Lords Chamber

Wednesday 17th June 2026

(began 2 weeks, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:05
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Identifying individuals, groups, organisations, businesses or bodies in the annual State of Extremism
-

>> The answer to the noble Lord is yes. Where necessary and proportionate. It will include examples of those propagating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extremism and where they have been disrupted. This is an extremely welcome answer. And does the Minister not
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:50
15:51
Baroness Young of Hornsey Portrait Baroness Young of Hornsey (Crossbench)
-
-
and environmental harms, including an obligation to conduct human rights and environmental due rights and environmental due diligence in their own operations, subsidiaries and value chains in subsidiaries and value chains in line with international standards to make provision for civil liability, access to justice for liability, access to justice for victims and enforcement, body penalties, and a criminal offence for failures to comply with the for failures to comply with the duty and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this bill be now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

read a first time. The question is that this bill be now read a first time. As many be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. Message from the Commons that they have passed the Cyber Security they have passed the Cyber Security and Resilience Network Information Systems Bill to which they desire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the agreements of your Lordships. My Lords. Cyber Security and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Cyber Security and Resilience Network and Information Systems Bill. I beg to move. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill is now read a first time. The question is that this bill be now read a first time. As many be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, we now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee. Russia sanctions, EU Exit Amendment Regulations 2026 Baroness Chapman of Darlington.
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:54
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Commons yesterday on Thames Water. >> My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister. >> For repeating the statement in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For repeating the statement in your Lordships House. Thames Water has scandalised our country while asking its customers to pay more asking its customers to pay more for less. For the sake of customers and taxpayers, we now need stability, not uncertainty. This statement today has not announced any change to the situation of Thames Water. There is a recapitalisation proposal and Ofwat must evaluate it. All this statement has announced is that the Secretary of State has sent a letter to Ofwat's chair outlining her own views, but which, she has made clear does not count as direction from the government.

What then, exactly does this letter hope to achieve? What specific changes to the proposal does the Secretary of State want, and when do we expect Ofwat's decision, and how long will the public consultation on that take? I do want to correct the record on one point that was made in the other place. It was actually in 2006, under this governing party's last government, that Thames Water Investors acquired and leveraged the company. Why was action not taken then to prevent this from happening? During the passage of the Water Special Measures Act, we proposed strong action against those responsible for failings.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that the penalty regime will not be watered down as reforms to the water sector continue to be rolled out? During those debates, we sought assurances from the government and attempted to amend the bill such that in the event of a special administration regime, consumers would be protected from any liability in a bailout and also that the Secretary of State could impose leverage limits on water companies to prevent a recurrence of this appalling situation. The government did not accept these amendments to the Bill.

Does the noble Baroness, the Minister, have any regrets or change your view on these points? The noble Baroness, the Minister has herself stated, and I quote, investors would not have the confidence to invest money if the special administration regime could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify any performance issues. Could the House have the same assurance again, and would that assurance still sound after the Makerfield by election result and any future future leadership change? A special administration of Thames Water risks making lenders to Thames water hole that could represent a 50% gain on the current traded value of Thames Water debt.

Could the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify that in the event there is a special administration, this would not be the case. It is important that this situation is clear, so that we can be confident that the creditors negotiating to recapitalise Thames Water do not stand to win if those negotiations are unsuccessful and there are still reckless calls for nationalisation. My Lords, nationalisation could cost the taxpayer £20 billion and would drive away investors money that could and should be spent on our nation's defence, the first duty of any government.

And further to that, would a nationalisation process actually increase the risk that lenders were made whole and generated a profit out of out of a failure of Thames Water? We keenly await the upcoming Water reform Bill to address the failings of regulators, not just companies. The government hopes to introduce a new single regulator integrating the functions of Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. How can we be confident that Thames Water process will continue to operate smoothly with this organisational uncertainty? As we have seen in other areas of the DEFRA brief this week, we desperately need the government to get a grip of arms length bodies and we will scrutinise the provisions in detail when the Bill comes to this House in relation to this this question, I do also declare an interest, as my daughter is an employee of one of the funds named in the press as a participant in the Thames Water recapitalisation.

I have asked quite a few questions of the noble Baroness, the Minister, and I hope she is in a position to answer them and elaborate on the purpose of this statement, and I very much look forward to her response.
15:58
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well said. >> I thank the Minister for. >> Repeating the statement. I would like to. Return to a point I raised in this House only last week, when in this House only last week, when I asked whether the government would delay the Clean Water Bill pending the resolution of the Thames Water situation. We were told then that the government were ready to deploy a special administration regime if required. Yesterday's statement raises a straightforward question. What has changed? We are told that the Secretary of State has set out early views in a letter to offer that the underlying fact has been evident for so long now.

Specifically, a highly leveraged company, prolonged financial fragility and ongoing environmental failure. Can the Minister share what threshold the government are applying for intervention, in particular, given that Thames Water has been operating without an investment grade credit rating for a long period? Does the Minister consider that this constitutes a breach of financial resilience expectations? And if so, why hasn't it triggered special administration, particularly on performance? The Secretary of State has said she is not convinced by the latest recapitalisation proposal.

That is significant. On what specific grounds has that conclusion been reached, and what tests are the government applying to determine whether any proposal is credible? Financeable and in the interests of the consumer? Turning to the 16 million customers who are trapped in this monopoly, does the Minister accept that a substantial proportion of customer bills are already being directed towards servicing debt? Indeed, one third of every Thames Water Bill is already spent solely on servicing the company's massive debt.

In assessing the current proposal, what explicit protections are being put in place to ensure that customers are not required, either directly through higher charges or indirectly through weaker outcomes, to absorb the costs of that debt. Related to that, reports suggest that creditors are seeking adjustments to regulatory expectations. Can the Minister confirm whether any relaxation of performance or environmental standards has been proposed and share with us unequivocally whether the government would permit such an approach? On environmental performance, Thames Water was responsible for over 100 zero zero zero hours of sewage discharges last year.

How are the government weighing that record when considering the suitability of the current ownership and the current financing model? Finally, on special administration, the government has repeatedly stated that it remains an available option. Can the Minister clarify what specific conditions would need to be met for that mechanism to be triggered, and over what time frame? My Lord, since the conservative privatisation more than 35 years ago, some 85 billion of Billpayers money has mostly gone to oversee shareholders and executives through things like bonuses.

My Lords, is it time to blow the final whistle on this failed experiment and put the interests of the public and our environment first?
16:01
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Can I thank. >> Noble Lords for. >> Taking part in the statement for their questions? There's quite a their questions? There's quite a lot of questions, so I shall do my best to to cover them. But as always, if I've missed anything out, we will get back to noble Lords. First of all, it's important to point out that this letter is the Secretary of State simply offering her preliminary views, and that is in line with the duties of section two of the Water Industry Act of 1991.

And she puts forward those preliminary views for off what to consider when they're making their decision, because it is important to be clear that it is for off what not government to decide whether they reject or accept the proposal. And, of course, the Secretary of State's preliminary views, which is why we're making the statement, is that she's not convinced that the proposal in its current form, delivers for customers or for the environment. As mentioned by the noble Lady, Baroness Grender.

Also, while the the company is considered to be stable at the moment, we do stand ready for all eventualities and that includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime if that becomes necessary. It is also important to clarify that there is a very high bar for the use of a special administration regime, because the law states that special administration can only be initiated if the company becomes insolvent, or they are in such serious breach of their principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence.

Regarding creditors and shareholders and what they would recover upon an exit of a SAR. Just again. So the purpose of a special administration regime is not to bail out water company shareholders or creditors. It is to ensure that water and wastewater services continue. If a water company fails, and when a water company exits from special administration, and that could be either via rescue or through transfer. The special administrator, not the government, determines the level of repayment to creditors by applying the relevant insolvency legislation.

The level of recovery that creditors may expect will be in accordance with the relevant insolvency legislation, and it's very unlikely that all creditors debt would be repaid at the end of a special administration because of the priority order of repayment. So I hope that helps answer some of the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Lord Roborough, the noble Lady Baroness Grender talked about the the performance grounds. And I'm just to clarify again on that, to successfully apply for a special administration on performance grounds, a strongly evidence case must be made to the courts in determining whether to apply to the court for a special administration regime, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to all the relevant facts and matters pertaining at the time, acting in accordance with the applicable statutory duties regarding the environmental obligations that was raised by the noble Lady.

All companies must continue to meet their statutory obligations to customers in the environment, and regulators will continue to have a range of enforcement tools available at their disposal. On the creditors, asking for the debt to be repaid during the special administration regime. That is not possible because there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR, which takes away the creditors ability to enforce debt repayments. But employees do have some protection by being able to recoup certain debts, such as unpaid wages, via the redundancy payments service on customer impact.

We've always been absolutely clear that Thames Water must meet its statutory and regulatory obligations to its customers and to the environment, and the Secretary of State has set out her preliminary views on this to Ofwat in the letter. So the next steps now on this are, of course, for off what. But clearly there have been many, many concerns about not just Thames Water, but other water companies and their approach to the environment, which is one of the reasons why we have, as a DEFRA priority, to bring in a new water bill that we will see later this year.

And one of those key things is going to be looking at those environmental impacts. Obviously, people are frustrated. I one of the very first meetings I had when I became a Minister nearly two years ago was about Thames Water. It has been going on for a long time. It was going on before this government. The. The business has been underperforming now for 15 years. It's a long time. It's regularly missed its performance targets. It has racked up too much debt.

It was right that the Secretary of State wrote to Ofwat to set out her preliminary thoughts around the next approach. Ofwat, also with the support of government, has been in discussions with the London and Valley Water Consortium. That's a group of Thames Water's creditors, and that's regarding the terms of the proposal that's been put forward. Clearly, a recapitalisation process of this size is complex and takes time. And while we will establish through the bill that I've referenced a new single, powerful regulator to replace Ofwat, in order that we can actually work better when we have water companies failing in the future until this new regulator is established off, what's role remains.

And so it remains off what's decision on where we go forward at the moment? I also want to be clear that the government is working with all water sector regulators to carefully monitor the performance of all water companies, including Thames Water. And again, as I said earlier, if there are ever any problems, we do stand ready to intervene should this be required, because it is important that the continued provision of a vital public service in water supply is continued and of course, in wastewater, and we will always act to protect the public interest.

We believe that any proposal has to be in the best interests of both consumers and the environment, and it's really important that when we look at why the Secretary of State has written at this stage, is that we need to have time to understand the proposal and work it through. This is about 16 million Thames Water customers. So any decision that off what makes has to be done in the full understanding of of opinion, but also on what is best for consumers and what is best for the environment.

I hope that's covered most of the questions that were raised. As I say, I've always right, if there are any further.
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:32
16:32
16:33
None Portrait Amendment:53 Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-

that process. It requires annual local authority reporting of homes local authority reporting of homes sold under the right to buy against homes newly provided. And I think we need to look particularly about we need to look particularly about net loss and net gain. This way. Both the public and the public are Both the public and the public are important, and the government can see a trend within a local authority over time. Now, the authority over time. Now, the reason I decided to bring this amendment forward, that I was recently asked to speak in a housing conference, and I tried to ascertain information about social homes in Hertfordshire, and it was actually more difficult than it should have been.

Data is not easy to obtain and nor is it cumulative. So we can't see trends. And of course, there is also the dilemma of affordable versus social, which we discussed at length on Monday. But if we haven't got the quality of data that actually tells us on an authority by authority basis what's really going on, then we cannot know if a policy is really working. But much more importantly, nor can government determine when it is appropriate to intervene.

I think it's worth saying that it's very clear that all housing providers are now having to deal with those with far more complex needs, disabilities and mental illness, and it's very tough to be having to ration a scarce resource on a daily basis. Housing officers are unsung heroes in my book. Now, we went through the statistics at length on Monday, so let's just say we are nowhere near building the amount of social housing needed, nor the right type. Whichever estimates you look at.

And it is evident that demands for social housing vary considerably from area to area, and that the challenges of meeting those varied needs with increasing homelessness and families in temporary accommodation, is bringing more councils into a precarious financial position, whilst others remain relatively unaffected. We believe that the responsibility to meet those needs should be spread fairly, as much as is practically possible, and that every council should take their responsibilities seriously. But I regret that. I do not believe that is the case, which is why amendment 53 matters.

Because if there is no clear, consistent public record of what is happening locally, then it becomes impossible to monitor trends and to direct change. Turning very briefly to the other amendments in this group, amendment 54 in the name of Lord Holmes of Richmond. And whilst I have absolutely some sympathy with this, I believe it could possibly be unworkable in practice due to land availability, planning delays, etc. all legitimate reasons for delay. So putting a time limit on it just doesn't seem.

Wouldn't be helpful. I think we would be rather encouraging creative compliance rather than pinpointing an actual delivery date. Clearly, amendment 56 in the names of Baroness O'Neill and Lord Jamieson is almost a duplication of my amendment. Likewise, there are 58 b. It's interesting, my Lords, that across both committee days, we are going to be looking at collective amendments which are clamouring for more data of one kind or another. It is obviously up to Ministers to know whether they have the data they need to inform policy and make judgements on whether a policy is working or not, and we need that same data to be able to scrutinise it.

At heart. I hope the Minister tells me yesterday it is actually their Baroness Thornhill. You just weren't looking in the right place, but it's available somewhere, but probably not publicly or easily. On amendment 55. I am interested in what the noble Baroness O'Loan Neal will have to say, but I hope that the government is more aspirational than one for one replacement, given the scale of need. But I say again, without knowing what each local authority is actually losing and delivering specifically.

Hence my amendment 92 on day one regarding conflation of the terms affordable and social housing, we won't know what's actually happening on the ground. Trends over time are important and not just averages on a national level, but over local authority areas, which, as we have also discussed previously, are going to get much larger and therefore accountability, in our view from these benches needs to be stronger in these new moral authorities and the larger

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unitaries. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 11. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I was going to say I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I'm
16:38
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
have spoken in this debate, but I'm most grateful to the noble Baroness Thornhill for speaking in this debate, and I think she does identify a couple of very critical issues. That is, the need for more housing and the need for clarity and information. I think that's very important. It's important that we keep a sense of perspective here about right to buy. Right to buy does not mean that that home disappears. It doesn't mean that that family living in that home disappears.

They are still in that home. And they are in many cases, going to remain in that home for many, many years, irrespective of whether it is a social home or they actually acquire it. The issue, therefore, is not about the loss of physical dwellings, but the change in tenure and the availability of social housing for other tenants. And that's precisely why the questions raised by the noble Baroness Thornhill and the amendments that we ourselves have put in are addressing the serious discussion about replacement.

We need reliable current information and data. Equally, if there is a case for one for one replacement, which we believe that case should be examined openly and supported by evidence rather than assumptions. Now, we've now had the opportunity to look at the impact assessment for this bill, and the noble Baroness Thornhill rightly raised the issue of how can we reduce housing lists by increasing supply? Well, if you look to table four, what is the impact of removing right to buy? Well, after five years or so, when it settles down, it means over a 3000 houses every year, fewer are built.

That's 3000 fewer homes for families. That's 3000 more families on the council waiting list every year. We need more homes. Right to buy is an opportunity to increase that. And just think, what would happen if the government were to focus on building more homes, rather than stopping families from having the opportunity to own their own home. As we seek a minimum for one for one replacement, we could be seeing over 5000 extra homes every year.

That's 5000 more families. Given the opportunity for a socially for a social home, that's 5000 fewer people every year on the housing waiting lists, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend, lady O'Neill, do not seek to prescribe a particular outcome. They seek to ensure that Parliament and the public have the information necessary to assess the effectiveness of the policy and to make informed decisions about its future. I was going to say this has been a constructive debate.

Maybe I should say this has been a constructive discussion, but we all recognise the need to increase housing supply and the opportunities for home ownership. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the arguments made and the case for greater transparency and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need for more homes. My Lords, before I speak about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I speak about the Social Housing Bill, can I just wish our team England or some of our Team England all success this evening and I look, I hope will be finished in time for some of us to finished in time for some of us to see some of it. I would like to start by thanking everyone for the lively and constructive debate we lively and constructive debate we had on this bill on on Monday. It's a pleasure to be back to continue discussing the legislation in terms of amendment 54, tabled by Lord Holmes.

This intends to require the Secretary of State to reconsider our one for one replacement policy and, relatedly, amendments 55 and 56, tabled by Baroness O'Neill and the noble Lord Jameson, require a report on the assessment of the viability of this requirement. Amendment 53, put forward by the noble Baroness Thornhill, aims to insert a clause requiring reports on the sales and replacements to the Secretary of State and, separately, amendment 58 be from Baroness O'Neill requires a report to Parliament within a year on the impact of clause five of the Bill.

Specifically, my Lords, we announced in our response to the consultation on Right to buy reforms. We are removing the formal one for one right to buy replacement target. However, and I say this very specifically, this does not mean we are complacent about replacing homes sold. Far from it. We call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock, and to play a central role in the government's commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable house building. The one for one target was introduced in 2012, when the only social and affordable housing delivery councils were asked to do was replace homes sold under Right to Buy.

Our ambition far surpasses this. Now we want to see more than one for one replacement, and we don't want a target that limits that ambition. As I set out my letter following Second Reading, this bill is not the extent of our delivery ambition. Our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the course of the programme, and we are taking decisive action to reinvigorate council house building, including supporting councils in our £39 billion social and Affordable homes programme. We also invested £17 million last year to boost council house building skills, and we have permitted councils now to combine their right to buy receipts with grant funding.

The government's impact assessment on the Bill forecast that England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 26 and 36. However, through our package of right to buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all the receipts from sales, something we've long campaigned for from local government 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 what would have been a loss. The government will continue to monitor right to buy sales and council housing delivery to ensure we are consistently to respond to the noble Lord Jamieson delivering more social rent homes than we are losing.

On this, I refer noble Lords to the annual right to buy sales and replacement statistics and the statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply, which are published on gov.uk. I agree with both Baroness Thornhill and the noble Lord Jamieson that data is key to ensuring that we meet our ambition. I'd want to see that and I know all of you would. And in these statistics, noble Lords will be able to find the number of right to buy applications, the number of completed right to buy purchases and replacements broken down by local authority, as well as the discount bedroom number for properties sold.

Noble Lords will also be able to find the number of new social and affordable homes delivered each year by tenure and by provider. The continued publication of these statistics will provide a sufficient overview of the impact of the act when it comes into force, and provide robust monitoring of right to buy sales and replacements on right to buy discounts. It's difficult to assess the impact of discount changes in isolation. We will, however, keep discount levels under review and ensure the right balance between protecting social housing stock and enabling tenants to access home ownership is being struck on these grounds and on the basis we don't want a replacement target that limits ambition, we are going to resist these amendments, but we will continue to work in partnership with councils to reinvigorate council house building and ensure we're consistently replacing more homes than are lost through Right to Buy.

And on that basis, I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just ask for some clarification from the Minister, because quite clearly, table four in the impact clearly, table four in the impact assessment says the the pre November 2024 baseline. If I take, November 2024 baseline. If I take, I don't know, 30, 34, 4750 homes would be built from the right to buy receipts under the new baseline, buy receipts under the new baseline, 1550 would be built. That's 3200 fewer homes. The assumption that you are going to have more homes available for social tenants relies on the fact that those tenants who might have bought their home will actually leave that home anyway, because if they stay there, we will have fewer homes for social tenants.

So you.
16:47
16:48
16:49
16:49
None Portrait Amendment:57 Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-

Thank you, my Lords. I add my best wishes to the England team best wishes to the England team tonight. And even if we aren't finished in time, we'll no doubt get a nice, quiet journey home get a nice, quiet journey home because everyone will be watching it. My Lords, I rise to speak to it. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 57, 58, 75, 83 and 107 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jameson. Much of the debate around housing understandably focuses on building new homes.

That's undoubtedly important. However, if we're serious about tackling housing need, we must also focus on how we effectively manage, maintain and utilise the housing stock that already exists. These amendments are intended to probe whether sufficient attention is being given to the condition, management and efficient use of existing social housing assets. Amendment 57 would require the government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of social housing estates, estate regeneration is often difficult, sometimes controversial, and takes many years, and the noble Lord John sitting there will know that from pain in Elephant and Castle.

Certainly I know it from the years dealing with Thamesmead, and I'm sure many others in this chamber will do so as well. It takes a long time, but there are opportunities. Amendment 75 raises the crucial issue of illegal subletting in our social housing system. I note that the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act passed through this House in 2013 under the watch of my noble friend Baroness Eaton. It provided important powers to tackle this problem, but it is reasonable to ask whether those powers are being used in effectively and whether enforcement activity is sufficient, given the pressure on waiting lists across the country.

Every property recovered through anti-fraud activity represents an opportunity to house someone who's legitimately entitled to that support. In 2020 425, there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. However, in the 2023 Tenancy Fraud Forums report, Lost Homes Lost Hope that estimated that there were 148,000 social homes subject to tenancy fraud in 2023. In a separate report in 2025, they estimated there were 5000 tenancy frauds in London alone. This is shocking and urgently needs addressing rather than curtailing right to buy.

This is the issue that the government should be prioritising to bring forward housing quickly. Amendment 83 would require national audit of social housing stock. It's difficult to manage assets effectively without a clear understanding of their condition. Occupancy utilisation and future investment requirements before making major policy decisions, government should have the clearest possible picture of the stock already available. Similarly, amendment 107 seeks a broader strategy for improving the management of existing social housing stock. Better stock management can often deliver benefits more quickly and at a lower cost than new construction alone.

I should also mention amendment 117 D in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. This is a probing amendment, but it raises an important question about accountability. Across England, elected mayors are being given increasing responsibility for housing, planning and regeneration. If powers are increasingly devolved, it's reasonable to ask how performance should be measured and how local people can judge whether housing commitments are being delivered. The country faces substantial housing pressures. There are now around 1.33 million households on local authority waiting lists, the highest figure for a decade.

Against that backdrop, transparency regarding housing delivery matters. Noble Lords may have different views on the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, but the broader principle that where significant powers are devolved, there should be clear accountability for the outcomes and that it's the right outcome. I'd also be interested to hear from the Minister how long social housing properties typically remain vacant between tenancies. Every week that a property sits empty is a week in which a household remains on the waiting list.

Understanding void turnaround times is therefore an important point. Important part of understanding the efficiency of the system as a whole. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that we make the best possible use of the housing stock we already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have, whilst continuing to build for the future. My Lords, Sorry,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, Sorry, the motion's. Amendment proposed after clause
16:55
16:55
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
my noble friend lady O'Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I did oversee the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act in 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwelling and gave landlords stronger powers. Back then, the number of unlawful sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that whilst the laws there, swift and sportsman to crack down on fraud really lacking.

Indeed, it does beg the question why the government is pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many more thousands of homes to the social housing stock, those 148,000 dwellings, my noble friend reference, are effectively being withheld from those on the waiting lists who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the government did publish a review as proposed by amendment 75, we would not only understand the rates of prosecution and the recovery of properties, but what exactly the barriers to proper enforcement are.

Given the estimates, the government should be much more proactive on this issue, and it should be a much greater priority in this bill. I would emphasise as well that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting. It can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use the property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling keys to a third party. I hope we can look into this between now and the Report stage, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will give this issue the attention it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly deserves. My Lords, can I intervene. Very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak to amendment 57. Moved by. My noble friend. She started off by making, I think, a very valid point that if the government has a firm commitment to build, say, 1.5 commitment to build, say, 1.5 million new homes and to commit to a certain number of new social.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a certain number of new social. Houses, there's a real risk that when looking at the capital program within the department, that commitment trumps funding for existing estates and for the
16:58
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
regeneration of the existing housing stock. And that's why amendment 57 is important to make, amendment 57 is important to make, to make sure that at the at the expense of the existing housing expense of the existing housing stock, we don't we don't ignore their needs. And I just want to draw attention to an initiative under the 1988 Housing Act, which focussed very sharply on the most focussed very sharply on the most difficult to let estates in the country. And these were housing action trusts.

This was an initiative from my noble friend Lord Heseltine, and as one might expect, it was highly interventionist in that under the housing Housing Action Trust was a time limited body which took over the management and redevelopment of a local authority estate. But before that could happen, there was a vote of the local authority tenants to seek their agreement to this time limited transfer. And speaking from memory, there were seven housing action trusts one in Stonebridge in Brent, one in Tower Hamlets, one at Castle Vale in Birmingham, one in Liverpool and one in Hull.

And they were highly successful. They transferred, transformed those estates. And what was interesting, at the end, the tenants were given a vote. They could either go back to the local authority or they could transfer to a residence, run, tenant run association of their own, which, speaking from memory, they all decided to stick with the alternative to the local authority. And if one is looking at ways of transforming the most challenging estates in the country, it is just worth to have a look at the history of housing action trusts, which I think by common consent, were highly successful.

They were expensive, but that is a model that I think we shouldn't ignore when deciding how to take further the regeneration of social housing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

estates. Yeah. I would like. To talk on. My amendment.
17:00
Lord Bird Portrait Lord Bird (Crossbench)
-
-
>> My amendment. >> 116 with the charge the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government charging us all with getting. Behind the. Idea that there is. Going to be 1.5. Million.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Million. New houses. By the end of the Parliament. I'd like to suggest that one of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to suggest that one of the ways that you could achieve that is by. Being very serious.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About the amount of empty homes that we have in the United Kingdom, and particularly in England, there's a quarter of a million empty homes in Britain, sorry, in empty homes in Britain, sorry, in England, at the same time, we have England, at the same time, we have 164 000 children, 124,000 families who were caught in temporary accommodation. So actually, if you could be wise, I'm not saying it's going to be that easy, but if you did what Manchester's trying to do, what Plymouth is trying to do, and you did this nationally, and also what Wales is trying to do is trying to incorporate empty homes into the fabric of their housing strategy.

If that could be done, then in my opinion it would be a real, real plus. I have to say that I was born into Notting Hill, which was full of empty homes in the. In the post-war period Bayswater and the area was full of empty homes. And what happened was the middle classes didn't go off to the colonies any more. What they did, they went to Bayswater and they went to Notting Hill, and they actually started to convert these homes into these voids, into precious homes.

And actually environmentally, socially, it was a wonderful thing. I think it got to wonderful because now the house that I was born into, which was a slum, would now cost about £20 million if they hadn't pulled it down because it was such a slum. But overall, it is a very, very good idea. If the government could say, what we're going to do is we're going to empty our temporary accommodation, we're going to look at new ways of emptying our temporary accommodation, and we're going to do it in a way, which means that we're going to start incorporating buildings that are left for over six months, a quarter of a million houses are screaming out, in my opinion, for us to intervene.

And if the government was serious about this, they would be all sorts of problems because there would be some people who will be inappropriate, but there will be much, much more use. And I think that you could actually start kicking a hole in that required 1.5 million. I think also what Lord young is saying is, is wonderful. If we are going to spend all of the money on new houses, what are we going to do about those failing estates? What are we going to do about those voids? What is it? What are we going to do about the fact that many, many local authorities and housing associations cannot afford to convert void houses, houses that are boarded up.

So there has to be a strategy, in my opinion, by this government in empty homes. I just do not see it in the strategy at the moment. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Lord Moore. I just want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Moore. I just want to briefly intervene in in this group of amendments, because I think the regeneration of some of our social estates is a very high priority. The last Labour government spent a lot of money in city centres regenerating the city centres, and
17:04
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Portrait Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
regenerating the city centres, and I'm hoping if they have long enough that this Labour government will give a similar high priority to the regeneration of some of our Socialist states. It's. It's not easy with. It's not been easy and more more difficult in some respects with the right to buy, Baroness O'Neill said also that the regeneration takes a very long time, ten, 20 years. So it's difficult to see easy or quick returns and resources are a huge problem, and to achieve the regeneration of these states of.

Often you need partnerships, not just local authority, but housing association and indeed private developers. And there's obviously a very important role for mayors in this as well as we progress. The main experience I've had is of an estate in in Gosport, Araunah, which was a Royal naval estate, and that required it was in huge dereliction. After the Navy left their responsibilities. And it's taken 30 years, I think, now for the regeneration of that state with a really genuine partnership, which did involve quite, very difficult decisions, like deciding that to regenerate it, we they would have to turn it into an estate which was third owner occupied, the third private rented and a third social housing.

But the transformation has been remarkable. And there are many estates up and down our land that are neglected and need an initiative from the government. And in the rush to get high numbers of new houses, we must not forget the regeneration of our older estates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 117 D, which is which I'm tabling today. It's the first time I've tabled an amendment at Committee stage. So this is a momentous occasion for myself at. momentous occasion for myself at. At least I should apologise for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate because I was unavailable. Clearly I missed something because the debate so far on the bill has been extremely well informed and knowledgeable, and it's a privilege to contribute.

It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord bird, who has done so much to help homeless people in London. As a former deputy mayor of London, I can say that we're very grateful for the work that he's done over the years. I'm not sure whether I support his amendment, but I certainly support his efforts, and I'm also grateful to my noble friend, Lord young, who reminded us of the Housing Action Trust, not least because one of those first trusts was that the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

And I can well remember the Chingford Hall estate because it was in my ward and the trust started its work. In my first year as a newly elected councillor in, I think, 1990. I stayed in that ward for 12 years. So I was able to see the work continue and conclude. And that estate has been transformed. And there is clearly a lesson here for all of us moving to my amendment. As a former deputy mayor, I understand that housing is a challenging issue for us to deal with.

It's a complex issue, and many factors will affect whether a mayor can achieve their targets or not. But it's also important. My my noble friend Baroness O'Neill reminds us that 1.3 million households are now waiting on the social housing waiting list. I'm also very much aware that the construction industry in this country and the property sector
17:09
Lord Evans of Guisborough Portrait Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
-
-
provides an underpinning for general economic activity. And if we can get homes being built, we're going to provide jobs and skills going to provide jobs and skills for people, and we're going to feed more money into into the economy. So it's vital beyond providing So it's vital beyond providing homes for people, also for growing the economy in London, I'm afraid the story recently has not been so good. The performance in 2020 223, good. The performance in 2020 223, there were 26,000 starts, a pretty good performance.

But by 2020 324, that had fallen to just over 3000. Now, in response, the mayor has reduced the amount of social housing that he requires in developments from 35% to 20%, and that will bring some developments within a range where it's profitable for for the builders to do them, which was clearly not the case before. So it's a step forward. But even with that concession, London is still struggling. And the most recent figures that we have from the J.

A l l partners survey that took part that took place earlier this year was that in the first three months of 2026, only 7% of the housing starts were achieved, which leaves London government with 93% to complete for the rest of the year, which I think noble Lords will agree is a challenging, challenging target for them. And it's set against this background that I am moving this amendment, which will provide a mechanism to ensure accountability not just for the mayor of London, but for mayors and authorities around the country.

At this stage, we're just asking for a feasibility study, but I think the possibilities here maybe range beyond beyond housing targets. And the results of the study could be applied to other targets and to democratic accountability for mayors in future. I place the idea before the House, and I very much look forward to the noble Lady. The minister's response.
17:11
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise in support of >> My Lords, I rise in support of amendment 117 17 d moved by my noble friend Lord Evans of Gainsborough. This amendment is, is Gainsborough. This amendment is, is is about a simple principle. If elected mayors and strategic are to be given. Strategic housing powers, receive billions in public funding and fail to repeatedly and repeatedly fail to deliver. There must be proper accountability. This is an amendment that challenges the rhetoric. If you take the basket case, which is London, the mayor of London endlessly talks about housing figures, endlessly talks about delivery, has the cheek, to use the words record quite regularly, but yet has failed to deliver on a spectacular scale to the point where the government had to step in and ask him to change his housing figures, the amount he would ask for social housing or any given development, which was a good idea by the government, which is why I support this amendment.

As a probing amendment. The housing need in London is around 88,000 units a year, as determined by the government. Yet our best year. Recently, we've only delivered 31,000 units. The mayor's own affordable housing targets were 52000 a year, and he felt that by a wide mark, he only got to 32. The affordable housing target under the current program was originally 35000 starts, just starts. Londoners cannot live in a start. A human being cannot live in a start. I do think we need to start looking at completions.

That's when a house actually becomes a home. It started out as 35000 originally, and that's been lowered to between 17,800 and 19,000. But in 2425, there were only 3991 affordable housing starts. Again, I refer you to the point we need completions, not starts. That is only starts. And of course the cost is paid by Londoners. They're living in poor accommodation, expensive accommodation. We have over 100 000 children living in temporary accommodation. 210,000 Londoners are actually homeless.

You Lord, I have been homeless. It is an absolute blight on your life. It is impossible to move forward if you are homeless. You need a base to operate from and that base is commonly known as a home. So when we have mayors who have been given great support by governments of all colours, they do need to be brought before some kind of of reckoning if they're not delivering on that. And again, I refer you to the basket case that is London.

London cannot keep its place as a world leading city if we cannot afford to house people here. If you are a police officer, a nurse, a factory worker, a youth worker, you name any job that keeps this city going, you cannot afford to stay here. You're being pushed out. If your international employer, you cannot set in set up in London because, you know, staff can't afford to live in London. So of course, this needs to be supported. This amendment accountability must follow.

Power amendment 117 D asks the fair question what happens when males fail repeatedly to deliver on social housing delivery? At present, the answer is not enough. This amendment would allow the government to examine proper thresholds on repeated failure over years, and the level of public support required in order for a recall petition. This is not an attack on devolution. It is a defence of devolution cannot mean power without responsibility. It cannot mean taking credit when things go well, which our current Mayor of London is very good at, but blaming others when it goes wrong, which is also very good at.

He never takes responsibility. What's going on? A government with this power could force him to take responsibility for what's going on. London councils need help, not rhetoric. They need help. London workers need homes, not fancy words homes. So I, I commend this this amendment to you. And that's why I personally will be supporting it. Thank you.
17:15
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'd first like to acknowledge the very cogent contribution of Lord Evans, his first contribution, but I hope that it will be the but I hope that it will be the first of many. I mean that sincerely, my Lords. In principle, we welcome the intent behind this group of amendments because they speak to something that is all too often overlooked in housing debates, not just how many homes we've got to build and target, but the condition and use of the homes that we already have.

And I will do my best to stick to the amendments in front of us. I hope conservative noble Lords will forgive me, but I suggest that there is a pattern running through this group and others today and from Monday that are actually pushing towards more centralisation and ultimately more regulation, which we would be instinctively against. Take amendment 57 on regeneration. Absolutely. An important point to ask the government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of estates. There is no doubt that this is vital, but local authorities are already leading regeneration in so many areas, often very successfully.

The best examples of those are where councils are not only working with their communities absolutely essential. Try doing it without it, but also attracting private sector investment to get a top notch scheme. But I absolutely know that it needs both government and local government to undertake such major work, but not what is actually proposed in these amendments. The regeneration of an older estate is a significant investment and a major project, and it can, as was said by the noble Baroness, take years and I have experience of that too.

But what I believe it doesn't need is direction from the centre, a national strategy, a national proposal. In my experience, it's usually the other way round. The council saying to government, hey, this is what we want to do. We've got great plans, we've talked to our community, but help, please. And that help can be whatever obstacles are in the way, not just money, as also from experience. These can be many and varied and very often local. And what you need is government to act as dyno-rod to help you move things forward.

As I'm sure the noble Lady, the Minister will know from her own experience with the regeneration of Stevenage town centre, which she battled on for many years, and also from experience, there are actually significant pots of money to access for regeneration, but they're often in too many different parts and their use is too restricted and nobody is looking holistically at what a council needs to achieve in total. So you might get some money for this bit, but not for this bit.

That really would make this bit add value. I know that work has been done on these aspects, so I hope the noble Lady will update update us on that, because I think the grant applications for regeneration are important. And likewise we've got amendment 83 requiring a national audit of existing stock. Now you'll know from my other amendments I believe better data is clearly helpful and necessary. But we should also recognise that councils already have a good understanding of their housing stock, as do registered social providers.

They know where the problems lie. The real issue for them is that they have competing priorities at the moment. Do they do the safety work? Do they have new build? Do they retrofit? Do they improve existing homes? The real question is how do we move from knowledge, knowledge to funded action on the ground? Noble Lords will begin to see the drift of my theme on these and other amendments. But I lack a final word on Lord Bird's amendment 116 on empty homes, particularly an important issue, and I strongly support the ambition to bring more of these properties back into use.

But councils do have the powers to deal with this issue, and there's no doubt about that. The issue is, again, not the lack of a five year plan, but other barriers in the way of bringing these homes into use. These are well known. They're often around the capacity of the courts and the rights of the home owner, and how they can hold up the process through the courts and make getting one single house back into use take years. And that brings me to a wider point of capacity.

After many years of financial pressure, local government is often operating in the space where it has to be reactive rather than proactive. Councils and all their partners would, I believe, universally want to do more on regeneration, on empty homes, on illegal subletting, very well articulated by the noble Lady and enforcement on on landlords in general. But that requires the capacity to get ahead of the problem and not just to respond to it. So we respect the sincere intention behind these amendments, but feel that the actions asked are not going to significantly make the difference that we would all like to know.

We like to see we believe local government know the issues, and it's often other measures that are needed that are well out of the scope of this bill.
17:21
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the government recognises the the serious recognises the the serious importance of regenerating existing social housing estates and the potential this can have to improve potential this can have to improve housing quality, energy efficiency and the overall supply of housing. And. Following Second Reading, I sent a letter to noble Lords outlining the government's intentions in this area. I hope noble Lords have had a chance to have a look at that. I'll respond first to amendment 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill.

While I appreciate the intention behind her amendment, we don't consider it appropriate to place a requirement of this nature on the face of the Bill, as she will know only too well. Estate regeneration is a complex and highly place specific and decisions about funding, density and redevelopment are best taken through existing programs and planning frameworks that can respond flexibly to local circumstances. As the noble Baroness Thornhill said, it's very important that this is dealt with on a case by case basis.

At local level. The amendment would also cut across existing policy development and spending decisions, including those taken through the spending review process, by mandating the production of proposals within a fixed time frame, regardless of wider fiscal or delivery considerations. So while we share the objective of supporting effective and sensitive estate regeneration, we believe it's better taken forward through existing policy levers and funding mechanisms rather than through a new legislative duty. And I would just make two further comments, one on the noble Lord Stone comment, because the social and affordable housing programme does support regeneration, where it delivers a net increase in social homes.

I did set out some details of that in the letter I sent out, as well as introducing wider reforms to standards, design and quality, so we can definitely support regeneration through that programme. And on the noble Lord Jones point about the Housing Action Trust, and can I just say the noble Baroness Thornhill referred to my efforts around regeneration, and the noble Lord Heseltine was incredibly helpful to me during that process, so I do recognise his significant expertise in that area. The noble Lord may be aware of my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State announcements on, I think it was Monday this week on the right to manage and how we intend to extend the right to manage more widely and try and promote it to tenants so that where a landlord is failing, they can exercise their right to manage. And I know the Secretary of State is very keen to promote that. That said, I would ask that the amendment, that amendment be withdrawn. Turning to amendment 58 by. From the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, the government is very clear that supportive housing has a vital role to play in supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society.

To live as independently as possible, we want to see new supply of supported housing grow, and that's why the social and affordable housing programme allows flexibility on grant rates to help support accommodation, where design and adaptation can result in higher costs. In addition, the Supported Housing Act 2023 places a new statutory duty on local housing authorities to develop supported housing strategies, and these will set out a delivery plan setting out clear time bound actions for implementation. Any new requirement to set out a national strategy on the provision of supported housing would be duplicative of what I see very much as something that sits in the local remit for local supported housing strategies, and would lack the detailed understanding that our local authorities have of specific needs in their local area.

And for those reasons, I can't support that amendment and would ask that it's it. It is withdrawn. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord Jamieson for amendments 83 and 107, which both seek to improve understanding and strengthen the management of existing social housing stock on amendment 83. A substantial amount of data is already published on the condition and use of social housing, including through the English Housing Survey and Local Authority Housing Statistics, covering many of the issues raised in the amendment more broadly and as relevant to both amendments, the government has already launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are making, managing and making best use of their stock.

And this works, and I think this responds to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill's points as well. This work is examining under occupation, overcrowding, long term voids, tenant mobility and how landlords can maximise the use of the homes they manage. The review is already underway and I will report later this year on what the outcomes of that review are. In the light of that, the government doesn't consider it appropriate to legislate now for a further national audit or statutory strategy, and for those reasons, I respectfully ask that amendments 83 and 107 be withdrawn.

Turning now to amendment 75, I want to be clear that illegal subletting is unacceptable. It does, as the Baroness Eastham rightly said, deprive those in genuine need of a social home, and it undermines confidence in the system. Tenants are responsible for fulfilling their obligations and complying with the terms of their tenancy agreement, and they're also responsible for making sure that when they apply for social housing in the first place, that the information they give is accurate. And now that social landlords have much more access to online systems for checking the application on registers, I suspect they're now rejecting far more applications where the information doesn't match up with the the application concerned, and where a tenant has breached a term.

In their agreement. Landlords can seek possession order from the courts on the basis there's been a breach of a term of the tenancy agreement, housing fraud or one of the other statutory grounds for possession has been made out. Where there are concerns about tenancy fraud, councils and landlords already have strong powers to investigate and take action. I believe the noble Baroness put those in place. We expect social landlords to manage their stock effectively, and anyone with evidence of a fraudulent tenancy should report it to the relevant local authority, so appropriate action can be taken and the government is looking at this issue as part of the wider stock management review.

I've previously referenced, Baroness O'Neill asked me how long properties are left vacant in between tenancies. I don't have that specific information to hand, but I will write to her on that point. We therefore don't think further legislation is needed here and would ask that this amendment be withdrawn. My Lords, I'm very grateful, as ever, to the noble Lord Bird for amendment 116 and his powerful advocacy of his amendment. I fully recognise the strength of feeling around the need to bring empty homes back into use.

We don't believe that placing a new statutory duty on all local authorities to produce a detailed, five year plan on empty homes is the right approach. Local authorities already have powers to identify, acquire and bring empty homes back into use. Many are actively doing so through local, locally tailored strategies that reflect their housing markets and priorities. And as the noble Baroness Thornhill said, there are many reasons why that takes longer than it should, and we should be looking at those those obstacles.

As the noble Lord Bird says, we shouldn't have empty homes while families live in temporary accommodation. And we will you know, we are working with our councils to make sure that doesn't happen. This amendment, though, would risk duplicating existing planning and reporting requirements and would impose a significant administrative burden, regardless of whether empty homes are a material issue in a particular area. We are clear that progress on empty homes is best delivered through local flexibility, supported by existing powers and funding, rather than through a one size fits all statutory process.

Because we also have a great citizen's army out there. I don't know if this exists everywhere, but certainly when I was a councillor, any home that was empty for longer than a couple of weeks, I'd be getting phone calls about it, asking me why it hadn't been let. Now, sometimes that's justified because there are structural issues which do involve the need to leave properties empty. But it's very important that councils follow up on that as quickly as possible. And we are clear that this should be done through that local flexibility.

So for those reasons, while I respect the intention behind the amendment, I ask that it be withdrawn. Turning to amendment 117 D in the name of the noble Lord Evans. While I understand his intention, there is currently no recall mechanism for mayors, and introducing one on this basis would be a significant and complex change. Existing recall arrangements, for example, for MPs, are limited to serious circumstances like criminal conviction not to policy performance. So this approach could also risk creating perverse incentives.

With mayors driven towards short term decisions and would raise practical and cost issues. Given the scale of mayoral electorates, the government recognises the issues of housing delivery in London, raised by the noble Lord Evans and the noble Lord Bailey. And indeed, in my letter following Second Reading, I did set out some of the action we're taking to address the issues in London and to help accelerate London housebuilding, implementing planning reform, unlocking large scale housing developments and this includes working collaboratively with the mayor on housing up to 30% of that, £39 billion of social and affordable housing programme will be delivered by the Greater London Authority to use in London, and that follows on from a £4.16 billion grant funding for the GLA to deliver the 21 to 26 Affordable Homes programme in London, and the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London announced a new package in October last year to support house building in London.

So I think there is progress on this. We've announced an initial allocation of £324 million of grant investment to establish a City Hall developer investment fund to unlock and accelerate housing delivery. So we are we are doing our best to make progress on that. Mayors already have significant powers and a growing role in driving housing delivery, including working with Homes England to shape development priorities, to identify sites and to support investment in their areas. And over time, we are moving towards fuller devolution of housing funding and delivery for our mayors.

They are also, and I think accountability was where the noble Lord Evans was coming from. We are strengthening the accountability mechanisms, including local scrutiny arrangements and an updated devolution accountability framework. Taken together, these reforms will provide the certainty, flexibility and accountability needed to deliver new homes rather than introducing a new and untested recall mechanism based on performance that might result in perverse incentives. So for these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
17:33
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this in this debate and, of course, to the Minister for her course, to the Minister for her response. Special mention to Lord Evans for seeing this as an important debate to to make his first contribution in. In my opinion, the discussions highlighted a really important point. While much attention is devoted to increasing housing supply, making best use of the homes we all already have has got to be equally important.

The amendments in this group have approached the challenge from a number of angles, including regeneration, supported housing, stock management, fraud prevention and the utilisation of vacant properties. Although they focus on different aspects of the system, they all ask whether existing housing assets are being used as effectively as they could be. I remain particularly concerned that at a time when housing waiting lists remain high, we should do everything possible in our power to ensure that social housing properties are occupied by those who are entitled to them, and that homes do not remain vacant for longer than necessary.

And I appreciate the Minister's comments about turnaround times, and look forward to seeing that information. Effective management is not an alternative to new supply, but it certainly is an essential component and shouldn't be forgotten. I was also interested in discussion around regeneration. Done well, regeneration can improve housing quality, strengthen communities and increase housing supply simultaneously. It's therefore really important that the government continues to think strategically about how existing estates can contribute to meeting, meeting, future housing need.

The need may change. It's not easy. We all know that a start of regeneration project you've got decant people and if you haven't got the empty homes, really difficult to make that happen. I was interested in amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Bird concerning empty homes. I agree that long term vacant properties can represent a missed opportunity, particularly where housing needs and housing need is acute. However, I'd also sound a note of caution. Property rights remain an important principle, and we should be careful about any approach that assumes that the state should have an ever expanding role in determining how private owned homes are used.

The challenge is to strike the right balance between encouraging properties back into use and respecting legitimate private ownership. That doesn't mean, though, we couldn't address the empty ones in social housing, which we believe is about 92,000 homes. According to the House of Lords Library. I also thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for her contribution to this issue, and I hope we can work together ahead of the Report stage to help tackle fraud in the social housing system. We do need to make use of the powers.

We need to encourage others to use those powers. We know that in a lot of these cases, these are the tenants that are not going to raise their head above the parapet because they're not going to want to be seen. I heard of a case at the weekend where a key worker thought they were privately renting a property for £2,000 a month, had a knock on the door from the council. Actually, it was a council property costing the council tenant £800 a month.

Someone's making a nice amount of money and the wrong person is living in the property, so we really do need to concentrate on it. I've listened carefully to the minister's response and will reflect on the points raised during the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the noble Lady sits down. Rather than wait for a letter from me, I can give her the answer to me, I can give her the answer to her question about the. The time spent between tenancies. It's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

median of 30 days. Is it your Lordships amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by. Leave be withdrawn. Amendment by. Leave withdrawn. Amendment 58 Baroness O'Neill not moved. Amount 588. O'Neill not moved. Amount 588. Baroness Lawlor not moved 58 B Baroness O'Neill not moved. 58 B no. In clause 12 amendments 59 and 60 Lord Holmes of Richmond not moved. I think the question now is that clause 12 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content.

Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Articles 12. Amendment 61. Lord Best.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 61 and 62. In my name, my Lords, amendment 61 would ensure that social housing providers. That's. Councils and housing associations offer a new secure associations offer a new secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of their social housing by threats of violence, including domestic abuse and gang violence, in accordance
17:38
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
with police advice. The amendment has its origins in the debates on the Social Housing Regulation Bill of 2022. It was proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. Helen Hayes, constituent known as Helen Hayes, constituent known as Georgia, was forced out of her housing association home where she'd lived for nine years when her eldest son was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that her son's life was at risk and she should move immediately for his safety.

If anyone thinks the risks in such a case may be exaggerated, they should note that later. The younger brother in this case was brutally murdered in a separate, unrelated incident. Having moved swiftly to temporary accommodation as advised by the police. When the moment came to return to a secure tenancy, Georgia found herself at the bottom of the housing waiting list once again, despite paying rent on both her original home and the temporary placement. Georgia spent a year in dreadful temporary accommodation but then found she had no right of return to a secure home until the housing association finally relented.

Amendment 61 seeks to rectify this deficiency in the protection afforded to social housing tenants, giving them a right of return where their move had resulted from police advice. The regulator of social housing would ensure that the social landlord grants the displaced tenant a secure tenancy in the event that the registered provider is unable to do so, the regulator would have to ensure the social landlord concerned cooperates with other social landlords to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy. My Lords, although an enlightened housing provider might ignore the administrative niceties and allow a return to a secure home, the amendment makes this obligatory not a matter of discretion for the social housing landlord.

This would seem to be a matter of writing and injustice in the current system, and seems only fair. My Lords, I turn to amendment 62, supported by the noble Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe. I am grateful for the important work on this amendment by the Chartered Institute of Housing. Amendment 62 clarifies the legal position for social landlords who need to gain access to their property to carry out safety checks and works. Social landlords must fulfil a widening range of health and statutory duties following the increased regulation of the sector over recent years.

However, social landlords are finding increased difficulty in gaining access to some tenants homes for checks, particularly the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic electrical safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. If these checks are not done, the occupiers and their neighbours face potential dangers and the landlords themselves can be accused of regulatory failure and may face criminal prosecution. Amendment 62 aims to clarify the law and provide an acceptable route for forced access, where, in a minority of cases this is necessary, the aim must be to prevent cases being taken to court, as well as to be clear on what happens when this is the only option in no access cases in 2025, bodies representing social housing providers, led by the Chartered Institute of Housing, commissioned a consultancy HQ to consider these issues.

The resulting report, Opening the Door, provides sound advice on good practice for gaining access to tenants homes by consent. However, there remains the need for landlords to go to court to obtain possession. Permission to enter a tenant's home where there are persistent no access cases for forced entry. The social landlord currently relies on the tenancy terms and can seek a county court access injunction. Section 12 of the Housing Act 1988 applies along with section 11, six of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985.

The problem is that two conflicting county court judgements have created confusion over whether landlords really can force access into a property, despite the dangers of not doing so, for example from faulty gas or electrical installations. The social landlords have no desire to start possession proceedings for eviction, which represents a disproportionate and unhelpful way of resolving this safety issue. Tenants may be failing to give access because of mental health difficulties, including hoarding behaviours, while others simply struggle to make appointments.

These tenants need help and support, not eviction. Amendment 62 would clarify the law providing for compulsory access after issuing clear notice requirements, prior reasonable engagement and strict safeguards. It is a necessary response to a growing problem. I commend the amendment and I beg to move. Amendment 61.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause 12. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to talk to amendment 63 and my name. Can I apologise to the noble Lord? I was just coming through the doors as he just coming through the doors as he rose to his feet. It took me longer to get down the stairs, and I was intending it would have been easier intending it would have been easier if I'd been swimming. My Lords
17:44
17:46
Baroness Neate Portrait Baroness Neate (Crossbench)
-
-
>> My Lord, I rise to speak to amendment 65, which is in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussain Esher, Lady Teather and Hussain Esher, Lady Teather and Lady Lister who have supported this amendment. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abbey Octavia Housing Association. It is my first time speaking at Committee stage, so I apologise for having to be prompted to rise to my feet. I really do apologise to my noble Lords for that.

This amendment would ensure that domestic abuse survivors are not made ineligible for a social home as a result of debt incurred in the context of abuse. This speech will be short because I do not have criticisms to make of this bill. I am merely hoping to strengthen still further the very welcome changes it proposes for survivors of domestic abuse. As I know, noble Lords are aware and as I saw time and time again as chief executive of Women's Aid and Shelter, domestic abuse survivors who managed to leave their abuser have often been systematically robbed of their financial independence.

The fact that they might become homeless is a threat frequently wielded by perpetrators in order to maintain control. If you leave me, you'll have nowhere to live. Or even worse, if you leave me, the children will be homeless. And all too often the housing system actually makes these threats come true, preventing victims from gaining safety, not allowing survivors and their children the safe space they desperately need in order to rebuild their lives together. This bill, as it stands, is already life changing for survivors.

It takes important steps from shifting the system so that it's on the side of the survivor, not the side of the perpetrator. My amendment is one more step in the same direction, which I believe would strengthen this bill still further. In just one month in 2023, research found that 1500 children were trapped living in temporary accommodation as a result of housing related debt, which, according to local authority rules, meant their mother could not get a social home. The housing crisis has only got worse since then.

So has the dangerous shortage of refuge accommodation for women fleeing abuse, which is exacerbated when women can't move on from refuge into a social home and are therefore occupying a space that could literally save another woman's life at shelter, colleagues working in frontline services and on the helpline were seeing daily as a gatekeeping culture exists in many local authorities where, for a start, survivors are not believed and then rules governing housing allocations are used to make the gateway to a social home as narrow as it can possibly be.

Yes, there is guidance and I am aware that the government believes statutory guidance can be used to achieve the ends which this amendment would achieve. I am sure in the best local authorities this is true, but I have seen guidance disregarded many times and colleagues at both Shelter and Women's Aid having to intervene to get a survivor's rights upheld. The problem is that survivors do have a powerful advocate. On their side are the minority. Most are struggling on their own and for them, all too often, guidance is not enough.

It is also not urgent enough, nor is it guaranteed. The time and uncertainty of consultation is is time and uncertainty. Survivors and their children can't afford. This is especially true in the context of a desperate shortage of funds in local government and even worse, shortage of social homes. The imminent local government reorganisation and the disruption and local shifts of emphasis following the local elections, not to mention the current political instability, which means timetables can vary.

In this context, it is appropriate that priority matters are dealt with urgently by legislation. We are in the midst of a housing emergency, a funding crisis in women's refuges and major upheaval in local government. Domestic abuse survivors are the eye of this storm. My noble Lords, the truth is that no family should be in temporary accommodation. But that's not the reality. We are in. No local authority should be gatekeeping social homes in a way that denies people their rights as enshrined in guidance.

But that's not the reality. We are in this bill, which places domestic abuse survivors at the centre of the social housing system, can be an even bigger opportunity for this House to demonstrate that. We believe domestic abuse survivors and their children, who have been systematically deprived of their financial independence, simply must have every chance to recover, and that a safe and secure home is the foundation of that. I'm grateful for the hard work done by the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shared Health, and researchers from both King's College London and Oxford Brookes University on this amendment, which is supported by Women's Aid Standing Together Against Domestic Violence and other expert organisations.
17:52
Baroness May of Maidenhead Portrait Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)
-
-
Through the. >> I rise to support. >> Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Neate, who has brought to this amendment her considerable experience, both in dealing with domestic abuse and in dealing with homelessness. My Lords, it's not that long ago that the expectation was when somebody was the victim of domestic abuse, that they had to leave their home and the perpetrator could be left in possession of the home. Thankfully, in a number of ways, we've changed that thinking.

The domestic abuse Protection orders and Domestic Abuse Protection notice in the Domestic Abuse Act, of course, have given the powers to ensure that it is perpetrator who leaves. And I welcome the schedule one to this bill and the efforts that the government is making to provide that greater stability and security to the victims of domestic abuse. But it's also not that long ago that we thought that domestic abuse was purely domestic. Violence always had a physical violence element to it. And of course, as we know now, there is a complexity to domestic abuse, which can include coercive control and economic control.

And it is in that sense that I think that the amendment that has been moved, amendment 65, is so important because it recognises that there are victims of domestic abuse, who may be victims of that economic coercive control, who may find that debt has been racked up by their perpetrator, unbeknown to them. But then when they are trying to leave, when they're trying to secure social housing for themselves, find that that debt is against their name as well, perhaps as joint having been joint tenants and find themselves in that impossible situation, but an impossible situation that has been created because they were a victim, a victim of the actions of the perpetrator.

And so I hope that the government is going to look favourably on the amendment that has been moved. As I say, there is effort being made by the government through this bill to change the scenario for those who are the victims of domestic abuse. But I think there is this loophole, and the government does need to look at this element, given the knowledge we now have of what domestic abuse the the forms that domestic abuse can take, and the greater understanding we have of the circumstances in which people can be left completely nothing to do with their behaviour, but purely because they have been the victims of a perpetrator.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise. I wasn't able to contribute at Second Reading, but I'm pleased to speak now in support I'm pleased to speak now in support of amendment 65 and to follow the noble Baroness O'Grady May, who made such a strong case. And I'm made such a strong case. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neat, for tabling the amendment, given her experience at Shelter and Women's Aid. I can Shelter and Women's Aid. I can think of no better person to take up this important issue.

The relationship between homelessness relationship between homelessness and debt resulting from economic coercion and abuse, which we just heard about, was brought to my
17:55
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
attention last year in a briefing on the book by Professor Catherine Katherine Brickell and Doctor Mel New. It's called the Debt Trap notion. This provided evidence on notion. This provided evidence on the general problem of domestic abuse survivors unable to qualify for housing because of restrictive for housing because of restrictive housing allocation policies. They found that fewer than 1 in 5 local authorities were specifically exempt. Survivors from housing related debt rules. Indeed, significant housing related debt is sometimes bracketed with being a perpetrator of domestic abuse under the rubric of unacceptable behaviour that provides grounds for exclusion from housing.

Some debt is what the researchers called coerced debt generated through financial transactions that the victim is told to make or is aware of the abuser making in their name. They cite the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse, who discovered that victims of economic violence were at high risk of having rent arrears. And as Brickell and no, no new Bitskey note debt chips away at women's autonomy to make decisions in their own interests. Moreover, as the Chartered Institute of Housing points out, children also suffer as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a result of these exclusionary policies. Adult and child domestic Few.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Few. Survivors subject to them are, the researchers observe, in effect, left in limbo in temporary left in limbo in temporary temporary accommodation until they can reduce or clear rent arrears. can reduce or clear rent arrears. The effect on children can be. Reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation living in temporary accommodation is one of the main aims of the child poverty, as well as the homelessness strategy. So the amendment would contribute to both of them. The Institute explains why it believes action should be taken in this legislation, rather than await the statutory guidance promised in the announced allocations review, both because legislation would be more appropriate and because there is a strong case for not delaying the matter.

This very much accords with the strong argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neat. A few local authorities already pursue this policy. For example, Bedford Borough Council states a blanket policy will not be operated in relation to housing debt, and each case will be considered on its own merits. Where a housing related debt has arisen as a direct result of a person being a victim of domestic abuse, the debt will be disregarded for the purpose of assessing the application. This has to be applauded, but survivors should not have to rely on the discretion of individual local authorities.

My Lords, this bill is so positive when it comes to the position of domestic abuse survivors that it would be a real shame not to include this amendment or one that achieved the same aim. A Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made clear that this should not be viewed as a Christmas tree bill. That is understandable, but I believe this amendment is no bauble to add to the tree, but rather it strengthens the very roots of the bill. It's totally consistent with the existing very welcome provisions, as the noble Lady has made clear.

And therefore I do hope my noble friend will be able to look upon it favourably before Report stage.
17:58
Lord Taylor of Warwick Portrait Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Clause 12 and schedule one introduce important new protections for social housing tenants experiencing domestic abuse. I welcome these measures, which will help ensure that victims can either leave unsafe accommodation or leave unsafe accommodation or remain in their homes safely without losing their tenancy rights. without losing their tenancy rights. I also support amendment 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord best, which seeks to guarantee continuity of secure tenancy where tenants safety is at risk. No one should be forced to forfeit their secure tenancy as a as a result of violence or intimidation.

It's also the case that the availability of adequate social housing is often a critical determining factor in cases where a victim of abuse or intimidation is unable to access a new secure tenancy. A lack of safe, secure and high quality housing can put people experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and can therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Improving partnership, working and best practice between housing associations and local authorities, as well as clear guidance for social housing staff, will be vital for these important new protections to work effectively.

My Lords, I am also speaking in support of amendment 62, to which I have added my name relating to access for safety. In the name of my noble friend, the Lord Lord Best. I welcome the broad support of this amendment from the housing sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of Housing Associations are spending each year more each year to invest in existing homes, but report increasing difficulty securing access to residents homes to carry out essential inspections, repairs and safety works.

This reflects a growing mismatch between duties and powers. Providers rightly face stronger statutory obligations to identify and remedy hazards, yet lacked clear and consistent legal routes to gain access in the small number of cases where residents just don't engage. Concerns about the sustainability of the current position are shared right across the sector. The Association of Safety and Compliance Professionals, for example, Lord Stern launched a national campaign in May highlighting the risks to residents safety in cases where social landlords make repeated and comprehensive attempts to secure entry for statutory checks, but are still unable to do so.

The court remains the only route of last resort. However, court backlogs has already been said. Delays can significantly hinder this process and the legal position itself remains unclear, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Recent case law, including southern housing versus Emanuel October 2025, has underlined this ambiguity, this ambiguity confirming that courts cannot grant access unless parliament has clearly conferred such a power. Without action, ongoing access challenges risk undermining both resident safety and the quality of homes, placing continued strain on housing association resources and, most importantly, exposing residents to avoidable harm.

My Lords, my view is that the access for Safety amendment represents a proportionate and effective solution. It is modelled on an analogous power in section 97 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which allows for access to premises to be ordered in certain prescribed circumstances. It established a structured three stage request process with a limited but important cases where access is required to ensure safety. Applying only a narrow set of statutory checks and over a period of three months.

So I hope the government will consider whether this approach strikes the right balance between enabling social landlords to keep home safe and respecting tenants right to quiet enjoyment, regardless of the mechanism by which such changes are enacted. It is clear that Parliament must provide a proportionate and lawful access framework that supports safety driven access where needed, while protecting residents rights through clear safeguards and the ability to challenge decisions. I know that representative bodies across the housing sector stand ready to work, in partnership with the government to develop an appropriate and effective solution.

And my Lords, I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 62. My Lords. I'm a co-signatory for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm a co-signatory for amendment 65 that stands in the name of Baroness Neate. But I'm name of Baroness Neate. But I'm also going to make a few remarks to wind up this group on behalf of our benches. We're trying very hard not benches. We're trying very hard not to duplicate speakers, aware that everybody's desperate to see the football and that we have. All football and that we have. All right, not everybody, but but most people desperate to see the football.

And also we've got an awful lot to get through. Been a number of very, very powerful and
18:03
Baroness Teather Portrait Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
helpful contributions during this group. Baroness Neate has huge group. Baroness Neate has huge authority and experience in this area. And it's very notable, of course, that the sector supports the amendment that she has put forward, arguing that it's really forward, arguing that it's really needed the the the heart of this this bill is around protection for this bill is around protection for victims of domestic violence. And my concern is, without an amendment like this, we leave out one hugely important plank, an area that that gives abusers the power to continue to exercise that control and leave women without access to the protection that we want to provide.

And it I just remind the Minister this has cross-party support. It was it was good to hear Baroness May of Maidenhead, a former Home Secretary, advocate also for this amendment. So I really do hope that the government will take this away and and consider how this might be brought forward, perhaps at a at a later stage, as others have said, you know, without this child maintenance could be, could be, could be withheld, coercive control around money, of course, is so often continues to be at the heart of, of abusive relationships.

So I really do urge the government to consider this amendment. I listen carefully to the contribution of Lord Best and also Baroness Warwick around amendment 61 and 62. And it seems to us that these amendments make very good points, particularly around access for safety checks. I was going to refer, actually to the legal case that Baroness Warwick referred to there, that in terms of southern housing versus Emmanuel October 2025, and arguing that without parliamentary action, that that that it's not clear whether housing associations really have the power to to force access on safety.

And I think in the light of, of so many recent issues around fire, for example, I think we've we've really do have to tackle this and make it clear to social housing providers whether they have the power to, to take this action. And we're also very supportive of amendment 61 and urge the government to to think about how we might ensure there is continuity for secure tenancy in cases where people are forced to leave their homes because of violence on police advice.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so thoughtfully this on this sensitive and highly important debate. As my and highly important debate. As my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading, we welcome the government's efforts to empower government's efforts to empower landlords and the courts to protect all victims of domestic abuse. I all victims of domestic abuse. I thank the noble Lord Lord Best for his amendments, which focus on the issues concerning tenant safety.

His amendment 61 asks us to consider threats to personal safety, not only due to domestic abuse, but escalating disputes with neighbours or targeted youth and gang violence. It is right that we consider how tenants can be protected from those other threats, and amendment 62 seeks to give providers greater powers to carry out legally required safety checks. I hope the government will give these amendments their due consideration. Amendment 63. In the name of my noble friend, Lord Holmes of Richmond seeks to ensure vulnerable groups such as older tenants, veterans, care leavers, disabled people and those with mental health conditions, and families with children in temporary accommodation have the necessary statutory provision.

We will also touch on prioritising veterans in another amendment later today. But my noble friend is right that we consider the specific needs of these groups too, and that we expect local authorities to as well. Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neat, that was responded to by many others, raises a very important issue, and I'm grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this. Victims of financial abuse should be protected and not prevented from bidding for h interested to hear from the how this could be implemented.

Working together with local authorities, and how we can ensure that such protections aren't abused themselves. Amendment 64 in my name and my noble friend Lord Jamieson, seek to ensure that the court system has the capacity and resources to effectively determine whether domestic abuse has taken place within a household with a social housing tenancy. Thank someone. A few of the speakers referred to court readiness that was debated at length in relation to the Renters Rights Act, and it's important that the government ensures landlords and courts are ready for these changes to so that victims are protected effectively.

Amendment 108. Also in my name, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, raises the issue of which local authority is responsible for safeguarding needs. When a tenant is moved out of an area of one local authority to another, our amendment suggests that where a local housing authority secures accommodation for tenants outside of their area, that local authority retains responsibility for safeguarding oversight and the costs involved. We welcome the insights of other noble Lords on this issue and what scenarios must be taken into account, but I do hope the Minister will look into this issue and how this bill could address it.

I look forward to her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. My Lords, I. Thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very thoughtful debate on these amendments. And can I start by thanking the noble Lord I start by thanking the noble Lord Bess for tabling amendment 61, addressing a really important issue around the safety and security of around the safety and security of tenants facing violence? My Lords, I am very sympathetic to this amendment. Aims to protect all amendment. Aims to protect all tenants of social housing providers registered with the regulator of social housing.

And I want to thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue forward. I want to be clear that tenants should never fear losing their security of tenure if they need to move because of the threat of violence and abuse.
18:10
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
While I am supportive of the intent of the amendment as drafted, it would mean a fundamental shift in the role of the regulator of social housing as currently set out in statute. The regulator statutory statute. The regulator statutory remit does not intervene in individual tenancy decisions. The individual tenancy decisions. The regulator focuses interventions on systemic issues and this amendment would change this and risk cutting would change this and risk cutting across established principles of regulatory best practice. Furthermore, the consumer standards set by the regulator already already placed several requirements on registered providers relevant to this amendment, including a requirement to work with partners to support victims of domestic abuse and to demonstrate how they deliver the outcomes of these standards.

In addition, there's already legislation in place that seeks to protect people at risk of violence in need of urgent rehousing. If a local authority grants a victim of domestic abuse a new tenancy for reasons connected with the abuse they are required to give former or existing secure tenants another secure lifetime tenancy, rather than a tenancy with a fixed term. The Social Housing Allocations framework dictates that where people are homeless or need to move on welfare grounds and apply to be rehoused through a local authority waiting list, they must be given reasonable preference.

That's priority for social housing. By extension, these protections also can also engage private registered providers through the duties to cooperate with their local authority in housing. People with priority homelessness legislation is also clear that, where appropriate, victims of serious violence are able to access support from homelessness services should they need to relocate, and that a vulnerable victim of domestic violence has priority need for accommodation measures in the bill to protect victims of domestic abuse. Also seek to achieve a similar aim to this amendment by ensuring that a joint tenant remains housed either in their original home or in suitable alternative accommodation where this is available.

While it does not oblige a registered provider to act, it does empower them to do so. In the light of this, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I do, however, recognise that this is an important issue. I have asked my officials to consider this matter further and I, my officials or both, would be happy to meet with the noble Lord before Report stage to discuss this matter. I also thank the noble Lord Best for his other amendment.

Amendment 62, which introduced which would introduce a new statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to meet statutory safety duties. I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring landlords are able to carry out essential safety checks, including gas and electrical inspections, and to ensure that smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are installed and functioning properly. I also recognise that access to homes is a growing concern. However, I am not persuaded that creating a new statutory access route is necessary to achieve this.

Landlords already have established routes for enabling access to homes. In addition, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1998 imply a right of access to tenancies where landlords are required to meet repairing obligations. Where a tenant refuses access. Landlords can seek to remedy this through an injunction from the court, and I would like to reassure the House that following a joint consultation with the MoJ on Ministry of Justice, sorry on housing repair, disrepair claims, we are currently analysing the responses to deepen our understanding of how the current process works, including what doesn't work or is unclear, so we can make sure that process is as effective as possible, extending the needs of landlords to enable them to force access must be balanced, of course, against tenants existing rights, including the right to respect their private and family life and their home.

Under article eight of the CIH, where a landlord has taken appropriate steps and cannot gain access, government made it clear in our response to the Decent Homes Standard consultation that guidance will set out steps providers should take, and we will work with the sector and tenants to develop this guidance. This amendment would introduce a separate, highly prescriptive statutory process alongside the existing routes and work we already have underway to consider access to homes for emergency safety reasons, in particular, the provision to authorise the use of reasonable force raises concerns about tenants rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own homes.

The amendment would also impose detailed procedural requirements that could reduce flexibility and delay action, where timely access is needed to meet critical safety obligations. However, I would say I recognise that this matter needs further consideration, so I intend to convene interested stakeholders to discuss access in emergency situations and identify the next steps. In the meantime, I would ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment. My Lords, amendment from the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks to require housing allocations given to vulnerable households.

However, as I have just set out, the allocations framework already requires that local authorities give reasonable preference or priority to homeless households and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability and additional preference to former members of the armed forces with urgent housing needs, my Lord. These categories cover the groups highlighted by the noble Lord who are most in need, so we don't think it is needed and I would ask that he withdraws his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill of Bexley and the noble Lord Jamieson for amendment 64. The Bill will strengthen protections for victims of domestic abuse who are social housing tenants. We are putting victims first by closing a long standing gap in housing law that has left victims of domestic abuse with no safe way to keep their social home, which the noble Baroness O'Neill mentioned, as did the noble Baroness, lady May, and this will give victims certainty and stability.

We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of the reforms on the courts, and we will make sure that the justice system is ready for the changes and any new processes and procedures which will be required. More broadly, the government is investing up to £50 million to modernise our civil courts to ensure justice for both renters and landlords, with the case to be heard. In respect of this Bill, we are committed to monitoring and evaluating the reforms, so it is not necessary to commit to undertake any further review.

We recognise the importance of making sure these measures work effectively for all victims, and we will continue to engage with other government departments, the courts and the sector to make sure that's the case. On this basis, I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree to withdraw their amendment. I'll turn now to the amendment 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. And can I thank her for raising this very important matter? And can I thank the noble Baroness May Baroness Lister and Baroness Warwick for reminding us of the dreadful impact of financial abuse and coercive control.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the intent behind this amendment, and I would like to take this opportunity to praise the work of Catherine Breakwell and Mel Nowicki, which first brought this issue to our attention. And can I just say I had an example. I dealt with myself where the abuser had forged a signature on a second mortgage of over £80,000 when the relationship broke down, that debt effectively rendered the victim bankrupt and forced her and her four children homeless.

It was a really shocking case, so I understand the in in a very front line way, the importance of this amendment. Government regulations last year, which mean that victims of domestic abuse moving as a result of that abuse, no longer need to meet a local connection or residency test in order to access social housing. We also have statutory guidance in place for local housing authorities to improve access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse. This guidance has not been substantially updated in nearly a decade, so I'm sorry to say it does not cover the treatment of debt incurred as a result of domestic abuse.

My Lords, we want to put that right in the National Plan to End Homelessness. We committed to address the barriers like debt faced by domestic survivors of domestic abuse. As part of our update to statutory guidance on social housing allocations. These can be very sensitive cases, and this amendment, as tabled, would introduce a rigid statutory rule in an area that is inherently complex and case specific. We also need to be mindful of unintended consequences that the blunt tool of primary legislation may cause.

Updating statutory guidance allows us to set clear expectations nationally, while ensuring that authorities can take account of individual circumstances. My Lords, should this this approach prove not to be sufficient. In effect, we already have the necessary primary powers to take action, so I would like to thank the noble Baroness lady for highlighting the important issue. I hope she'll accept our commitment to tackle it and will withdraw her amendment for now, and I'm very happy to discuss this further with her.

Before we get to Report stage and finally, my Lords, I turn to amendment 108 from from a table by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, requiring local authorities to retain safeguarding responsibilities when they place households outside their area. Our starting point and focus must always be how to best protect the most vulnerable people, with practical arrangements and responsibilities designed to ensure continuity and safeguarding wherever possible. Local authorities should avoid placing house placing households subject to safeguarding arrangements outside the local area. But where such placements are necessary, then social care services must work together across boundaries to ensure the individuals continue to be protected by whichever local authority is best placed to deliver effective safeguarding.

Housing legislation should support, rather than interfere with, safeguarding legislation and practice, and does so through existing requirements on notification. It is therefore not necessary to accept the amendment as our legislative framework and guidance on what should happen when households are placed out of area is clear. However, I do share your concern about reports of authorities placing households out of area without notifying receiving authorities and the safeguarding concerns this can create. Ministers have already written to local authorities about this issue, both to remind them of their responsibilities under the legislation and the importance of safeguarding what are often very vulnerable households in a very challenging situation to deliver long term improvement.

The government is committed in our National Plan to End Homelessness, to tackling out-of-area placements and driving out those unsuitable practices. This includes poor practice when it comes to safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. And with this reassurance, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
18:22
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, this has been an >> My Lords, this has been an incredibly rich group of amendments and I think we all appreciate the and I think we all appreciate the contributions of all noble Lords to the to these six amendments, perhaps I could confine my closing perhaps I could confine my closing remarks to amendments 61, 62 and 65, on all of which the noble Baroness. The Minister has expressed not just sympathy, but a willingness to do something further.

Amendment 61, where people have to forfeit the right to a secure tenancy when they've been advised by the police to move out to temporary accommodation. This has. This has struck a nerve, I know, and I'm grateful to Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Teather Baroness O'Neill of Bexley all support for this amendment and all of them also supported amendment 62, where we're seeking clarification for the law on gaining access for for safety checks and for the for the benefit of the occupiers.

But where the access is being denied, the noble Baroness, the Minister, said that the further consideration is going to be given to both these two amendments. It is clear that existing provisions are not working even if they exist. She has generously agreed not just to meet in relation to the forfeiting of rights to secure tenancies when moved on by the police, where a meeting will be held with myself and colleagues, but also to convene a session on the guidance that is now evolving with the Ministry of Justice on the opportunities to gain access where this at the moment is being denied.

These are these are helpful concessions from the noble Baroness, the Minister, and I'm very grateful. Which brings me to amendment 65, with the very powerful speech from which I think we're all deeply grateful to the noble Baroness Baroness Neate, bringing her lifetime of experience and understanding of these issues to to the debate of. Grateful to to the noble Baroness, lady May, for supporting this amendment and also Baroness Lister of Warwick and Tether. I think that the Minister has agreed to take away and up in considering the updating of guidance that is now clearly out of date on these issues, to to have another go and to convene again a session at which further debate can take place on this absolutely crucial issue, which which I think has been very well explored in this House today.

It's a tribute to the House to have been part of this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw amendment 61.
18:25
18:26
18:26
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Just for clarification, the question before the House is that is that clause 14 stand part. >> I want to speak to amendment 66 in my name, which is a probing in my name, which is a probing amendment relating to the section of the bill which abolishes the provision in earlier legislation to phase out tenancies for life. It has much in common with amendments 77 and 78 in the names of my noble friends. My Lords, there are two speeches at Second Reading which made me think the time had come to review the tenancy.

The assumption that life tenancies are the best way to allocate a scarce resource. Neither speeches, as it happens from these benches. One was for the noble Lord, Lord bird, and this is what he said. Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham. There we had our own beautiful piece of social housing in that block of flats.

There were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who are old. It was sociable and socially mixed. He went on to say, unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it only takes the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class, and even the lower middle class.

End of his quotes. My Lords, the other speech was from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, and this is what he said. There are some policies pursued by governments which are very much of their time. Perhaps regrettably, we do not review those policies sufficiently regularly and they become enshrined in our body politic. But they were the answer to the question of a different era. End of quote. Now he was talking about the right to buy, but it struck me that the same might be said of security of tenure.

It was the right policy at the time, but that doesn't mean it's the right policy for today. And he went on to make the point that times had changed. Again. I quote councils have ever increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation. There is no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let. There is a housing shortage. You get an end of quotes.

My Lords, times have indeed changed and I looked at the speech which Nye Bevan gave on March the 16th, 1949, when he introduced the housing Bill. And this is what he said. We shall, of course, go on providing additional homes until we have reached the position of providing a separate home for every family in the country. The House must reflect that when that is done, and we shall do it before very long, it will be the first time that any nation has done it in the recorded history of mankind, and would that he had been right about that.

But he went on to say this we should try to introduce in our modern towns and villages housing where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all live in the same street, in the living tapestry of a mixed community, an end of that quote. Council housing was to be part of the welfare state, a universal service in hospital you would be in a mixed community. Likewise on the local authority estate. Now, I can remember the time when a young couple would put their name down on the waiting list, and within a reasonable time they would get a council house.

Not so today. Even in 2015, when I was an MP for a rural constituency, you had to be in real difficulties to get a council tenancy. A young married couple sharing with their in-laws would not get the points. You need to be anywhere near the head of the queue. It has now become a safety net. Just look at the guidance issued by this government on July the 10th, 2025. The government has made clear that we expect social homes to go to people who genuinely need and deserve them.

That is why the Localism Act has maintained the protection provided by the statutory reasonable preference criteria, which ensure that priority for social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need. And of that quote, so the doctor and the grocer are unlikely to qualify. Now, the greatest need today probably means where there is a statutory duty to rehouse a family in emergency accommodation, in bed and breakfast, a family granted asylum, now living in a hotel. Or it could be, as we've just heard, a mother and her children fleeing from domestic violence, or a family from an illegal HMO whose licence has just been cancelled by the local authority and closed, or someone whose health is seriously prejudiced by their poor housing conditions.

And my Lords, there is not even enough housing for them. Before you get to the groups who might previously have expected to go to our social housing. So you get social housing today because you are in greatest need. To quote the government's circular. The question then arises if you are allocated a tenancy because you were in the greatest need and then with the help of that tenancy and perhaps wider support from the local authority, you have put your life together, you have a good job and the ability to move on.

Should you then make way for someone who is now in the same desperate position as you were, and give them the opportunity to rebuild their life in the same way? And that is basically the question behind my amendment and others. And I would argue that it should be seriously considered by any party that claims to look after the most vulnerable. Now, of course, there are arguments the other way. Why should local authority tenants not have the same security that owner occupiers at a time when private tenants are being given more security through the Renters Rights Act, should we reduce the security of social tenants and the Rsls, the registered social landlords strongly want to manage stable communities, rather than a series of families who need a lot of support.

Now, I think there may be a third way, which leaves security where it is, but encourages a dialogue between the tenant and the landlord, outlining the options. Once it is clear that that family can afford to move, it may be shared ownership, it may be helped with a deposit, maybe helped with the costs of moving, making a legitimate point that there are other people who desperately need that home. And here I make a final point to support the case, which hasn't been made before.

If you are on the housing waiting list, of course the number of new social homes is relevant and the more the better. But someone in housing need is eight times more likely to be rehoused through a relapse than by a new build. So increasing the number of relets is a key ingredient for helping those in need, and the new reality can be secured at a fraction of the cost and the fraction of the time of a new build. So focusing our social housing on those in greatest need to use the government's own words means a good, hard look at how at how social social housing is used at the moment.

And in the words of Lord John of Southwark asking whether life tenancies are the answer to a question from a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different era. I was busy trying to think of counter-arguments to that Lord young. So you caught me there a bit. young. So you caught me there a bit. OK, my Lords, what we feel unites these amendments is an attempt to drag social housing policy backwards and to revive a model of insecurity that simply did not work. insecurity that simply did not work. Now, we've heard this argument before that fixed term tenancies somehow make the system fairer or more efficient.

But in reality, they created uncertainty for tenants, instability for families, churning communities without coming anywhere close to solving the real problem, which, as we all acknowledge, is a chronic shortage of social housing. And my Lords, with the exception possibly of amendment 70, which we haven't heard from yet. And while my brain is still thinking about Lord Young's amendment, these proposals feel less like a serious answer to today's housing challenges and more like a rerun of policies that were already tested and found wanting.

For example, take the example of clause 16 wanting to the power to give housing providers the rights to raise rents as as high as tenants get higher wages. I can just imagine the dinner table conversation. Great news. I've been promoted. I'm getting some extra money, he says. That's great. We'll get above the just about managing. It might just give us the cushion that we need. But wait, won't they put our rent up if they find out that we we're we're we're earning more.

Perhaps I won't take that promotion. We could not support a measure that would dampen self improvement and aspiration, let alone the logistics of administering that. And even with regard to Lord Jones comments. How do you actually logistically monitor those sorts of things within a tenancy? As Liberal Democrats, we took a very different approach to the conservative benches in supporting the renters rights reform, and we believe that
18:36
18:36
18:37
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
right. Just as we strengthen security for private renters that we simultaneously ask social we simultaneously ask social tenants, which, as has been amplified, those in the greatest need of stability to accept less. Now, of course, social housing must be used fairly and responsibly. And we're getting into that dialogue now. But fairness is not achieved by making tenancies more precarious. It is achieved by building more homes and supporting tenants to move when it is right for them. And I know that is tricky, but it can be done.

Perhaps the area that it needs to be done most in is having usually a widow occupying a three bedroom family house and trying to get them to move down to a nice ground floor, one bedroom flat. It can be done freeing up a family home and ensuring the system works with people and not against them. So in our views, these amendments would take us in the wrong direction. They would revive a failed approach and undermine the progress that is actually trying to be made.

One thing I did think of Lord John was that the fact that who we house now is very, very different, very, very different. And I think the statistics support that actually the many people in social housing do receive benefits, even though they're working. And therefore I'm not really sure how what you say would actually in reality that they would improve so much to be able to pay the private sector rents in the same area, that their lives would have improved that much.

The cohorts that were housing now don't seem to bear to actually bear that, to bear that out.
18:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I will respond first to the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, of Bexley's intention to oppose the of Bexley's intention to oppose the clause 14 stand part of the Bill. I understand this is a probing amendment seeking more detail on the government's rationale for repealing the powers. It's essential that local housing authorities have flexibility to manage their stock in a way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities, and clause 14, therefore, removes provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have forced councils to sell their highest value council homes whenever they became vacant.

I say would have forced because these these provisions were never implemented. Even so, the presence of the provisions on the statute book had a very negative effect on local authorities spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties. The policy was intended to raise capital to supply new social homes. It would ultimately have led to a net loss in social housing. The last government chose never to implement these measures due to the negative impact they would have had on local authorities, and we are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether.

That time is now and this clause fulfils that commitment. So I commend clause 14 to the House. My Lords, I will turn now to clause 15 and amendment 66, 77 and 78, which all relate to the government's intention to repeal and commence provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies offered by local authorities to be fixed term. And can I say I agree with much of what the noble Baroness Thornhill just said. I our government fundamentally believes that people, families and communities all benefit from secure homes, which is why we enabled this for private renters through the Renters Rights Act.

It would be entirely counterintuitive to remove that security now from social housing tenants. The noble Lord Young of Cookham probing amendment wants to explore alternatives to lifetime tenancies and amendment 77, tabled by Baroness O'Neill and noble Lord Jamieson, wanted to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed term tenancies. Nothing in the bill prevents local housing authorities for granting fixed term tenancies, where they consider it to be appropriate, for example, to support time limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts.

The bill doesn't change that. Paragraph one of schedule three repeals commenced provisions which would have required most new secure tenancies to be granted on a fixed term basis. Those provisions were never brought into force, and we are removing them to provide clarity. So we want to make it clear that our position is we support lifetime tenancies because they provide the stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. We don't think it's right to require most new tenants to be offered fixed term tenancies, as this would reduce their security.

Amendment 78 would require a review of the provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have replaced lifetime secured tenancies for new tenants with fixed term tenancies. However, as we've discussed, those provisions were never commenced and the Bill repeals them. It is therefore not possible to review the measures. The government already collects data on new social housing lettings, including tenancy type and length of fixed term tenancies, and we've therefore already have an established source of information on how fixed term tenancies are being used.

The Stock management review, which we are currently undertaking, is absolutely the right place to consider the issues highlighted for proposed review, rather than requiring a separate statutory review of provisions that were never brought into force. And for those reasons, I would ask that the amendments be withdrawn. My Lords turn to clause 16. I thank the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord Jamieson for amendment 80, which would allow higher rents to be charged to higher income social housing tenants, and I note that noble Baroness Lloyd O'Neill has set out her intention to oppose clause 16 standing part of the Bill.

The government is reviewing both social housing allocations, statutory guidance and how social landlords are making effective use of their existing stock. Taken together, these amendments would in effect reintroduce the pay to stay policy, which was included in the in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, but was never implemented. In fact, amendment 80 would go even further than the current Housing and Planning Act 2016 provisions by requiring registered providers, as well as local housing authorities, to charge higher rents to higher income tenants.

My Lords, as I've previously noted, these pay to stay provisions were never implemented, and the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections from noble Lords during the passage of that legislation. Indeed, the previous government chose not to commence them as the costs outweighed the benefits. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher earning tenants. We think it's right to maintain that approach, but as the. I would echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said we want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings or to to curtail their their aspirations and their ambitions through this process.

For those reasons, I don't consider these amendments are necessary and would ask that they be withdrawn, and I commend clause 16 to the House. Turning finally to amendment 70 from the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill and noble Lord Jamieson, this would require a social landlord to conduct a tenancy review where a tenant is engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour during the passage of the Renters Rights Act, I spoke about the challenges of tackling anti-social behaviour, drawing on those 27 years of experience I had as a local councillor.

No tenant should feel unsafe in their home as a result of the behaviour of others, where behaviour is persistent and has a serious impact on neighbours and communities, landlords must be able to respond quickly and appropriately, and social landlords already have a wide range of tools to tackle anti-social behaviour, and the regulator of Social housing's neighbour and community standard already requires registered providers to work with relevant partners to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour and hate incidents. Recent legislation is strengthened these powers even further.

The Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent in April, has strengthened the powers available to the police and other agencies, including stronger measures to deal with the most persistent offenders. The Renters Rights Act has also shortened the notice period for mandatory anti-social behaviour, eviction ground and once implemented in the social rented sector, landlords will be able to make a claim to the court faster in cases of anti-social behaviour. In that context, much of what this amendment seeks to achieve is already available through existing powers and regulatory requirements, and the amendment does risk duplicating existing routes.

So for those reasons, we don't consider the amendment necessary, and I ask that it is withdrawn.
18:46
18:47
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees
-

The question is that clause 14 stand part of the bill, as many of stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say, content. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. the question is contents have it. the question is that clause 15 stand part of the bill, as amended, of that opinion, will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 66 Lord Leong not moved. The question is that schedule three be the third schedule to the bill.

As many as of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Question is that clause 16 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 16, amendment 67, Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it also after clause 16, amendment 68

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness O'Neill not moved. Oh. Sorry, you don't get away that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, you don't get away that easily, my Lords. I rise to speak to amendment 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84, to amendment 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84, and 113. In my name and that of my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of noble friend Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle. Social housing is a principle. Social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. Demand, as we have heard in the previous debates, exceeds supply in many parts of the country.

It's therefore essential that allocation
18:48
None Portrait Amendment:68 Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-

policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords library says that each new social rent home requires between 8000 and 100 zero zero £0 of grant in order to be built, and those figures for outside of London. I don't have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher. Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. My Lords, if we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us.

As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. Now, in many cases that isn't the case, but it is the concern and the noble Baroness. The Minister, has related her own experiences or, to be fair, stories of when the origination of Stevenage is originated as a new town, and the difficulties the Minister in question had at the time from the locals. You know, communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived, worked and contributed in the area are given appropriate consideration.

Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring housing is directed to those with genuine ties to the community in the area. Amendment 69 concerns eligibility for social housing by those who are not British citizens. Given the pressures that exist on housing waiting lists across the country, it's important that the government are clear about who is eligible for social housing and that we ask ourselves if reform is needed. Ultimately, this amendment is about the principles that underpin underpin allocation of scarce public resources.

As of March 2023, there were approximately 1.33 million households on the local authority housing registers in England, the highest figures for a decade and significantly higher than recent years. Behind those statistics are families, pensioners, young people, vulnerable individuals all waiting for access to a secure and affordable accommodation at the same time, 431,000 households in social housing had a lead tenant who was a non-UK national, representing around 10% of all social housing households. These figures inevitably raise legitimate questions about eligibility, prioritisation and fairness.

The purpose of this amendment is not to diminish the contribution many noncitizens make to our country, nor to ignore the complexity of the individual circumstances. We are not saying that we should not support those who come to this country and contribute, but that does not mean that they should be entitled to potentially a lifetime council house at well below market rent. Indeed, that is why we want to have this debate, an honest and mature debate. When demand substantially exceeds supply, who should social housing be intended to serve? I think that reflects some of the comments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.

In the previous debate, many members of the public would reasonably expect that access to social housing should be closely linked to contribution, long term commitment and belonging to this country. At the very least, Parliament and the public should have a clear understanding of who social housing is for. Public confidence in social housing system depends greatly on the perception of fairness, and I refer back to my comments that this is requiring substantial upfront subsidy. That is particularly important at a time when waiting lists remain at historically high levels.

Amendment 74 Emily seeks greater clarity regarding the guidance on social housing eligibility in respect of certain foreign public office holders and associated persons. This amendment arises in part from concerns highlighted by a recent high profile case with involving the First Lady of Sierra. Sierra Leone. That case raised significant public concern and has rightly received widespread scrutiny. Now, I appreciate that that has now been resolved, but that took 12 months from it becoming publicly aware. It's not about a single individual or a single country.

Rather, it's about the fact that where individuals hold senior public office overseas or are closely associated with those who do, is it not reasonable to ask whether existing eligibility rules are sufficiently clear and robust? We'd also like to seek clarity from the government on this. Our existing checks and information sharing arrangements sufficient? Are the local authorities equipped to identify circumstances in which an applicant's position, assets or access to resources overseas may be relevant to eligibility decisions? Amendment 81 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds.

It's important that eligibility criteria remain aligned with economic realities and reflect changes in incomes, housing costs and local circumstances. Thresholds that are not regularly reviewed risk becoming detached from the conditions they were designed to address. Amendments 82 and 84 seek better information. One would require estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration. The other would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. Whatever the view, noble Lords may take on wider immigration policy.

Effective public policy depends on understanding demand. Local authorities cannot plan effectively unless they have a clear picture of the pressures affecting housing needs in their area. Finally, amendment 113 would require housing register applications to be reviewed periodically to ensure that waiting lists remain accurate and up to date. Given the pressures on social housing supply, it's important that waiting lists reflect genuine and current need. I was particularly interested in amendments 93 and 94 concerning prison leavers and former offenders.

I pray I pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Farmer for his long standing work on prison reform and rehabilitation, the cost of re-offending, both to society and the public purse is enormous. Amendment 94 is a measured proposal which seeks to improve the sharing of information between prisons and local authorities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward. Together. These amendments seek to ensure that social housing policy is informed by accurate information. Fair eligibility criteria, criteria and a clear understanding of housing demand and seeking to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

local community support. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 16. Insert the new clause printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of amendment 91 that stands in my name and that of Baroness Bakewell of of Hardington
18:56
Baroness Teather Portrait Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Bakewell of of Hardington Mandeville. I hope I've got that correct. My Lords, this is a modest amendment. It asks simply that the Secretary of State conducts a review of veterans access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes. It does not impose new burdens on local authorities. It asks the government to look and just tell us what they find, and I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it's very difficult for us to take reasonable judgements about what's working and what isn't without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice.

So the case for this amendment is this between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1820 to 2270, according to MCHLG own homelessness data. The most recent figures for 2425 record over 2000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help, the ONS Veterans Survey suggests the true number may be closer to 7500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count.

The government has made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really want to acknowledge that the December 24th regulations removed the five year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away from a housing register simply for lacking local ties. Updated guidance now explicitly extends additional preference to veterans with service related mental health conditions, including PTSD. Those are real improvements and they deserve recognition. But guidance isn't the same as accountability.

Additional preference does not guarantee placement in the highest band and in many authorities, even the highest bands involve long waits because there's just not enough social housing stock. Shelter has noted that the rights veterans hold in practice depend heavily on individual local authority policy, and can vary enormously from one area to the next. There are also particular concerns about veterans with service related disabilities and complex needs. Around 16% of veteran households receiving new social lettings include someone injured or disabled as a result of their service.

Specialist adapted accommodation is limited and this is something I spoke about in my Second Reading contribution. I feel particularly passionately about the need to improve the the stock of adapted housing because my husband is disabled and we know how difficult it is to find any housing in the private sector or social sector, which we have not benefited from. But if there's just simply not enough anywhere, then it is very difficult for anybody with any disability to do anything other than find themselves waiting for a long time on the social housing waiting list.

Operation fortitude 900 units of veterans supported housing typically run at full capacity. A 2021 review found no new policy introductions for wounded, injured or sick veterans since 2016. The data picture is deeply inadequate. The government does not publish national figures on how many veterans are on social housing waiting lists. NHC, LG's own lettings statistics, acknowledge that only between 18 and 44% of local authorities provide complete information on veterans on their registers, and that's quite a variation. We cannot evaluate whether the system is working when we can't see it clearly without a comprehensive review.

We're left with fragmented data, inconsistent local practice, and no reliable national picture. This amendment would change that. A report of this kind laid before Parliament would, for the first time, give us a clear and authoritative account of the level of social housing provision for veterans across England. We would be able to see how the system is working, where it's falling short, and what we still need to do to change things for the better. This is the foundation for informed policy. I think it's the least we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. I rise to speak to amendment 93 in my name and to support my in my name and to support my colleague Baroness Teather on her amendment 91. The noble Lady amendment 91. The noble Lady Baroness Teather has made a compelling case for considering access to social housing for formal access to social housing for formal service personnel who have served their country, often in foreign areas, moving from one posting to another. Their personal and home life will have been disrupted.

Sometimes their relationships have broken down, leaving them without a home to return to at the end of their term of service. Many service personnel will have suffered mental health breakdowns due to the level of stress they experienced in their postings. My Lords, it is right that those who have served their country with bravery should be able to access a decent home on their discharge, and I fully support Baroness Teather amendment. Turning now to the support required by ex-offenders, I note that the noble Lord Farmer also has an amendment
19:02
19:02
19:02
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
are being sentenced and imprisoned. Find that their immediate family and relatives abandon them, and relatives abandon them, sometimes because it is simply too far for them to travel to visit their relative. The expense of a their relative. The expense of a long rail journey and taxi fares at either end are too much for those who are on limited incomes. Sometimes the length of the sentence can mean that the offender loses all contact with the area they were originally living in. Their rented accommodation has been lost and they have no home to return to.

Many on their release find they have nowhere to stay. There are, of course, probation hostels, but these are short term and may not be in a convenient area for those on release. During the course of their sentence, an offender may have put a tremendous amount of effort into getting the basic grade qualification in English and maths in readiness for his or her future life. On nearing the end of their sentence and and in preparing for parole, they have applied for and been successful, perhaps in getting an offer of employment, perhaps in Asda or another supermarket or outlet.

They are essentially set up to be released, to be self-sufficient and to build their and rebuild their life. However, if they have no accommodation, they are at a severe disadvantage. Even if they have a job offer with no accommodation, they are likely to end up sleeping rough and within a very short period of time, they will be picked up, possibly by criminal gangs, often drug dealers offering so-called safe accommodation out of the rain in return for what might be trailed as a minor drug deal.

Within a matter of days of their release, they will be back in prison with an additional tariff on their sentence. Instead of being able to support themselves and rebuild their lives. They are, despite their best endeavours, continuing to be detained at the taxpayer's expense. This is a lose lose scenario. Nothing like the win win they had been working towards. My Lords, unless statistics are collected on an authority by authority basis on how easy or otherwise it is for ex-offenders to access social housing, it is.

It will not be possible to be sure their needs are being met. Ex-Offenders on release have served their debt to society, and help should be provided to allow them to rebuild their lives. Recording statistics will help local authorities and the government to assess if they are meeting this need, and thereby preventing reoffending. I realise that there are many claims for special treatment to be considered when allocating social housing. However, the category of ex-offenders should receive some consideration.

The consequence of being detained, especially for a long sentence, has a devastating effect on all involved. Often, those released released after such a sentence feel exposed, uncertain how to cope and need help to take them forward. I look forward to the noble Lady's response to this group of amendments, in particular amendments 91, 93 and 94.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a pleasure to follow Baroness Bakewell of follow Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and will be following along with her arguments, actually, but I rise to speak to my actually, but I rise to speak to my main amendment 94, and should start by thanking the Minister for the helpful meeting I had yesterday helpful meeting I had yesterday with her officials. This amendment does not require local authorities does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners, but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities, working better together to prevent post-release homelessness.

This is the point of the amendment. About ten years ago, I started working with the Ministry of Justice on prison reform, specifically conducting two reviews on how prisoners could maintain family and other key relational ties to prevent their re-offending. I'm still involved in the implementation of the recommendations of these reviews, and I'm beginning to feel a little
19:06
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
bit like an IPP prisoner with no set date for release. But my my set date for release. But my my main my amendment would contribute to a collective refocus on offender rehabilitation. Much needed if we are to have any hope of reducing are to have any hope of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. criminal justice budget. Re-offending costs this country £18 billion a year, releasing prisoners into homelessness and especially rough sleeping single handedly undermines any rehabilitation activity they've ever undertaken.

Their proven re-offending rate, 76%, is more than twice that for those released from custody into settled accommodation, 36.4%. I've been told that existing legislation to prevent homelessness is is adequate. However, there appears to be very little accountability on local housing authorities compliance with that law, which I will touch on briefly. Some are far more effective than others at finding ex-prisoners accommodation. This is not simply about available housing stock, but also about the processes they follow and how well they work.

In partnership with prison and probation. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports, for example, that several London boroughs are frequently problematic, while others with very pressured housing markets are not. Similarly, the London Assembly Housing Committee in 2025 reported inconsistent practice across London boroughs, with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and and borough housing teams. My amendment seeks to tighten up the rather loose legal framework, which is not delivering as it should. Ministry of justice data says almost 13000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2nd 025, a 39% rise from the previous year.

My amendments reporting requirements would reveal how local authorities compare with their statistical neighbours. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2007 introduced a duty on public authorities, including prison and probation, to refer those at the threat of homelessness to local authority housing teams because they will be released within about two months and have nowhere to go. Looking briefly at how that should work, statutory guidance says rather weakly, I quote. Housing authorities are encouraged to acknowledge receipt of any referral, which actually may be in the form of an automatic email reply.

If that is all the prison is getting and there is no feedback loop, the referral may have simply entered a bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle. Non-statutory guidance says the duty to refer will help to ensure that services are working together effectively to prevent homelessness. It is also anticipated, which again sounds a little weak, that it will encourage local housing authorities and other public authorities to build strong partnerships which enable them to work together to intervene earlier to prevent homelessness through increasingly integrated services.

However, the local housing authority is merely required to contact the prisoner being referred. The guidance also merely states that it is good practice for local housing authorities to go beyond referral procedures and work with other public authorities to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the need for the prisoner. But where is the grip on on local authorities? They are paid from the public purse to obey the law. They are or should be accountable for spending and saving public money, reducing re-offending by just 1% would save £180 million.

My amendment would enable regulations to specify how local housing authorities must respond to referrals. Regulations would specify response times they would need to work to, including when they would need to notify a final decision and require them to inform the prison or probation service, as well as the prisoner. Prisons have a strong legal duty of care towards prisoners and are responsible for pre-release planning. They also need this information and cannot rely on prisoners passing it on to them.

The London Assembly Housing Committee actually also found prisons are not consistently complying with the duty to refer, with late referrals from prison contributing greatly to uncertainty. Hence, the regulations are tightening the process at their end as well. To conclude, currently there are many gaps in the system we need to close so that soon to be released individuals no longer fall through them without accommodation. And we've heard this from other noble Lords. They cannot seek work, restructure their lives or take ownership over their own rehabilitation.

It can be a matter of life or death. Just last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025, a 28% rise since 2021. The primary driver, according to experts, is a rise in prisoners being released into homelessness and falling through quote unquote, trap doors to crisis. The duty to refer was designed to prevent this, where, wherever possible. Almost ten years on from the act that introduced it, we must acknowledge that that it is not working as it should be for ex-prisoners.

This bill provides

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the perfect opportunity to fix it. My Lords, I'm delighted to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak to these amendments in Group five, and it's amendments in Group five, and it's always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Farmer, and he is noble friend Lord Farmer, and he is one of the most indefatigable and one of the most indefatigable and persistent champions of the family and for education and rehabilitation of prisoners. And I commend the work he has done over many, many years.

I, as a constituency MP, did have a prison
19:13
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
in my constituency and I was once critical of what I thought was the cushy lifestyle of on the women's wing of the prison. It was a coterminous prison, men and women, coterminous prison, men and women, because they provided aromatherapy in the gym, and I criticised this as a local MP. And of course The as a local MP. And of course The sun put it on the front page with the immortal headline in for a the immortal headline in for a stretch, which was quite, quite amusing.

But I do think the serious point is that you can spend very significant amounts of money on prisoners in prison to make sure they can read and they can write, they understand civic engagement, and they have meaningful work. But that is all completely wasted. If when they leave prison, they go back into the clutches of the nefarious and criminal classes, particularly drug dealers. And I commend both the noble Ladies on the Liberal Democrat benches. Baroness Teather won't remember, but we did work together many moons ago when she was children's Minister in the other place, on the rather niche subject of Tourette's in children with Tourette's syndrome.

And I think she did a great job in that role in the coalition government. But she's absolutely right. As both noble Ladies are, in that we do need to focus. This is a these are permissive amendments to focus on collecting as much, collecting, collating as much data as possible on both ex-offenders and on armed forces personnel. And that's all these amendments asked for. And so I heartily concur with all all those later amendments in this group. I want to be a little bit more controversial about the first two, which are about collecting data on a local link and on British citizenship.

I was rather disappointed. I've got to confess at Second Reading that we had somewhat some pearl clutching from the Liberal Democrat benches about. Mentioned by my noble friend Lady Scott, about the number of people, for instance, in Greater London who were born overseas in social housing. And I've got to ask the fundamental question in supporting my noble friend on the front bench, both my noble friends. In what other country in the world do you nonchalantly accept that people who have not paid in taxes, who were born abroad, who are not British citizens, that they should have very valuable social housing? Now, I accept that figure of 47.6% is extremely high in London.

I accept that of the 377 000 people who are lead tenants in that group, there are a significant number who have obtained British citizenship, and I think that's fine. And they should have access if there is a housing need to. Local authority and registered provider housing. And and I accept that completely. The beauty of this amendment, though, of course, is that it's colour-blind. It's about fairness and equity. It's not about religion or ethnicity or background. It's about citizenship.

We're talking in terms of amendment 69, my Lords. And that's why I think it's important to focus on that. And the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock did actually mention how she found it disconcerting that that was brought up by my noble friend. But she might also recognise, of course, that there, in her own local borough of Kirklees, in West Yorkshire, there are 19,000 households on the waiting list. The latest figures for Watford that the noble Lady Baroness Thornhill will be aware of is 1322 households waiting for housing for the local housing association.

Watford does not provide direct housing support as in terms of council housing, 16% of of the entire housing stock across the whole of the UK is rented by people who were not born in the UK and bearing in mind these are very scarce properties that are heavily subsidised by mainstream taxation in the first place. And so I do think it's fair for us to look at that as an issue that at least needs to be reviewed, because we all accept that there has been a shortage of council house building over the years.

Although my my noble friend Lord Fuller would contest that. That's not the case in South Norfolk, where he was leader of the council. But in most local authorities, that has been the case. And I do think if you're focusing through the prism of fairness and equity, you've got to accept that we have a duty to our own citizens, to working families, working people, and not warehousing welfare dependency. That does not presuppose that you will lock out everyone that was born abroad.

This is not what that amendment is about in terms of amendment 68, which is in the name of when friends local connection. It cannot be. But right that we. We support local people. We support local residents, local family connections, local employment, family associations and service in His Majesty's Armed Forces. And there was a time when this would have been a policy adopted by any Labour politician at a local level. I remember when I was a councillor in the London borough, this would not have been an alien idea that you give a local connection.

In fact, I think when I was on the housing committee in the London borough of Ealing, we did actually have a very high score for those that did have a local connection. So I think these are sensible amendments. I. I think, of course, it would be naive to assume that amendment 69 is not controversial, because of course it is. There is a big political debate about citizenship, about identity, about culture and about the provision of public services. And I accept all that.

But certainly those two amendments need to be looked at by the government. And on that basis, I would ask the Minister to try and provide a reason why. Certainly amendment 69 would not be adopted. Sorry, 68 and and 69. Amendment 69 in my noble friend's name would also not be something that the Labour government could look favourably upon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise and it's a pleasure to follow Lord Jackson of Peterborough and I rise to support Peterborough and I rise to support all the amendments in this group, but particularly those from but particularly those from Baroness Teather Baroness Bakewell. Lord, my noble friends Lord Farmer Lord, my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lord Jackson, and indeed those and Lord Jackson, and indeed those on the frontbench which support a review of policy and better information for making policy on some very sensitive political
19:21
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
matters today, such as immigration and what narrowing the eligibility and what narrowing the eligibility clause. And if we have such clause. And if we have such information on accessing social housing and demand for it, those housing and demand for it, those arising from net migration, those arising from net migration, those arising from temporary asylum, we should not forget the context in which these demands are made. It is a question at the centre of our national debate, one which has too often eroded trust in politics and trust in democracies.

And that isn't just limited to the UK, right across stable Western systems France, Germany and Italy. This question is at the heart of the erosion of trust and the changing shape of democratic stability, which many are worried about. So that is the wider context for the immigration questions and amendments here today, that we shouldn't brush this question under the carpet, including the pressure it puts on the demand for social housing, and in looking at immigration and asylum, we are looking at particularly significant demands, perhaps, which might come in time to outweigh current pressures.

If the figures we see around today are to lead in any way to a demand for social housing in to a demand for social housing in the year ending 2025 and 558,148 people were granted protection and leave to remain at the initial decision. And where will they live? Will they add to the pressures and burdens on social housing? We need to know the evidence and the figures and not to brush this question under the carpet. In addition, 46,497 illegal illegal migrants were known to have arrived in the year end December 2025.

Well, they may end up being granted leave to remain, given that the government is trying to process. Many of them switched to asylum claims and that will pose additional demands. Then we have the student visa. Question 443 000 were granted last year. Now, a news analysis by a Sky journalist recorded recently that of asylum claims from people who originally come on student visas in the latest come on student visas in the latest year for 14,800, were made from around 111,000 total asylum claims.

So this really means that student visa people have been switching from student visas to asylum seekers. Now, for some of these switches, there may be good reason. They may have come from countries where they would be prosecuted, persecuted, and they may seek asylum when they get here. And it's the only way to get out to have a student visa. But for others, such as some Indian nationals, which this report particularly mentioned, a fraud, a fraud, a scam had been operating in India which allowed which filled up the papers fraudulently for one member of the family, the.

The lady and her husband came on a student visa. So did she, but she had no intention of studying and she had no money. They had no money as a family, and certainly not the figures that were inserted on the bank account. They were discussed by the local authorities and awarded benefits because they simply couldn't afford to live. And they've now made their asylum claim. Now, these kind of hard luck stories and they are hard luck stories. Nobody denies that, but they are pushing up the claims for social housing and the demand.

And we need to have the evidence so that we can have an open and fair debate. And for these reasons, I do support the the proposed ban or prohibition on granting asylum to anybody but UK granting social housing to anybody but UK citizens and my noble friends have various amendments. So apart from that, I'd like just to comment before closing on both amendments, which seek to have better information on social housing access for veterans, which I think was very well argued by Baroness Teather and I.

I referred in Second Reading to a case which I'd met homeless, a person in King's Cross station who simply lived from hand to mouth and day to day because he was evicted from his council house when daughter was killed, run over by a cab driver who was accused and convicted of dangerous driving. But she was his sole carer. He had served in the Royal Marines for well over a decade, including in Afghanistan, and because of injuries sustained in serving, he was had to be looked after all his life and he.

They were in council housing and he was evicted after his daughter died because she was the person who held the tenancy. But other than that, I'd like to support those on on greater information on offenders. Offenders are some of the most sad cases we have. The literacy rates in in prison sometimes are less than seven. The reading age of seven or sometimes up to 56%. But it means that they are socially excluded from any kind of literate society.

And I pay tribute to Lord Farmer for his excellent work for offenders. But I also agree that unless we insist that they get priority for housing, they will go back to a life of crime. They will go back as some much evidence that has been uncovered show either as noble Baroness explained, or Lord Jackson, or to people who who were part of the social network, the crime network, before they went in, because they've been abandoned by their families and they've been abandoned, but by the the husbands, wives, children, anybody who looked after them very often in prison.

So I think these are very good amendments, and I'd like to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. My noble friends have outlined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friends have outlined their cases themselves. So I'll just clutch my pearls and we'll. just clutch my pearls and we'll. And we'll resist having a ding dong with the noble Lord Jackson, which with the noble Lord Jackson, which I could. For reasons that will become apparent in my speech. My
19:29
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
become apparent in my speech. My Lords, I rise to speak carefully on this group, because I do have real concerns. Now, I'm not going to go into the detail of the individual amendments, but it's about the direction and tone that they take. When looked at together, looked at as a whole, they approach access to social housing primarily through restriction and exclusion, with a strong emphasis on immigration status and migration pressures. I understand the political context in which these amendments are brought forward, but I do not believe this is a helpful or responsible way to address the housing crisis or solve immigration matters.

The fundamental driver of pressure on social housing is not who is applying for it. It is the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable homes. Framing access as a competition between groups risks obscuring that reality and diverting attention away from the real task of increasing supply. I am particularly concerned about the impact on vulnerable groups, measures that tighten eligibility or add further barriers inevitably fall hardest on people already facing disadvantage those fleeing domestic abuse, people in insecure work, care leavers, refugees with recognised status, and others whose lives are already marked by instability.

Restricting access does not remove need, it simply makes that need more precarious. Now, local authorities already operate carefully balanced allocation systems. We already do that and have done it for years. I remember I really had to think hard about local connection and extending it to five years. So this is already done. They do this in complex circumstances and with limited resources, adding further nationally driven restrictions risks making those systems more rigid and less humane without solving the underlying problem.

I am also uneasy about the extent to which housing policy is being drawn into a wider political narrative around migration. We are seeing this not only in this country but across Europe, where housing and public services are increasingly politicised as proxies for much broader debates, sometimes with devastating consequences. Housing policy should be about meeting need and providing stability, not about signalling or blame. Social housing did not create migration pressures and it cannot resolve them. What it can do, if properly supported, is provide secure homes to people based based on clear, fair and locally determined criteria.

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats believe in fairness, compassion and evidence based policy. We believe that houses should housing should bring communities together and should not be used to divide them. We also believe that politicians should show have a duty to show leadership in this regard, and not to abrogate responsibility for the consequences that these issues provoke. So no surprise that we oppose these amendments.
19:33
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this group of amendments is about access to and amendments is about access to and eligibility for social housing, and I want to make two opening points on this. First of all, it's very important that debate on these issues is conducted carefully and issues is conducted carefully and respectfully, as Baroness Thornhill said, language that Stigmatises or mischaracterises people living on, in, or applying for social housing is simply not acceptable. I would also remind noble Lords that there is an extensive review of social housing allocations, statutory guidance currently being undertaken, which will consider many of the issues raised as part of this group.

I'd like to start by addressing specifically amendment 69, 74, 82 and 84 from the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill. In 2425, 89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals, 4% were European nationals and 8% were from outside the European Economic Area, broadly the same as the previous year. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person's visa prevents access to state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for social housing.

Only eligible people can join waiting lists and receive a tenancy. Where foreign nationals are eligible. They will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority's housing allocation scheme. On the 20th of November, the government announced the biggest reforms to legal migration system in 50 years. These reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have built their lives here and contributed to our community, to the economy and to public services.

And I would say to Baroness Lawlor that I don't think we need to take lessons on asylum from the party opposite, who totally lost control of the system, and that is still having an impact on housing and social housing. Now we are addressing the system as a whole, which is the right approach, rather than stigmatising those who live in social housing, which is why we oppose amendment 69. And as Baroness Thornhill clearly outlined, this is the the problem here is the lack of available social housing and we can't blame other people for that lack of social housing.

What we need to do is crack on and build some more. Moving to amendment 74, specifically tabled by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, would give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance on eligibility for foreign public office holders and associated persons that power and guidance are unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power under section 196 of the Housing Act 1996 to issue guidance on social housing allocations for public office holders and associated persons are already subject to local authority allocation rules.

Authorities can apply qualification rules such as Local connection and income test to reflect local priorities. And I remember the very same debate in my own authority around the five year local connection test. My Lords, there is therefore no need for this power. And with regard to the specific case raised by the noble Lord Jamieson, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that case in the chamber here, but I would draw members attention to the statement from Southwark Council on that issue.

Amendments 82 and 84, tabled by the noble Baroness Liddell Neal, would both require assessments that we don't think are necessary. Amendment 82 requires an assessment of social housing demand arising from net migration. My Lords, social housing demand depends on many factors. The effect of migration is not direct, so a yearly assessment would not be proportionate. Demand for social housing comes from a multitude of factors that are likely to be correlated, including economic conditions and a range of government policies. It is artificial and potentially misleading to seek to neatly and reliably separate the impact of net migration from other factors.

Amendment 84 requires an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. My Lords, I think it is important to reiterate that asylum seekers are not eligible for social housing, so they will not be adding to demand for social housing. Where an individual is granted refugee status. They may subsequently approach a local authority for housing support, whether they access social housing or depend on meeting local authority allocation policies, including any local connection or residency tests. I also want to highlight the progress made on sharing asylum pressures more fairly across the country.

Since 2022, the Home Office has shifted from a model where asylum accommodation was concentrated in a small number of areas to one where all local authorities share responsibility, with each allocated a defined evidence base share of demand. Much of the data sought in the amendment is also already available. My department collects and publishes extensive information on social housing, waiting lists and allocations, including data on new lettings and household characteristics. The Home Office regularly publishes a breakdown by local authority of accommodated asylum seekers, and my department also publishes the homelessness duties owed to those as a result of leaving asylum support.

As part of statutory homelessness statistics. With this explanation, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness Lloyd O'Neill withdraws these amendments. Turning to amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, this amendment seeks to require local housing authorities to take account of local connection when considering if an applicant for social housing should be awarded reasonable preference for an allocation of social housing. Local connection tests help local housing authorities manage social housing stock and are best placed to set the rules to ensure homes meet local housing pressures, and that policies take account of the local context.

We seem to have a bit of a theme of wanting to centralise these issues, but local authorities can set out in their allocation scheme that they will consider local connection as part of prioritisation. The vast majority, 89%, are choosing to consider it at an earlier stage as part of the qualification for the housing register, and we don't see the need to remove this choice from local housing authorities. So I would ask that the noble Lady withdraws this amendment. Moving on to amendment 113.

This would require local authorities to review applications on their housing register every three years. Of course, I'm supportive of accurate and up to date housing registers and expect local authorities to regularly review data. How. However, it is for local authorities to determine how best to do this as part of how they manage their local social housing allocation schemes. This enables them to design schemes in a way that fits their local priorities. A full review of the housing register might not always be the most efficient way to maintain an effective register.

An applicant's eligibility and qualification for social housing will be reassessed at the point of a home being allocated, so having ineligible households on a housing register doesn't mean they will get social housing. With that, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Amendments 91 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces and former offenders, respectively.

My. My Lords, this government is committed to making sure that those who have served and their families have access to social housing. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have housing need. And I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for recognising the work the government has done on this, where local connection or residency tests apply, legislation exempts the armed forces community regardless of when they are served, ensuring they are not disadvantaged, and there is also statutory guidance in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces.

Baroness Teather referred to access to social housing, even for those in the highest bands, and I understand her point. What I would say is that's why our government has placed such a high priority on the delivery of new social housing. I think it's the lack of housing that prevents people in high bands from getting it. Not not whether they are priority or not. I'll make further remarks on her valid points on adapted housing when they come up in a later group, with our review of statutory guidance on social housing allocations already underway, we don't need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups, such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders.

So I would kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Tether and Lady Bakewell withdraw their amendments. Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Farmer, seeks to ensure local authorities get information necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. My Lords, this amendment is focussed on an issue which my Department and the Ministry of Justice are very committed to tackling. I spoke to the my noble friend Lord Timpson just yesterday about this, and my officials met with Lord Farmer as he.

As he said, to discuss his proposal in more detail yesterday, and I'm very grateful for Lord Farmer work on this issue. Supporting people into stable accommodation from their first night out of prison is critical to reducing homelessness and reoffending, as those without stable accommodation, as we've heard, are much more likely to re-offend. I support the intent of the amendment in reducing prisoner lever homelessness. All prisons and probation services are already subject to a duty to refer under section 203 B of the Housing Act 1996, and this requires them to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person's choice.

We continue to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure this process works as effectively as possible, and my department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on released from prison and publishes this annually. I would therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendments, but my officials remain happy to have further conversations with him if that would be helpful. And finally, and moving on to amendment 81, this seeks to create a new statutory requirement for government to regularly review income eligibility thresholds for social housing.

My Lords, as I have made very clear, eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process. The government does not set income eligibility thresholds. They are set by local authorities and private registered providers, and this allows them to set thresholds that reflect local context. I do not believe it will be an appropriate use of resources for government to review every one of those independently set thresholds. The evidence is that it would cost more to implement than it would to raise in revenue, and a regular review would also penalise tenants for earning more, and could lead to incentives to reduce working hours to avoid higher rent.

My Lords income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances, which means social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. This can be the case even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list, and I would therefore ask that this amendment is withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before before the noble Baroness, the Minister sits down. I just wanted to go back on one point that the Minister raised regarding the Minister raised regarding review of housing waiting lists. The Minister made the perfectly valid point that, yes, you may have registered on the housing waiting list with a certain series of circumstances, but actually those circumstances, but actually those will be tested at the allocation point perfectly. I accept that the point that we were trying to make point that we were trying to make is that the housing waiting list is data that is used in making a variety of decisions as to the prioritisation of what should be built, and so forth.

Our view is that that data needs to be accurate. I don't know what the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would say on that particular point. In my experience, most local authorities do exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting. They very carefully take account of the information that's submitted by information that's submitted by applicants for the waiting register, as they as they apply for the waiting register. So I think that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

waiting register. So I think that those processes are already in place. I'm sorry, I must be talking at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, I must be talking at cross purposes. My point is, given the length of time that people will be on the housing register, circumstances will change. And therefore what was put on a year ago, two years ago may no longer be accurate. It's about having up to date accurate data on the housing register so that the council is able to make good decisions on policy, not on a particular

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allocation. Again, I place great trust in our local housing authorities. They our local housing authorities. They do regularly assess their applicants, and that's been even applicants, and that's been even more the case as the the availability of social housing has got more and more scarce. I do got more and more scarce. I do think local authorities take these responsibilities very seriously. responsibilities very seriously. But if there was a change to circumstances that hadn't been recorded, that would certainly appear at the time of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allocation. The noble Lady, the Minister, before she sits down. Whether it is before she sits down. Whether it is the case that there is official evidence of when an applicant is made and whether the authorities assess official documents supporting a request for housing. And just on a clarification, I certainly didn't seek to stigmatise people who were seeking housing, social housing, but to ask for further evidence so we could review the whole question in the round, but not stigmatise.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Local authorities take a great deal of care when people apply for the social housing register, because they need to make sure that because they need to make sure that they meet their local provisions. So local connections, if they have eligibility, income, eligibility and so on. So they take great care and so on. So they take great care in this respect and most local authorities, I'm not going to say all because that would I wouldn't have the I haven't got the evidence have the I haven't got the evidence in front of me to suggest it, but I think nearly all of them would do regular reviews of that information that they've got as well.
19:48
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. Can I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this debate? There have been a variety of views. So let me let me begin on the bit that I think we're in general agreement. I'd like. I'm very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for his eloquent contribution and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for looking at how we can better support former offenders and those leaving prison. We support the intentions behind both these amendments, and we certainly believe local housing authorities should at least be given more information about those prison leavers who are in need of housing.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her two for her strong case on behalf of veterans. We too agree that those who have served in His Majesty's Armed Forces should be prioritised in social housing allocation processes, and she is right to highlight the needs of those with potential disabilities arising from their time serving uniform. And I recall when I first became a councillor, one of the first cases I dealt with was a military family who literally fell between the cracks of the regulation and the allocation.

And I was very pleased. And this was before the Armed Forces Covenant that we were able to change council policy in order to have much greater flexibility, and that family were housed to great benefit. I'd also raise the issue of disabilities. I am very conscious that we do not have enough good quality social housing with the right for for people with high and complex disability needs. And it is interesting. And one of the points I made earlier in the debate about Right to Buy is actually that does provide the resources to look at new housing, and that might more reflect, and I will certainly give the example of Central Bedfordshire, where we were using right to buy receipts to develop specialist housing.

The noble Baroness, the Minister, knows we were doing that for older people's housing, but we also did that for disabilities. And, you know, it was an absolute delight when you went to go and see families who for the first time I know one person who was restrained in in a sorry, constrained in a wheelchair and had very little movement. And his comment was, this is the first time I've ever been able to open the front door of my own home, because he had one of those little infrared buzzers.

So it can be transformational. I do think we we need to look at that. I think we're also in agreement with these. Those previous amendments reflect that there is a need to look at prioritisation, whether it's for offenders or military or other groups. And I want to come on to the fact that that's why we have some of our amendments in this group. You know, we can all say the solution is more social homes, but we need to recognise that for the moment, demand massively outstrips supply and therefore there will be difficult choices made.

And for every family or person who gets a social home, there will be many and often many, many who will miss out, all with good and deserving cases. And what we're suggesting is that there needs to be an open and honest discussion on prioritisation. As my noble friend Lord Jackson said, and I should thank him for his eloquent support, both for my amendments and also for the other amendments in the group raised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where else do non-citizens get priority? So why shouldn't UK citizens have a higher priority? Why shouldn't a UK military Why shouldn't a UK military personnel get a higher priority than a non UK citizen? This is a than a non UK citizen? This is a debate that I believe we need to debate that I believe we need to have. With that I shall beg to remove my withdrawal. Thank you. Withdraw my amendment. Thank you.
19:51
19:52
19:53
None Portrait Amendment:76 Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-

neighbourhoods that are well-designed and capable of supporting long term community supporting long term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of this amendment is to probe whether existing guidance is sufficient. Whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector. The importance of this issue has been importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years. Following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences of basic maintenance.

Problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Iowa's law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and the expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is simply not about the condition of a property when it is first built. It's also about how that property is maintained over the many years of occupation. Good maintenance protects tenants, preserves housing stock and reduces costs in the long term. And I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond regarding his amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I move the amendment. Amendment proposed after clause 16. Insert the following new clause. 16. Insert the following new clause. Standards relating to maintenance of social housing as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 100 and the other
19:54
19:54
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
equality duty, but it's clear that in social housing, as in so many in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least in this communities, not least in this instance when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations. My Lords, in amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusive by design standard set out on the face of the bill, though appearing duplicative at first instance.

Because of the previous legislation I've referred to, I believe it would be additive. It would be clarifying, and it would be enabling and empowering not just for the disabled people, but by nature of being inclusive, by design for all people. And through that clarity, enabling and empowering the local authority for the landlords who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country, and inclusive by design, standard would be something to rally around a gleaming light which could focus attention and deliver, yes, for disabled people, but for all people far more than what the current legislation specific to a equalities achieves.

In amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting an accessibility and adaptive housing standards. I know there are standards which exist in this area currently, but to have something which brings together accessibility and adaptive housing in a clear statutory statement on the face of the bill, would be so empowering for all the people, not least those who are trying to do their best to deliver on this provision. The amendment suggests a register which would set out clearly the list of adaptive and accessible housing countrywide.

I know the Minister will consider this to be centralisation, but I believe it will be empowering to all local authorities and in a sense, it's something that any other organisation and business would do. It's nothing more than having an asset register a clear, up to date, real time set of registers of what the provision is, and it would be enabling, not least to local authorities, to have clarity as to what might be available just across the way in a neighbouring authority.

I know local authorities and landlords work incredibly hard with adjacent authorities and neighbouring organisations, but to have this provision in real time available to them would be so assistive in that process, and because of new technologies, it would neither need to be expensive, bureaucratic or burdensome. In fact, with some neat coding, it could very much take care of itself. Once established. Similarly, on my amendment around accessibility of digital, it's right that local authorities and landlords seek to use digital means wherever they can.

But it's critical that all of those digital means are accessible to all in our local communities. And indeed, the alternative means are always and also available. My Lords, I don't believe that these amendments are duplicative, because what is more significant than housing, the safety, the security of having somewhere where you can go and when you close your front door and you can say, this is me, this is us. Well, that provision, that safety, that security should be available and accessible to everybody across our communities, not least for disabled people.

It can't be right that just by dint of being disabled person, for lack of accessible and adaptable accommodation, you have a longer wait on a list than a non-disabled person. I believe these amendments would be assisted in that process. I look forward to the Minister's response.
20:00
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I speak to amendment 85 in my name, and I respond to the other amendments in this group on other amendments in this group on behalf of these benches, which collectively address design and accessibility of social housing. I am grateful to the other noble Lords for their amendments in what is an important and interesting group. Turning first to my amendment 85 at Second Reading, I said I was concerned not so much by what was in the bill, but what was conspicuously absent.

Our climate is changing faster than our policies. The Climate Change Committee's recent. A well adapted UK report warns that 92% of existing homes are likely to overheat by 2050. This is not a fringe projection, but the central estimate of what is the best advice available to parliament. Social housing tenants, disproportionately elderly, often disabled and often living with chronic illness are some of the most living in urban flats that heat quickly, and in Maine cannot afford air conditioning or to escape the urban heat island effect.

We are, in short, debating the homes of those most at risk of dying or suffering from extreme heat under a warming from extreme heat under a warming planet. The UK HSA estimated that 2803 excess deaths among people aged 65 and over in England during the summer of 2022 alone, without action. Heat related deaths could increase 16 fold from around 1600 a year today to ten some 10,000 a year by the 2050s. My amendment therefore, creates a power requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations ensuring that all new social housing in England is designed and constructed to reduce the risk of overheating.

It specify that those. It specifies that those regulations must address ventilation, shading and solar control, and that thermal performance of the building fabric. Critically, the regulations must secure at least equivalent protections to that already required for new residential buildings. Under the Building Regulations 2010, and they are subject to affirmative procedures so that Parliament retains proper oversight. The government will point to part O of the building regulations, and I do acknowledge this, but part O is a design flaw, not a statutory duty tied to a social housing programme.

It carries no enhanced standard for vulnerable people who disproportionately occupy social housing, and it lacks the weight of primary legislation. The Warm Homes plan is genuinely welcome, but it is. But its passive cooling commitments remain aspirations rather than duties. A simple provision in this Bill will cost a fraction of the retrofitting that will be needed. If we fail to act at the design stage. Every home built today without these standards is a home that will need costly remediation later on.

I recognise that this bill is tightly drafted, but these matters are critical, and I look forward to the Minister's response to them today. Turning to the other amendments in this group on amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness O'Neill of Bexley and the noble Lord Lord Jamieson regarding maintenance standards. We are supportive of the intention and we certainly recognise the need. However, our only question on this is really about the language of the amendment itself. The requirement for registered providers merely to have regard to.

In guidance, we would argue, needs to be strengthened. Given that some 2 million people in England currently live in homes with significant damp and mould. This should be an enforceable standard, not merely guidance. My Lords, turning to amendment 96 in the name of Baroness Young of Old Scone, I would like to formally speak and move her amendment as she is unable to be in committee today. We support this amendment. It's an important amendment. It calls for the Secretary of State by regulations, to make provision requiring that new social housing developments mandate a minimum level of urban tree canopy cover to sufficiently address the environmental, health and climate inequalities.

My Lords, this is a really important amendment and we support it. It benefits. Its benefits are multiple and directly relevant to the wider debate today. Trees cool urban environments reduce urban heat. Island effect. Provide precisely the kind of passive, low cost climate adaption that complements the overheating protections in my own amendment. They improve mental and physical health, health, reduce surface water flooding, and address the profound environmental injustice that means that tree poor neighbourhoods are overwhelmingly also poor neighbourhoods.

The noble Baroness amendment is carefully drafted. It requires regulations on minimum levels of tree planting, climate resilience, access to green infrastructure within reasonable walking distance and critically long term maintenance, including replacement, and we are pleased to support it on amendment 100, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Holmes of Richmond on Inclusion by Design. We are also supportive and I thank the noble Lord for the way he introduced his amendment. The principle that social housing services, allocation systems and digital tools should be designed from the outset to be accessible and equitable is one that we strongly endorse.

However, I once again wonder whether just have regard to is sufficient on amendment 102. Also in the name of noble Lord Lord Holmes of Richmond on accessible and adaptive housing design standards. We are also supportive of mandated standard, a national register of accessible properties and requirements on local housing authorities to use that register in allocations decisions is exactly the kind of system that we really need. Finally, on amendments 117 C and 119 B, again in the name of noble Lord Holmes of Richmond on digital accessible standards, we again supportive in principle.

With that I we each amendment in this group ask Parliament to do something straightforward to build homes that are safe, accessible, green and fit for the future we know is coming.
20:07
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I will start by >> My Lords, I will start by responding to amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill by the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill and Lord Jamieson. I'm pleased to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the government has already published guidance for social landlords on time frames for repairs in the social rented sector, covering the first phase of Awaabs law that came into force on the 27th of October 2025, and this guidance includes information in relation to damp and mould hazards.

This will be updated to include other hazards ahead of further phases of Awaabs law coming into force. Guidance on implementing the revised Decent Homes standards will also be published shortly, and this will include further information about meeting a new damper mould. Standard guidance on electrical safety was published on in November 2025, and we have also produced guidance that covers the operation and enforcement of the housing, health and safety rating system, and that guidance will be published this summer. Finally, the Housing Ombudsman's Complaints Handling Code sets out best practice that landlords are expected to follow to handle resident complaints effectively.

And for these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are reassured that work is underway to address each of the issues in their amendment, and that they are content to withdraw it. Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Lord Russell. I would point out to him that he knew I was going to mention, and I am part I of schedule one to the building regulations requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. Protecting everyone, including the most vulnerable, the elderly and the very young.

These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation, regardless of their tenure type. And he made an important point on that. But I think it's clear that building regs apply across tenures to create a separate, additional regulatory standard. Applying on top of this is likely to add unhelpful duplication and complexity to the design and delivery of new social homes. And therefore, the government cannot support this amendment. And I would kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw.

My Lords, I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in relation to accessibility. Firstly, amendment 100, which would introduce a new statutory inclusion by design principle. Tenants, of course, must be at the heart of our social housing system, and to achieve this, landlords must actively engage with tenants and provide a range of opportunities for them to influence and scrutinise decisions to support the accessibility of services for all. Firstly, I would note that all social landlords are already subject to existing duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the Public Sector Equality Duty where it applies.

In addition, the Social Housing Regulatory framework already places clear expectations on registered providers that their services must be inclusive for all tenants. The regulator's Transparency and Accountability Standard specifies that registered providers must take action to deliver fair access to, and equitable outcomes of housing and landlord services for all tenants. They must also provide accessible support that meets the diverse needs of tenants. And the concern with this amendment is that it would create a broad new statutory duty across the whole act, without clearly defining how it would interact with these existing equality, regulatory and housing duties that risk duplication and uncertainty, as well as additional administrative burden, without necessarily improving outcomes for tenants.

We do not think it is necessary to require guidance to be published and reviewed on a fixed statutory timetable. Formal work has already begun to evaluate the effectiveness of the new regulatory regime by 2028, to make sure it's delivering the improvements needed to fundamentally shift how residents are treated and create a transparent and trustworthy system with residents views and needs. At its heart, I am responsible for working with the social housing regulator as part of my ministerial responsibilities, and I've spoken to them specifically around these issues of tenant engagement, so I do take it very seriously.

For those reasons, I don't believe the amendment is needed, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 102, the government believes that everyone should be able to live in a home that's suitable for their needs, and building regulations are already in place, specifying the standards to which new or materially refurbished homes must adhere. Regarding accessibility, the existing M4 one standard is the default, ensuring reasonable provision for access and use of a dwelling and its facilities.

The enhanced optional M4 two standard relates to housing meeting the different needs of occupants, including disabled individuals, and allowing adaptation to meet the changing needs of occupation occupants over time. The M4 three standard relates to requirements for wheelchair users, where provision must be made to allow simple adaptation of the dwelling for the needs of wheelchair users. These regulations and the statutory guidance accompanying them already apply to new or refurbished new building or refurbished building work. And I had a meeting with Minister Kinnock from the Department of Health and Social Care to consider what further we need to do in relation to this.

We proposed to go even further, and the government has recently consulted on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework that will require local plans to set out the proportion of new M4a2 and m4a3 housing that must be delivered on new developments in order to meet or exceed identified needs. And in relation to M4 two, we've proposed to make it clear these requirements should never be lower than 40%. Regarding the provision of accessible housing register, we will be considering this further in updating the allocations guidance.

I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, but we believe our existing building regulations will help ensure accessibility of new and materially refurbished homes and any new standard risk duplication for homes and households that require heightened adaptations. Local authorities are best placed to understand and cater for the needs of people in their local area. Therefore, we cannot support this amendment. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Holmes for amendments 117 C and 119 B. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that services are accessible, inclusive and easy to use, and the government is clear that tenants should be able to engage with their landlords through channels that meet their needs.

To this end, we are. There are already well established accessibility requirements, including existing standards and legal duties which apply to digital services and ensure providers consider accessibility as part of service design. The regulator's consumer standards require registered providers to ensure communication with and information for tenants is clear, accessible and appropriate to the diverse needs of tenants and that landlord services are accessible. This includes supporting tenants to use online online landlord services if required. Mandating new requirements in primary legislation risk duplicating or cutting across these existing standards and practices.

In some, the government's view is that these types of issues are better addressed through guidance, regulation and continuous improvement, rather than through a fixed statutory framework. Turning to amendment 119 B, government cannot support the linking of the commencement of the act to the introduction of these regulations. While accessibility is a critical consideration, it should not act as a pre-condition that delays implementation of the wider reforms in the Bill. And for those reasons, while I share the noble Lords commitment to accessible and inclusive services, the government is unable to support his amendments and I respectfully ask that they are withdrawn.
20:15
20:16
20:16
None Portrait Amendment:79 Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-

79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern. of Bexley. These amendments concern. Sorry, just to put the light on. Yeah that's better. I can see these amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, and in particular, the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.

Now, while the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation. In practice, it's not only that the system can be difficult to navigate with inconsistency between providers, but that the risks and cost splits between the shared equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership now that that may be management fees, it may be lease fees and so forth, tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord.

And yet when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value. And the equity, the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sales cost, yet may only be receiving 25 or 35% of the sales proceeds, as we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs, rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats, but we're talking about affordable housing.

People who do not have much money and they can't afford to pay a sudden lump of money, and some landlords raise additional charges, additional administrative charges. And also when looking at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when looking to buy and sell. And one needs to recognise that these people are often in chains, and that response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale. Right now, many people are aiming for 100% ownership through Staircasing face too many obstacles.

For example, in designated protected areas, you may only be able to buy up to 80%. My Lords, we have got to start shifting the balance here. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a hand out. The people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder, in their communities, and for the security of their future and their families. We need to change that balance that the the equity shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.

Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of amendment is to understand the government's ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead, and if so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness? Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes, and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier.

We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charge, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats, before expanding the model further. It's important we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed, amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template. Shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers, and the differences in legal documentation.

Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model. These are probing amendments that are intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home owners own home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response and move the amendment. Amendment proposed after clause 16 insert the new clause set out on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

16 insert the new clause set out on the Marshalled List. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I have been very briefly on this
20:22
20:22
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
her for agreeing to amend the Renters Rights Act to reflect that. But that did indicate how the law But that did indicate how the law on conventional tenures like owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy find it difficult to accommodate find it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three. I welcome combination of all three. I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the ten year guarantee against certain costs, but I think the review, as proposed in 105, should take as its starting point.

Recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the CLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership and also the findings of the Housing Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership. The Nao found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise couldn't. However, they said the scheme is complex. Many buyers do not fully understand its long term costs and risks. Affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers.

And while recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the Nao concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain. The CLG report was actually more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made Staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all of those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. They found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable, and many shared owners never reach full ownership. And they questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.

And then we have the Ombudsman complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, judging from 3 to 4 cases in 2020 to 1564 complaints recently. And this sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling. And the Ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restored defects such as cladding or fire safety issues, after their raised and then on the sales process, he found that incorrect charges at the point of moving in.

Miscommunication regarding Staircasing, buying larger shares of the property, and general delays from solicitors. And he summed up the problem as saying that there is a mismatch between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord, and he concluded that the government should address the fundamental inequity in the way in which shared ownership is designed, a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson. So building, bringing all that together may explain explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, where the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate frequently below 30%.

So any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council Shared Ownership resources, who have produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and have first hand evidence of existing pinch points. So, my Lords, I very much hope the government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the tenant and the landlord.
20:26
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I. >> Support the noble. >> My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and also the sense of amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in social shared ownership. All the costs are but only half the uplift. If there is one, and especially the risks are with some very large, unexpected, unexpected expected costs in which the noble Lord Lord Kirkham has raised. And I don't intend to repeat.

But there's 100% of the costs, but only half the capital. This has been sold to people who, one might say without patronising, are less financially sophisticated as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs, on the whole, would be less than the rent they're paying on the half. It isn't necessarily low cost at all, one might suggest. Go as far as to suggest there has been a degree of mis selling here, so I support 105 106 that does call for a review.

We can't carry on as we are, and my experience in my council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down and down very low take ups. Now, possibly it's a a ten year whose time has passed, but the review could reinvigorate it. And there is a case for low cost housing for people to establish, build capital in their society. And here's the opportunity to try with this review, which I support entirely, to get it back on, on, on the track.
20:28
20:29
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, for amendments on shared ownership and amendments on shared ownership and the noble Lord Jamieson for moving them. Of course, shared ownership has an important role to play in supporting households into home ownership who would otherwise struggle to purchase a suitable property. We had extensive debates on this during the Renters Rights bill and I like Baroness Thornhill. I'm grateful to the noble Lord John for his work on this, and that's why we've committed to continue supporting the delivery of shared ownership via the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes programme.

Through the launch of the programme, we've introduced new measures to support the delivery of shared ownership and to set clear expectations for providers to improve the customer experience that we've heard about. This evening. I did the noble Lord young mentioned Staircasing and I did just sorry. It was noble Lord Jamieson that mentioned Staircasing. I did just want to say that importantly, full ownership is not the only measure of success. Many shared owners do benefit from the stability, security, and control of owning a stake in their home, even if they don't eventually.

Staircase to 100%. And we recognise that staircasing can be complex and costly, which is why the shared ownership model was reformed to introduce greater flexibility, including smaller staircasing increments. And we continue to consider what more can be done to improve the staircasing process and the customer experience. And with. As with the whole scheme, we keep it under review. While a shared ownership strategy or formal review may appear complementary, we do not consider either necessary. Both of those would risk duplicating work already underway and, in the case of a formal review, could be disrupted to a well established and widely understood scheme.

Turning to amendment 106, which seeks to model a model shared ownership agreement. I don't believe this amendment is necessary simply because shared ownership model leases are already available. The model leases contain fundamental clauses which govern how shared ownership operates, including in respect of the provisions outlined by the noble Lord. Shared ownership providers offering properties that are grant funded must use a lease containing these fundamental clauses, and it's expected that properties delivered via section 106 agreements also do so.

In addition, shared ownership providers are also required to adhere to guidance regarding the provisions raised as a condition of receiving grant funding, and therefore, for those reasons, I would ask the noble, noble Lord to withdraw the amendments.
20:32
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords who have >> Can I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate? As ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, for his vast knowledge and also the amount of work that he has done on that. I also appreciate Baroness Thornhill, who has also raised it many times. So I think there is universal acceptance on this side of the House that something needs to be done, and it is a little bit more fundamental than looking at the customer experience, which, if I may say so, feels a little bit of a a marketing glib throw away.

And I know the noble Baroness, the Minister doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean it is that the purpose of these amendments has been to explore whether the current arrangements are delivering. And quite clearly, we have the National Audit Office and so forth saying they are not delivering. I don't think that we can just be satisfied with a. We are looking at it. I think this needs a fundamental review. The Baroness. The Minister said it's a widely understood scheme. I think conceptually it's widely understood.

But the consequences of being a shared owner, particularly where it is in a flat I do not think are widely understood, and the potential financial ramifications of where the risk lies and the risk sharing between the equity owner and the landlord is not appreciated. And I think many of the complaints that we have seen out of this is because people didn't understand what they were letting themselves in for, particularly for flats. So I really would press that the Minister think again between now and Report stage, and look at how we can formally come up with a thorough review that looks at all aspects of this.

I'd be interested to understand a bit more about what the Minister says about model clauses. There's something quite different between some model clauses and a a thorough template. So I like to take up on the Minister discussions of this, because I do think this is an area where we need to make some significant improvements, because it is a real opportunity, when done right, to get people on the housing ladder, particularly, as Baroness Thornhill said, in more expensive areas who otherwise may not have that opportunity.

But that is only going to work if we have a scheme that works with that. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
20:34
20:35
20:36
None Portrait Amendment:89 Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-

and supported living units. In the whole plan. It was about 10% of the whole plan. It was about 10% of the total housing need. It's an important issue, but not one you'd gather from this bill because at gather from this bill because at Second Reading I explained how councils might install an adaptation so that a resident with adaptation so that a resident with an impairment can live comfortably. I explained it might be a grab rail or a ramp in one case.

In my own council, we spent £75,000 on a complete extension that was required to enable that family to live decently. Now, in preparation for this debate, and in pursuance of that simple truth, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council, and he tells me that about half the improvements relate to wet rooms. And that's important because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission amongst the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there isn't just about dignity, it keeps our hospital wards clean and half the wet room.

Adaptations are also combined with wider doors so that somebody in a wheelchair can shower hygienically and together, cleaning and better access represent half the improvements for disabled facilities, grants and aids and adaptations. Now, other examples might be a kitchen with low level worktops, again suitable for wheelchair use, and typically it takes between 6 and 9 months to deliver an adaptation directionally 2 to 3 months for the assessment and the report by the occupational therapist. Then a couple of months for the specification contracting, and then the construction itself.

Now, in my experience and our district council, we delivered about 150 such projects a year at an average cost of about 10,000 each. Now, one of my best interventions, I would say, as a councillor, was to ensure that a widow who lived in Mill Road, seething, was able to keep herself clean by expediting the process of creating a wetroom in her social home. Now I feel I've laboured the point. But I tell this story with pride because the simple truth is we just don't have enough of these adapted homes, and that's why the state invests in them.

Mhclg distributes yearly funding over £720 million to local authorities and some councils, like my own and other rsls, top up that allocation still further, I ensure that we ensure that we reinvested all the profits from our trading activities to top up that money. So in total it adds to about £1 billion a year. It's a large chunk of change, ensuring people of all abilities can have a home they can get into and on with, maintaining personal pride and hygiene. So here's the problem my amendment seeks to remedy when, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised.

No credit can be given for those expensive and hard won adaptations when a new family moves in. So a new tenant can ask for them to be removed. And they do. It's crazy. It's a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes. It's bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer who funds the work twice, once to put it in and another to take it out. And I recall one example where we built a brand new, accessible home built with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for a wheelchair bound resident.

As it happened, the first tenant was really tall, and by and by he tired of bending down to move the pots and pans around the hob. And so the council was obliged by law to rip out that kitchen and put in a normal one. Oh dear, that's absurd. It should have been let to a wheelchair user in the first place. So I asked the Minister directly, where are the provisions in this bill to protect the supply and investments in adapted homes for the ageing population and.

And why can't we offer rights of first refusal to those who need to help them clean, keep themselves clean down there? I've heard it said, well, this is an allocations issue and we're not going there in this limited bill. Now, I profoundly disagree with that, and this is why I ask for this debate to be grouped so we could have the importance it deserves without being clouded by other issues, because my amendment is about protecting the adapted stock. It's about protecting £1 billion investment, a significant sum that shouldn't be lightly discarded.

It's about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. So I don't see this as an allocations issue in the sense that preference should be given to an individual veteran or a certain type of local person. This is about protecting the pool of adapted homes, not least because we're all getting older. It's about ensuring that the wider cohort who care in impairment have a sufficient protected stock of them to have a go at whether they get preference to make the best of their lives and to make their disabilities more bearable.

And if the state can't recognise that, what's it for? And casually dismissing this as an allocations issue is wilful direction. So we must grab this sufficiency issue. Now we're at committee. I want to probe the matter more deeply between now and report. Unless we make some progress. I anticipate this is an issue upon which I will seek to divide the House at. Report on the grounds that this Bill aims to protect the social stock for those in need, and my amendment seeks to achieve precisely that.

I've said enough, but I want to give Kevin Philcox, my expert on the ground, who's been around a long time in this space. The final word he told me that amongst the dedicated housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country. It's on number one on the wish list, and that's quite a statement. So the opportunity to protect that billion pound a year investment and look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society is before us here and now.

And if we fail to take it, there's no one else to do it in our place as it is. There are no powers to protect these adaptations or to give those in people in need first refusal. And there should be, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 16. Insert the new clause on the Marshalled List. Protection for Marshalled List. Protection for adapted social housing. Question is
20:42
20:43
20:43
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Well, my Lords, we seem to have >> Well, my Lords, we seem to have wandered a long way this evening from the straightforward purpose of this bill to a just right to buy, to give confidence to local to give confidence to local authorities, to deliver social housing and protect domestic abuse victims. But anyway, I thank the noble Lord Fuller for bringing noble Lord Fuller for bringing forward his amendment. Now, I've probably been. He says he's disappointed. I've probably been disappointing the noble Lord Fuller for most of the last 15 or so years that we've known each other, so I'm I'm just carrying on in that vein.

I'm afraid we recognise how important home adaptations are in enabling disabled people to live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. Disabled facilities funding helps adapt over 55,000 homes annually with people and their families to live independently and reducing demand for health and social care support. It's also important that local authorities make the best use of the homes they have available, particularly at any adapted properties. My Lords local authority local housing authorities are already free to set their own social housing allocation schemes in accordance with the legislation and statutory guidance, and they'll take different approaches to make the best use of accessible accommodation.

For some, this may be done by maintaining a separate register of those that need adapted housing, while others may choose to do this by integrating this information into their main housing register. But they already have the choice to do that. Government funds and organisation to act as the national Body for Disabled Facilities Grant, and the national body, provides support and guidance to local authorities on the efficient delivery of the grant, and that includes guidance on working with housing associations to make the best use of already adapted stock through adapted housing registers.

We agree with the importance of local authorities seeking to make best use of those properties, and we will explore and address through our update to statutory guidance on allocations. My Lords, this amendment also seeks to subject all subsequent regulations under this act to additional parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. We consider this disproportionate and unnecessary use of parliamentary time. I hope I've explained that what local authorities are already doing, and with that, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
20:45
20:46
None Portrait Amendment:90 Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-

as part of a much larger RSL headquartered in Gloucestershire. Now, I mentioned it at Second Reading and since then they've reached out to me to explain. They do actually have a local team to manage these properties, and that's reassuring. But the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Truth remains that the shots are called from miles away. It's a close at home example of the way in close at home example of the way in which the RSL landscape has consolidated, and small rsls have bought up others, and then, in turn bought up others, and then, in turn been taken over by still further in the names of economies of scale. Now I can understand why this has. But scale hasn't been good for tenants. Tenant reps have been tenants.

Tenant reps have been excised from the landscape. There was a lack of local accountability with National Rsls populating their boards with the great and good from out of town. The consequence has been that a focus on local matters, such as anti-social behaviour, has been relegated to the subs bench, and I'm conscious that the football starts in a minute. At Second Reading, I suggested that this bill could be stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the government is on the side of law abiding residents, but it isn't, and that's one of the reasons it's prompted me to introduce amendment 90 to mandate that and other desirable traits, so that the social purpose of social providers is enshrined in law.

explained how there has been a consolidation of that space, but one of the reasons of liberalising certain financial powers in this bill, which I don't I don't oppose, will be that it drives financial engineering to new heights. It is the intended consequence of the bill. But the liberalisation must come with strings attached. It shouldn't be necessary, but it now has become necessary to state what the social purpose of Rsls is, not least because there's a £35 billion burning a hole in the government's pocket.

So our job, it seems to me, is to ensure there is conditionality attached to that largesse. And if rsls are to be flooded with cheap money and government underwriting in a way that Berkeley Homes, Norfolk Homes or Redrow Homes, others are available are not, in too many cases, rsls just don't grip the anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of neighbours. I know because I've seen it myself. Others look away when the criminality is committed. We have the nonsense of community gardens left ungrown and untidy.

In the name of no Mow May, which lasts all years. It's lazy and slovenly and it impacts the families miles away from the out of towners who sit on these boards. Now it's telling that in a briefing from the National Housing Federation in preparation for this bill, which explained they run more than 2.5 million homes and support for 6 million people living in 62% of all the social homes in England. There wasn't a single mention of social purpose, save to say they were driven by it without explaining what it means front and centre.

It certainly was not. And I know why this has happened, because candidly, amongst Rsls in particular, there's been far too great a focus on development and that's led to the loss of social purpose. The truth is that rsls have become overleveraged. They've been caught out by increases in build finance and land costs, and there's no financial space for the social purpose. And it's an omission that this bill should correct. So we're at committee. I've had a stab at defining what the social purpose could be.

It's duplicated in 110 as well. But for those organisations that want to take the government shilling in a way that isn't available to other private developers, we need to look at these strings. So strings attached. So my amendment would ensure the six key principles. I won't listen in the interest of time, but they're there in the amendment and regulations to codify these with success. Success factors would follow. My Lords, too many rsls have taken the wrong path. They've strayed from their original purpose.

They've lost sight of the social purpose, and instead they've been hooked on speculation and property development on the back of cheap government finance. So we need to bring them back on track. If you take the money, my amendment would provide the hair on the deal. It's not too much to ask if they want to take the cash in a way that isn't available to private operators. They need to take their social responsibilities seriously, and if they can't, well, they can go to Barclays or NatWest or Lloyds or any number of other banks, just like lenders.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And propose to clause 16. Insert the new clause. Social purpose of registered providers of social housing has set out on the Marshalled List. The question is
20:51
20:52
20:52
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
Grateful to noble Lords have contributed to this group. Amendment 90 in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lord Fuller seeks guidance on the social responsibilities and purposes of the social housing providers. As we argued in our amendment 108. We need to understand the other responsibilities providers have towards tenants and their and the boundaries that exist. My noble friend's amendment is very similar to our amendment 109, and it's clear that we are united in our priorities. But we can look at the drafting more closely ahead of the Report stage.

Community engagement brings me to amendment 103. In the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which proposes Tenant Board representation of at least one fifth, as well as mandatory tenant advisory panels for the co-design of allocation policies and a requirement to publish complaints data by protected characteristic. My Lords, we agree that tenant voices should be heard. Their dreams and aspirations for the places and communities in which they live. This is admirable and we welcome the intention behind this amendment.

Turning to the amendments in my name and my noble friend Lord Jameson. Amendment one 110 110 seeks a wider review of governance arrangements for social housing providers. This includes board composition, tenant representation, the role of elected councillors, but also their accountability to the local communities, scrutiny arrangements and performance information. This is crucial. Community engagement should not be a box ticking exercise or tokenistic, but should be rooted in existing democratic structures. Amendment 111 would enable local authorities to require senior Housing Association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings.

In my experience, I could always rely on my good relationships with the local. With the housing association representatives, but we realise this is not the case for everyone. Whilst we've argued for the independence of housing associations to be recognised, this should not prevent associations being held accountable to local elected representatives and for constructive conversations to be had. Amendment 112 would also require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including performance in relation to repairs, complaints, tackling anti-social behaviour, tenant satisfaction and void properties.

This is both useful for tenants as well as for local authorities and for the associations themselves to help focus on areas for improvement. Finally, amendment 115 would empower social housing tenants to request an inspection from the regulator of social housing. The Secretary of State could make regulations outlining the grounds on which this could be requested. How many tenants would be required to support such a request, and in what circumstances a request could be refused. We believe this is a balanced approach, but one that's tenant led.

We hope we can work together with noble Lords to finalise amendments for Report stage, and I'd be interested to hear the response to the noble Baroness, the Minister, to those amendments. Thank you.
20:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Well said. Well done. >> Well said. Well done. >> My Lords. This group of amendments concerns a range of mechanisms to strengthen tenant voice and engagement across the voice and engagement across the social housing sector. It is a bit odd, as the noble Lord Stoneham said, to be in this sort of said, to be in this sort of parallel universe of conservative benches, arguing for more regulation. I find that a bit strange, but matters relating to tenant voice and engagement are, of course, already central to the regulator of social housing's existing consumer standards.

The regulator's approach is proactive and outcomes based, setting clear standards that providers must deliver while allowing flexibility on how those outcomes are achieved. On this basis, my concern is that a number of these amendments would introduce new statutory requirements that would duplicate or cut across the existing regulatory framework, relating an unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and potential confusion for the sector, without materially improving outcomes for tenants or communities. The noble Lord Fuller amendment 90 and the noble Baroness O'Neill and Lord Jamieson amendment 109.

I would just make a brief comments on them. I'm not persuaded that the additional statutory guidance from the Secretary of State is necessary. Core elements of these amendments are only. Subsequent guidance are already central to the regulator's regulatory standards. The consumer standards require providers to deliver self safe and well managed homes, to engage with tenants, to take their views into account, to work with partners to tackle anti-social behaviour and support the wellbeing of the communities in which they operate. And I should also point out 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, and these can be used to amplify requirements.

Registered providers must deliver and the regulators exercise this power in 2024 in relation to consumer standards. The noble Lord Fuller amendment also raises the balance between the development of new supply and the social responsibilities of registered providers. I would if he hasn't been notified of this. On the 9th of June, the regulator published a discussion document titled More and Better Social Homes, which explores how the regulatory framework can be adapted to support the delivery of more and better social housing.

I hope the noble Lord is reassured. The objectives behind the amendments are already central to requirements placed on registered providers by the regulatory standards, and that he is content to withdraw the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill and the noble Lord Jamieson amendment 110 would. I do recognise the importance of governance underpinning effective services for tenants. However, I said the regulator already has a proactive role in assessing how far providers perform for their tenants, including through the regulation of consumer standards and routine inspections.

The areas identified in the amendment, including tenant voice, accountability, transparency and performance, are already core components of the framework. While on amendment one one sorry 111, tabled by Baroness O'Neill. While oversight of registered social housing providers is important, it would be disproportionate to require a senior officer of a registered social housing provider to attend a local authority's overview and scrutiny committee, but the government will keep this under review as part of the conversations we're having on local scrutiny committees.

Given their larger geographical footprint. It's important to establish scrutiny at the appropriate level and imposing a statutory duty at local authority level when a similar and more flexible function is being introduced at mayoral level is duplicative and maybe unnecessary. Amendment 112, also tabled by Baroness O'Neill. I do recognise the importance of landlords being transparent and accountable to their tenants in supporting tenant voice and accountability. To that end, registered providers are already required to publish information through the tenant satisfaction measures.

And these measures have been carefully designed to ensure tenants have the information they need to hold their landlords to account and to ensure consistency across the sector, while balancing the burden on landlords. In addition, private registered providers already submit data to the regulator through the annual statistical data return, and local authorities provide that information through the local authority housing statistics. However, we don't, so we don't consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate the publication of quarterly void performance metrics. This would introduce additional reporting burdens without any clear benefits to tenants.

Finally, amendment 115, tabled by Baroness O'Neill. I'm not persuaded this approach is necessary. Since 2024, the regulator has implemented a proactive consumer regulation regime, including routine inspections of large landlords and the introduction of consumer gradings mandating tenant triggered inspections. Risk cutting across this approach, potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher risk providers or issues, and undermining the regulator's ability to act independently. To excuse me, tenants have clear and established routes to escalate concerns through the internal complaints procedure to the Housing Ombudsman, and the Housing Ombudsman can then refer to the regulator, where they suspect an issue at the level of the landlord.

Given these reasons, I would kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
21:01
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the >> My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for drawing my attention to the guidance published on the 9th of guidance published on the 9th of June. I wasn't aware of it and I'll look at it closely. But the title was all about how do you deliver more houses? My amendment isn't about the numbers of houses, it's about the social behaviours because it isn't working at the moment. By following the money, we see that without strings, too many rsls are focusing too much on development and not enough on doing the right thing.

And of course, Lord Stoneham enumerated a number of things. I couldn't write them down fast enough, but customer focus, innovation and others were all there. But left alone, these things aren't happening, aren't happening. So I want a light touch. But ultimately I want to establish the principle of the deal. If the rsls want the cheap government money to expand their estates, there need to be strings attached and those strings go with the with a rededication of themselves to the social purpose, not focusing on financial engineering because that's not in tenant's best interests, but because what we are seeing on the ground is that when tenants do have genuine concerns, they're not being addressed promptly.

The estates aren't being well. Wellbeing isn't at the forefront of the mind, and that's not good for anybody. So if you want the money, you can you can have the hare on the deal. Otherwise go to Barclays. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
21:03
21:04
21:06
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-

>> My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Jackson. Sorry, not Jackson Jameson and the noble Baroness, lady O'Neill, for the amendments on O'Neill, for the amendments on powers contained in clause 17. I would note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded, and I quote, there is nothing in this bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House. I think that conclusion is an important context in relation to these amendments, starting with amendment 118. This is a standard, consequential power which is found in many bills and is limited to making a provision that's consequential on the act.

It cannot be used to introduce new policy. Its purpose is to ensure the legislation operates coherently once enacted, including by making any necessary technical changes to existing legislation. The bill already provides an important safeguard where regulations under clause 17 amend or repeal primary legislation, they are subject to the affirmative procedure, so both houses must actively approve them. Removing the power entirely could leave technical inconsistencies or gaps on the statute book and make implementation less effective, and it would mean even minor, consequential amendments to primary legislation would require further primary legislation.

And for those reasons, we consider the power necessary, proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. On amendment 119. The Bill already ensures enhanced scrutiny where regulations amend primary legislation, applying the affirmative procedure to all consequential regulations would be disproportionate. Additionally, the power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the act and is intended to be used only to ensure the effective implementation of the act and to maintain a coherent legislative framework. I believe the existing approach strikes the right balance. I hope the points I have made have provided some comfort to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I ask them to withdraw their amendments and come on, England.
21:08
21:08
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
proper scrutiny of Parliament. So we will continue to scrutinise the Bill to make sure that secondary Bill to make sure that secondary legislation, which do not make provision for an affirmative parliamentary procedure. This is to parliamentary procedure. This is to protect the balance of power and to ensure the noble Lords continue to have oversight over changes made after this bill becomes law. We'll after this bill becomes law. We'll also review Hansard, and I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, again, for her answers. Throughout this Committee stage, we've had an insight and worthwhile debate about this bill's provisions, and I look forward to working together with noble Lords ahead of the Report stage.

As we close the Report stage, I'd just like to reflect on our key concerns. Our focus should be on building more homes, not restricting opportunity. We believe Right to Buy not only provides an opportunity for families to own their own home, it also provides the resources to build more homes. This bill not only denies the opportunity for families to move on in life, it also risks tens of thousands more families languishing on council housing waiting lists. We've also sought amendments to make housing allocations fairer and more transparent, to address issues with shared ownership, and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure better performance of registered providers. I beg leave to withdraw our amendments. Well said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well said. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 119 Baroness O'Neill. Not not moved, not moved. The question is that clause 17 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that
21:09
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-

bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, on the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 18 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 19, amendment 119, a already debated Lord Holmes of Richmond not moved, and 119 be not moved. Amendment 120 already debated Baroness O'Neill not moved. Amendment one and amendment 121 not moved.

Amendment 122 already debated moved formally. Baroness Taylor the question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 123 already debated. Baroness O'Neill not moved. The question is that clause 19, as amended, stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 20 stand part of the Bill.

As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. That concludes the committee's proceedings on the Bill. committee's proceedings on the Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House will now resume. My Lords. The Committee of the whole House to which the Social Housing Bill to which the Social Housing Bill was committed, has gone through the same, and has directed me to report same, and has directed me to report it to your Lordships with amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it to your Lordships with amendment. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page