and the need of that grit.

There is a danger, sort of dismissive language will begin to undo the progress we have made by reintroducing stigma and shame into conversations about mental health. And as Lord Davis said, the experience is real and we don't need an extra layer of burden in this space. You know, rising diagnosis is occurring alongside rising symptoms, distress and impairment, and this does point to genuine increase in the need rather than simply a change in labelling or lower thresholds for diagnosis. And as Baroness Nargund rightly highlighted, the increase in women that we're seeing up to 1 in 4.

And some of the reasons for this, including technology, I think was really powerful. But nowhere is this more acute, as we've heard in much of the debate today, is among children and young people. Barnardo's practitioners report growing complexity in presentations including acute anxiety, depression and trauma related distress. And yet less than 10% of the NHS budget is spent on children and young people's mental health. Now, the government's commitment to expanding mental health support teams to all schools and colleges is welcome, but these support teams are not designed to meet every need and younger children, those with special educational needs or facing more complex mental health challenges, may simply not be able to engage with low intensity cognitive behavioural therapy, or may need something that the model cannot offer.

And as my noble friend Baroness Tyler and Barnardo's rightly described this as the missing middle children who do not quite reach the threshold for Camhs referrals, yet whose needs exceed more than what the support teams can provide. Children experiencing moderate depression, self-harm, trauma or bereavement left without appropriate help. So I think Barnardos calls for mental health support teams to be expanded to include school based counsellors, what they call MH s t plus, and the economic case here is compelling because every pound spent on school counselling services can return £8 to the state.

But we on these benches believe that resources in our mental health services too often only kick in at the point of crisis, and that families and communities also need to play a role in the lives of people with mental ill health. And we've not been silent on some of the structural questions either. During the passage of the mental health bill last year. As we've already heard, we made the case for the creation of a dedicated mental health commissioner to provide independent oversight and accountability across the system.

And we've continued at the other end, calling for mental health investment standard to be protected. Both of these measures go to the same point without proper oversight and protected resources. Warm words about parity of esteem will just not be enough. I would therefore like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, as part of the government's new mental health strategy and the work you're doing there, will you look to offer regular mental health check ups for people and those supporting them when they're most vulnerable to mental ill health? Will you ensure that all mental health services are integrated with money advice, substance abuse, housing and employment advice services? Will you provide a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and will the government look to make mental health referral and support services available following every miscarriage, not just after three? There is much to do to support people with their mental health claims that this is being Overdiagnosed offer a simplistic headline to a far deeper and more complex area.

I await the minister's response with interest here.

20:11

Lord Kamall (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, can I begin by thanking my noble friend Baroness thanking my noble friend Baroness Maclean for securing this important debate? And the question before us is not whether mental health is not whether mental health conditions are serious or deserving of support, because we all agree that they are, nor nor should we overlook the very real impact that anxiety, depression and other conditions can have on people's lives, on their education, on their employment, and on their relationships. The noble Baroness, Lady Logan, spoke very movingly about the women's and mental, mental, women's and maternal mental health.

Noble Lady also spoke incredibly movingly about living with her husband's and daughter's mental health challenges, and that took a lot of courage to share that with noble Lord. However, as parliamentarians, we should show compassion and understanding that every case is different and it's important to remove the stigma. As a noble Lady, Baroness Pigeon said, we should be failing in our duty. We did not seek to understand why the number of diagnoses has risen so dramatically in recent years, not only for the wellbeing of those with mental health conditions, but also given the demographic challenge facing the UK and many other countries with ageing populations.

While the dependency ratio that is the proportion of young and old dependents relative to the working age population is climbing, governments of all colours are asking what that rise means for individuals, for state provided services, for the economy and for the taxpayer. And the latest data from 23 to 24 suggests that 20% of adults meet the criteria for a common mental health condition, and among younger adults, prevalence has risen significantly over the last two decades. At the same time, this number the number of people receiving the health related benefits has increased sharply.

Now, the Office of Budget Responsibility reported that spending on incapacity benefits as a share of GDP increased between 2019 and 20 2023 to 24. Now, the Department of Work and Pensions data shows that 68% of work capability assessment decisions between January 2022 and November 2024 involved claimants whose primary condition was a mental or behavioural disorder. My Lords, these trends raise a number of questions. Are we witnessing a substantial deterioration in our. In our nation's mental health? Has greater awareness led more people to seek help who might previously have gone unsupported, or have aspects of our health, education and welfare systems become too reliant on diagnosis as the gateway for support.

Our parents and children are incentivised to claim mental health conditions as a noble Lady, noble, noble, sorry, noble Lady, Murphy alluded to, these are the issues that the government's independent review into autism, ADHD and mental health conditions was established to examine something that these these benches welcome. And in fact, I've noticed noble Lords across the House. Welcome. And the interim report recognises the growing demand for diagnosis and the increasing pressure on services. And it also raises important questions about whether sometimes support can sometimes become too narrowly tied to obtaining a formal diagnosis, rather than being based on need.

My Lords, as a noble Lady, Baroness Miller said. And the noble Lord Davis agreed those were serious conditions. Struggle to access timely support. While families often feel compelled to pursue a diagnosis simply to obtain assistance that should perhaps be available more broadly. As my noble friend Baroness Cash said, the recent Milburn Review highlighted that the proportion of disabled young people not in education, employment or training who cite mental health as their primary condition, has almost doubled over the last decade.

Now, that should concern us all, and a truly compassionate society helps those who can work to do so. Good work can provide purpose, independent routine, social connection and societal contribution, all of which can contribute positively to mental wellbeing. But we should be very careful also saying that it's some sort of panacea, but it's still very important. The previous government took steps through Workwell and the wider employment support programmes, and we welcome efforts by this government to continue helping people into sustainable employment.

But the scale of that challenge, I believe, demands greater urgency. So can I ask or end by asking a noble Lady, the Minister, for questions to be answered now, or perhaps later in writing, when the government published a final report of the independent review? And how long further will we have to wait for which of the recommendations the government will implement? Does the government have any existing assessments of the relationship between rising diagnoses and the increasing economic inactivity, or do we have to wait for a report? And what thinking is there in government to to ensure access to support for those who need it, without creating a system that makes diagnosis the only route to getting support and assistance? My Lord, those with genuine mental health conditions deserve effective treatment and support.

But the taxpayers deserve confidence that our welfare and healthcare systems are sustainable and focussed on the outcomes and those who need help. The challenge for this government and any is to achieve both. So I look forward to the Minister's response.

20:16

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'd like to start by congratulating the noble Lady congratulating the noble Lady Baroness Maclean for securing what I believe is a very timely and highly relevant debate, and I would also like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I should observe, I think, that there isn't unanimity in this House on what is behind the drivers of prevalence, and I will come to that shortly. But I have listened closely to everybody on that point, and the.

The debate has covered the state of the nation's mental health and also has raised points about the rising demand for mental health services and they. These are matters that exercise us very much in government. And let me let me say to my noble friend, Baroness Shaw, that I'm grateful to my noble friend for sharing her personal and family experience in the way that she did, setting it against what what the world more generally is. But it is difficult to raise personal experience.

But as the noble Lady Baroness Cash said, it really does bring it to life. So I'm most grateful. So my Lords, some nearly two years ago, we found that we inherited a system of mental health services under significant pressure, and demand for mental health support had risen sharply. Between 2019 and 2020, for over a million more people had come into contact with secondary mental health, learning, disability and autism services. I think straight away that raises the question of why, and I do agree with observations that have been made, that access to support has often been too slow, too fragmented, hasn't met the need that it should do.

Too many have been waiting too long or only receiving help once their needs have escalated, and to my point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the difference of opinion across the House there is, and it's just a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House there is, and it's just a fact. There is real uncertainty about what has been driving these about what has been driving these trends, which is exactly why we commissioned Professor Peter to commissioned Professor Peter to lead an independent review into the rising prevalence of mental health rising prevalence of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. And I'd like to thank Professor Fonagy for leading this. And along with his vice chairs, Professor Simon Wesley and Professor Gillian Baird, because they too are shining the light that we need.

And I'm glad to hear there was a welcome, particularly from the noble Lady, Baroness Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Karmel, as well as other noble Lords for this approach, because this is a complex debate, and the purpose of the review is not to. And I want to emphasise this is actually not to question the reality of the difficulties that are faced by people, but to understand more clearly what is and has been changing over time, who is affected and why, and the government commissioned the review so that we could have.

And again, I would want to emphasise this, an evidence based understanding of trends in prevalence, in distress diagnosis, referral and support, and also, crucially, to review how well current systems are responding. And the noble Lord Lord Kamall said that we would be failing in our duty if we were not considering these things. And I certainly share that view. The interim findings of the review, published in March, have already strengthened our understanding of what is happening.

There is a real increase in psychological distress, particularly amongst younger people. My noble friend Lord Davis spoke to this point with adverse effects on education, work and everyday functioning, and. As as the. The noble Lady, Baroness McLean, asked about whether we accepted reform is needed to reduce what the noble Lady described as the ballooning rise in mental health conditions. I would just reiterate that actually this review is actually considering the value of a needs based approach to mental ill health that better matches support to severity of need and day to day functioning.

Because I do feel there is a great misalignment here. And population surveys do suggest that around 1 in 5 children and young people have probable mental health condition, compared to 1 in 8 in 2017. And indeed, the announcement today on social media speaks very much to this point. Amongst adults, the prevalence of common mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, rose from around 15% in the early 1990s to around 23% by the mid 2020s, and in relation to ADHD and autism, the interim report does find that self-referrals.

Forgive me that self-identification, referrals and recorded diagnosis have risen sharply, and I emphasise again, we do not know exactly why, but that is what the review will help us with. The interim findings do suggest that rising demand is likely to reflect a very complex combination of factors, i.e. no one thing changing recognition, improved identification of some frankly previously missed groups who deserve to be seen, systems in which diagnosis seems to function as a route to support, rather than the need for support and broader changes in public and professional understanding.

And I'm sure that we could all add more. It also, the interim report finds that access to diagnosis and support remains, frankly, very uneven, and that is not acceptable. There are groups and individuals who are under identified, whilst others are entering diagnostic pathways in growing numbers. So the next phase of the review will build on those findings and will make recommendations on how systems can respond better to and improve outcomes. And I can certainly confirm that we do look forward to those recommendations and will absolutely bearing in mind that it was this government that commissioned the review, I think noble Lords could be assured about how seriously we will take those recommendations.

The noble Lady, Baroness McLean, referred to and other noble Lords referred to Alan Milburn's review of NEETs, and up to that point I would say, and also forgive me, the noble Lady Baroness Cash did likewise, that I can confirm that Professor Phonic is working very closely with Alan Milburn on the Neet review, and that he has also met with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and that indeed, to the point the noble Lady, Baroness Cash raised, we will be working across government to ensure its findings are translated into action, because our focus is on improving outcomes and indeed the mental health strategy is cross-government.

It is led by our department, but goes further to that. So, my Lords, through the ten year health plan, we have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve mental health services, and we recognise that deeper reform is needed. We have recruited over 8500 additional mental health staff. That's three years ahead of schedule, and we have increased capacity across the system, and we are expanding access to evidence based support, including mental health support teams in schools and colleges, to provide early help for children and young people.

And the noble Lady, my noble friend Baroness Nargund, asked to ensure that women's health services and mental health services are connected. I can confirm that we are committed to ensuring that every woman gets the mental health support she needs as soon as possible, and we have asked Icbs to maintain and to develop women's health services as part of neighbourhood care. And yes, to the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon that we are piloting community mental health centres such as the one I visited recently in Birmingham to.

For people with severe mental illness, bringing together clinical support alongside housing alongside government and wider support in one place because we should be addressing the needs of the whole person and not individuals, individuals in any other way. Our. I can also say to my noble friend Baroness Nargund, that the forthcoming mental health strategy will emphasise addressing disparities across access to services and also experience of care and outcomes. And the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon made a number of suggestions that could be considered.

I'd say that those are the kind of things that the mental health strategy, which. The call for evidence is open until the 10th of July, will want to consider. And I'm sure that noble Lords will ensure that they make their views known. But I'm very enthusiastic about the mental health strategy. It will bring together so many of these aspects. It will call upon the findings of the review, and it will bring. It will align with the ten year health plan, which will.

In other words, to set out how we intervene before distress escalates to diagnosis or crisis. So, my Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been thoughtful and challenging and as I said, there is not unanimity and I listen closely to the noble Lady Baroness Murphy with her considerable experience. But I am confident that the review will give us the information that we need. I'll be pleased to write to the noble Lord Lord Kamall to answer his questions, and I am also very pleased to have announced the mental health strategy, because I think that is what will really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power this forward. Lord, may I suggest that we just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, may I suggest that we just take a minute to allow people who wish to leave the chamber, to leave the chamber before we proceed to the chamber before we proceed to The The House The House to be again in Committee on the Social Housing Bill.

20:29

Legislation: Social Housing Bill - committee stage (day 1) - part two

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage my >> Baroness Taylor of Stevenage my Lords, I beg to move the House to again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As many as committee upon the Bill. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 36 Amendment 36 in Amendment 36 in clause Amendment 36 in clause 11. Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I've got a number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've got a number of amendments in. This. And some of those I've co-signed with the Lord Stoneham of Droxford. with the Lord Stoneham of Droxford. I think we were probably both approached by the same organisation, and I think there's one I've tabled, and I think there's one I've tabled, which he hasn't, but I won't steal his thunder apart from the one

20:30

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

that's in my name. I think it's number 39. And but if necessary, I'll come back to that a bit later because I. I don't want to talk over what he may have or the noble Lord may have already prepared. So, my Lords, I'll start off straight away. In the previous debate, I had been basically saying rural people should have the right to buy. Disagreeing with some of the proposals being put forward in this bill and some of the arguments made by other noble Lords.

So what amendment 36 is about is basically saying. Housing associations, local housing authority, etc. shouldn't be allowed to sell properties in rural areas. So if somebody can't buy it, why is it that housing associations should be able to sell it to the private market directly? And the reason I say this is if we are concerned about the housing stock, and that's the reason for it not to be allowed to be sold to those already living in it, paying rent in it, and, and the like, then I don't understand why other private providers or private people should be able to come in just because they've got the money.

Now you may wonder, why is it that a housing association would want to sell in rural areas? And my experience is that as housing associations in particular have got larger and larger, what's ended up happening? Either either people are starting to come from further, but principally they have discovered a need to try and establish or build homes quite some distance away. And I referred to this in Second Reading, so I don't want to belabour the point, but I've seen it happen in places like Aldeburgh.

I've seen it happened in places like Orford, in Suffolk. And what's ended up happening is that homes are being built in Essex, in Cambridgeshire, not in the local area, and it just doesn't feel right to me that we can say we can now, through this legislation, ban somebody who's been living in that home from buying it, but we're not stopping the person or the corporation who owns, sorry, the provider who owns the that from selling it. And that links also very strongly to one of my other amendments, which is basically, I think it's 48 B where I say, let's not have this is in the supplementary list, my Lords.

A cash buy can't sell it just for cash because what I've experienced is that quite often housing association locally has been trying to sell off and they've done it. There are two ways you can in an auction that you can sell. You can sell for the what's called the unconditional auction approach. And that's where you give up 10% of the price basically straight away. And then you have to provide the rest, the 90% within 28 days, or you go for what's called the modern market auction, where you can potentially get a mortgage on it, but then you've got 56 days to come up with the money.

Now, I don't know how many people would necessarily have, as happened on a recent sale, just have quarter of £1 million spare to come up with, either with the initial deposit or the rest of the money within 28 days. But that is the basis on which housing associations are selling property around the country. And I don't think that's right. How is it that some wealthy person developer, don't get me wrong, an entrepreneur, all the rest of it. Particular property I'm thinking of.

I reckon there could have been 2 or 3 houses built, recognising the size of the garden that was there. And yet the person or local people or the local council had not been in the position to be able to buy that property. So my amendment is quite blunt in prohibiting cash purchases. It's done deliberately to provoke this discussion about who is buying when there's this big sell off. Furthermore, I can think of I can visualise the property. Another property I'm thinking of, it was a block of flats that was traditionally used by older people.

I think for years after the sale on cash purposes. Again, it's surprisingly still sat there. Nothing has happened. Nothing has happened to this property. And it's starting to look, frankly, pretty downgraded. I wonder if the real strategy is that the property becomes so bad that they end up getting permission to be able to knock it down, and the Minister will recall in some previous. Legislation, I tried to encourage us to have a situation where we would compel the council.

This is something different matters community value, but to use its powers to make sure properties are kept up to up to good nick. But in this case, that was has not necessarily the case. So that is the behaviour that I'm trying to stop and to try and keep rural housing. If we are not going to allow people who live there to buy it to what can properly be done with those sites. My Lords, I have a series of other amendments. I've already explained how I've co-signed, and it's the local councils network that gave that suggested these, which I think merit debate.

I won't say I agree with every single one of them, but I thought it was important to discuss some of the wider points. But I'll leave as I say that to the noble Lord Lord Stoneham of Droxford. But this is the one where it's extending the notification period to eight weeks. And very straightforwardly, I think it's amendment 39. This is where they have suggested to me that four weeks is simply not enough time for a council or housing association to make a financial decision to purchase a property, which typically requires a formal Cabinet decision.

They suggest that eight weeks is the minimum needed, and during that period of the council or another housing association submits an offer, an existing use value of social housing, they suggest the Selling Housing association must accept it. And of course, if no offer is received, the property can proceed to open market sale as it does now. So I don't know the motive about having the four weeks, but I think the case has been reasonably well made on why, if this is intended to allow councils to step in to potentially purchase those properties, eight weeks seems more sensible in giving them a bit more time to get their act together.

In that regard, my Lords, I've also tabled in 48 B I appreciate sorry, amendment 47. I appreciate we've really covered this in previous debates. I forgot to mention it earlier, but I hadn't tabled an amendment to it. If I think of properties of sorry, populations of about 3000 on an average House occupation, we're talking there about 1400 homes, 1400 houses. And my suggestion has been that what I think most people would consider to be rural is probably quite a bit smaller than that.

So I was giving a figure of about 1000 in order to, to think that through. And again, I'm conscious that we've already had the debate on rural. So I don't expect the Minister to reply to amendment 48, but I'm conscious. 47 rather, I'm conscious that 46 is still there, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, will not be upset by my tabling an amendment to his amendment. As I say, my Lords, I. I beg to move amendment 36, but may come back on some of the other amendments to which the noble, noble Lord Stoneham of Droxford has spoken.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 11,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 11, page nine. Line 15, and insert all. The dwelling is in a rural area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The dwelling is in a rural area. My Lords, my name is on amendments. 37.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

37. 38 and 44 in this group, all relating to disposal of social relating to disposal of social housing to other buyers, quite separate from the right to buy for existing tenants sales to to to other purchasers. And I have a good deal of sympathy with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in making these comments. Amendment 37 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and requires notification

20:40

Lord Best (Crossbench)

- -

20:47

Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

blessed. I mean, basically, the thinking behind all these amendments is that social housing units, which are sold off and disposed of, we always in danger of losing a valuable social asset. So it is important that whenever a social housing unit is coming up for sale, everything is done to make sure if it can be, it is used as a unit for social housing. We don't lose that in the community. I don't not dealing with rural areas in my remarks, but I understand the importance of social housing units disappearing in in rural areas.

I think there's an issue also with housing associations becoming larger and across wider geographical areas. Sometimes housing associations lose the connection with the localities because of their spread. And therefore it's essential that where these sales disposals take place, they should be held to account. So obviously, I do support the Lord Best amendment. And Baroness Coffey made the same point about the extending the one month to two months so that the regulator can be informed and that there's a proper period of time for whoever could purchase this social housing unit has time to to look at how they can do it.

And I would say also that in amendment 45, where we put in some requirements for information about the the housing unit as to whether it's decent homes compliant, its energy performance, the whole details of the property all got together all at the same time, so that the process has not necessarily become overly bureaucratic and prolonged and can be quite straightforward. But I think the main amendments that I've put forward in this group are 40, 38.

Where not only and 41 and, and, and 42. Now, this is going further than just informing the local authority or other local other local housing associations of properties being disposed of. So it's actually putting a right to refuse in the hands of a local authority or the local registered provider to obtain the property at existing use value. So it is strengthening the the mechanism and the incentive for somebody to step in to save this property for social use, rather than it going out into the private market.

And that is why these amendments are important. And it gives the right both to local authorities and to local housing associations to have the right to refuse to the first right to to buy the properties. Social housing is, is, is very valuable. We must keep it social housing as, as, as much as we can. Obviously, there will be circumstances where it might not be appropriate, but I think these are these amendments are intended to put safeguards in and to give every incentive for a local authority and to another housing association to participate and acquire these properties, so we don't lose them as social housing units.

And I very much hope the Minister will give very close consideration to accepting some of these improvements.

20:51

Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I rise to. Support our amendment 46, and I'd like to start by thanking the noble Lord Lord by thanking the noble Lord Lord Best and noble Lady Baroness Thornhill for their support. My Lords, at Second Reading, and as Lords, at Second Reading, and as we've heard today already, the. I explained at the Second Reading the shortage of affordable housing in rural areas has had and continues to have long term social and economic consequences for our rural communities. It's led to school shop and pub closures, reductions in transport and other services.

Quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses, traditional social networks have also collapsed, and recent evidence now suggests, as the noble Lord Lord Best said, that the lack of supply caused by low levels of new provision of affordable housing to rent is being exacerbated by registered providers disposing of their rural stock. The point is that very often this rural stock is old and need of expensive modernising, particularly the need to achieve energy efficient and modern EPC targets.

Furthermore, to make matters worse, their often high market value rural homes whose sale receipts could possibly help pay for larger housing projects in more accessible locations that offer economies of scale. Without the extra costs and complexities of small rural schemes. So the business case for these disposal decisions is irrefutable, my Lords. But the evidence suggests that the decisions are not recognising the important role that an affordable home plays in a rural community. And the evidence shows that there has been a significant increase in rural disposals over the last five years, particularly by the larger registered providers, and once sold, it is difficult to replace these homes in the affected rural community as opportunities for new affordable developments are scarce, particularly in high value landscapes or areas affected by ecological constraints or in coastal areas.

And I should say that there is a need for both our amendment and the government's existing clause 11. The bill's current amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act simply requires registered providers to notify local authorities of a disposal, and I may say with very short notice, as has been noted, it doesn't actually prevent such disposals nor open the opportunity for the registered provider and the local authority to explore other options that would avoid the disposals in the rural communities where these may be the last social housing in a rural area.

In my amendment. Our amendment giving the rural local authority early visibility of stock conditions, asset plans and disposal strategies will enable local authorities to plan for likely losses as well as new supply. It would open up opportunities to consider purchase, retrofit, renovation, rural regeneration or other interventions before homes and land are lost permanently. Could the local authority funding be available to fund replacements in the community communities concerned? Could local authority funding help modernise the property or properties making a sale unnecessary? Maybe a package of rural sales and rebuilds could attract homes and regeneration funding? Or, given the large plots of some of these homes, could everyone get together to redevelop the site to provide more homes? In effect, this is a pre-emptive stage before any decision to sell has been taken, and hopefully also this kind of information sharing would lead to a better partnership working between the registered providers, local authorities and community stakeholders.

But I should say that to find the right solutions does take time. Hence the need in our amendment for a 12 month notice. As it stands, the current amendment in clause 11 is more suited to non rural areas where there is more social housing and more opportunities for replacement. A disposal in these locations would not be as catastrophic as losing the last affordable home in a village, or undermining the local authority strategy priority to support rural affordable housing delivery and sustainable communities.

However, notification of a proposed sale will still be important, giving the local authority some time to consider repurchase or using resources to bring a home up to standard. But I'm very concerned that the four weeks is a totally inadequate period for local authorities to master the necessary resources for these actions. Even 12 weeks will be pushing it. And in rural areas where a long term strategic approach is necessary, I believe that constant communication and at least 12 months notice of an intention to sell would be the least amount of notice necessary.

Thank you, my Lord.

20:56

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)

- -

21:01

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, this has been a thoughtful debate and wide ranging, and I thank noble Lords who have taken the time to table these taken the time to table these amendments. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her my noble friend Lady Coffey for her diligent work on amendment 36. We do need to look at where social housing is most effective, but we must also consider legitimate reasons why a sale could be beneficial. With regard to amendment 47 in her name and amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington Lord Best and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, we stated our position in the last group that defining what counts as a rural area is beyond the scope of this debate and deserves much more scrutiny.

That said, we do recognise that local authorities and private registered providers should try to work together more closely in the interests of local communities. Amendments 40 and 41 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Stoneham of Droxford and my noble friend Lady Coffey, seek to give registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rented dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities as existing use value for social housing. Noble Lords have made an interesting case, and we need to look at this proposal further, and certainly I could add some fruity stories from Bexley, whereby the frustration of losing nomination rights and an elderly person's block being sold at auction and turned into a cannabis factory that was then set light to.

So there are some things out there that we really should be aware of. Amendment 37 seeks to extend the notification of a proposed sale to cover the regulator of social housing, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response as to the appropriateness of this amendment. 45 adds details to what must be included in a sale. Notice an amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Best, seeks to add to this list information regarding the accessibility of a dwelling to wheelchair users and people with mobility problems.

These are important considerations, and it's right that these sale notices are comprehensive to provide a full picture. Turning to amendment 43. In my name and my noble friend Lord Jameson, we felt it important to draw the House's attention to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers. We must be careful not to infringe on their independence or on property rights to ensure that relationships between private providers and local authorities are based on genuine cooperation and partnerships to deliver better outcomes.

Finally, we welcome the government's amendments in this group. We do not want uncertainty in the statute book over which resolution procedure applies, and we are pleased that the government has sought to fix this issue. I once again thank noble Lords for the issues they've raised, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, the Minister for.

21:05

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

21:18

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

21:21

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)

- -

predicated on a number of very straightforward questions. Do we believe that when it comes to believe that when it comes to social housing, for those providing social housing, those maintaining social housing, and those tenants living in social housing, do we living in social housing, do we believe that the considered and believe that the considered and thoughtful deployment of AI of data, of new technologies could be assistive in that endeavour? And if we believe there is something in that, then we should look to the bill as currently drafted and see that it is curiously silent on all of these new technologies and data possibilities.

Now, this is important, not just because there's currently nothing in this bill on those matters, but because the government's stated position on artificial intelligence is to not have cross sector AI legislation. Now, there's nothing unusual. There's nothing party political in this. It's exactly the same position that the previous government adopted. I believe both governments have taken a sub optimal and unfortunate approach to AI regulation and legislation in this respect. But if we accept that position of the current government, no cross sector AI legislation taking a domain by domain approach.

Well, here we have such a domain, social housing. So where is the domain specific AI provisions in this bill? In looking at the amendments that I've set out, I think it's also helpful to take a purposive rather than a literal approach to their interpretation. I think this is always a far more productive way. Whether one is doing statutory analysis or indeed bill consideration. So to that effect, to amendment 48, if we take out the technology blockchain and we simply suggest, would it be positive and beneficial to have a system of audit trail in these circumstances, which is tamper proof, immutable, and a certain record of which everybody has the same view of that record in real time at any time? Would that be a positive thing to have? Similarly, when it comes to using data and having the right mechanisms and frameworks for sharing data across agencies and departments for the benefit of housing associations of landlords, for the benefit of tenants, with all the right privacies and consents put in place, at least worth considering.

When we look at amendment 60 and zero knowledge proofs, would it not at least be worth the government, considering that they could provide, and indeed, through their action, enable housing associations and landlords and other interested parties? A far more safe and secure means of supporting and assisting particularly vulnerable tenants, those who are often at the sharpest end of horrific situations in our society. Wouldn't zero knowledge proofs be worth considering and potentially piloting, where you could have credentials which could enable support and assistance to be provided for those vulnerable tenants, without any sense of being able to identify who they were? If we assume no, if we suggest that AI may be of benefit, then it would make sense to experiment.

Look to prove cases across the social housing landscape. And if that's the case, would it not be helpful for government to offer support, guidance? Flexible, not prescriptive, but certainly principles based to further enable and empower housing associations and landlords to have greater comfort and confidence when they seek to procure, when they seek to deploy AI and algorithmic systems across their operations. My Lords, all of these amendments have the potential to support to assist the underlying approaches set out in the Bill and those landlords, those housing associations who are seeking to do best by their tenants and indeed to empower and enable those tenants themselves.

Yes, to have greater safety, security, privacy and protection, but more empowerment through a considered development proof case and deployment of certain technologies, including AI in this space. If the government isn't going to do cross sector AI legislation, which it isn't, what is the approach going to be for AI use when it comes to social housing? So tenants can be protected? So potential horrific harm situations through the deployment and use of predictive analytics, for example, can be avoided before they even occur.

Similarly, predictive analytics to have a repair schedule, which can kick in before any of those repairs become acute. But two examples there are hundreds, thousands more. But how will tenants, how will landlords, how will any. Across the social housing ecosystem be enabled, be empowered, be supported, and have the comfort and the confidence to use and be alongside these new technologies, not least AI. If the bill stays silent on these important matters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is clause 11, page 11. Line 36 at end insert 171 E blockchain at end insert 171 E blockchain blockchain audit trail for disposable notifications as printed disposable notifications as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I have 140 amendment 114 in this group, which is actually about freedom of information. But I want freedom of information. But I want to start by commending my noble friend to be forward thinking in

21:28

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

friend to be forward thinking in his consideration of AI and the impact it will have. I particularly like his amendment 99. I appreciate in his explanatory statement, it talks about compliance with the standards pre-condition for any AI deployment in connection with functions under the act. But I think the broader point made is actually very simple, very straightforward, and would actually help not only central government, but local government and more regional planning as as anticipated, under acts already passed in this Parliament in order to have a better grip of what is going on.

I say that it surprises me quite how many questions come back from Ministers, not necessarily the Minister answering today, but who's saying it's cost too much money to work out an answer to a question tabled by peer? Let's get AI or indeed data to help us in this regard. So I turn now to amendment 114. And again, I've done quite a broad brush amendment about Freedom of Information Act. Now, recognising the special situation which social housing providers, private registered providers are in.

I do think there's something more that we, the public, should be able to understand about how they're operating their business. And this is not unique. This is actually already undertaken in Scotland. In 2019, the Freedom of Information Scotland Act was extended in order to include registered social landlords. Now this was done on a limited basis, not the entire range of what the FOI act does in the rest of the UK, or certainly in England and Wales, but is there in order to increase openness and transparency by allowing people to understand how they work, how decisions are taken, how public services delivered and how they spend their money.

And that's particularly true not only in the financial well-being and governance arrangements, but also in the housing services which they provide going further prevention, alleviation of homelessness, something which I'm sure we all are concerned about, and indeed the management of housing and accommodation, which is let under a tenancy. It's not intended to get into every aspect of what a registered provider might do. But I do think, as I say, that we have they have such a special privilege, often being given tens of millions of pounds, if not more, of assets from other parts of whether it was councils before or indeed the special arrangement where every taxpayer does subsidise social housing one way or another, whether it's in rent directly, whether it's or indirectly, I should say, or whether it's in the capital amounts.

It comes from taxes other people pay, and yet they're one of the most secretive organisations going. So as a consequence, I do think it's time recognising the important role that they do play, that we get some transparency so that when they are starting to decide to sell properties, that only the rich people with cash available can buy, that we start to know a bit more about that and why they've come to that decision. So with that, I hope that the Minister will consider carefully.

21:32

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I thank both my noble friends for their contributions and their amendments. Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Coffey, we absolutely recognise the need for legislation to keep up to date with changes to the way personal data is processed, especially where it relates to cases of domestic abuse. The noble Lord is right to point out that the potential role of AI when it comes to housing allocations, and that human oversight is needed with an accessible appeals mechanism, is amendment 117 B would require the Secretary of State to publish draft guidance on responsible AI procurement, deployment and oversight, and on cyber security standards, and the government should lead the way on these issues without hindering innovation.

More national oversight may be required, and I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether the mechanism he suggests with amendment 99 is the most suitable approach. Accountability is crucial when it comes to reliance on technology, and so we agree with the intent behind my noble friend Lady Coffey's amendment to apply the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to private registered providers, as well as the noble Lord Lord Holmes of Richmond amendment 117 to give better oversight over complaints.

These are thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, and I hope the government will give them due consideration. Well said.

21:33

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to noble >> My Lords, I'm grateful to noble Lords for the amendments on data, digital systems and technology digital systems and technology within the Social housing framework. And thank you to the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, noble Baroness Coffey and the noble Baroness O'Neill for contributing amendments 48, 49, 59, 60, 97 to 99, 114117 and 117 B raise important questions about transparency, security and the effective use of data in delivering housing services.

So I'll take each amendment in turn, beginning with amendments 48 and 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Amendment 48 sets out the details that noble Lord Holmes would like to be included in a ledger prepared by housing providers. It requires the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of disposal data cross-referenced with housing need, data that identifies areas of net social housing stock loss. I appreciate the noble Lord wishes to ensure that private registered providers maintain a robust record of their disposal notices.

In turn, this supports the analysis he wishes government to undertake each year on disposals, housing need and the net loss of social homes. However, again, I think we must remain alive to the avoiding undue requirements on registered providers and indeed government, and also recognise the information and data that is already available. The regulator of social housing already collects and publishes data annually on sales by all large private registered providers. Local authorities, already, as part of the plan making process, publish their assessment of housing need.

Finally, the government already publishes on gov.uk statistics on affordable housing supply in England, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply. Turning to amendments 59 and 60, which seek to place cyber security requirements on landlords when handling data connected to domestic abuse protections. And they would require the Secretary of State to establish a pilot program to test zero knowledge proof techniques. I must admit, not a term I'd heard before I got involved in this debate.

It's critical that the domestic abuse protection measures work in practice, and I welcome the intent of this amendment and recognise the importance in landlords working sensitively and safely with data when considering cases and making a possession claim to the courts. Social landlords work with tenants on a range of complex issues and can make possession claims on other sensitive issues, such as anti-social behaviour. They are therefore very experienced in considering these matters. As the responsible data controllers, we expect landlords to handle tenant data responsibly.

Social landlords are required to handle sensitive information securely and lawfully under UK data protection Law, including the UK General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. These laws are regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner's Office. We will be working with landlords and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation in practice, and that will include considering whether additional or further guidance or best practice is needed on data protection and confidentiality to support the safeguarding of victims as a result of these reforms, it is right that these considerations are alongside wider implementation, working with the sector, and I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

Turning to amendments 97, 98, 99 and 117 be also tabled in the name of the noble Lord Holmes. These amendments seek to put in place frameworks for data handling, sharing and use of artificial intelligence in social housing sector. Now I recognise and welcome the intent behind the amendments and support the aim of ensuring effective data protections. However, the amendments are not necessary. The amendments would introduce prescriptive frameworks for data usage in social housing decisions, which would not be the right approach to achieving the desired aims in gathering evidence and making decisions related to social housing, individual, social, landlord and multi-agency partners are best placed to identify the systems and approaches which best meet their needs.

Local housing authorities, registered providers of social housing and government departments must already operate within UK data protection law, and decisions on data protection are taken within that context. Turning to amendment 98. If used well, AI has the potential to make organisations more efficient, effective and innovative. However, social landlords and other agencies should continue to be mindful of their data protection responsibilities and ensure compliance with UK law. When considering whether and how to use artificial intelligence, landlords and multi-agency partners must still consider data protection, including its lawfulness, fairness and transparency.

And again, the Information Commissioner's Office has published guidance on AI and data protection. Within this context, the amendments take a significantly prescriptive approach, requiring social landlords and partners to work within centrally set frameworks, and we're of the view that the objectives of the amendments are better achieved within the current data protection legislative framework. Amendment 117 B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of artificial intelligence and cyber security governance in social housing provision.

I recognise the intention behind this proposal and the importance of ensuring new technologies are used responsibly and securely. However, I do not consider a specific statutory reporting requirement to be necessary. Social landlords already operate within established data protection and cybersecurity frameworks, and wider work is underway across government to consider the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in public services. This would be an additional statutory requirement and risk duplication with existing work. Turning to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to bring private registered providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

We have already taken forward a targeted and proportionate approach to improving transparency for social tenants through the introduction of the social tenant access to information requirements known as stairs. This will ensure private registered providers proactively publish more information about their activities and share information with their tenants on request. Following a direction issued to the regulator of social housing in September 25th, this scheme will come into force on a phased basis over the coming year. From October 26th, private registered providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their social housing and from April 27th, tenants and their representatives will be able to request access to information relating directly to the management of their homes, unless it is reasonable not to.

Landlords will be required to fulfil their tenants requests for information within set time frames, and these requirements have been carefully designed to ensure tenants have access to the information that matters most to them. With this in mind, the government's view is that targeted, tenant focussed approach through stairs is the more appropriate way to deliver meaningful transparency for tenants. And turning to amendment 117, tabled by Lord Holmes, which would require authorities to publish data on complaints received relating to measures in this bill.

I hope our commitment to introducing stairs demonstrates the commitment to transparency, which I share with him. However, we think it is important to look at complaints data in the round, looking at the whole service rather than focusing on specific measures, and as such, the Housing Ombudsman publishes annual complaints reviews, providing an assessment of complaints received across the whole sector. All registered providers of social housing are also required to collect and publish tenant satisfaction measures annually, which includes metrics on how satisfied tenants are with their landlords approach to complaints handling.

My Lords, for all the reasons I have set out, while I recognise the important issues raised around data use, transparency and emerging technologies the government considers these matters are best addressed through existing frameworks and ongoing policy development. I therefore ask local noble Lords not to press their amendments.

21:42

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)

- -

My Lord, I thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for her response. My only comment would her response. My only comment would be on one of the Minister's statements that landlords and those statements that landlords and those in social housing should observe UK law. The difficulty is when it comes to so many elements of AI, there is no UK law. So if tenants find themselves on the wrong end of an algorithmic decision, for example, no current UK law.

There are some provisions, as rightly identified when it comes to data, but not in many of the specific contexts as set out. So currently we have a largely analogue act in an increasingly digital environment where much of that digital could be so assistive. Yes to landlords, yes to those involved in social housing, but most importantly to those who are all too often on the sharpest end of some horrific situations where digital and AI could help.

Currently, this bill doesn't bring forth any of that potential help. But for now, I beg to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Try again. Amendment 48. A Lord Stoneham not moved. Amendment 48 B Baroness moved. Amendment 48 B Baroness Coffey not moved. Amendment 49 Lord Holmes of Richmond not moved. Amendment 50. Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is amendment 50 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. The question is that clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

As many as are of that opinion will say content. On the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 11. Amendment 51. Lord Lansley.

21:44

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

Thank you. This group, in my view, is a group that is focussed view, is a group that is focussed on the. In some ways, in my view, the most important question which is not just how do we protect the is not just how do we protect the public housing stock, but how do we increase the availability of social homes, particularly social homes for rent and the noble Lords, who I think are pretty much everybody here was present at Second Reading, will recall that I spoke to that and in particular cited a report that I read from Ellen G.

About the capacity for large scale stock transfer schemes from housing associations into partnership providers remaining within the regulated register provider regime. But combining housing association stock with institutional investment would have the capacity to bring the latent value of that housing stock into play and enable housing associations through the substantial receipts that they would generate to re-enter the market in building more social homes. One of the the point of this amendment is that that report said one of the mechanisms that would help to promote this innovation and the extension of large scale stock transfers would be the publication of supportive guidance by the social housing regulator to this purpose.

And so this amendment is designed to promote that guidance. Now, from my point of view, I don't want to repeat anything that I said before. I just want to make clear that I think the importance I don't want to us to underestimate the importance of looking at how we generate more building for social homes. The the government have, as the noble Lady, the Minister has rightly reminded us on a number of occasions, our investing £39 billion over ten years.

That is, on good estimates, potentially going to deliver 5000 more affordable homes per year. And it's home England's intention that 60% of those should be for social rent. Now that is alongside, of course, the fact, as we all know, that the principal delivery of affordable homes overall has been through the section 106 obligations, and we are in a position where many housing associations are not in a position to take up those contracts. And the reason is essentially, as I understand it, because they are no longer necessarily in a position to borrow for this purpose, because many of the larger housing associations now no longer have interest cover.

That is, that they now that the interest costs on their outstanding debt is now exceeds that that now exceeds their operating income. So they're not in a position to take on more debt and to undertake more purchases. Now, we have seen some change in the last few years by the introduction, after the 2020 legislation of some for profit registered providers, but they are generating only 13% of overall delivery. The situation with contracts for section 106, as the Minister will recall, is such that now we're seeing some councils themselves buying the contracts for social housing under the from private developers under section 106 agreements.

I think this is a position we don't want to arrive at really. We want the council houses, the Housing Revenue account to be building new homes in addition to the homes that are available through the section 106 agreements. And we want additional to that to have Homes England grant beyond section 106 to deliver more social homes. We are significantly below the numbers overall we want to achieve. We had the benefit of the Minister telling us about the impact assessment, and she reiterated the point that the net.

The net result is that instead of a loss of 26,000 homes, there was going to be a gain of 18,000. I would just caution the House to remember what we are talking about. There is a loss on the one hand and a gain on the other to the public housing stock. The 18,000 gain is again in the size of the public housing stock. The Council House stock. When one then looks at the impact assessment, which I've now of course had the opportunity to do during our dinner break, what it reminds us is that the the government's right to buy reforms are going to lead over ten years to an estimated reduction in the number of council house sales overall, from 51,600 down to 28,500.

That actually is a different measure. That is a measure of. To what extent are we building more homes as a consequence of the right to buy receipts. And that is a reduction of 22,000. Now, of course, because there's 66,000 fewer sales of council houses, the council housing stock is going up by by 18,000 instead of going down by 26,000. But I think there are many of us who would say, actually, what we should be focussed on is are we building more homes for social rent? Are we reducing the the the level of need that is as yet unmet? And I think this is where this scenario that is presented of large scale stock transfers leading to Recapitalising.

The housing association sector is very important. It could lead to 18 on. On an estimate of one third of the Housing Association stock over ten years, transferring into partnership registered providers, it is estimated potentially to lead to 18,500 more affordable homes per annum. And the noble Lady Baroness Thornhill, whose amendment in this group wants us to understand what are we talking about when we're talking about affordable homes, social homes and so on? Clearly that is that is going to be probably no more than half of those would be homes for social rent.

And in this context, of course, we want to be very focussed on homes for social rent as well as other forms of social housing, such as home ownership at below market rates. But the benefit of this scenario is also that it will move significant numbers of people from temporary accommodation into social housing that could yield the exchequer up to £710 million a year. And of course, the the the. It will also lead to a move of tenants from private rented property into public housing association and council housing.

So that's some 125 million benefit as well. So I think we can say that from the Treasury's point of view, this is an attractive scenario. And from the broader economic point of view, an increase in social housing supply over ten years of 180 000 could increase the long run level of GDP by around 0.2% relative to baseline, and the construction activity over that ten year period could also increase annual GDP by more than 0.1% relative to baseline.

Now, I know that Ministers are willing, and I and I am grateful, very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her positive response at Second Reading. And I'm also very grateful to Minister to officials for the time that they gave to discuss these ideas. I know Ministers are willing actively to consider innovative solutions of this character. I hope that the social housing regulator will be key to ensuring that partnership registered providers fall within the regulatory regime, and that all the the standards are met, and that the long term interests of tenants will be protected, but that at the same time, the social housing regulator and Ministers give their support to large scale stock transfers through the publication of additional guidance.

What I'm hoping that the Minister will be able to give the House, and to me this evening is confidence that the the amendment is not necessary, that Ministers are have in any case, the powers under the under the 2008 act to ask the regulator to bring forward guidance of this kind. There are things we can do. I won't go on about other things, but there are things, for example, like great creating long term certainty about the social housing, rent settlement and indeed for that matter, where section 106 is concerned.

Extending the stamp duty social landlord relief to all regulated affordable housing, including under section 106, which does not have public grant. All of this would help us to increase the numbers of homes that are built, that are available for social rent and at below market rents and levels. This is the key to US meeting presently unmet need. So I do commend these ideas, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively, as she was kind enough to do at Second Reading.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move amendment 51. 11. Insert the following new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11. Insert the following new clause large scale housing stock transfers as printed on the master list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. My Lords amendments 86, 87 and 88 in my name. Address the subject of mayors and their role in social housing delivery. As we know, local authorities have a major role to

21:55

Baroness Eaton (Conservative)

- -

play in social housing delivery and maintenance. Under this government, maintenance. Under this government, reforms have been pushed to further empower mayors in their areas over empower mayors in their areas over ordinary councillors. As we saw in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Community Empowerment Act. Therefore, it's only right that we question to what extent mayors exercising existing mayors and future ones should be held responsible for social housing delivery, beginning with amendment 86. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of what mechanisms are, and should be available to hold mayors to account, specifically in relation to social housing delivery.

This review would take place within 12 months of the bill being passed, and it must consider the performance of social housing delivery, the accountability of the mayor to local electors in this regard, and what accountability mechanisms exist. So much work to deliver social housing may take place behind the scenes, and mayor deserves credit where they do well as well as be held accountable when they are not doing as much as they could or should do. This will also make it clearer to voters how the social housing system works, and how performance can be measured and attributed to different actors.

Of course, individual mayors are not all powerful beings, and their performance can be impacted by other factors, but they are being empowered by this government. And so we need to look again at how they can be held accountable. Amendment 87 calls for a review of the incentives that are there for mayors to deliver social housing. More carrot, less stick, if you will. This review would look again at performance, but also assess what financial incentives there are to perform well, what funding streams and accessibility to grants exist, what savings can authorities make elsewhere when social housing is delivered well, and so on.

Social housing delivery needs to be supported by a positive policy environment, and this amendment would give Parliament better oversight of what incentives exists. Amendment 88 would look at mayoral remuneration as a mechanism for holding accountable mayors who are not performing well. Bring into question how much remuneration they deserve, particularly as we see more mayoral combined authorities rolled out over the coming years through the government's reforms. This framework would link a proportion of remuneration directly to the performance of social housing delivery, taking into account their delivery targets.

My Lords, this is a probing amendment to explore how the changing role of mayors can be clarified, and to ask if the current mechanisms for accountability are sufficient and appropriate. If the government wants mayors to have more powers, then there should be mechanisms of accountability and incentives to reflect that. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this subject, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will take these ideas on board to investigate this further.

Thank you.

21:59

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, my Lords. I rise to speak a little bit more briefly than I had intended on this group than I had intended on this group of amendments, and to speak specifically to my amendment 92. specifically to my amendment 92. And, my Lords, I'm shamelessly using the bill to raise an issue, and what I believe is to correct a problem that we in this House have discussed many, many times. My amendment 92 is to insert a new clause to ask the government to publish very clear guidance to distinguish affordable housing from social housing.

Why? Because it has real consequences for supply policy credibility and public trust. There is a widespread belief that affordable and social housing are the same thing, and I even hear it in speeches that are made in articles that are written in reality. Affordable is a vague term without a clear definition. Now, the Minister will say that we do have official definitions, and of course, they come from the National Planning Policy Framework. In the MP, affordable rent can be set up to 80% of local market rates.

In high pressure areas, 80% of market rent is still completely out of reach for many ordinary working families. It is affordable in name only. And interestingly, when this ten year was introduced by the then Minister, Grant Shapps, he called it intermediate rent. Less confusingly, social housing is entirely different because it is pegged to local wages and national formulas. There are arguments about how effective that that is, but at least it is an attempt to tie it in some way to affordability and not the volatile private property market.

It remains the only housing truly accessible to low income households now, because the public and policy makers conflate the two developers and local authorities can and do claim that they are building affordable homes. Whilst the actual stock of genuine, affordable, genuine. So see, I did it then, didn't I? It was a Freudian slip of genuine social housing continues to plummet and as we said, there was a net loss last year. And likewise, Ministers often use the same terminology without real distinctions.

This masks the reality of what is actually happening to social housing. My Lords, we must stop talking about affordable housing and start explicitly demanding social housing. And I'm sure that the Minister would say she's all in favour of that. My true desire is that the word affordable is dropped from housing vocabulary. Now, there is clearly some agreement on this as the recent report, quite a long report, 73 pages by the housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee looked into this, and the chair, MP Florence Eshalomi, has spoken out quite strongly on exactly the same lines.

So perhaps it is time to make a very clear distinction. Turning to amendment 72, which talks about the cumulative regulatory burdens that are impacting on the delivery of social housing. I will say very simply that from my experience, developers regularly lobby and complain about regulatory burdens, regardless of what form of tenure they are building. The legitimate issue with building social housing is the cost of delivering it, and the government is trying to make social rented housing stack up financially.

By the more recent changes, which the Minister has already outlined to us. But forgive my cynicism, as we have lived with the so-called viability loophole for many years, where developers try to renege on building social housing or defer it until the very end of the scheme, sometimes years later, in larger schemes, or say they're delivering affordable housing. Now, turning to amendments 86 and 87 in the name of Baroness Eaton on mayoral accountability. We do have some serious sympathy with these, but we have an issue with 88 as I'm really not sure about bringing performance related pay into into the arena, into this arena.

I would be quite nervous about that. But let's look at 86 and 87, which are worth considering. We support these amendments as they are intended to reinforce delivery, and they actually shift our attention to actual outcomes on the ground. And they equate powers with responsibilities and accountability. And as I've said in this House many times, mayors now have significant planning and housing powers. So surely it's entirely reasonable to ask how these powers translate into delivery performance. And in our opinion, these amendments introduce accountability without overreach.

But the bottom line is that without clear definitions and a common understanding of the terminology currently used, we risk misleading ourselves about success. And without accountability, we risk failing to deliver it to the scale that we need. All my amendment 92 does is ensure that we speak honestly about what we are building, and amendments 86 and 87 ensure that we are actually building it.

22:05

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My Lords. This has been a short, but I believe, important debate. I thank all Lords who have thank all Lords who have contributed to it. Although these amendments address different aspects, there is a key theme to all of them, and it is the theme that we believe is the key to address the housing crisis that we face, and that is how do we increase the supply of homes, particularly social and affordable homes, in a system that too often struggles to deliver them at the scale required? If amendment 71 in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of Bexley, raises the importance of prioritising brownfield land, something that I know of the noble Baroness the Minister agrees with.

However, as we have discussed before, this needs to be more than words. It needs action. Our amendment seeks to put that aim into action. Amendment 72 is in similar vein. It asks the government to review regulatory blockers to regeneration of existing housing estates. My Lords, we all know of old housing estates that are somewhat tired, built for a different time and in many cases they provide the opportunity for additional housing through gentle densification. We've all seen those estates. My friend in the other place, James Cleverly, has highlighted the excellent Kidbrooke Village regeneration in Greenwich, where build quality has improved the area and the environment, and flooding resistance was improved while adding nearly 3000 additional homes.

The debate has rightly touched on a number of barriers to delivery. My noble friend Lord Lansley has drawn attention to the role that large scale stock transfers could play in unlocking investment and renewal. The amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, raised the equally important issue of accountability. If mayors are to be entrusted with significant powers for housing delivery, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should consider how their performance is measured and assessed. And the noble Baroness, the noble Lady, the Baroness Thornhill, has also raised, I think, the issue that we all face what is social, what is social rent, what is affordable, and so forth.

There is confusion, but we have to live with the definitions that we have today. I believe this is a constructive debate, but the key is how do we deliver more housing? And the noble Lord Lansley did raise the issue of the impact assessment. I've had the opportunity for a quick scan, but I think this is something we should come back to on Wednesday when we debate further, because I think there are some rather interesting figures in that. With that, I hope the Minister will reflect on the issues raised, because each amendment seeks, in its own way, to address the central challenge that lies at the heart of this bill.

How do we deliver more homes?

22:08

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

Yes. >> That's a good place to finish Lord Jamieson and a good place for me to start, because a central mission of this government is to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. And the core objective of this bill is to incentivise the building of more social housing. So I thank all noble Lords who have participated and submitted amendments to this group, and we've already taken a significant, wider step with the significant long term investment.

I've spoken about many times, 39 billion to build over 300 social homes over the next ten years. And I thank noble Lords for the range of amendments on how we could further enable new supply, and for the constructive debate on these important issues, to respond to the amendments, in turn, starting with amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord Lansley. Introducing a power for the regulator of social housing to issue guidance relating to the large scale transfer of stock in addition to the power for the regulator to issue guidance, the amendment would require providers to have a to have regard to any guidance issued, and the regulator's guidance would relate to its fundamental economic objective.

That includes supporting the supply of new homes and promoting private investment in social housing. The regulator already has a power in section 105 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, to issue codes of practice on matters relating to both its consumer and economic standards. Given this, I do not believe it's necessary to pursue this amendment. However, I am aware that the aim of the amendment is to place a particular focus on the potential opportunities of large scale transfers of homes to bolster the capacity of the sector to deliver more new homes.

And the noble Lord spoke enthusiastically at Second Reading about the need to explore new ways to increase the sector's capacity to invest, and in particular, that we should be looking at how providers can, using the considerable assets that they own, partner with private investors to address financial capacity constraints that many of them face. I can reassure the noble Lord that the government is open to innovative ideas that meet our core principles, delivering more homes for social rent and creating high quality, sustainable places for the long term.

And I understand the noble Lord Touhig very fruitful meeting last week in relation to the ideas that he has. And from those discussions, I hope the noble Lord is reassured that my Department is considering the many ideas that are being generated in this space. In addition, the regulator of social housing published last week on the 9th of June, a discussion document titled More and Better Social Homes and that focuses on how its model of economic regulation could be updated to respond to a changing social housing sector.

And I did meet with the regulator of social housing last week as well to discuss this subject. I hope the noble Lord Lansley is reassured that government is alive to the new ideas to bolster supply. Similarly, the regulator has just started an important discussion with the sector about how regulation should adapt to continue to be open to further innovation and change while effectively managing risk. Turning now to amendment 71, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, the government strongly committed to a brownfield first approach, including for the development of social housing, and we've been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call to support this ambition.

The National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 24th to set out that proposals for brownfield should normally be approved, unless substantial harm would be caused. We've expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework, and we have recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land, including encouraging higher densities in sustainable locations, greater intensification of urban and suburban sites, and introducing a presumption that development inside settlement should be approved unless any adverse effects would be substantially substantial enough to outweigh the benefits of doing so.

And in April, the government committed to making regulations to ensure strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. All of this demonstrates our strong commitment and continued support for brownfield development, as such a requirement to produce a separate brownfield land, social housing development strategy is unnecessary and duplicative in our view, as the existing policy and relevant development plans already sufficiently achieve this aim. Turning now to amendment 72, also tabled by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, introducing a new clause for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of regulatory burdens on social housing providers.

We are committed to ensuring the regulatory system ensures landlords deliver quality homes and services, while ensuring that providers can simultaneously drive up supply and our Decade of Renewal Plan, published in July last year, gave the sector much needed clarity on the regulatory requirements they will need to meet in the coming years, and confirmed a number of capacity boosting measures to support them. To do this, we also engage closely with the sector in developing regulatory measures with close consideration and the impact on them, and we've published impact assessments for new measures impacting landlords.

We are continuing to work closely with the sector to ensure regulatory requirements are clear and deliverable. And in the light of this and the impact assessments we've already published regarding regulatory requirements, we believe this amendment would be duplicative and therefore unnecessary. Amendments 86 to 88 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, would introduce three new clauses to conduct for the Secretary of State to conduct reviews into accountability mechanisms and incentives for mayors, and to establish a statutory framework to link their pay to performance.

I'm glad the noble Baroness is considering the role of elected mayors in our mission to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For example, increased provision represents one way in which mayors can demonstrate progress against their integrated settlement objectives for housing and strategic planning, as well as supporting outcomes to reduce homelessness. Mayoral performance against these objectives and outcomes is monitored with mitigations in place to deal with under-performance, and that includes the possibility of direct government intervention.

With the reintroduction of delegated funding limits, settlement suspension or funding clawback all options in the most serious cases to avoid the need for mitigations. We have also taken decisive action to enable mayors to act on these incentives, delivering on a commitment from the English Devolution White Paper establish mayoral authorities now possess the ability to set the strategic direction of our £39 billion social and affordable Homes programme in their communities, and mayors have set out their social and affordable housing ambitions and will work with Homes England and social housing providers on development priorities, identifying key sites and supporting investment opportunities to shape delivery.

Crucially, this represents an interim step as over time we will seek to move towards full devolution of funds and delivery for social and affordable housing. And the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act provides mayors with broad and flexible powers regarding housing and strategic planning, including the ability to acquire land and housing, produce spatial development strategies, and set up mayoral development corporations. And it further strengthens the accountability mechanisms for mayors through the introduction of local scrutiny committees, and we are currently revising the English Devolutionary Accountability Framework with an updated version to be published by the end of 2026.

I hope that shows that the legislative changes we've made, along with the purpose in the noble Baroness amendment, and therefore it's not necessary to accept the amendments to these existing powers are sufficient to deliver the outcomes she envisages, without the need for additional statutory provision and to link performance directly to mayoral remuneration. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendment, which introduced a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish guidance on a distinction between affordable housing and social housing.

In addition, for the purposes of this act. In addition, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult before introducing the guidance. Now, where necessary, the Bill adopts the definition of social housing as defined in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This definition encompasses both low cost rental accommodation and low cost home ownership. Clause seven of the bill makes reference to affordable housing in relation to exceptions to the right to buy. However, text inserted by subsection three of that clause in paragraph 181 D makes clear the relevant exception uses the definition of Social housing from the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

More broadly, affordable housing and social housing are defined elsewhere in relation to specific aspects of government policy, and that includes a definition of affordable housing within the National Planning Policy Framework. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has that. In this Bill we have taken a consistent approach by adopting the definition in the 2008 Housing and Regeneration Act, and that further definition is not necessary at this point. As you mentioned, the Mhclg Select Committee report, I would say we've received the report.

We are considering the recommendations made by colleagues in that report, and we will respond in due course. So for all the reasons I've set out well, I recognise the shared ambition behind these amendments to support delivery of more social housing. I don't consider they are necessary or proportionate. Our focus is on giving councils, providers and local leaders the confidence and flexibility to deliver new supply without adding further statutory duties or reporting burdens, where existing frameworks already provide the right levers. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

22:18

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

Yeah. the Minister for that very positive response, and I'm personally very grateful for that very encouraging grateful for that very encouraging response to amendment 51. I think it'd be great to finish on with some violent agreement that we all want to build more social homes at the conclusion of Day One's proceedings, but I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw amendment 51. This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 52. Lord Fuller not moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House be resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, I, Christopher I, Christopher John I, Christopher John Lord Grantchester of Audlem. To swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. My Lords. Beg My Lords. Beg to My Lords. Beg to move My Lords. Beg to move that My Lords. Beg to move that the house do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To.

00:00

Peers Taking Oath or Solemn Affirmation Of Allegiance

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page