Social Housing Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 days, 6 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during the sittings other than the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if members could email their notes to Hansard [email protected], or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room. We begin today's proceedings with Group 44 and New Clause 36, with which it would be convenient to consider new clauses 54 and 59. I call Gareth Bacon to move clause.
New clause 36.
New clause 36.
09:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Good morning, Mr. Vickers. It is nice to resume today's hearing. Under your chairmanship, I rise to move clause 36, which stands in my name. This bill will change how social housing is funded, how receipts are used and who can afford to buy their home. This creates understandable and unhelpful uncertainty for local authorities and social housing providers and by extension, tenants. Local authorities are right to be anxious because clause ten hands the Secretary of State sweeping powers over capital receipts, and councils cannot plan. If they do not know what they will lose or gain. New clause 36 simply asks that within six months of Royal assent, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a fiscal impact assessment.
It must examine the effect on local authority finances, whether social housing offers value for money for the taxpayer and how the bill changes tenants financial ability to use right to buy. If the government is confident in its figures, it has nothing to fear from publishing them. With regard to new clause 54, this bill represents an assault on the aspiration of social housing tenants to own their own homes. It is an ideological attack on a policy that for over 40 years has given millions of people the opportunity to get onto the housing ladder who otherwise may never have been able to do so.
By extending the qualifying period and slashing discounts, the government is seeking to effectively abolish right to buy your own home and force residents into renting for longer and longer. And that is why I tabled new clause 54, which would require a review of the impact of the provisions of the Bill on the rates of home ownership among social housing tenants. The bill's impact assessment shows a dramatic projected decline in right to buy sales within the first two years of it coming into force, with sales nearly halving. With little effort to support people onto the housing ladder and cuts to measures such as first time buyer stamp duty relief, the government is tearing up not only one of the most effective routes to home ownership for social housing tenants, but one of the only routes, full stop.
That is why it is critical that we understand the bill's full impact and demonstrate the disaster that awaits social housing tenants aspiring not just to live in their own home, but to own it to.
It must examine the effect on local authority finances, whether social housing offers value for money for the taxpayer and how the bill changes tenants financial ability to use right to buy. If the government is confident in its figures, it has nothing to fear from publishing them. With regard to new clause 54, this bill represents an assault on the aspiration of social housing tenants to own their own homes. It is an ideological attack on a policy that for over 40 years has given millions of people the opportunity to get onto the housing ladder who otherwise may never have been able to do so.
By extending the qualifying period and slashing discounts, the government is seeking to effectively abolish right to buy your own home and force residents into renting for longer and longer. And that is why I tabled new clause 54, which would require a review of the impact of the provisions of the Bill on the rates of home ownership among social housing tenants. The bill's impact assessment shows a dramatic projected decline in right to buy sales within the first two years of it coming into force, with sales nearly halving. With little effort to support people onto the housing ladder and cuts to measures such as first time buyer stamp duty relief, the government is tearing up not only one of the most effective routes to home ownership for social housing tenants, but one of the only routes, full stop.
That is why it is critical that we understand the bill's full impact and demonstrate the disaster that awaits social housing tenants aspiring not just to live in their own home, but to own it to.
09:27
09:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that new clause 36 be read a second time. The. Yeah. Thank you. Mr.. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. I rise to speak to New Clause 59, which in a similar spirit to the official opposition's new clause 36 and 54, asks for the Secretary of State to carry out a review. The amendment tabled in my name asks for that review to take place 12 months after the act. But we come at it with a different aspiration. I feel that the opposition's amendments are tabled to try to catch the government out, whereas we support the objectives of this bill, but we feel that it is right that while we are making changes to Right to Buy, that we support and tightening stock disposal, it's only right that the House, via a review by the Secretary of State, is tabled 12 months after this bill, so that we can see if those objectives were indeed met, or if we need to legislate further to make sure that we continue to protect social housing stock, which we are in full agreement with the government on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
09:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the chair. I'll speak to new clauses 36, 54 and 59 together, members of the Committee will have heard my opinion of the merits of opposition amendments that seek further statutory reviews in general, so they can guess where I'm heading with some of these. But while we share the aim of ensuring that the impact of these reforms is properly understood, the government does not believe that further statutory review requirements are necessary or proportionate. We've already published an economic impact assessment. We have arrangements in place to monitor the effects of the act.
The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million. Mr. Vickers new clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months, covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe, we believe, risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. But more broadly, the government already publishes comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right to buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority level data.
We will, of course, continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing data sets and established statistical releases, but for that reason, we don't think a new clause 59 is warranted. On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right to buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with honourable members on the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act's effects.
The government's priority, Mr. Vickers, is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. And for those reasons, I'm afraid we will not be able to accept new clauses 36, 54 or 59. Gareth Bacon.
The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million. Mr. Vickers new clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months, covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe, we believe, risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. But more broadly, the government already publishes comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right to buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority level data.
We will, of course, continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing data sets and established statistical releases, but for that reason, we don't think a new clause 59 is warranted. On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right to buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with honourable members on the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act's effects.
The government's priority, Mr. Vickers, is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. And for those reasons, I'm afraid we will not be able to accept new clauses 36, 54 or 59. Gareth Bacon.
09:30
09:31
09:31
09:31
09:31
09:31
09:32
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. I rise to move clause 38, which stands in my name. Every home that is illegally sublet is a home taken from a family who needs it with waiting list as long as they are. That is nothing short of theft from the public. It is also unfair to the many tenants who play by the rules. We know that the problem exists, yet we have little idea how well it is being tackled. How many prosecutions are brought? How many properties are actually recovered? What stops landlords and councils from acting? This new clause answers those questions.
Within 12 months of Royal assent, Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. This Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.
Within 12 months of Royal assent, Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. This Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.
09:33
09:33
09:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. I thank the Shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to this amendment. The government does want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Tackling illegal subletting is an important element of that, and we are clear that landlords should be taking action to clamp down on such unacceptable practices, and I very much agree with his comments about how unacceptable they are. They are a misuse of social housing. New clause 38, as he said, would require the Secretary of State within 12 months of Royal assent to publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of enforcement activity relating to illegal subletting of social housing.
The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement. Mr. Vickers, As I've already set out to the committee, the government is undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud in it. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the Stock Management Review will help inform any future action. I can give the Shadow Minister that assurance. In addition, much of the information the amendment seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics.
New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and providers. As a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, I'm again surprised that he's he's urging the government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. But in our view, in this instance, they they aren't warranted. We think that would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery. Mr. Vickers where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the government, as I said, expects landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure social housing is used fairly, and this may include taking legal action, and the government is already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes through the Cabinet Office's National Fraud Initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered on the 8th of July.
The government also announced a new innovative data sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first of its kind agreement, led by the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office, will ensure social housing properties remain there for families who need them and not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the government taking action on fraud. For these reasons, I'd ask the shadow Minister to respectfully withdraw the new clause.
The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement. Mr. Vickers, As I've already set out to the committee, the government is undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud in it. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the Stock Management Review will help inform any future action. I can give the Shadow Minister that assurance. In addition, much of the information the amendment seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics.
New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and providers. As a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, I'm again surprised that he's he's urging the government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. But in our view, in this instance, they they aren't warranted. We think that would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery. Mr. Vickers where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the government, as I said, expects landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure social housing is used fairly, and this may include taking legal action, and the government is already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes through the Cabinet Office's National Fraud Initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered on the 8th of July.
The government also announced a new innovative data sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first of its kind agreement, led by the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office, will ensure social housing properties remain there for families who need them and not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the government taking action on fraud. For these reasons, I'd ask the shadow Minister to respectfully withdraw the new clause.
09:36
09:36
09:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Is everyone content for new clause 38 to be withdrawn? New clause 38 by leave. Withdrawn. We now come to Group 46, a new clause 39, with which it would be convenient to consider new clauses 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 in the name of the Official opposition. A new clause 61 in the name of Lee Dylan. I call Gareth Bacon to move new clause 39.
09:36
09:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mr. Vickers. I rise to move new clause 39, which stands in my name. Every member will have heard from constituents living with damp mould, faulty wiring or repairs that never arrive. The death of a shamed this country and we all promised that it would never happen again. Since then, the government has introduced new hazard regulations. The regulations alone do not help a landlord who is unsure what compliance looks like, or what a tenant who does not know what to expect. This new clause attempts to fill that gap. Within 12 months of royal assent, the Secretary of State must publish guidance, including detailed instructions for full compliance with the 2025 regulations.
It would also cover damp mould, electrical safety response times, repairs and complaints procedures. Registered providers would have to have regard to it clear standards, protect tenants and give landlords certainty. Good landlords with certainty with regards to new clause 47 social homes are safe havens for some of the most vulnerable in our society, whether facing destitution, abuse or persecution. Some of those with the greatest need in our society find their safety and peace in social housing. Yet for too many residents, estates are poorly managed, anti-social behaviour is rife and tenants are unsupported. Residents must not bear the burden of poor management practices.
And that's why I've tabled new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State within six months of Royal assent, to publish guidance on the social responsibilities of providers. Of course, up and down the country, many providers already exercise good practice, due diligence and uphold their social responsibilities. There exists, however, a small fraction within the system who do not fulfil their responsibilities as required. A new clause 47 would strengthen the government's hand in ensuring and enforcing good practices, and give tenants greater protections against unscrupulous behaviours. With regard to new clause 48, social housing is not an issue that ends up that ends with the housing of vulnerable people, but begins with it.
Once homes are found for those in need, it is vital that registered providers are properly managed, run and governed. At present, I believe that not enough is being done to ensure that this is the case and that is why I've tabled new clause 48, which is a probing clause which would require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing. It should not be the case that just because someone is vulnerable, they have little say in how their estate is run, who runs it or what agreements are being made. And that is why New Clause 48 has a specific focus on key points, such as accountability to local communities.
We want to see a fair and accountable social housing sector, and I call on the minister to assure the committee of that future here today. With regards to new clause 49, registered providers are responsible for nearly 3 million homes, around 63% of all homes that make up the national housing social housing stock. In some parts of the country, Housing association stock outweighs that of local authorities by huge margins, such as in the North west, where 86% of stock is owned by private registered providers. These tenants deserve nothing less than the openness and clarity about how their estates are run.
A new clause 49 asks the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of Royal Assent guidance on minimum governance standards. It would cover financial transparency, tenant representation and the publication of performance criteria. Again, this is a probing clause and it aims to clearer standards, not red tape. It is a simple and straightforward ask, and I hope the minister will give assurances on that point. With regards to new clause 50 social housing residents deserve accountability. Where life has dealt a weak hand, the unexpected has created hardship or vulnerabilities have led to inhibitions. Social housing should be fair, open and accountable.
Backstop. That is why New Clause 50 will seek to enable local authorities to require senior Housing Association representatives to attend scrutiny . Committee meetings for the most vulnerable in society. Protections are essential and that is why it is necessary to scrutinise the performance of registered providers. As I've said before, the vast majority of providers are fair, efficient and honest. But it is unfair on tenants to assume this without checking. And that is why clause 50 has been added or has been tabled to this bill. Finally, Mr. Vickers new clause 51. Across the public and private sectors, it is good practice to evaluate and publicise the performance of any department, business or team.
This same practice should be applied to registered housing providers. That's why I've tabled new clause 51, which would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information. This includes vital works such as repairs left incomplete after six months, complaints, antisocial behaviors, levels of tenant satisfaction, and void properties. These are critical issues that cannot be left unsolved in an efficient and trustworthy social housing system. And that is why I've tabled new clause 57.
It would also cover damp mould, electrical safety response times, repairs and complaints procedures. Registered providers would have to have regard to it clear standards, protect tenants and give landlords certainty. Good landlords with certainty with regards to new clause 47 social homes are safe havens for some of the most vulnerable in our society, whether facing destitution, abuse or persecution. Some of those with the greatest need in our society find their safety and peace in social housing. Yet for too many residents, estates are poorly managed, anti-social behaviour is rife and tenants are unsupported. Residents must not bear the burden of poor management practices.
And that's why I've tabled new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State within six months of Royal assent, to publish guidance on the social responsibilities of providers. Of course, up and down the country, many providers already exercise good practice, due diligence and uphold their social responsibilities. There exists, however, a small fraction within the system who do not fulfil their responsibilities as required. A new clause 47 would strengthen the government's hand in ensuring and enforcing good practices, and give tenants greater protections against unscrupulous behaviours. With regard to new clause 48, social housing is not an issue that ends up that ends with the housing of vulnerable people, but begins with it.
Once homes are found for those in need, it is vital that registered providers are properly managed, run and governed. At present, I believe that not enough is being done to ensure that this is the case and that is why I've tabled new clause 48, which is a probing clause which would require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing. It should not be the case that just because someone is vulnerable, they have little say in how their estate is run, who runs it or what agreements are being made. And that is why New Clause 48 has a specific focus on key points, such as accountability to local communities.
We want to see a fair and accountable social housing sector, and I call on the minister to assure the committee of that future here today. With regards to new clause 49, registered providers are responsible for nearly 3 million homes, around 63% of all homes that make up the national housing social housing stock. In some parts of the country, Housing association stock outweighs that of local authorities by huge margins, such as in the North west, where 86% of stock is owned by private registered providers. These tenants deserve nothing less than the openness and clarity about how their estates are run.
A new clause 49 asks the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of Royal Assent guidance on minimum governance standards. It would cover financial transparency, tenant representation and the publication of performance criteria. Again, this is a probing clause and it aims to clearer standards, not red tape. It is a simple and straightforward ask, and I hope the minister will give assurances on that point. With regards to new clause 50 social housing residents deserve accountability. Where life has dealt a weak hand, the unexpected has created hardship or vulnerabilities have led to inhibitions. Social housing should be fair, open and accountable.
Backstop. That is why New Clause 50 will seek to enable local authorities to require senior Housing Association representatives to attend scrutiny . Committee meetings for the most vulnerable in society. Protections are essential and that is why it is necessary to scrutinise the performance of registered providers. As I've said before, the vast majority of providers are fair, efficient and honest. But it is unfair on tenants to assume this without checking. And that is why clause 50 has been added or has been tabled to this bill. Finally, Mr. Vickers new clause 51. Across the public and private sectors, it is good practice to evaluate and publicise the performance of any department, business or team.
This same practice should be applied to registered housing providers. That's why I've tabled new clause 51, which would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information. This includes vital works such as repairs left incomplete after six months, complaints, antisocial behaviors, levels of tenant satisfaction, and void properties. These are critical issues that cannot be left unsolved in an efficient and trustworthy social housing system. And that is why I've tabled new clause 57.
09:37
09:37
09:37
09:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Dylan thank you, Mr. Vickers. I rise to speak in support of new clause 61, tabled in my name, which is a probing amendment, a home and place standard, as the clause outlines, is about being able to have a design and place making framework for an organisation and to be able to measure housing quality, guide strategic investment and shape resident wellbeing. The core pillars of a standard should focus on customers. It should focus on home, it should focus on the place and make sure as well that social housing providers are part of a sustainable future. And whilst it may not be appropriate in this legislation to mandate a standard onto Prpps, I would be keen to hear from the Minister in how his department is shaping the future standards for the sector, but really encouraging those prpps to go further, to think just beyond their bricks and mortar, but to think about where their homes are situated, their role that they play on an estate, their role that they can play in the town, encouraging sustainable transport into new developments, and really having that holistic approach to what makes social housing so important, and how we can make it even more successful.
09:10