Social Housing Bill

Tuesday 27th October 2026

(began 1 week, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
09:25
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Move formally. Mr..
09:25
09:26
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Move formally.
09:26
09:26
09:26
09:26
09:28
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yes.
09:28
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. Before I speak to clause one, I'd like to put on record, once again my sincere thanks to my ministerial colleague, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for so ably shepherding the bill through its initial House of Lords stages. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank all those noble Lords who took part in debates on the Bill in the other place. It goes without saying that we did not agree with all of the arguments made, and we cannot accept the incorporation of clause 13 into the Bill for the reasons I'll detail in due course.

 But overall, the expert scrutiny and challenge provided by peers has helped improve the bill with a number of government amendments that we are bringing forward, arising directly from the issues raised and points made during Lords debate. Mr. Vickers, as you know, the Bill has three core objectives. First, to protect much needed social housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes. Secondly, to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protection for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. And thirdly, to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence at the heart of the bill.

 Our comprehensive reforms to the Right to Buy scheme, designed to put it on a fair and sustainable footing for the future, informed by the feedback that we received in the public consultation that ran from November 20th, 2024 to January 2025. These reforms are set out in clauses 1 to 10 of the Bill. So let me now turn to the first of them. Mr. Vickers, over 2 million tenants have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980. However, as we all know, many of the homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced.

 Depleting social housing stock . There is now insufficient supply of good quality social housing to meet demand, with over 1.3 million households on the social housing waiting list and almost 180,000 children living homeless in temporary accommodation. The Right to buy scheme has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build. New homes can be sold before the council can recover its investment. While we respect those who believe that it should be abolished outright, the government's position remains that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years, should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount.

 However, as I argued in the opening debate on the bill's second reading, there is a pressing need to radically reform the right to buy in order to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition government in 2012, to incentivise councils to once again build at scale and to attract broader investment in council housing. As things stand, Mr. Vickers, to qualify for the right to buy an individual must be a secure tenant and have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant, i.e. someone whose landlord is a public body, usually a council or a housing association.

 The three years do not have to have been continuous, and an individual can add together any time they spent as a public sector tenant. They are also able to count any period when their husband, wife or civil partner was a public sector tenant and two until 2014. The minimum eligibility requirement was five, not three years. The main rationale given at the time for reducing the qualifying period by two years was explicitly to drive an increase in the take up of Right to Buy, and the decision was taken in the full knowledge that a tenant occupying a property for three years is extremely unlikely to have paid rent.

That equates to the available discount. The government believes a more sustainable balance must be struck to support councils to rebuild their stock of homes. Clause one, therefore amends section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 to increase the minimum eligibility requirement from 3 to 10 years as under the existing law, a combination of present and previous tenancies will continue to count towards the qualifying period. Increasing the minimum eligibility period in this way has received strong support from stakeholders in our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of respondents, including 62% of tenants who responded, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least ten years.

 In fact, the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than ten years before becoming eligible for the right to buy. The government believes that ten years strikes the right balance between allowing long standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting much needed social housing stock. Ten years is also, incidentally, the average length of a tenancy of someone buying under the scheme. Currently, this is a targeted change, Mr. Vickers, which will maintain access to the right to buy for long standing tenants, but in a way that provides for a fairer and more sustainable scheme and better supports the long term supply of social housing.
09:32
09:32
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

With you in the chair. I rise to support this clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important, significant clause in the Bill in constraining the exercise of the selling off of council houses. And it's concerning that the conservatives have put down an amendment that would reverse, essentially, the the proposition in this clause, with 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list, 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. We've lost we've lost 2 million net losses of of social homes since the introduction of Right to Buy.

 If that does not show that you cannot fill the bath, the blood taken out and nothing does. So we stand squarely in support of this clause. We would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend rights by completely ending rights by. So if that's right for their area, so that they can rebuild the stock that they need in terms of council housing and social rent homes. Thank you very much, Mr. Vickers. I echo the minister's welcome. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr. Vickers. This bill fails the British people.

 It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. And most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home, a point completely missed by the government and by the Liberal Democrats. The opportunity we have to scrutinise this bill line by line over the next three days is therefore of critical importance to defending aspiration and refocusing debate towards the delivery of new homes. Mr. Vickers, I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57, and amendments 84 and 85 have been tabled in my name with regards to new clause 55.

 In the past, conservative government backed schemes like Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, helping around 1,000,001st time buyers to get onto the housing ladder. This contributed to the 800,000 people who bought their first homes under the last government since 2024. However, the government has not shown that it has the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that have turbocharged first time buyers getting onto the housing ladder. Even when the government tries to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that not all that glitters is gold.

 I am primarily referencing the Your First Homes scheme, a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people deserve better than this, especially young people in social housing, and that's why we've tabled. Certainly.
09:35
09:35
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you. I think it rather depends on the detail, Mr. Vickers, but if the income caps that we are hearing about in the press are even remotely accurate, then you can rule out the whole of Greater London and the whole of the south east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. So that will be yet another example of the government pretending to do something without actually doing it. We await the detail on that. Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is an exercise in capitalistic greed. It's a hand up onto the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property.

 A new clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it's critical that more is done to help young people buy their first home. They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation. And yet the government's answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe this is fundamentally wrong approach, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55. With regards to clause 57, clause one, in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard working residents from owning their own homes, but also prevents current tenants from doing so.

 This is a retrospective change that the opposition is completely against. This government has shown time and time again that it has no regard for the property rights of individuals, the same socialistic focus that has seen the government target landlords, freeholders and renters now turns its gaze towards residents in social homes. The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up onto the property ladder, and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through. Right to buy.
09:37
09:37
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Yeah.
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:41
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Lewis.
09:41
09:41
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Absolutely right.
09:41
09:42
09:42
09:43
09:43
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
09:43
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Well, I think I understand the point the honourable gentleman is making, but I'm afraid I just respectfully disagree. It is a problem that local authorities up and down the country build new social homes, and then after three years, they can be purchased. That is leading to an unsustainable outflow of social housing stock from the system, a net. You know, we are not net positive on social homes. We haven't been over many years over this government. This bill will ensure that we are. And that is the incentive that it gives to councils to build. Knowing that you are building more than you're losing, and therefore that 1.3 million people on waiting lists is not going to increase.

It's going to decrease over time. Mr. Vickers, I really must turn to the response to the specific amendments that the honourable gentleman spoke to. I'll turn first to New Clause 57. This would exempt existing secure tenants from the new ten year minimum qualifying period introduced by the Bill. A core aim of the bill, as I've said, is to better protect social housing stock and ensure more social homes are built than lost. Excluding existing tenancies from the changes to eligibility rules would mean that the vast majority of tenants would be unaffected by our qualifying period reforms.

 I've no doubt that's the honourable gentleman's intention, but as a result, we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy is secured. This would, as I've said, enable the continued loss of significant amounts of social housing stock and that is not this government's aim. It is not the aim of this Bill and for that reason, the government cannot accept the amendment and I hope the shadow minister will consider withdrawing it. Turning to new clause 55, this would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to promote awareness of the right to buy scheme among people aged 16 to 25, within 12 months of Royal assent.

 The government does not consider that a statutory strategy targeted at everyone aged 16 to 25 is either necessary or proportionate. Many people aged 16 to 25 will not be secure tenants, or will not have accrued the necessary years as a secure tenant to be eligible for the right to buy. A statutory campaign aimed at that age group would be poorly targeted and could create confusion or raise false expectations for tenants that are eligible. Mr. Vickers, I point honourable members to our existing Your Right to Buy Your Home guide, which is accessible on gov.uk to all tenants, irrespective of age.

 This provides a comprehensive guidance on the right to buy scheme, including on the costs of home ownership, and the guidance will obviously be fully updated in light of the bill's reforms. Tenants can obviously also speak to their social landlord about the scheme and how it might apply to them. The guidance includes information on how to access the money and pension service, which provides free, impartial advice to help people make informed choices about managing their money. And this service is accessible to young people as we do not wish to duplicate any existing guidance. The government cannot accept this amendment.

 Again, respectfully ask the honourable member to withdraw it. And finally, turning to amendments 84 and 85, which seek to delay commencement of clause one of the Bill by three years. The government is firmly of the view that it is imperative that we increase the minimum eligibility requirement for the right to buy scheme as soon as is practicable, to ensure that councils are not losing homes at an unsustainable rate. As such, we intend to commence clause one of the Bill on Royal Assent. This will ensure that we act quickly to protect social housing stock and that we prevent a potential spike in sales as a result of these changes, allowing a three year lead in time for clause one of the Bill would only increase the loss of social homes.

 And again, while I'm in no doubt that's precisely what the member of Orpington intends in tabling this amendment, I trust you'll understand why the government cannot accept them and I respectfully ask him to withdraw.
09:47
09:47
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Pickles. Clauses two and three of the bill tighten the eligibility criteria for right to buy further to ensure that the scheme is fair and well targeted. Clause two prevents existing residential property owners from exercising the right to buy, which we believe is a reasonable and rational approach. We set out what we think is an appropriate definition of a residential property owner. In this clause, the clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured with the expectations for short term leases under 21 years, as will joint ownership and any properties owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad.

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

 Vickers prevents those who have previously exercised the right to buy from doing so again, with exceptions in place for cases of domestic abuse and irretrievable relationship breakdown. Hope honourable members will agree that repeat purchases would undermine the objectives of the Right to Buy scheme. It would lead to more social housing stock being lost than those that have already benefited from the scheme, from a publicly funded discount to buy their own home. During our consultation on reforming the right to Buy, 91% of respondents stated that they would support preventing someone who was either previously benefited from the right to buy or owns another property from being able to access the scheme.

 The terms of the referenced exceptions are set out in the clause and will be reinforced by updated guidance. When the act comes into force, it will be Mr. Vickers for social landlords to be satisfied that the expectations apply, for which they will be able to ask for evidence. As I've said from the applicant as part of the application process, this is something obviously councils are already well practiced at doing as under the current rules, those who have previously exercised the right to buy have their discount reduced if they seek to exercise the right to buy again.

 In closing, Mr. Vickers, we think clause is two and three are fair and proportionate, designed to appropriately restrict access to the right to buy scheme, and I commend them to the committee.
09:50
09:50
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. Clause four of the bill concerns the statutory periods that local authorities have to consider applications under the right to buy. The clause amends sections 124 and 125 of the Housing Act 1985. By extending the periods within which landlords must serve notices either admitting or denying a tenant's eligibility for the right to buy that section 124, and setting out the purchase price and other required information that is section 125. The period under section 124 will be extended from 4 to 8 weeks, where the tenant has been a tenant of the same landlord for the qualifying period and from 8 to 12 weeks.

 In any other case, the period under section 125 will be extended from 8 to 12 weeks for freehold properties and from 12 to 16 weeks for leasehold properties. The revised statutory periods are intended to provide additional flexibility where applications raise complexity, for example in relation to valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Importantly, they will give landlords more time to verify eligibility based on the new criteria and support them in carrying out preliminary counter fraud and money laundering checks. Although we're extending the time periods that landlords have to respond to the right to buy application, I want to stress that these timescales are an upper limit, not an expectation.

 We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as they are able to do. Turn to clause five. This clause inserts section 124 A into the Housing Act 1985, enabling a landlord to suspend a right to buy application where there is reason to suspect that the claim may be fraudulently made. A suspension under section 124 A does not cancel the application. It temporarily pauses the statutory process while an investigation is carried out, and must end no later than six months after the date of suspension or earlier if the investigation is concluded. In response to the consultation on reforming the right to Buy, we committed to carry out more effective fraud prevention, including mitigating vulnerable tenants, being pressured into buying and cracking down on third party backed applications.

 We're clear, and I hope the committee will support us on this principle that fraudulent applications backed by unscrupulous lenders have no place under the right to buy. They undermine the scheme by ensuring that social landlords have more time to investigate suspected fraud when managing applications. The clause will help prevent fraudulent applications from slipping through the cracks and maintain the integrity of the scheme. I should say, Mr. Vickers, during the period of suspension, the procedural requirements of the act, including statutory time limits, will not apply. This will mean that the tenant will not be able to issue delay notices during this period.

 Guidance will make clear that timescales for processing applications can only be extended where fraud is suspected, and not to be used by landlords as a way to delay the processing of more routine applications. We'll also strengthen guidance for landlords and tenants on fraud prevention, including on third party companies lending money for purchases. Any such companies will need to obviously be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will support both the FCA and landlords with enforcement.
09:53
09:53
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. As I've already said, the bill's reforms aim to ensure that the right to buy scheme is sustainable, including by ensuring that discounts are set at the right level to enable long standing tenants to buy under the scheme, but without depleting levels of social housing stock. This government has already taken action in November 2024 to reduce the maximum cash discounts, returning these to their pre 2012 levels. We subsequently committed to revise the discounts available as a percentage of the property, so that these align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause six delivers on this commitment by reducing percentage discounts that they start at 5% of the property value after ten years of public sector tenancy and increase for every extra year of a tenancy, up to a maximum of 15%.

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

 We're also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to both houses and flats, making the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants. I will give way expensive.
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:57
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

I wasn't called.
09:57
09:57
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. Clause seven of the bill extends the existing right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes, which have previously been sold under the right to buy when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently ten years after the original sale. Councils have eight weeks to decide whether or not to buy back the home when informed by the owner that they are planning to sell, following which, the property can be sold on the open market. Under this clause, the period in which councils must be given the right of first refusal will be increased so that it applies in perpetuity.

 This will mean that councils will have the opportunity to buy back the property every time it is resold. This proposal received strong support from respondents to the government's consultation. The change will only apply to applications that exercise the right to buy after the measures come into force. Homes already sold under the Right to Buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants attached to them when they were sold under the scheme, giving social landlords greater opportunity to buy back properties sold under the scheme in the future increases their ability to acquire social housing that may otherwise be lost to the open market.

 This directly supports the government's ambition to grow the volume of council housing in this country. In some, Mr. Vickers, clause seven is an important safeguard that supports the effective operation of the Right to Buy scheme. It helps ensure that public subsidy is protected, discourages short term purchases purchases for financial gain, and supports the bill's wider objective to protect social housing stock. And I commend the clause to the committee.
09:58
09:59
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you so much, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure. I rise to move amendment 90, which stands in my name since 2024. Whenever the government has raised rural issues, it's often found itself in trouble. The opposition was therefore surprised to see the elements of the government's Clause seven, to give the Secretary of State the power to decide what classes as rural housing, and to restrict the rights of those deemed to live in rural areas. Firstly, and most apparently, it's an infringement of the property rights of swathes of residents to eliminate right to buy simply because they live in England's green and pleasant land.

 And even if the government wants to tarmac all over anyway, so what. Secondly, what counts as rural. For example, as many members will be aware, I'm proudly a Greater London MP, with my constituency relying heavily on access to the infrastructure, employment opportunities and wider economy of the capital. But the fact of the matter is that for around half of my constituency is agricultural and a further 10% is green or leisure areas. Despite this, there are areas of social need without knowledge of the ground. Somebody sitting in Whitehall is highly likely to make the wrong decision.

 This, I assure the minister, will be an unwelcome and unfair overstretch of the state. In restricting sales to rural areas. The government is denying local authorities the proceeds of the sale, which could be distributed to local authorities for distribution to higher demand or more pressured areas of need. Local leaders will always be in a better position to judge local need than a civil servant or a secretary of state tucked away in Marsham Street. And that's why I urge members to support amendment 90 and push the government to back down from this nonsensical plan to intervene in the property rights of rural constituencies.

 Mr. Vickers, would you like me to move to the other amendments in my name? Okay. Amendment 83. This bill is an exercise in ideology over aspiration. It represents the worst of a 40 year long, socialistic, terrible obsession with Margaret Thatcher's decision to make the dream of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible. The bill acts on this by making provision for a plethora of punitive policies designed to effectively end right to buy for as many people as possible. One of these is the move to ban the sale of newly built social housing under Right to Buy for 35 years.

 This is an arbitrarily long period of time designed to complicate and convolute the process that is the opposite of supporting aspiration, Mr. Vickers. That is crushing aspiration, and that is why I've tabled amendment 33, which seeks to reduce the period during which newly built social housing is exempt from right to buy from 35 years to ten years. We do have to keep in mind the practicalities of right to buy, and we agree that it mustn't be the case that once a social home is built, it is all too often sold. We believe, however, that a decade is much more sensible.

 Balance between maintaining stock and supporting the right of those most in need to gain a footing on the property ladder. With regard to amendment 91, the worrying trend towards centralization exercised by this government must be challenged at all levels. In discussing my previous amendment, amendment 90, I've already given good reasons as to why the Secretary of State is not adequately equipped to judge what is or is not rural. The opposition, however, believes that there is also an important constitutional point to be made. It should always be the case that Parliament fully and adequately scrutinises the work of government, especially whether that work is increasingly brought in behind closed doors of unelected civil servants.

And that's why I've tabled an amendment 91. This would require an affirmative parliamentary approval for regulations defining rural exemptions to the rights of I. Every honourable member present should support greater parliamentary oversight of lasting and binding policy that the government is trying to take out of our hands and away from the scrutinising eyes of parliamentarians, and I hope, therefore, that members will join me in supporting amendment 91. Lee Dillon.
10:03
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:07
10:07
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Good evening.
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:10
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. I will speak to clause A and amendments 13 to 18 in my name, and then I'll turn to various amendments that have been tabled and just spoken to clause eight, amends schedule five to the Housing Act, 1985 to introduce new and updated exceptions to the right to buy. Under the scheme, exceptions already include homes suitable for occupation by the elderly, sheltered housing and homes due to be demolished. 76% of respondents to our consultation agree that the existing exceptions should be retained, and we are doing so. This clause does, however, make a small change to amend outdated terminology in the current exemption for dwellings for persons of pensionable age to update the reference to resident or non-resident wardens to resident or non-resident managers.

 But clause eight introduces three new exceptions. First, it exempts newly built social homes from the scheme for 35 years, giving councils the confidence to invest in new supply. At present, councils are disincentivized from building because homes can be sold before costs are covered through rent, undermining housing revenue accounts. A 35 year exemption period reflects the typical payback period and ensures councils are not losing new homes prematurely. This is a significant supply side reform, despite what the shadow minister continues to assert, that helps to deliver the government's commitment to back councils to build at a scale not seen in decades.

 Councils have been clear to the government that the risk of early sale deters investment. Removing that risk provides greater certainty over stock and income and supports new development. We recognise the frustration of seeing newly built homes sold so quickly before they can meet local need. The government's manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the right to buy , and introducing exemption, was supported by the vast majority of respondents to our consultation on the basis it will give councils, as I've said, greater confidence to build new homes and provide greater protection than the existing cost floor rules.

 Second, Mr. Vickers , clause eight exempts homes in national parks, areas of Outstanding Natural beauty and designated rural areas from the right to buy. This recognises the particular pressures on rural housing, where land and planning constraints mean that homes are significantly harder to replace. Once lost from the social sector, in many cases, replacement is not feasible at all, exacerbating already acute shortages in those areas. There was a clear recognition of these challenges. In the other place, where the difficulty of replacing rural homes and the importance of protecting stock in these areas was highlighted. This measure responds directly to those concerns will help safeguard rural social housing.

 Existing rural designations will continue to have effect for the purpose of this exemption. Until we implement the new framework for local authorities to designate as rural, as set out in government amendments 13 to 18, which I'll come to shortly, as well as clause eight, the covenants attached to homes which have been sold under the right to buy in rural areas, which restrict sale to a local person or a social landlord, would also continue to apply. And third, and finally, Mr. Vickers council owned market rent homes will also be excluded, supporting councils to use mixed tenure and cross-subsidy models to deliver more housing.

This recognises the important role that market rent homes can play in enabling councils to generate additional income to reinvest in social and affordable homes. These changes are part of the wider package of reforms to ensure more homes are built than lost, and I beg to move government amendments 13 to 18. These amendments deliver on commitments made during the bill's passage. In the other place, to put the criteria for rural designation into regulations. This was a call that came from noble peers on the opposition benches. The regulations will use the long established criteria of a population density of no more than two persons per hectare, and a population of 3000 or fewer.

 These criteria will be applied using census derived population data, and local authorities will be expected to ensure the criteria continue to be met in relevant areas every ten years as new census data becomes available. It was also agreed in the other place that the government would explore whether the existing process, under which local authorities need to apply to the government for designation, could be replaced with a new system under which local authorities would be able to designate rural areas where they meet the criteria. I can confirm that we do intend to implement that change, and these amendments will enable that.

 These changes will provide transparency on the criteria for rural designation. They'll also empower local areas and reduce bureaucracy for both local authorities and the government compared to the current process, which requires, as I've said, local authorities seeking designation to apply to the Secretary of State and for secondary legislation to be made for each individual designation, local authorities will be required to publicise the making of a designation and ensure that the information on the areas covered is available to tenants. If an authority revokes a designation, it must also publicise that revocation. The regulations will be made by statutory instrument and will be subject to the negative procedure.

 Once a new framework of self-designation is enforced, the existing rural designations will fall away. There will be a transition period following royal assent until the date upon which the new framework comes into effect, where the existing rural designations will continue to apply for the purpose of determining which rural homes will be exempt from the right to buy. This will ensure there is no gap in protection. The government currently intends the transition period to last at least 12 months, with the final duration to be confirmed in due course. Within this transition period, councils will be able to undertake the necessary work to designate ahead of the new framework being implemented.

 We also intend, Mr. Vickers, to align the rural designation framework for the right to acquire scheme with the new Right to Buy framework. These amendments, taken together with clause nine, which we will come to shortly, establish a clearer framework for protecting social housing in designated rural areas, while reducing bureaucracy and giving local authorities the responsibility for making and publicising designations within national parameters. Now turn to the various opposition amendments that have been tabled in this group, and I'm afraid I cannot support any of them. I'm going to start with amendment 90, tabled by the honourable member for Orpington.

 This would remove from clause eight the new exemption from the right to buy for social housing located in national parks, national landscapes and designated rural area. I got to say, I'm quite surprised that this amendment has come from the opposition, given the calls I often get from members on the opposite benches to ensure that stock in their areas is better protected. I've already set out that rural areas face particular housing pressures. Rural social homes are often very difficult to replace and play an important role in supporting thriving local communities. Clause eight provides an important protection for rural social housing, and it's been supported by rural groups.

 Amendment 90 would remove this protection and increase the risk of losing scarce social homes in places where the replacement is particularly challenging. For those reasons, I cannot support it. Turn now to amendment 104, also tabled by the Shadow Minister. This amendment would require the government to use the urban rural classification system when determining whether an area is rural or urban for the purposes of the designated. Sorry. My apologies. My apologies in the name of the in the name of the Liberal Democrats. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this would require the government to use the Urban Rural Classification Scheme system when determining whether an area is rural or urban for the purposes of the designated rural area exemption.

 As I've already made clear, our intention is to continue with the long established criteria for rural designation. The areas will need to have a population of 3000 people or fewer and a population density of two persons or less per hectare, and we intend to set that criteria out in regulations. In our view, that strikes the right balance in relation to defining rural designated areas and exclusion from the right to buy, including areas with a population of 10,000 or fewer, would, in our view, bring far too many areas into the scope of the exclusion. For those reasons, I won't be able to take back and the honourable gentleman.
10:17
10:18
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. I welcome that clarification from the honourable gentleman. Turning to amendment 91, this would require regulations made under section 37 of the Housing Act 1985, which allows for restrictions to be imposed in relation to the disposal of a home in a rural area to be approved by both houses before they could come into force. I understand the intention of this amendment may have been to require the affirmative procedure to apply for areas to be designated as rural, for the purposes of right to buy under self-designation, rural areas will be designated by local authorities instead of by regulations, so no parliamentary procedure will need to be provided for the new power to prescribe.

The criteria will be, as I've said, subject to the negative resolution. In any event, the government does not accept the premise that the affirmative procedure is required. In this instance, there may be a principled point of disagreement on that. The current powers are subject to the negative procedure that is the existing arrangement, and that provides an appropriate and proportional level of parliamentary scrutiny. In our view, the powers either amended under or created by the Bill also have the negative resolution procedure requiring the affirmative procedure would add an additional parliamentary step without affecting the substance or effect of the policy, and for those reasons, respectfully ask the shadow Minister not to press amendment 91.

 Turning to amendment 83, this amendment would reduce the exemption from the right to buy for newly built social homes from 35 to 10 years. The government cannot support this amendment. Our starting point is that the exemption should reflect the time needed for rental income to repay the costs of building a new social home. That payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on the viability of the site. We therefore concluded that 35 years strikes the right balance. It protects councils from losing newly built homes before they've recovered their investment, while retaining a route to home ownership for tenants over the longer term.

 Reducing the exemption to ten years would not provide sufficient protection, would act in direct contradiction to our commitment to back councils to build again at scale. It would allow homes to be sold long before their development costs have been A contradiction to our commitment to back councils to build again at scale. It would allow homes to be sold long before their development costs have been recovered. A 35 year exemption will give councils the certainty and confidence to build, knowing that new homes will remain available for social housing for a meaningful period. And I think I turn finally, I know there's two more in this very large grouping and I turn next to new clause two stands in the name of the member for Taunton and Wellington.

 I do recognise the concerns that have motivated this proposed new clause. However, the government can't support a proposal that would allow individual local authorities to suspend or abolish the right to buy in their area. We remain committed to a reformed right to buy that continues to provide long standing council tenants with a route to home ownership, while better protecting social housing stock. And we are reforming the scheme nationally to strike that balance. This new clause would create inconsistent access to that statutory right with a tenant's position, depending on the local authority in which they live.

 This would in effect, Mr. Vickers, create a postcode lottery and make it difficult for tenants to understand whether or not the right to buy is available to them. We believe the right approach is a consistent national framework, supported by national reforms that better protect council housing stock. That will ensure a fair and consistent offer for council tenants across the country. We also recognise that housing markets vary significantly across England. However, rather than creating different rights in different areas. As I've said, the government's reforms reflect those differences through the discount regime. Discounts are calculated, as I've already set out as a percentage of a property's value and are subject to regional cash caps, helping to ensure the scheme responds to local property market conditions while maintaining a fair and consistent national entitlement for eligible tenants.

And finally, Mr. Vickers, moving on to amendment nine, tabled by the member for Saint Ives. But the Liberal Democrat members on the committee have spoken to it. Again, I recognise the intention behind this amendment. Community led housing is established to meet local needs and often includes arrangements intended to protect affordable affordability for the long term. This government has done a huge amount in this area. There is more to come to better support community led housing, but in our view the amendment is not necessary in relation to the principle form of community led housing. It identifies homes owned by community land trusts and fully mutual housing.

 Cooperatives are already outside of the right to buy. And for those reasons, the amendment would not provide the protection intended beyond that which already exists. And for those reasons, ask the committee to respectfully withdraw all of those amendments, and I commend clause eight to the committee.
10:27
10:27
10:29
10:30
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Edward Argar.
10:30
10:31
10:33
10:33
10:33
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

No no withdraw.
10:33
10:34
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

A division to divide.
10:34
10:35
10:36
10:38
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Formally.
10:38
10:38
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Yes.
10:38
10:39
10:41
10:42
10:45
10:45
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise. I'll do them collectively. Amendments two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight which stand in my name. These amendments are concerned with the bill's proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause ten of the government's Bill, the Secretary of State will gain new powers to make significant determinations. This includes scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively. Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of rural. This is not about firming up an already overly rigid system, but about ensuring that the bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall.

 It is only right that Parliament, and not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. And that's why I've tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities. I believe this is an essential change to this bill, and we will be seeking to divide upon all of these amendments as it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilizes already fragile funding requirements.

 These amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance with Amendment Amendment 95, specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on this by also requiring consultation with local authorities. I believe that the Minister will believe that bringing such decisions in House comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street's corridors, rather than in town halls, means that local authorities are left with uncertainty that does not speed up the building of social homes, but slows it down.

 Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being receipts being siphoned away. Under the current provision in clause ten, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out, and this is never going to be popular with councils when they find that after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council. It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the government's disastrously unfair funding review, and I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 to ensure that power stays local.
10:51
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Thank you very much, Mr. Vickers and I rise to support the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Shadow Minister 92, 93, 94 and 96. I'll turn to and 97, I'll turn to 95 and 98. The amendment. I mean, I have to say, these appear to be perfectly reasonable and proportionate requests and amendments that this House has a role in scrutinising what is put forward by the government and what is recommended by the Secretary of State. I spent six years as a minister. I took countless other statutory instruments through DL committees. By and large, it isn't a complex process.

 It does require a little bit of time by officials to draft it and get the drafting right, but the process in this House is not a complicated one. And what it does do is ensure that a minister is directly accountable. They have to be on their brief. They have to be able to articulate clearly the rationale behind what they're doing and quite rightly, be challenged by honourable and right honourable members in those delegated legislation committees. That is what is so important, I think, in maintaining or even creating trust from our communities through the transparency of that democratic accountability brings to what, as my honourable friend has set out very clearly, will undoubtedly on occasions be relatively, if not significantly contentious decisions relating to significant sums of money.

 Now, turning very briefly, Mr. Vickers, to amendments 95 and 98. In terms of amendment 95, my honourable friend has again set out the case for this. Very clearly these powers, when exercised, may well see some local authorities feeling they are losing out to the benefit of other local authorities. And therefore, again, I don't think it is unreasonable, without getting into what those decisions may be, where money may or may not go, just in terms of process and democratic accountability, that both houses should have the opportunity in the context of clause ten powers to scrutinise them.

 And finally turning to, yeah, of course, I'll give way to the honourable lady.
10:55
10:56
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

The honourable lady, but she appears to be making a point. That was not actually the point I was making in my remarks, which is a point about the process here. As I just said before, she sought to intervene. I'm not making in my remarks here a judgement on the decisions the Secretary of State may or may not make about those capital receipts. What I am making a point about is democratic accountability and transparency, and I have to say that the delegated legislation procedure in this House, by and large, and going back to those earlier group of amendments proposed by my honourable friend, the procedure that's used when they come before delegated legislation committees in this House is not complex.

 It doesn't engender a lengthy delay. It just ensures that people out there are constituents can see that we are considering that we're debating it, that the minister can answer the questions put to him. I have no doubt in the case of this minister, he will be able to answer the questions put to him sadly, on both sides of the House. It's not always the case that every minister is capable of doing that. I'm sure he would have no challenges in coming before a delegated legislation committee and answering the questions put to him. And just very briefly, Mr.

 Vickers, turning finally to amendment 98. In the name of my hon. Friend the Shadow Minister and of the opposition whip in terms of its call or its requirement for consultation before determinations are made on capital receipts. Again, consultations do not have to be overly complex. They don't have to be lengthy. If you go on gov.uk at the moment, you'll see at any one time there are a myriad of government consultations out there on very, very significant issues, down to issues such as, for example, the methodology used for the reporting of land use statistics in the country, all these things.

So the government routinely consults on a whole range of things, whether that be a significant I'll finish this point, and then, of course, I'll give way to him, whether that be a significant, detailed, lengthy consultation on something that's complex or often a very short and sharp consultation, but giving people the opportunity both to have their say and for those who have something genuine in the way of expert knowledge to contribute. Of course I give way.
11:00
11:01
11:03
11:05
11:08
11:08
11:10
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you. Mr. Vickers. Can I say to honourable members I have never found the process of delegated legislation. Committees particularly fast in any instance, but I do recognise the the reasonable concerns that have been put. I think they are unfounded and I hope to reassure honourable members for the reasons I've set out. Clause ten. Mr. Vickers simplifies and modernises how the rules on right to buy receipts are managed. Its intent is to improve administrative efficiency and provide flexibility, and I think it's important in understanding our purpose behind this course to have a very accurate view of the current arrangements.

 As things stand, every stock holding authority currently has an agreement with the Secretary of State, allowing it to retain all its right to buy receipts, provided it spends those receipts on replacement social housing. In practice, this is hugely administratively burdensome. There are over 160 stock holding local authorities, all of whom must be issued with identical section 11, subsection six retention agreements whenever the rules change. This requires issuing, tracking and chasing agreements for signature across every one of those authorities, creating unnecessary bureaucracy for both councils and central government. Clause ten replaces this with a simpler approach.

It provides the Secretary of State with their power to disapply or modify the requirements on the use of receipts set out in regulations by determination, which will then apply consistently across all local authorities. This removes the need to replicate the same agreement process many times over. Now, concerns were raised in the other place that we may be seeking to use this clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. Let me reassure you, that is absolutely not the case. We fought very hard to ensure that local authorities can retain 100% of their receipts.

 Previous government, you recall, made that change, but it only temporarily made that change, reversing it before the last election. We've committed to allow councils to retain all of their right to buy receipts indefinitely. To further reassure on this point, clause ten makes clear that the power of determination may not be used to increase the amount that local authorities are required to pay the Secretary of State. The rules on the pooling of right to buy receipts will continue to be governed by the regulations, and any significant changes to the rules would continue to need to be made through a statutory instrument, which would be subject to the negative procedure.

 I commend the clause to the committee. Let me just respond to amendments 92 to 98, tabled by the Shadow Minister, and specifically the concerns that were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Milton and Southeastern, who is a. How do I put this be as general as possible without embarrassing an incredibly competent and well respected Minister? I take very seriously the points that he made, but these amendments would replace the power in clause ten for Secretary of State to make determinations on right to buy receipts with a requirement to use regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and would require consultation with local authorities before a determination is in place.

 We can't support these amendments because they would reduce the ability of the government to act quickly to support local authorities. I'll give you an example of some of the changes made in July 2024, just three weeks after the general election, the government gave local authorities greater flexibility to spend their right to buy receipts. This included permitting receipts to be combined with section 106 contributions, and removing the cap on the proportion of replacement homes that can be funded by the right to buy receipts, accelerating the delivery of new social and affordable homes. Those changes were, I think, almost universally welcomed amongst local authorities, but we had to go through the current process, as I said, administratively burdensome and complex.

 The proposed amendments would introduce delay and complexity, would make it harder to respond to operational needs or make technical adjustments promptly in the way that we are seeking. They'd also remove the ability to make different provisions for different authorities or purposes, or to apply a determination to receipts received before it was made. As I've already said, the safeguards in clause ten are clear the determination power cannot be used to increase the amount that local authorities are required to pay. To the Secretary of State. The core rules governing the pooling of right to buy receipts will continue, as I've said, to be set in regulations.

Any significant changes to those rules will therefore require a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure and parliamentary scrutiny, in addition to all the other mechanisms that are available to honourable members. We think for those reasons, that the current approach strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight. It reduces unnecessary administrative burdens. Opposition are always telling me to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. Here's a good example of where we're doing it, but also improve responsiveness and support councils to deliver more replacement homes. And for those reasons, we can't support these amendments. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw them and also commend clause ten to the committee.
11:19
11:20
11:21
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

No.
11:21
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Division.
11:22
11:22
11:22
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

No.
11:22
11:23
11:24
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Six. Sorry.
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Edgar I.
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

No.
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I.
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Spencer I.
11:35
11:35
11:37
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. Clause 11 concerns the right to acquire scheme. The Right to acquire scheme for housing association tenants is broadly modelled on the right to buy with most of the same rules apply. Right to acquire applies to housing association homes built or acquired with social housing grant after 1997. This bill, through clauses 1 to 10, amends the Housing Act 1985 to alter rules regarding the right to buy. We've already discussed the effect of and rationale for those clauses. Section 184 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 means that these changes will also apply in relation to the Right to Acquire scheme for Housing Association tenants.

 The committee will understand that it's only right that the same eligibility criteria and exemptions should apply across both schemes to ensure consistency and fairness for social housing tenants, regardless of whether they live in a council home or a housing association home. My officials have undertaken engagement with relevant stakeholders, such as the National Housing Federation, who are supportive of this consistent approach. This will also support the broader policy objective of protecting social housing stock, which, as we've debated at length, is a core objective of this bill. The discounts for the right to acquire are set out separately to the right to buy.

 They remain unaffected and will continue to be £9000 to £16,000, depending on the location. Increasing them to align with the right to buy discounts would contradict our objectives to better protect social housing stock. Clause 11 is a consequential amendment to reflect changes to the rural area provisions. This is currently an area of divergence between the two schemes. Under the right to acquire homes in designated rural areas are already exempt from sale. Recognising the challenges of replacing that stock in those areas cause 11 helps ensure that the new rural exemptions introduced to the bill apply consistently across both schemes.

 This will provide fairness for social housing tenants. As I've said, support our objective of protecting social housing stock and ensure that the new rural exemptions operate coherently across both schemes. And I commend it to the committee.
11:41
11:42
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speakers, before I before I go into my remarks on this amendment, can I just update the committee in terms of my declaration of interest? My wife worked for a social housing provider, and apologies for not declaring that when I first raised my feet on the Group six earlier. Mr. Vickers 102 is a simple amendment in that it looked to protect larger homes that are within social stock. It talks about designated rural areas. I think we've already covered that off earlier on in the bill, but also for those with four bedrooms or more.

 And the reason for that is quite simple. Out of all of our social stock, larger homes are our most precious commodity. And we know that of overcrowding in the UK. The social housing market makes up 48% of properties that are considered overcrowded. If we look at Merton or Westminster Council, for example, there is a 90 to 99 year wait for a 3 or 4 bed property. If we go to Rochdale, further up north, about 550 families were registered for a four bed home, but only 14 became available in a year. And then if we go to the west of the country to bath, an officer there said a family could be on the register for a four bed in principle for over 200 years, and added that four beds are popular under right to buy, but are also expensive to build.

 I think, Mr. Vickers, when you add in those comments, with our ambition to make sure that overcrowding impacts as few people as possible, maintaining four bed homes from being or making four bed homes on larger exempt, meaning that we protect the homes that we really do need.
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you.
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Mr. Speaker.
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I rise.
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

To speak to amendments five, nine, five and six and one and eight, which stand in my name, Mr. Vickers. They're the first of those. Amendment five would extend the notification and proposed sale to cover the regulator of social housing amendment. Six would extend the time scales of notice from 4 to 8 weeks. I, I note that since we put down this amendment, the government has obviously been closely reading everything that we put down and decided to come up with its own amendment to extend. I'm glad that we're already having an influence on the bill. Mr.

 Vickers and I'd be pleased to push this to a vote, if necessary, to make sure the government succeeds in getting its change in the timescale that it clearly wishes to see otherwise, depending on the order of voting in this place, which I don't, I still sometimes have a problem following Mr. Vickers. We, one or the other, I'm sure, will fulfill the same purpose. Amendment one. Mr. Vickers would require regulated social housing to receive a copy of the notice. And finally, amendment eight would is effectively a stop the clock amendment in which, if negotiations are ongoing for the acquisition of a social home by a local authority, the.

 The time period be extended by a further four weeks. Now, I recognise that this contains already the. This. This amendment refers to an existing four week period in the bill, and that may be extended to eight weeks under other amendments. However, I think the principle of allowing an extension of time when negotiations are ongoing is a really significant one and something that the Local Government Association would like to see. So I whilst I won't push amendment nine, amendment eight to a vote, I think it would be helpful for the Minister to consider whether an extension could be given where negotiations are ongoing , so that the.

 The. There's a real chance for that purchase of that disposal property to be completed, and for that local authority to succeed in that endeavor. Thank you. Mr. Vickers.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. I beg to move government amendment 19. I'll speak to it and then respond to each of the, I think, eight amendments that we've spoken to in this rather large group. I've listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and stakeholders on this issue over recent weeks and indeed, months, that a four week period between a private provider notifying a council or other provider in their area of the sale of a social home and the disposing of that home is not sufficient for them to consider purchasing the property. In particular, I appreciate that local authorities were concerned that a four week window would not align with their internal timing constraints, such as monthly cabinet or committee meetings.

 On that basis, the government has brought forward this amendment to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property from 4 to 8 weeks. This amendment, we think, strikes the right balance between maximising opportunities to retain social homes without causing undue delays to sales. I'll come to the specific point that the honourable gentleman makes about negotiations that are in train. Turning to the various amendments that have been tabled and spoken to Mr. Vickers, amendments six and eight, tabled by the honourable member for Taunton and Wellington both seek to extend the disposal notification period.

 Amendment eight would, as he's just argued, have required an extension of the window to eight weeks where a provider could demonstrate they were taking steps towards purchasing the property. The government's amendment 19 goes further than this proposal by requiring eight weeks in all cases, and I hope that he will therefore support it. On that basis, amendment six would require a further extension to 12 weeks in areas designated as rural. We are not persuaded by the case for a longer notification window specifically for rural areas, a statutory minimum of 12 weeks could unnecessarily delay sales and require providers to deal with the additional burden and costs associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods.

I should also stress that notification period is just a minimum. I'd expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond this period, where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector. Yes, Minister.
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'd say I'd say two points in response to the honourable gentleman, and I appreciate the concern. Firstly, I think it's just a matter of fact that there will be different challenges in different areas. What we have tried to get to with the increase in the notification period from 4 to 8 weeks, is a period where we think it is reasonable for all local authorities to consider these matters. What I haven't had, if he's got any evidence I'd like to see it is compelling evidence to suggest that local authorities would not be able to deal with these in an eight week period.

 And I go back to the point I've just made as well, stress that the notification period is just a minimum. We would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond this period, where there's a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector. I hope on that basis he is reassured. I now turn to amendments 102 and 103, tabled by the honourable member for Newbury and the honourable member for Taunton and Wellington. These amendments would require written consent from the local authority for a sale of a social home in a rural area, with or with four or more bedrooms.

 Now again, I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. I want to ensure the government wants to ensure that every opportunity is taken to protect much needed social housing stock. I'd expect private, private registered providers to think particularly carefully before selling homes that meet acute housing needs in local areas. However, housing associations do remain independent organisations responsible for their own asset management, and the government cannot support an approach that would prevent landlords making legitimate business decisions about how to manage their stock without the agreement of the local authority, and we can, I'm happy to go into with honourable members the reclassification risks that arise in this area, and I've debated those points at length with a number of members on my own side and members opposite.

 I should also point out that the previous restrictions that required approval by the regulator of social housing for disposals of homes had to be removed in 2017. I know the honourable gentleman will remember this with his experience in the sector, to reclassify the housing association sector back to private, and I fear that introducing a requirement for local authority approval would represent a significant classification risk. It's not the only classification risk. These things are considered by the ONS in the round, but nevertheless is a material risk.

 From our point of view. I will give way.
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Mr.. I think my response to that point, again, it's a it's a very fair one, would be that the particular reasons that individual providers are disposing of stock vary wildly across the country and in the case of disposals that are driven by increases in standards, we are seeing some of that. But it's also the case that there are occasions where local authorities or other providers are willing, for their own reasons, based on their own. You know, assessment of the stock able to and willing to take those on. So I don't think we can specify, as a general rule, what we're trying to achieve here is to give local authorities and other providers the maximum possible opportunity to pick up those stocks and to retain them in the social housing sector, if that is possible.

 I'd just be very clear and honest with him. It may not always be possible, and those homes may be disposed of on the open market, but we do want to increase the chance of them able to be being retained in the sector. For all the reasons that we've gone into. Mr. Vickers, I will now move on to amendments one and five, which would add the regulator of social housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services their tenants deserve.

 As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must also be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I'm not persuaded, Mr. Vickers, that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable them to better regulate against the standards that they set. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals, and that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so they have an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

 Amendment 101 would similarly require community land trusts, with social housing in the area to be notified. Of course, community land trusts that are registered with the regulator would already be notified under the requirements of this measure. I'm aware that not all community land trusts are registered with the regulator. That is their choice, but the focus of this measure is to keep homes in the regulated sector where it is possible to do so. The notification process is therefore focused on notifying providers that are registered with the regulator. Turning to amendment 99. Finally, this would require that a sales notice provided to the local authority and other registered providers in the local area is also published on the website of the registered provider, intending to dispose of the property.

 One of the main aims of the provisions contained in clause 12 of this Bill is to increase transparency around disposals. However, there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of transparency and the burdens and costs to private registered providers. We believe amendment 99 would introduce an unhelpful level of bureaucracy around the disposal notifications process. Whilst some providers may choose to publish notifications of sales on their websites, requiring by legislation is, in our view, disproportionate.

 I'm happy to. Gideon was just.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

No division.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Lock the door.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Okay.
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Abstain.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Gareth. Bacon.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Abstain.
11:52
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Sorry, sorry.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Which one? Six.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

11. Six.
11:52
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Abstain.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Abstain.
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

No.
11:52
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Baker.
11:52
11:52
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Vickers. The honourable member for Taunton and Wellington's Amendments two and three would introduce, as he's just set out a right of first refusal for the local authority and other registered providers notified via a sale notice during the notice period. This right would be on condition that the home would remain as social housing, and would require the private registered provider to sell the home at the existing use value for social housing. There's also the corresponding amendment ten in this group, tabled by the member for Saint Ives, that would see the right of first refusal extended to specific types of bodies that provide or provide affordable housing.

 Some of these bodies will be registered with the regulator of social housing, and therefore would already be included with amendment three, but it would also extend the right of first refusal unregistered housing providers. Sir Martin, I've heard clearly both at second reading today, as I've already set out the desire of honourable members to protect social homes, I very much share that desire. But this must be balanced with the ability of private providers to operate efficiently and manage their housing assets, including by investing in more new homes or their existing stock. Sometimes this can mean selling a social home out of the sector.

 Now, I can assure the committee that I have thought long and hard of challenged officials that they can verify this with nods, that we look at these issues in lots of detail about what requirements can be put in place, or levers we can try to pull to keep as many social homes in the regulated sector as possible. A key consideration when thinking through possible interventions is the reality that interfering with private registered providers freedom to use and sell their assets as they wish would present a significant risk of reclassifying the sector.

 Not only would this bring £110 billion of debt onto the public books, it would bring with it
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
14:00
14:00
14:00
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Okay. Thank you for.
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Yes.
14:02
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Minister.
14:06
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Yes, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Weston. I beg to move amendment 20, which requires sales notices from private providers, to include information about whether the rent standard applies to the dwelling and if it does the rent category of the dwelling. Engagement with the sector has highlighted the importance of potential purchasers knowing the rent category of a home when taking decisions about purchasing it. This is because the rent category has implications for the future rent that can be charged, and therefore the future income potential of the property. I remain mindful of the need to ensure that disposal notification is proportionate and limited to the information that is most useful to those considering purchasing the property.

We believe information relating to the dwelling rent category is a useful and reasonable addition to the information requirements. I therefore urge the Committee to support that amendment. Turning to the other two amendments which were spoken to by members opposite. Beginning with amendment 82, which would require the Secretary of State to have. Regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers when making regulations under section 171 B or 171 A. Mr. Weston, A common theme in my responses to the amendments on the disposals measure in this bill is that I recognise that private registered providers are private bodies who need to be allowed to make their own business decisions.

 In short, for that reason, I don't think this amendment is required. If making regulations as the Secretary of State would necessarily be aware that housing associations are private bodies, and I can reassure the shadow Minister that we have no current intentions to use these powers. The honourable member opposite spoke, I believe, only to amendment 100. AM I wrong, not amendment? I'm seven and seven. I'll deal with both. In that case, the honourable member for Taunton. Wellington's Amendment seven would significantly expand the information required to be included in sales notices, where a private registered provider intends to dispose of a property outside of the regulated sector to include, for example, whether a property complies with a decent homes standard, its EPC rating and whether it's been adapted for accessibility.

 The government's view is that adding requirements for more information to be included in the sale notice would not be proportionate. We don't want to impose additional unnecessary burdens on providers, and certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced. That would mean additional reports need to be produced or surveys carried out. Though I note the honourable member's amendment seeks to avoid this, our view is that extending the notification window to eight weeks, as we've previously discussed, will allow providers the opportunity to request further information they judge to be necessary to their consideration of a potential purchase.

 However, I do not think that requiring the inclusion of all this information by law is a proportionate response. Our aim is, as I've said previously, to capture the basic elements that would always be relevant to providers when considering purchasing a home, and provide more time for enquiries to be made where needed. And that that is the point that has come up in a couple of debates before. This doesn't the provisions in this bill prevent those notifications, those requests for further information between the parties in question being made. And it's on the basis that I brought forward amendment 19, which I spoke to earlier, which requires information on the category of rent, which we do think is an important improvement.

 The honourable member for Newbury's Amendment 100, which honourable gentleman also spoke to, would require providers to categorize their reason for disposing of a property as either financial viability, the cost of energy efficiency, retrofit, stock rationalisation or some other reason that might be specified through secondary legislation. My concern with this amendment is that seeking to proscribe particular categories of reason in the notice might result in a less helpful notification. Let me explain why. First, it requires providers to identify one particular reason behind the sale. It is possible that the proposed sale will be based on more than one of these categories.

 It's also possible that there might be a different driver entirely in response to a question. Very reasonable question from the member for Broxbourne. Earlier, I tried to give a sense of the variety of reasons that individual providers might be disposing of particular stock. Second, there's also a risk that by setting out these categories in legislation, providers will just use these default descriptions of the reason and fail to provide a fuller and more helpful description for those being notified. And third, this amendment would have the effect that I don't think this would have been the honourable member's intention of preventing sales from going ahead.

If no sale can proceed without a notice, that notice must be valid and be valid. With this amendment in place, the notice must include one of a limited list of reasons the government, for that reason, can't support an amendment which would have the effect of preventing legitimate disposals in this way, and for those reasons, I hope the honourable member might withdraw.
14:11
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I don't need to go.
14:11
14:12
14:13
14:13
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Formally.
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:15
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. As I've set out, we've now debated a number of amendments relating to this clause. The government is committed to protecting our much needed social housing stock. As it stands, there is no requirement for advance notification of disposals of social homes, meaning opportunities to retain them within the social housing sector can be missed. While private providers may choose to dispose of homes for valid reasons, including to support investment in new supply and the effective management of their stock, we understand this can have a particularly acute impact in areas where supply of social housing is already constrained.

 It's therefore important that opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector are not missed, particularly in areas with significant demand or where replacement is particularly difficult. Clause 12 achieves this by requiring providers to notify the relevant local authority and other registered providers in the area before a sale can be completed. It creates a short window during which completion of a disposal cannot take place, while still allowing providers to market the property and continue with their disposal plans. As usual, this window was set at four weeks upon introduction of the bill and as set out earlier in the debate, the government is seeking to extend that window to eight weeks in response to concerns raised by both houses and stakeholders that it was too short.

 This new window of time allows local authorities and other providers to consider whether they wish to acquire the property, helping to retain homes within this sector to help them. In that initial assessment, the notice is required to provide certain basic information for example, the address, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and its estimated value. I earlier spoke to amendment also include the category of rent in the sale notice, which we think is a reasonable and fair addition. The clause. Overall, Mr. Weston is targeting proportionate. It includes sensible exceptions such as sales to another registered provider, sales to the tenant and certain low cost home ownership transactions.

 It is important to be clear that this is not a consent regime. The clause does not prevent disposals, does not restrict who a property may be sold to, and does not interfere with the provider's ability to make legitimate stock management decisions, but it's a light touch and proportionate measure to improve transparency, embed consistent good practice across the sector, and I've detailed some of the non-legislative means where we intend to work with the sector to go further and to support the bill's broader objective of safeguarding and sustaining social housing stock. Therefore, commend the clause to the Committee, turning briefly to amendment four.

In the name of the honourable member for Taunton and Wellington, this adds additional requirements to disposals in designated rural areas. I do support the intention behind the amendment to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to possible disposals of social housing in rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. However, I am not convinced that the best way to achieve this outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and a statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal. That's what this particular amendment calls for.

 The provisions in the Bill will ensure a local authority is aware of a potential disposal. I would hope that that will give local authorities, particularly in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue before the disposal takes place. Requiring statutory consultations on the regeneration of social housing would likely face significant time and administrative costs on both local authorities and private registered providers, and materially impact the ability of private providers to make the necessary commercial decisions required to manage their assets effectively and safely. More broadly, it's worth saying, Mr. Weston, through information published by the regulator of social housing, local authorities can already access information about PRP owned social housing stock within their local authority area, including information relating to whether stock meets the Decent Homes standard.

An annual report on stock condition in many ways would be duplicative of the existing rigorous requirements that are in place and therefore sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment. I'm not convinced it is a sensible one, and that we need to legislate in this way to achieve our shared aim. In this respect.
14:22
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

We don't.
14:22
14:22
14:24
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. Shared ownership is an important route into home ownership, and it has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to get onto the property ladder who otherwise would not have been able to do so. However, the government is fully aware that shared owners continue to face serious difficulties relating to affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges. While some of these challenges affect leaseholders more widely, high and rising service charges would be a good example of that. They can have a disproportionate impact on shared owners, given that the product is aimed at households on lower to middle incomes.

 Yes, yesterday, on yesterday it was yesterday. Mr. Weston, I'm losing track of the days. Yesterday I tabled a written ministerial statement setting out the government's position on shared ownership and the action we're taking to improve the experience of shared owners. We are determined to ensure that shared ownership is fair, transparent and affordable across its life cycle. That's why we are taking forward a phased programme of targeted improvements. The first phase, which has been underway for some time, has focused on improving the customer experience and giving providers greater certainty, stability and confidence to deliver new shared ownership homes.

 We've set clear expectations for registered providers receiving funding through the Social and Affordable Homes Programme, including giving greater consideration to long term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness around costs, and allowing customers to opt out of fees for optional services. We've also made clear that fees charged to shared owners should not be used as a source of profit, or to cross-subsidise other activity. Work is now underway on a second phase of our improvement programme. This will include reducing barriers and costs associated with staircasing, exploring options to support resales, improving information and guidance for existing shared owners, and reviewing buybacks as an exit route for those who cannot afford to remain in or sell their homes.

 Alongside this, we will improve shared ownership, data quality and collection, helping us to better understand the experience of shared owners over time and pressures such as long term affordability. Clause 13 would require a statutory review of shared ownership. I recognise the concerns that motivated the amendment in the other place. Lord Young has been a consistent and forceful champion for shared owners and I commend his work in doing so. But these are precisely the issues the government is already focused on. We'll continue to progress through the improvement programme that is already underway, as set out in the written ministerial statement I made on Monday.

 We have done lots to date. There is more to come on those issues identified and for that reason we feel that a statutory review would duplicate that work rather than deliver any practical improvements that shared owners need beyond the work that the government is already undertaking. And for that, for that reason, I urge the committee to oppose the question. That clause 13 stand part of the bill.
14:29
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yeah.
14:29
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Thank you. Mr. Weston and I rise to move new clauses 41 and 45, which stand in my name. I was aware, obviously, coming in here, that it is the government's intention to strike down clause 13 and from the Bill and remove it in its entirety. I've heard what the Minister has just said about work the government is doing at the moment. We're not convinced on this side that that would require unnecessary duplication. What it would actually do is make sure that it's actually done and published. So we disagree with him or with the government on this entirely.

 My noble friends and the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis, to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this bill. Shared ownership has gone on for far too long and for far too many people. It's been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step onto the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble friends made must not be stripped from the bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That's why I've tabled a new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership, and I call on the minister to repair shared ownership back first time buyers and support this new clause.

 With regards to clause 45, this amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The opposition believes this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning your first home is for so many people. As I've just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers.

 It would also require registered providers to have regard to it. I hope the minister not only agrees with that, but will at least give assurances as we debate this amendment, even if the government choose not to support it in division.
14:33
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I rise in support of clause 13 remaining part of the bill. The Minister himself set out with his typical eloquence the challenges, the opportunities that those with shared ownership face, but also the challenges and regulatory challenges that can sit around that and the very real impact that when it doesn't work well, it can have on those individuals, often starting off on the path to home ownership, the impact it can have upon them. And therefore, I do think that this clause is an important one because that review without in any way gainsaying the important work that he is doing.

 And as I've said in this morning's session, I have a lot of respect for the minister. He's an extremely able minister, and I, I know that he will be pursuing that work with vigour, but I believe that the statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this in the round, under which actions such as those he's announced he is taking can sit perfectly reasonably. But the two are not in contradiction to one another. A statutory review doesn't stop the minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions. He's already set out his taking, but it does give an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership and assess whether it's working well and whether there are things that he may, however diligent he is, and I know he is, may have missed or the government may have missed.

 It just gives that extra opportunity. And I know that the minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing the course he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. But I do have to say, this minister, who I have a lot of confidence in, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this as he is. And therefore, I think that a statutory review, as set out in clause 13, offers the opportunity to have something that's been considered carefully is published, and which members of this House and indeed future ministers, can refer back to when considering the way forward.

I don't think it tramples his freedom of of of what he decides to announce or his discretion in any way. I just think it would be a very important addition. So I hope that the Minister. Yeah, of course I will.
14:38
14:39
14:41
14:42
14:43
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Danny. Bill.
14:43
14:43
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

The challenges.
14:43
14:43
14:43
14:44
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

In the written ministerial statement. I think this was an issue that was raised in the Commons when this bill was discussed . Recently, many of us shared our constituents stories of shared ownership, the hopes of a first step on the ladder quickly turning into a nightmare, trapped, unable to staircase, facing all of the responsibilities of ownership. But none of the. The rights to decide about major works having to shoulder all of the costs of major works, both mortgage increases and rent increases, and really feeling kind of lost and unable to have a voice. And much of the government's agenda on reforming leasehold or improving the rights of tenants, many shared owners feel they kind of fall between the gaps in this kind of specific and unique tenure, which is why I think when the bill was first discussed, there were many colleagues who were interested in the potential for review as a means to address some of those concerns and issues.

 But I've been kind of heartened by the the minister's response and the written written ministerial statement which has been laid, which I think specifically commits to review these areas of concern. The issues that I've heard from my constituents about the challenges of buybacks when major repairs are needed, particularly Union Park development in my constituency. Many shared owners are trapped at the moment with home group, their landlords unable to get buybacks unless they're in extreme financial distress but unable to sell because the market value is now not there with with millions of pounds of of repairs to cladding and heating systems due and their lives as all of our lives change and the need to move often happens, but they're unable to to do that.

 So I welcome the commitment for a comprehensive review of buybacks, the consideration of the challenges of Staircasing. I think we all envisage that shared ownership will be initially a stake that hopefully grows in future, but many find that that isn't the lived reality of shared ownership, and it becomes difficult to staircase and difficult to sell out of it. And I think I'd welcome in the perhaps summing up from the minister if he could outline in the written statement, written ministerial statement, it commits to kind of hear the voice of shared owners in this phase two review.

If you could elaborate a bit more about how exactly envisages shared owners will be involved in sharing their experience to shape this work. And if you could outline a bit more about the timeline for phase two, which is very welcome.
14:49
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you.
14:49
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I have lived in a shared ownership home, so I thought it was only right that I stood in support of this part of the bill. And usually when I'm on bill committees, I'm speaking the opposite. I'm I'm asking the government to take something out of the bill rather than to keep to keep something in. I do think it's really important. And the minister summed up in his opening, summed up the issues that lots of shared ownership are constituents faced right across the country. And if the government is already doing part of the review anyway, and if the government is committed to the review, I don't see why it can't stay part of this bill.

 Now, the cynic in me only says the only reason why the government wants to remove it from this bill is so that they can change their mind and not actually do a review into shared ownership. It has been a long standing feature now of the housing market for a number of years. So it is high time that we do do a review. And the previous speaker before me spoke eloquently about the issues that his constituents face in some of the developments that he's had. It's not too dissimilar from developers to my constituency of Broxtowe. There is major issues with Staircasing, and when you have a shared ownership property, particularly with, I find a large social housing provider.

So a housing provider that operates, for example, all across the South east, all across London, residents who buy those shared ownership homes do feel like the social housing provider is unaccountable. They. They lack transparency with the fees that they get. I mean, I've heard some horrific stories about people buying into shared ownership, using that as a stepping stone to want to buy a house on the open market and having to buy selling packs of social housing provider at extortionate costs, the social housing provider not getting back to them. So the sale of their property falls through.

 So there are a number of issues that these amendments do try and solve within the scope. And I urge the government, if they are already doing some of the work already, and they think that this this review is needed, then why not keep it in this bill? As I said, the cynic in me only thinks they want to take it out of this bill so we can get a few months down the line and then the government can go, we've changed our mind. We're not going to do a review in social housing. If the government really wants to do a review of social housing and really wants to listen to them.

And the minister, as I said, outlined quite eloquently some of the issues that affect shared owners affect leasehold and commonhold. And we look forward to that bill coming forward. But shared ownership does fall through the cracks, and we haven't spent enough time across this chamber. Speaking about the issue shared ownership tenants face. So I really urge the government to change their minds. And I was left with the impression after the second reading on the floor of the House, that this would remain part of the bill and they would accept the amendments that the noble Lords did in the other place.

 And I hope the government can reflect and can keep this clause part of the bill. Sir.
14:54
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you. Mr. Weston. Can I thank honourable members for for those contributions I set out in my opening remarks, but let me reinforce it. We absolutely appreciate the fact that shared owners across the country, although I do think there is a regional element to this, the experience of shared owners in London and other parts of the South seem to me, in terms of the feedback I receive, to be far more problematic than shared ownership in parts of the North, where it's quite a successful product and doesn't have the issues that often confront it. But there are serious affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges being experienced.

I know that from my own postbag. I have lots of shared owners, and I speak as someone who grew up with a single parent myself, but lots of shared owners who are often single women who got a mortgage on the basis of an affordability calculation and have seen within 2 or 3 years , service charges and other costs increase to the point that that their home is no longer affordable and wouldn't be counted as much on that affordability check. And they're under real, real pressure. So we recognise those. And I understand any shared owners watching will see this clause as a sort of lifeline.

 What I would come back to, and I'll make a couple of points, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's points about the frequency with which ministers in previous conservative administrations were cycled through. And I think I'm right in saying, Mr. Weston, if I make it to Thursday, I am the longest housing minister to serve since since 2010. So you've got a bit better form on permanence of our policy certainty and stability and ministerial policy certainty and stability. But notwithstanding that, or his attempts to sort of beguile me with flattery, I can't accept these amendments for the following two reasons.

 Let me turn and take both in turn. But essentially I don't think either are proportionate or necessary. On new clause 45. This would require the Secretary of State to publish a model shared ownership agreement, but model shared Model. Shared ownership leases are already available, and they contain the fundamental clauses governing how shared ownership operates, including many of the matters raised by the honourable member providers. Delivering grant funded shared ownership are required to use leases containing these clauses and comply with wider grant requirements. On the point of new clause 41. And I just to give members a sense that we are thinking about these things, and part of the reason that I made the written ministerial statement on Monday is that, and I throw my hands up to this one.

We have done a huge amount of work in this area, and we have never brought it together into one place to stay. To put it in the context of a wider improvement programme, and the fault for that is on me, but there is a lot of work that has already been done, and there is a lot of work to come tackling specific issues. Let me just name two Staircasing. We know that shared owners who want a staircase can face barriers such as transaction costs, a lack of information, rising property values and wider affordability pressures. The Home Owners Alliance, for example, has to make typical transaction costs of around £2,000.

That was two years ago, in 2024. So in the w.m.s., we have committed to considering measures to reduce existing barriers to staircasing, such as those upfront and ongoing transaction costs or buybacks. And I'm very acutely aware, and we had this issue arise in the context of the Renters Rights Act as well. Again, from Lord young pressing the case for shared owners. But I'm absolutely and acutely aware that buybacks can be a lifeline for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to afford to remain in their home or to sell it, whether that be to building due to building safety defects, high service charges or lease related restrictions.

 Again, we have committed and made clear in that mess that we are already intent on undertaking a comprehensive review of the functioning of buybacks to better understand practical barriers and solutions, and look at specific issues such as the current use of recycled capital funding grants. So that work is underway. It's also worth saying that lots of the problems that affect shared owners go beyond them to affect other leaseholders, and the actions we are taking in a number of areas will benefit shared owners, along with other long residential leaseholders. A good case is the standardization and transparency measures that we are introducing in respect of service charges, using powers previous Government's Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act.

 We will be commencing. Sorry will be laying those statutory instruments in the very near future. So honourable members can look forward to those. But shared owners who are seeing those high and rising service charges will benefit from those provisions. But on the substantive matter at hand and the right hon. Gentleman got to the point . He he frames this as an extra opportunity. I just gently say to him, he can put his ministerial hat on. When he stood here over many, many years. Is it reasonable, proportionate to require, through a social housing Bill, a statutory review of shared ownership, given all that the government is doing?

 Is it really proportionate to require that statutory review to just give that extra opportunity? Now, if honourable members are saying to me that we need to do more and we already consult Shared Owners Network, other representative groups, if there is more that we can do, and I'm happy to work with honourable members to get shared owners and their experiences into the government's thinking so that they are better reflected. If there's more that we can do to improve the current improvement programme already underway, I'm more than happy to hear that, but I do think it is a little stretching to say it is absolutely essential just for that.

 To quote the right hon. Gentleman, a little extra opportunity to cover those issues. We are looking at issues in the round. We are looking at the comprehensive set of challenges that shared owners face. And so I think taking.
15:06
15:06
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Well.
15:06
15:08
15:08
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Yeah.
15:08
15:10
15:11
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Edward Argar.
15:11
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

I.
15:11
15:13
15:14
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Clause 14 and its associated schedule. Schedule one. Address a clear legal gap in respect of social housing tenancies, namely, that existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators, but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that all too often, victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their home. As I argued at second reading, this is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs and taken together, clause 14 and schedule one will end it.

 Schedule one introduces stronger powers for landlords to enable them to take possession of a property where domestic abuse has taken place, without the requirement for the victim to leave. Schedule one also strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible, or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the government's wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports rather than frustrates a victims route to safety and recovery. The new mandatory grounds within schedule one seek to provide a clear framework by which courts must grant possession if the threshold has been met.

 Crucially, under the discretionary grounds within schedule one, the court must take into account the opinion of the victim before making a decision helping to ensure victims remain at the centre of the process. A key focus of the measures is providing certainty in cases of joint tenancies. Schedule one ensures that if conditions are met for joint tenancies, the court will transfer the perpetrator's interest in the joint tenancy so that the victim becomes the sole tenant. Where it is not appropriate for a victim to remain in their current home, the Bill allows the court to order suitable alternative social housing where the landlord has such accommodation available.

 The court must, as far as possible, take into account the victim's views when considering the suitability of alternative accommodation. If a landlord cannot satisfy the court that a suitable home will be available, the victim will not be forced to move. Under these provisions, clause 14 and schedule one provide that the new measures will apply where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the victim currently lives in the property or left due to domestic abuse. The measures critically remove the requirement for the victim to have fled the property before possession action can be taken. The measures also protect victims of modern slavery, where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected, and the other conditions in the bill are met.

We will continue to work with the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the Home Office and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation, I should say on that point. Mr. Watson, it would be remiss of me not to do so, that our work with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has been, in my view, an exemplary example of cross-departmental working to resolve a really pressing issue. In aligning with the definition of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the measures also cover a broader range of conduct. The measures protect those most at risk who currently live or previously lived in the property with the perpetrator, while remaining clear and workable in practice.

 Turning now to government amendments 22 to 73, which address concerns raised in the other place about the evidence needed to use the discretionary grounds in domestic abuse cases. We've listened carefully to those concerns, and we have acted. These amendments strengthen the discretionary domestic abuse grounds by ensuring that the existence of a relative relevant protective order is sufficient to satisfy the first stage of the ground ahead of the court, determining whether it is reasonable to grant possession where either a non-molestation order or a domestic abuse protection order is in force against a perpetrator. Landlords may rely on it as evidence for the courts to then progress to consider whether it is reasonable to grant possession.

 This removes the need to separately establish whether domestic abuse has taken place where an order is in place, making it easier for social landlords to take possession. Action where a court has already made an order protecting the victim. An order will be disregarded if an appeal remains unresolved or results in the order being overturned. The amendments do not make possession automatic. The courts will still need to consider whether it is reasonable to make a possession order retaining judicial oversight through the existing reasonableness test. The amendments will simplify the process and give greater confidence to landlords and victims when seeking possession.

 These amendments also make technical and consequential changes to the domestic abuse provisions in schedule one. They align the terminology used in the bill with the definition of domestic abuse in section one of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, make consequential changes and align wording across equivalent provisions in the bill and finally, clarify how the tenancy transfer and possession provisions operate. The proposed amendments ensure that where the conditions for making a possession order on the basis of suitable alternative accommodation apply, the transfer of tenancy provision will also operate. The effect is that the perpetrators tenant's interest is severed.

In all cases where the ground for possession is met and where the court is satisfied that an order should be made. This will help deliver more consistent outcomes for victims in joint tenancy cases. Taken together, these amendments improve the clarity and consistency of schedule one and ensure that domestic abuse provisions operate intended. I commend clause 14 and schedule one to the committee and beg to move amendments 22 to 73.
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:28
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Edward Arnold.
15:28
15:29
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Minister.
15:29
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. Can I thank the honourable gentleman, the member for Newbury. The right hon. Member for Ilford and Southeastern. I never know whether I pronounce that entirely correctly. He can, on a different occasion, the Shadow Minister. I do welcome the the cross-party support for the intent behind these provisions and their effect in some ways. I mean, I go so far as to say they are groundbreaking in terms of what we have tried to achieve. And, as I said, very effective, cross-departmental, working on the specific point that the honourable member for Newbury raised, there are mandatory grounds for possession in the bill.

 They apply only when a breach of a relevant order has taken place. The changes we have made to the discretionary possession grounds is to allow for the existence of an order to be relevant grounds for the court, rather than a breach having to take place, but there are mandatory grounds in place. I'm happy if he would like to set out that in more detail to him in writing, if he would be interested. I know he takes a keen interest in these areas. Turning to the the two amendments that have been tabled, starting with amendment 12.

 This issue in a version of this amendment was raised in the other place by the noble lady, Baroness Ni, and I would like to give the committee the same reassurances that we gave the noble Baroness, and that the Baroness accepted in debates in the other place. Firstly, I have to say that the government agrees with the principle that survivors of domestic abuse should not face unfair barriers to social housing because of debt arising from that abuse. I think we would all agree on that point. That is why, in the National Plan to End Homelessness, we committed to address the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing.

Through our update to the statutory guidance on social housing allocations. We continue to believe that primary legislation is not the right approach in this area. There are sensitive and inherently complex cases play here, and the amendment would introduce a rigid rule which would not allow local authorities to take proper account of individual circumstances. Updated statutory guidance will allow us to set clear national expectations, while preserving the flexibility needed to reach fair and sustainable decisions in individual cases. Work is already underway. Mr. Weston, to review the guidance in question, we will consult on updated guidance early next year.

 As I made clear during the second reading of the bill, we continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, and I am happy to reiterate here. I think it was my honourable friend for Uxbridge and West Ruislip and my hon. Friend for Birmingham Yardley, who pressed me on the point that if guidance does prove insufficient, we do have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation. The government's position in that matter has not changed. We support the objective of removing unfair barriers survivors believe. We believe updated statutory guidance backed by existing regulation.

 Making powers, if necessary, is the more proportionate and effective. I will give way. .
15:35
15:37
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

I thank my friend for that point. We will absolutely keep the effectiveness of that guidance under review, and I hope I can reiterate the commitment I've made, which I've tried to put in as plain a term as possible. If that guidance is not effective, we will use the regulations that are in place to ensure that we are resolving the issue in question, but we think in the first instance that there is a high chance that that guidance is successful in achieving the outcomes we want to see, and that is our preferred route in the near term.

 But I absolutely am determined to ensure this issue is addressed as the Baroness accepted, in terms of the commitments we made in the other place, and those regulations are available if we require them. Turning to New Clause 32, wherein the Department already collects data through core social housing lettings on how many new tenancies were given to victims that left their previous tenancy because of domestic abuse. This provides for an important baseline for monitoring outcomes as the reforms are implemented. The Ministry of Justice also publishes quarterly statistics on landlord possession proceedings in the county courts of England and Wales.

 These cover claims possession orders, warrants and repossessions, including for social landlords. We will work with the Ministry of Justice, social landlords and the domestic abuse sector on implementation. He would expect nothing less. This includes developing clear guidance so that landlords know how and when to use the measures, and to support victims. The new clause would also require an assessment of how courts and other organisations identify domestic abuse. On the 5th of October, I'm sure he's aware of this. The government launched the judicial finding of domestic abuse, a significant step forward in improving the identification and management of domestic abuse offenders across the criminal justice system.

 As part of sentencing, judges will be required to make a judicial finding of domestic abuse in open court where the evidence supports such a finding. As defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, this will provide a formal record where an offence involves domestic abuse. These findings will be recorded within court records and shared with police and probation. The judicial finding will enable police, courts, prisons and probation services to more effectively recognise domestic abuse offenders and respond to the risks they pose. Finally, subsection two B of the new clause extends beyond the purpose of these measures.

The measures in the Bill do not alter the way local authorities identify previous victims or perpetrators when allocating new social housing tenancies. This is a matter for local authorities to determine when assessing need and priority for an allocation of social housing. On that basis, I would respectfully urge the Shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause. Mr. Weston, as I've set out the measures that the government has put forward, this group will help ensure that the reforms in the Bill can operate effectively in practice. The government amendments provide the necessary technical changes to support the operation of the provisions, ensure the legislation works as intended and again welcome the cross-party support for the clauses in question.

 I ask the committee to support government Amendments 22 to 73, and I commend clause 14 and schedule one to the Committee.
15:42
15:42
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I.
15:43
15:44
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Move formally.
15:44
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Sorry.
15:44
15:45
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Move formally?
15:45
15:47
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Given the.
15:47
15:47
15:48
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. Clause 15 introduces schedule two, which gives the Secretary of State power to create one new general consent and removes the need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent for certain transactions altogether. There are a range of circumstances where local authorities must obtain the Secretary of State's consent to undertake certain actions relating to their social homes, including how they account for it and when and how they can dispose of it. Some of these consents also apply to private individuals who own property that was once owned as social housing by a council or a new town corporation.

 The first of these gives the Secretary of State power to issue a general consent to non-housing assets, for example, shops or recreation grounds being accounted for in the Housing Revenue Account in accordance with part two of the Housing Act 1985. This will enable the Secretary of State to permit all such accounting practices where they meet certain criteria that will remove one obstacle from the process of planning new council developments. It will also make it easier for councils to include these additional premises in their developments, supporting the creation of thriving, livable communities. The second streamlines the process by which local authorities can serve demolition notices, where homes are due to be demolished, which suspend or end tenants right to buy.

 Under schedule five and five of the Housing Act 1985. Initial demolition notices can be issued for up to seven years and final demolition notices, which can be issued once the local authority has acquired all the relevant properties for demolition or has entered into binding agreements to acquire them for up to two years, this provision removes the requirement for Secretary of State consent, where local authorities need to serve further interim or final demolition notices. If demolition cannot be completed during the time of the original notice, and it sets out requirements that local authorities must follow when serving further interim and final demolition notices.

 These changes, as I've said, will help local authorities manage redevelopment schemes more efficiently while still requiring them to follow clear statutory conditions. Finally, the clause amends or repeals provisions in a number of acts that require Secretary of State consent for the onward sale of homes that have previously been owned by a local housing authority or new town corporation, even if those homes are already in the private market. These changes do not have effect in Wales, where the previous regime will continue. The changes will take away a completely unnecessary brake on these housing transactions in the private market.

 There is no longer any rationale for these now private homes to be subject to Secretary of State's consent and consent is never in practice denied. All of these changes are part of a suite of measures planned by the government to simplify and streamline the council housing consent system in England, and empower local authorities who know their communities best. Turning now to government amendments 74, which makes minor and consequential amendments to schedule two, paragraph one, subsection three of the schedule omits section 171 D, subsection two of the Housing Act, 1985. That subsection currently requires the Secretary of State's consent for certain onward disposals of homes already sold under the right to buy.

 As a consequence of that omission, references elsewhere in the Housing Act 1985 to consent under section 171 D, subsection two are no longer required. Amendment 74 removes those redundant references, ensuring that the legislation operates coherently once the requirement for consent is removed, the amendment does not make any further substantive change to the policy. It simply makes unnecessary, consequential amendments to give full effect to paragraph one, subsection three of schedule two. I commend clause 15 and schedule two to the committee and ask the committee support government amendment 74.
15:55
15:56
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Build.
15:56
15:56
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

I.
15:56
15:56
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Move for me.
15:56
15:58
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Watson. It is essential that local housing authorities have flexibility to manage their stock in the way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 16, 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 would say would have forced because these provisions were never implemented by previous governments. Even so, the presence of the provisions on the statute book had has a negative effect on local authorities spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties, which were typically earning higher than average rents and cheaper to maintain.

 The policy was intended, and I recall this because I sat on the Bill committee at the time as a relatively new member. It was intended to raise capital to supply new social homes, but it would ultimately have led to the to the net loss of social homes. Furthermore, when the 2016 act was passed, a majority, a major aim of the policy was to help fund the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. This government has made clear that it does not intend to take that extension forward. The last conservative government, as I said, 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, and I commend the clause to the committee.
16:00
16:01
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Aye.
16:01
16:02
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr.. Clause 17 introduces schedule three, which repeals commenced provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies and required new social housing tenants to be given fixed term secure tenancies. Instead, as per the previous provisions, which we have just debated. These rules were never brought into force and they would have reduced security for tenants. Indeed, the inclusion of the fixed term provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections throughout its passage. The government supports the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households and help people put down roots in their communities.

 Security of tenure matters, particularly for families, older residents, disabled people and others for whom a settled home is the foundation of wider well-being and opportunity. This was the very rationale for the changes we've recently implemented through the Renters Rights Act. Whilst promoting the use of lifetime tenancies, the government does expect landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need. Landlords can support tenants to downsize, transfer or mutually exchange their homes if their circumstances change. This helps people move to properties that are better suited to them, and helps to make sure social housing is used in the fairest way possible.

 Retaining the option for them to grant fixed term tenancies is also an important tool, allowing councils to respond to specific circumstances, for example supporting time limited resettlement schemes. The schedule also retains the existing approach to succession by reinserting the relevant provisions from the 2016 act, ensuring there are no substantial changes to how succession works in practice. The repeal of these provisions will provide greater certainty to tenants and landlords and ensure the law continues to work properly after those provisions are removed. The previous government confirmed that they had no intention themselves of implementing the provisions in their 2018 Social Housing Green Paper.

 After listening to residents concerns once again, this government is going a step further and repealing these measures from the statute book. Now turn to government amendments 75 to 77 in my name. These are minor and technical amendments to the succession provisions in schedule three. Amendment 77 corrects the provision dealing with demoted tenancy, so that it refers only to changes that apply to those tenancies. References to provisions that apply only to introductory tenancies are removed as those cases are already covered separately. Amendments 75 and 76 make clear that sections 143 H and 143 J referred to in the provisions are sections of the Housing Act 1996.

 These amendments do not change the policy or tenants rights. They simply clarify the wording and make sure references are correct and in order. I commend clause 17 and amendment 75 to 77 to the committee.
16:07
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Shadow Minister.
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to move new clauses 40 and 58 in my name. Social housing is not a one size fits all. A new clause 40 seeks to protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy they can offer to local people, and that would preserve local authority and discretion to use fixed term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed term tenancies allow a landlord to review household circumstances at the end of a term, and to make sure that the home can be put to the best use of those who need it most.

 They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that where a tenant situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest requirement. This new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system. Two things that this bill fails to do in many ways. New clause 40 importantly imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion. With regards to clause 58, social housing exists with the express purpose of providing those most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home in a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it's essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need at the severest risk, not just those who once needed them, but no longer do.

 And that's why we've tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that the social housing continues to meet tenants needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation. Not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.

 Yes.
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Minister.
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. Let me start with New clause 40, which seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed term tenancies. Fixed term tenancies will no longer be available within the Assured tenancy framework once the relevant Renters Rights Act reforms take effect. I therefore understand this amendment to be aimed principally at ensuring that local housing authorities, other secured tenancy landlords can continue to grant fixed term tenancies where appropriate. I want to be clear, Mr. Weston, this amendment is not needed. Nothing in this bill prevents secure tenancy landlords from granting fixed term tenancies.

 The Bill repeals and commenced provisions, as I've said in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies to be fixed term. Those provisions, as we've just debated, were never brought into force and we are now removing them to provide clarity. Secure tenancy landlords will still be able to offer fixed term tenancies where they consider it appropriate. As I've said, the bill doesn't change that. These amendments risk repeating what is already the case in law for secure tenancy landlords, and we create confusion by suggesting the Bill removes flexibility in this area when it does not.

 For those reasons, I ask the Minister to withdraw new clause 40. Turning to new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years. As I've already made clear when speaking to clause 17 stand apart, this government supports the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households and help people put down roots in their communities. That is precisely why we are appealing unconvinced provisions from the 2016 act that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies in favour of mandatory fixed term tenancies. We do have expect local authorities and other social landlords to make the best and most effective use of their stock to meet housing need.

 However, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for local authorities to review every secure tenancy once every five years would be an appropriate way to support local authorities in doing so. In terms of the administrative burden it would entail, and we believe it would have detrimental impacts on tenants and communities. These are precisely some of the reasons that the previous government did not commence the provisions that it had legislated for in the 2016 act. Thank you very much, Minister.
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. I fear that the honourable gentleman does misunderstand the bill in a number of respects. Firstly, we are not abolishing or phasing out the right to buy. As I've persistently made clear, we want to ensure the right to buy is available for long standing tenants who have lived in. He can intervene on me once I've answered his previous intervention. Those tenants that have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years, as I've already made clear in response to a previous debate, landlords can already consider changing tenant needs through a variety of methods, from tenant surveys to direct engagement.

 They already can support tenants to downsize, to transfer, to mutually exchange their home if their circumstances change. What this amendment does is to mandate, through primary legislation, a review of every secure tenancy once every five years. And I simply put to the honourable gentleman, and this picks up on the precise reasons that previous conservative government did not enact the provisions that it took through its own 2016 bill, that that would entail huge administrative burden for local authorities. And we think because we believe in the principle of secure tenancies in social housing, both in terms of the benefits for tenants, but also communities more widely, that we should not impose such a statutory review every five years.

I'm struggling to see how that is incompatible with trying to place the right to buy scheme on a more fair and sustainable footing. I should say in closing, Mr. Weston, the government is reviewing how effectively social housing providers are using their stock. This work is considering issues such as under occupation. I will just let me make this point and I will give way. But is considering issues such as under occupation, overcrowding and how landlords are supporting tenant movement. We will set out findings from that review and next steps in due course. So it is the case that we think social landlords can, in some instances, make better and more effective use of their stock.

That doesn't necessarily require as a means to support them to do so. A statutory requirement to review every secure tenancy every five years.
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you. Mr.. Clause 18 repeals unimplemented provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher income social tenants. We are now removing them to provide certainty and to clean up the statute book. These provisions, as with others we've debated this afternoon, were never implemented. And once again, I note that the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections during the passage of that legislation. A mandatory pay to say scheme would be difficult and costly to administer. Indeed, the previous government, despite legislating for this policy, chose not to commence it on the explicit basis that the costs outweighed the benefits.

 Income alone is also not the only determinant of who is allocated social housing. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances, which mean that 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. Social housing is targeted to those who need it most, but some tenants incomes may rise over time. Our focus is on keeping rents affordable and supporting all social tenants, not penalizing tenants for improving their circumstances. Landlords, as we've previously debated in a, in a, in a group just moved.

 Landlords can encourage tenants to move if their circumstances change. Where tenants want to move or downsize, we expect landlords to support them to do this through transfers or mutual exchanges. This helps people move to properties that are better suited to them and helps to make sure social housing is used in the fairest way possible. Where they choose. Councils and private registered providers are able to run voluntary pay to say schemes. This allows landlords to decide whether a scheme is suitable for their area. Councils can also consider an applicant's income and financial circumstances when deciding whether they qualify for social housing, and what priority they should receive.

 Households with higher incomes may be given less priority or may not qualify at all. However, councils will also consider whether the household has other needs, as I've referenced, which can mean that social housing is still the right option for them. Repealing these measures, Mr. Weston provides a fairer and more workable approach. This change will help keep rents affordable for social tenants, especially those on lower and middle incomes, avoid disincentives to work, and mean tenants are not incentivized to reduce their working hours to avoid higher rent.

And I commend the clause to the committee.
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Shadow Minister.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. Before I respond to new clause 42, I've got a take on a point that the shadow Minister keeps saying that this bill does not build any new social housing. I've made incredibly clear, and I encourage him to go and talk to his local authority. I'm not sure its record on social housing is a particularly good one, but local authorities are very clear and have said to us in plain terms that the measures in this bill will incentivize them to build more social homes. But of course, it's the case. Of course, it's the case that this piece of legislation is not the only means by which we are building new social and affordable housing.

We have a £39 billion social and affordable homes program dwarfs anything the previous government allocated in this area, and there is additional funding to come on top of that. On the content of new clause 42, this would require the Secretary of State to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing within two years of the Act's passing and every five years thereafter, and to publish the findings and lay them before Parliament. Each review would consider trends over the previous five years in household earnings, regional housing costs, housing affordability and demand for social housing. I recognize the importance of considering income to ensure social housing is targeted at those most in need.

 Indeed, it's a sad truth that the residuals of social housing over many years, not least because of the engineered decline of it under previous governments. Those increased right to buy discounts explicitly targeted to ensure more are being sold. But because it is realized, it has become, in most cases targeted at those on very low incomes. But we don't believe this amendment is necessary. Eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process, and there is no general national income eligibility threshold for social rented housing. Local authorities, as I've made clear, can take financial resources into account in determining qualification and relative priority under their allocation scheme.

 Subject to statutory requirements. Private registered providers also operate their own lettings policies. This allows local and individual circumstances to be taken into account. I will give one.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Well, Minister, I thank my hon. Friend, for the invitation to become ungracious in respect of the respect of the members opposite, I would say the following. I remember the debates on that 2016 Bill Committee. These were deeply ideological measures that were implemented. But I think it says everything that conservative ministers decided they were unpractical, unworkable, couldn't be implemented, and made clear they did. And they made very clear. I encourage members opposite to go and read the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper, where conservative ministers make very clear that the huge administrative burdens that come from some of these measures, as well as their detrimental impact on tenants and communities, what we are doing is going a step further, as I've said, and removing them and the uncertainty they provide for from the statute book on the provisions of this particular amendment, it is important to be clear that only a minority of social housing lettings are to high income households, a very small minority.

 This is based on household income, not individual income, and in many cases could reflect two people, each earning a modest salary rather than a single person on what anyone would reasonably describe as a high income. Now, some households may have additional needs or circumstances which mean that social housing remains, as I've said, 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. Income should be considered alongside a household's wider housing needs and circumstances, but we don't believe this duty is necessary, nor that it would be appropriate use of resources for government to review every one of these independently set thresholds.

 In repealing the Housing and Planning Act 2016, page state provisions, councils and registered providers will still be able to operate voluntary pay to stay schemes for households earning over £60,000 if they wish to do so. That discretion is important. It remains, but there will be no mandatory national requirement. This approach will avoid, as I've said, disincentives to work or increase earnings and support a more sensible system overall. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn and I commend clause 18 to the Committee.
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. I rise to speak to government. New clause 21 government, new schedule one and government amendment 79. The right to manage can be a powerful tool through which social housing residents can take greater control of the housing services they receive, but it must operate within a clear, robust framework that protects residents and clarifies respective responsibilities. Taken together, these amendments will update and strengthen the right to manage, making it easier for social housing tenants to exercise that right with confidence while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. These reforms have been informed by the findings of the review of the Right to Manage, which was undertaken by the government.

Through the review, we heard clearly from stakeholders that the current right to manage framework has not kept pace with wider regulatory change. They highlighted the need for governance that is more proportionate and for greater clarity on roles and responsibilities and information sharing. We also heard from landlords and residents that the current routes for intervention, if things go wrong, can be slow and cumbersome. Sections 227 add to 27 A-F of the new schedule will enable a more proportionate approach to governance requirements. They will put in place lighter touch requirements where residents take on more limited services and stronger requirements where tenant management organisations assume more complex functions, including building safety responsibilities.

 These provisions will also provide broader powers to strengthen the framework governing right to manage arrangements, helping to ensure it keeps pace with wider regulatory requirements, including on the safety and decency of social homes and quality of services to tenants. These are enabling powers that will allow us to update the right to manage regulations and guidance to govern management agreements, ballots of residents, regular reviews and information sharing. These powers will come into effect on Royal Assent, but we will consult on the detail before introducing the new regulations and guidance. Sections 27 to 27 Al will also require regular reviews of the management agreements, strengthened requirements for residents to be balloted on continuation of TMO arrangements, and better information sharing between Tmos and their landlords.

 They will also strengthen requirements on landlords to consult tmos on policy changes affecting functions exercised under management agreements. Sections 20:07 a.m. to 27AQ will create a targeted callback route for intervention in exceptional cases, including removal of board members where there is serious mismanagement of a TMO or a risk to resident safety. That route will be subject to judicial oversight, with the court required to be satisfied that urgent intervention is appropriate. This will help address the type of concerns raised by my hon. Friend the member for Dulwich and West Norwood about the ability of councils to act swiftly where serious failings are putting residents at risk.

 We know that many tmos work hard to deliver good quality housing services that respond to local priorities and are supported by tenants who give up their own time to serve on committees. These reforms will make the right to manage easier, to exercise, clearer to operate and safer for residents. They will support residents empowerment while ensuring that landlords have the tools they need to meet their regulatory requirements and safeguard residents. And I beg to move.
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Yes.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I beg to move. New clause 22. Many councils and housing associations already work closely together to secure settled homes for people facing homelessness. We are committed to building on the many examples of good practice and collaboration that exist. However, informal agreements between councils and other providers do not always work, and private registered providers are less likely to offer accommodation to homeless households than councils. This amendment, therefore, gives local housing authorities an additional tool to help them discharge the main homelessness duty, where a council owes a household the main homelessness duty, it will be able to ask a private resident provider with social housing in its area to offer that household social housing, the provider must respond and offer suitable accommodation within a reasonable period unless it has good reason not to do so.

 We will consult councils, housing providers and other relevant bodies before setting out in regulations what constitutes a reasonable period and a good reason. But to give an example, a private registered provider would not be expected to offer accommodation if they do not have anything suitable available in a reasonable time frame. The power includes important safeguards. Before making a referral, the council must take account of the type and amount of accommodation the provider has locally and the extent to which it is already housed and homeless households. This will ensure that referrals are fair, proportionate and reflect local circumstances.

 The approach builds on established practice in Scotland and delivers a commitment in our National Plan to End homelessness. I commend the new clause to the committee.
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

For me.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Mr. Weston. I beg to move two new clauses, new clause 23 and 24, both of which look to strengthen homelessness prevention and ensure support reaches those who need it most as quickly as possible. Let me start with new clause 23. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in our armed forces. They have given their so much of their lives in service of their country, and it's right that we support them to have a safe home on leaving active service. Whilst thankfully, the number of former armed service personnel seeking homelessness support is relatively small, the government recognises that those that do can face challenges, particularly if they seek to establish themselves in an area where they may have no existing local connections.

 The existing legislation permits a local housing authority to refer someone to another local housing authority. If a person seeking housing support does not have any connections to their local area, to one where they do. This amendment provides a power for the Secretary of State to define. In regulations where that should not apply, we propose to use that power to exempt our armed forces veterans from local connection referrals. This means that there will be no barriers or delays to veterans receiving homelessness assistance. They will be able to seek support from anywhere in the country, and the local authority will be required to provide assistance.

 This builds on the action we took last year to exempt veterans from any local connection test that councils might apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing. I will give way.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support for this measure, and I'm more than happy to have an ongoing dialogue with her about this issue, as I do with so many others. But it's absolutely right that we look to do everything possible to support our veterans. I'll turn now to a new clause 24. Mr.. Western homelessness rarely occurs without warning. We know that. Yet too often people only come to the attention of local housing authorities where they have already reached crisis point. Many have been in contact with different public services long beforehand. But opportunities to identify risks, coordinate, support and intervene early are often missed.

 People often face homelessness despite engaging with services that are well placed to help prevent it. Our amendment addresses this challenge by introducing new duties on specified bodies to identify and act on a person's homelessness or risk of homelessness. This supports the government's commitment to prevent and relieve homelessness at the earliest possible stage. Those bodies will also be required to take meaningful action as part of the existing functions to address or relieve that homelessness, the duty will replace and extend the existing duty to refer. It will mandate earlier engagement with local housing authorities alongside notifying them if someone requires support.

 It also mandates continued engagement with the local authority to enable it to support an individual as effectively as possible. It will also require specified bodies to consider other sources of support for the individual. Mr. Western preventing homelessness should not be the responsibility of a single organisation. People at risk of homelessness often have multiple and overlapping needs, including poor health, unemployment, financial hardship or involvement with the justice system.

 No single service can address these issues effectively alone. I will give way.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Minister.
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Minister.
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I beg.
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

To move that further.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Order, order! A.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page