Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. It is very encouraging to see how keen the Liberal Democrats are to scrutinise the Government. Given the inconsistent approach to last week’s reorganisation announcements, can the Minister please confirm whether officials advised Ministers that an expansion of the exceptional financial support package would be required to support some of the newly formed councils, which will come close to Section 114 territory upon formation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When we took these decisions, we were very aware that some of the councils involved were already receiving exceptional financial support. We continue to work with those councils through the EFS process in the usual way, but LGR will save money over time and make the sector more sustainable in the long term. Where there are issues around funding and finance, the Government are already tackling this with our fair funding formula, and we have supported some authorities with exceptional financial support. We will continue to keep that under review where it is needed, but it will exist whether the confusing two-tier system remains or we transition to unitary authorities.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

A National Plan to End Homelessness includes a commitment by the end of this Parliament to reduce by half the proportion of people who become homeless on their first night out of prison, as well as an overall increase in the number of prison leavers in settled accommodation at three months after release and beyond. I have already mentioned that more than half of those referred through the duty to refer are in this broad category. Fixing the system for released prisoners would lay down train tracks that would lead to fixing it for everyone. I beg to move.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 87, in the names of my noble friends Lady O’Neill and Lord Jamieson. This is an issue on which I have had a long-standing interest. During my time in this House, I have sought to strengthen the powers available to tackle tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. I did so because social housing is a precious public asset and every home lost to fraud is a home denied to a family in genuine need. We frequently discuss the need to build more social housing, and of course new supply is important, but we should not overlook the importance of making the very best use of the stock we already have. That seems like the common-sense approach.

The legislation is already in place to tackle fraud. The question is whether it is being used effectively and consistently. Effective enforcement measures act as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to abuse the system. Before we ask taxpayers to fund even more housing, it is right to understand whether the homes we already have are being used for the purposes for which they were intended. This is why I support these amendments that are built on transparency, accountability and understanding.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, from the Front Bench.

Amendment 82 is a sound and compassionate amendment. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way that the exchange of data between the Prison Service and local authorities with regard to placing ex-offenders does not happen as it should. I felt that the noble Lord’s comment about all local authorities taking their share is particularly pertinent, as I found out from bitter experience. To cut a long story short, I noticed a spike in homelessness and offences in certain neighbourhoods. When I dug under those statistics and spoke to the Probation Service, it turned out it was to do with the lack of homes for ex-offenders. I said, “How come it’s all congregating here?”, and they said, “Well, Hertfordshire councils aren’t very co-operative”. I then found out that only two of the 10 authorities in Hertfordshire actually co-operated and tried to work with this group of people. I am pleased to say to the Minister that they were Watford and Stevenage.

However, I fear that Amendments 86, 87 and 88 confuse a lack of action with a lack of oversight. The social housing sector is not short of reviews, strategies or regulators; what it is short of is homes. On Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, was absolutely right that every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone in real housing need. We should tackle tenancy fraud whenever it occurs, but I am not persuaded that yet another review from Whitehall will tell us anything that landlords do not already know. In my experience, the challenge is not a lack of understanding but often a lack of capacity and resources.

My greatest concern is with Amendment 87. Of course we want fewer voids, faster reletting and better use of existing stock—yes, yes, yes—but this amendment seems to assume that nobody is already collecting the data, monitoring performance or holding providers to account, and I do not believe that this is true. We already have a Regulator of Social Housing overseeing governance, financial viability and consumer standards; we already have the Housing Ombudsman scrutinising landlord performance and identifying systemic failings through complaints; and housing associations and councils already operate under significant scrutiny and reporting requirements. The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it. A national strategy will not relet an empty home and another set of metrics will not house a family; good management does that, as does investment and building more homes.

As for Amendment 88, we support strong governance, transparency and tenant representation, but those principles are already embedded in the existing regulatory framework. Housing associations are independent organisations, subject to robust oversight, not bodies waiting for Whitehall to tell them how to behave.

Therefore, while I support the objectives behind these amendments clearly and firmly, I cannot support the assumption behind them: that every challenge in housing requires another review, another strategy or another layer of central direction. The sector is already regulated, scrutinised and awash with data. What it needs is the freedom, capacity and investment to focus on what matters most: providing and managing good homes for the people who need them the most. For that reason, we oppose these amendments.

Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Having spent many years in local government, including as chair of the Local Government Association, I want to make one simple point. While councils support the objective of improving the speed and efficiency of the planning system, they are concerned that these regulations risk doing so at the expense of local democratic accountability.

The Government have long argued that power should be devolved from Whitehall to local communities, yet these proposals move in the opposite direction by reducing the role of democratically elected local representatives. If the Government claim to believe in devolution and the northern powerhouse, then decisions about the future of northern towns and villages should remain with those elected by the people who live there.

The Local Government Association made this point clearly during the Government’s consultation. It recognised the case for reform but warned that a highly standardised national scheme of delegation does not reflect the diversity of planning authorities across England. A rural unitary authority, a metropolitan borough and a district council face very different planning challenges, and councils retain the flexibility to organise their planning committees and decision-making processes in ways that reflect the needs of their local communities.

I am particularly concerned by the removal of councillors’ ability to call applications before a planning committee. Call-in powers are not there to delay development. They provide an important democratic safeguard where an application raises significant local concern, complex planning issues or substantial public interest. The LGA recommended that an effective call-in mechanism should remain alongside the new gateway test. I regret that the Government have not accepted that recommendation.

The gateway test itself gives me cause for concern. If the nominated officer and the nominated member cannot agree that an application should come before the committee, it is automatically delegated to an officer. That default position seems the wrong way round. Where there is genuine disagreement, there should surely be a mechanism that allows democratic scrutiny rather than automatically bypassing it.

Finally, I question the decision to prescribe planning committee sizes through legislation. The Local Government Association has rightly pointed out that there is little evidence that committee size determines effectiveness. What it can affect is political balance and geographical representation, particularly as councils may become larger through local government reorganisation. Guidance would provide far greater flexibility than a statutory cap. Our councils are not resisting reform. They simply ask that the reform respects local democracy and recognises that one size does not fit all. For these reasons, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s regret amendment.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I add my best wishes to the England team tonight: even if we are not finished in time, we will no doubt get a nice, quiet journey home because everyone will be watching it.

I speak to Amendments 57, 58, 75, 83 and 107 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Much of the debate around housing understandably focuses on building new homes. That is undoubtedly important. However, if we are serious about tackling housing need, we must also focus on how we effectively manage, maintain and utilise the housing stock that already exists. These amendments are intended to probe whether sufficient attention is given to the condition, management and efficient use of existing social housing assets.

Amendment 57 would require the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of social housing estates. Estate regeneration is often difficult, sometimes controversial and takes many years. The noble Lord, Lord John, sitting over there, will know that from pain in Elephant and Castle; I certainly know it from the years dealing with Thamesmead, and I am sure many others in this Chamber will know it too. It takes a long time, but there are opportunities.

Amendment 75 raises the crucial issue of illegal subletting in our social housing system. I note the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, which passed through this House in 2013 under the watch of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It provided important powers to tackle this problem, but it is reasonable to ask whether those powers are being used ineffectively and whether enforcement activity is sufficient. Given the pressure on waiting lists across the country, every property recovered through anti-fraud activity represents an opportunity to house someone who is legitimately entitled to that support. In 2024-25, there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. However, the Tenancy Fraud Forum’s 2023 report, Lost Homes, Lost Hope, estimated that 148,000 social homes were subject to tenancy fraud in 2023. In a separate report in 2025, it estimated that there were 50,000 tenancy frauds in London alone. This is shocking and urgently needs addressing. Rather than curtailing right to buy, this is the issue that the Government should prioritise to bring housing forward quickly.

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

I should also mention Amendment 117D in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. This is a probing amendment, but it raises an important question about accountability. Across England, elected mayors are being given increasing responsibility for housing, planning and regeneration. If powers are increasingly devolved, it is reasonable to ask how performance should be measured, and how local people can judge whether housing commitments are being delivered.

The country faces substantial housing pressures. There are now around 1.33 million households on local authority waiting lists—the highest figure for a decade. Against that backdrop, transparency regarding housing delivery matters. Noble Lords may have different views on the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, but the broader principle remains that where significant powers are devolved, there should be clear accountability for the outcomes, and that these are the right outcomes.

I would also be interested to hear from the Minister how long social housing properties typically remain vacant between tenancies. Every week that a property sits empty is a week in which a household remains on the waiting list. Understanding void turnaround times is therefore an important part of understanding the efficiency of the system as a whole. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that we make the best possible use of the housing stock we already have, while continuing to build for the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers.

Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill.

I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use a property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling the keys to a third party. Between now and Report, I hope we can look into this, and I hope the Minister will give this issue the attention it certainly deserves.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I will speak to Amendment 57, moved by my noble friend. My noble friend started by making a very valid point: if the Government have a firm commitment to build, say, 1.5 million new homes and a certain number of new social houses, there is a real risk that, when looking at the capital programme within the department, that commitment trumps funding for existing estates and the regeneration of existing housing stock. That is why Amendment 57 is important: it would make sure that we do not ignore the needs of the existing housing stock.

I draw attention to housing action trusts—an initiative under the Housing Act 1988 that focused very sharply on the most difficult-to-let estates in the country. This was an initiative from my noble friend Lord Heseltine, and, as one might expect, it was highly interventionist. A housing action trust was a time-limited body that took over the management and redevelopment of a local authority estate. However, before that could happen, there was a vote of the local authority tenants to seek their agreement to that time-limited transfer. Speaking from memory, I think there were seven housing action trusts, including one in Stonebridge, in Brent; one in Tower Hamlets; one in Castle Vale, in Birmingham; one in Liverpool; and one in Hull. They were highly successful, and they transformed those estates.

It was interesting that, at the end, the tenants were given a vote: they could either go back to the local authority or transfer to a resident-run or tenant-run association of their own. Speaking from memory, I think they all decided to stick with the alternative to the local authority. If one is looking at ways of transforming the most challenging estates in the country, it is worth looking at the history of housing action trusts, which, by common consent, were highly successful. They were expensive, but we should not ignore that model when deciding how to take further the regeneration of social housing estates.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to take part in this debate in Committee. I will not reiterate the comments I made at Second Reading, because I talked then about family provision in social housing and we will discuss that specific issue in later groups. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley on her promotion to the Front Bench, and it would be remiss not to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her promotion. I think it is a promotion—anyway, she is back on the Front Bench.

As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, right to buy was one of the most transformative policies in British political history. It resulted in 58% of people owning their homes in 1981, being boosted to 69% by 2001, although that figure has now fallen back to 63%. Boosting home ownership boosts self-reliance, and 81% of people in most recent polls support the concept of owning their own home and being part of a property-owning democracy. In fact, 1.9 million homes were sold following the Housing Act 1980 to date, affecting 4.5 million social tenants. As we heard at Second Reading, right to buy improves social mobility, especially for those working people on low or modest incomes. We also heard demonstrable, empirical evidence from the London School of Economics about the impact being in homes that were bought under right to buy had on the educational attainment of children and young people. That was a longitudinal study, as noble Lords will remember.

I must say in passing that the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, are always sincere and well-resourced with research, but on this occasion I cannot agree with her for the reasons that my noble friend made clear. Capital receipts from right to buy were £51 billion, of which £47 billion was retained and remitted to His Majesty’s Treasury. The most recent sales in England in 2024-25 raised almost £800 million from 7,494 sales.

The important point to remember is that between 2012 and 2025, 48,000 units were replaced directly from recycled right to buy receipts back into the social housing stock. It is also important to nuance the arguments and remember that we had the renaissance of housing associations and alternative housing providers in that period, so it is not altogether correct to look at council housing and social housing just within the context of local authority housing.

There are a number of myths about right to buy, which is one of the reasons why I oppose the noble Baroness’s amendment. As my noble friend said, the level of social housing that we have is still high by international standards. I think we are fourth in Europe out of about 25 countries—significantly more than France, Italy, Germany and other large countries.

The fall in public sector housing construction began well before the advent of right to buy in 1980. Social housing waiting lists were, in fact, bizarrely stable when right to buy was at its most popular in the 1980s. There is a reason for that: social housing waiting lists were derived as a function of demand, not supply. So, in the period between 1981 and 1997, social housing waiting lists fell from 1.2 million to 1 million, in a period when we were selling off 100,000 council homes under right to buy. The problem, of course, was that the wider housing market was overheating, with a rise in real housing prices of 108% between 1997 and 2009.

The final myth is about discounts. Yes, you can say that discounted money is dead money to the taxpayer, but that criticism has to be misplaced. If one looks at the cost of, for instance, significant maintenance by local authorities and the payment of housing benefit then those alleged costs are significantly lower than claimed by those who oppose right to buy.

As my noble friend said, by abolishing right to buy we would remove the revenue and income stream for building more social homes, and that cannot be right. We would need to have an alternative if we were going to get rid of right to buy. Although I might not wholly agree with this Government’s objectives as outlined in the Bill, the noble Baroness’s proposal does not make sense because it would mean fewer homes for people who needed them, and that cannot be good. On that basis, I oppose the amendment.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a part-owner of rented property in West Yorkshire.

One of the strikingly important things for me, and I hope for all noble Lords, is the positive outcomes for young people exposed to the right-to-buy scheme from the 1980s. This is not wishful thinking on my part; it is clearly shown in research from the London School of Economics. I referred to this at Second Reading, but it is worth reminding noble Lords about.

The right to buy guaranteed detectable, sizeable school performance gains among young people exposed to it, increasing good grades in high-stakes exams. There is also evidence that there is an income effect, which gives more financial stability to households through home ownership, and there is a crime reduction effect from public housing tenants becoming owners of their own home. It is disappointing that such prejudice against right to buy is likely to remove from social housing tenants the opportunities which right to buy has created for so many.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to kick off our first day in Committee on this important Bill. As noble Lords will know from our comments and speeches at Second Reading, we broadly support the Bill, so I will endeavour not to make Second Reading speeches and to be as brief as possible, given our support for it.

We support tighter restrictions on right to buy—I think the evidence is clear—but we do not believe in its total abolition. As was said over and over by noble Lords at Second Reading, over 2 million houses have been sold this way since 1980 but nearly 1 million more have been sold than replaced. Looking at last year’s figures, 7,500 homes were sold and only 3,600 were replaced. More worrying was the net loss of nearly 4,000 homes last year. Losses outstripped gains. This is not sustainable, yet the need grows. Homelessness rates are growing. The number of families in temporary accommodation is growing. My local authority is now reaching the point that many others have already reached with the impact on their budget of temporary accommodation.

However, we believe that a total ban is not the right answer, which is why we cannot support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because housing need is not the same everywhere and local councils understand their own housing pressures best. In some areas, right to buy should definitely be paused; there should be a moratorium. In others, it should be more tightly controlled, but always—in the view of our Benches—with one condition: homes sold must at least be replaced on a one-for-one basis, if not better.

A blanket ban would remove that flexibility. It would replace local judgment with central diktat, and we believe that some transition to home ownership is aspirational and desirable. We are certainly not coming from the same place as Conservative colleagues in it being a holy grail. A healthy housing market should be able to staircase ownership for some people without the significant loss of much-needed social homes—hence some of our later amendments, which I hope will make sense as we go through. Be assured, we do not mean it to enable some local authorities to abrogate their responsibility to provide social housing of all types. We would definitely encourage more than one-for-one replacement. We want reform, not abolition, and devolution, not central diktat.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Eaton]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “ten” and insert “five”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to enable a debate on the Government’s decision to extend the right to buy eligibility period from 3 years to 10 years.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the debate on this second group of thoughtful and varied amendments. We have just heard a spectacular defence from noble Lords of the right-to-buy scheme, which the Government seem determined to restrict quite drastically throughout the provisions in the Bill. In Clause 1, the Bill proposes to extend the qualifying period for right to buy from three to 10 years. I will focus on Amendment 2 in my name, which is a probing amendment as to the rationale behind this extension.

I already have concerns that tenants of social housing who are able and willing to buy their property should be forced to wait longer. I understand that the Government, in their manifesto, committed to increase the protections on newly built social housing, but this provision would affect existing social housing tenants too. There may be many tenants right now who are on the cusp of reaching the three-year eligibility requirement, with high hopes of finally being able to own their own home, but who will have to wait an additional seven years when the Bill becomes law, unless it is amended. That is a long time to wait and be on welfare. If the Government insist on an extension to the qualifying period, why not extend it to five years rather than 10, as my amendment suggests? Can the Minister explain what evidence base there is behind that number? In addition, exactly how much social housing stock is a 10-year extension expected to protect for us—as opposed to five, say—and how has the impact on existing tenants been assessed, if at all?

We must ensure that 10 years is not just an arbitrary number chosen randomly. If there is a justification, it should be outlined and explained clearly for the House to scrutinise. We must also remember that we are talking about real people living in social housing right now—people with hopes and aspirations, whose rights to buy a property should not be treated carelessly or without thought. What data do the Government have, if any, as to how many tenants are about to reach the three-year qualifying period? Can the Minister please share that data with the Committee? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and from other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Committee. I apologise to noble Lords that I was not able to be in your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I declare my relevant technology interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of Avalanche (BVI), Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.

In my set of Committee amendments, I want to assist the Bill by bringing the strands of inclusion and innovation and talent and technology through every possible supportive clause of the Bill. In this group, I speak to Amendments 3, 10 and 13 in my name.

Amendment 3 sets out provisions to establish a digital life-cycle service for right to buy. In doing so, it would provide greater empowerment, knowledge, connection and communication to those who may wish to avail themselves of the right-to-buy service. This would be an effective and important use of digital technology and, through that, could play a positive part in enabling digital inclusion. Critically, the amendment does not seek to rely just on digital; it sets out provisions for alternative means of connection to ensure this life-cycle service could be achieved through systems such as text messaging. Amendment 10 would develop this in the context of fraud requirements, clearly supporting the measures in new Section 124A inserted by Clause 4.

Amendment 13 further seeks to use the benefits of technology to provide an immutable record—an audit trail—which is tamper-proof for all Section 122 applications. In 2017, I wrote a report on blockchain called Distributed Ledger Technologies for Public Good. At that stage, I wanted to set out not just the potential public use cases but the public value cases in which the distributed ledger and other technologies could assist across the state. My fear was that, if these potential use cases and value cases were not set out, the debate would get stuck and, whenever blockchain was mentioned, it would naturally be assumed that it meant just Bitcoin, which had nothing to say on beneficial provision for operations of the state across potentially all government departments and local authorities. Amendment 13 is therefore one such potential use case or value case, where there could be a clear audit trail, available for all, of use to the department, and indeed the regulator, with the safety, security and knowledge that it is a clear, accurate, immutable record of applications and any potential fraud hearings and investigations that have happened around right to buy.

These three amendments look to deploy the benefits of such potential technologies. I believe they would greatly support the provisions set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That was not my understanding.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who tabled amendments and provided insight in the debate. It is clear that the changes to right to buy need to be properly and thoroughly thought through, not only to ensure that they are backed by sufficient evidence but so that they consider the real-life consequences. This is certainly true for existing tenants of social housing who may not be aware of upcoming changes and who may have hopes of owning their own home for the first time.

I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley and my noble friend Lord Jamieson for considering in their amendments in this group how tenants can be better protected, particularly by promoting greater financial literacy and looking in detail at the commencement of the Bill’s provisions.

I also thank the Minister for her answers, but I hope that the Government will look further into the evidence behind extending the qualifying period to properly assess whether 10 years really is the most effective and necessary number. If the differences in predicted outcomes between five- and 10-year periods are marginal, the period should not be extended more than is absolutely necessary. We should not treat people’s aspirations with contempt and restrict their rights purely to undermine a scheme for the sake of it.

More broadly, therefore, I hope the Government will reflect on what these changes mean for existing tenants, whose hopes and dreams of owning a home should not be treated as chess pieces to be moved, or indeed looked down on. At this point, in Committee, however, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Today, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me and the Committee confidence that the amendment is not necessary and that Ministers have, in any case, the powers under the 2008 Act to ask the regulator to bring forward guidance of this kind. There are things we can do: for example, creating long-term certainty about the social housing rent settlement and, where Section 106 is concerned, extending the stamp duty social landlord relief to all regulated affordable housing, including under Section 106 which does not have public grant. All this would help us to increase the numbers of homes that are built and that are available for social rent at below-market rents. This is key to us meeting presently unmet need. I commend these ideas and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively, as she was kind enough to do at Second Reading. I beg to move Amendment 51.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 86, 87 and 88 in my name address the subject of mayors and their role in social housing delivery. As we know, local authorities have a major role to play in social housing delivery and maintenance. Under this Government, reforms have been pushed to further empower mayors in their areas over ordinary councillors, as we saw in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Therefore, it is only right that we question to what extent existing and future mayors should be held responsible for social housing delivery.

Amendment 86 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of what mechanisms are and should be available to hold mayors to account, specifically in relation to social housing delivery. This review would take place within 12 months of the Bill being passed and it must consider the performance of social housing delivery, the accountability of the mayor to local electors in this regard and what accountability mechanisms exist.

So much work to deliver social housing may take place behind the scenes, and mayors deserve credit where they do well or to be held accountable when they are not doing as much as they could or should do. This will also make it clearer to voters how the social housing system works and how performance can be measured and attributed to different actors. Of course, individual mayors are not all-powerful beings, and their performance can be impacted by other factors, but they are being empowered by this Government and so we need to look again at how they can be held accountable.

Amendment 87 calls for a review of the incentives that are there for mayors to deliver social housing—more carrot, less stick, if you will. This review would look again at performance but also assess what financial incentives there are to perform well, what funding streams and accessibility to grants exist, what savings authorities can make elsewhere when social housing is delivered well, and so on. Social housing delivery needs to be supported by a positive policy environment, and this amendment would give Parliament better oversight of what incentives exist.

Amendment 88 would look at mayoral remuneration as a mechanism for holding mayors accountable. Mayors who are not performing well bring into question how much remuneration they deserve, particularly as we see more mayoral combined authorities rolled out over the coming years through the Government’s reforms. This framework would link a proportion of that remuneration directly to the performance of social housing delivery, taking into account their delivery targets.

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak a little bit more briefly than I had intended on this group of amendments and will speak specifically to my Amendment 92. I am shamelessly using the Bill to raise an issue and to correct a problem that we in this House have discussed many times. My Amendment 92 would insert a new clause to ask the Government to publish very clear guidance to distinguish affordable housing from social housing. Why? Because it has real consequences for supply policy, credibility and public trust.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the part owner of rented property in West Yorkshire. In my contribution to the King’s Speech debate last month, I referenced how disappointing it was that the Government would bring forward legislation to further curtail property ownership through a diminishing right-to-buy policy. The Social Housing Bill is a narrow-minded piece of legislation which misses huge opportunities to rectify many of the ongoing issues in the social housing sector—issues that this side of the House will seek to rectify in Committee and on Report.

Property ownership is not a bad thing. It gives families a sense of security in life and a stake in society. You cannot make a modern-day case for capitalism if the individual does not own capital. I refer noble Lords to the paper commissioned by the London School of Economics in December 2024, Human Capital from Childhood Exposure to Homeownership: Evidence from Right-to-Buy. There are some notable points to consider. The right-to-buy scheme has generated detectable, sizeable school performance gains. The policy gave rise to improved educational outcomes via improvements in the local community. The right-to-buy policy had positive effects on educational and downstream labour market outcomes. The right-to-buy experiment shows that increasing home ownership generates greater human capital accumulation.

To curtail the ability of residents in social housing to purchase property through right to buy is immoral and goes against every fabric this Government were elected to uphold. Those opposite may be surprised to know that the decision to allow local authorities to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts was made by the previous Conservative Government, and it is right. The days when local authorities were forced into pooling right-to-buy receipts on to national schemes undermined the principle of the scheme; namely, that a right-to-buy receipt be used to build new social housing to replace stock that had been purchased privately. I hope this Government will consider using this Bill to put into legislation that the 100% retention of right-to-buy receipts be made permanent.

On a similar point, the Government announced that right-to-buy receipts would need to be spent by local authorities within a 10-year period. Could this legislation include an ability for local authorities to seek an exemption from the Secretary of State where they may have right-to-buy receipts linked to future regeneration schemes coming down the line? As I am sure the Minister will understand, given supply chain constraints in the construction sector, this is having a knock-on impact on local authorities.

Following my contribution in the King’s Speech debate, I reiterate my interest in the upcoming Law Commission consultation on escheat land, which is transferred to the Crown Estate. I understand the commission will look at the feasibility of transferring escheat land to public bodies other than the Crown Estate. I would welcome confirmation in the Minister’s summing up on whether her department will push for housing revenue accounts to be included in this on the basis that local authorities agreed to use such land for building social housing where practical.

Finally, Clause 9 is of concern to me, and I seek clarification on its necessity. It will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to contribute right-to-buy receipts towards national pooling schemes. Given that the Government have said they would like to keep 100% of right-to-buy receipts for local authorities, I would welcome clarification on why Clause 9 is therefore needed, unless the Government plan to reallocate localised right-to-buy receipts to national pooling schemes.

This Bill is wrong and undermines the principles of home ownership. Significant work will need to take place in Committee and on Report to bring it to a satisfactory condition.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

This is there simply to position the Government to confirm that they understand what devolution actually is. As I said right at the beginning, in my view this Bill is a staging post. I would like to have direct elections to strategic authorities, but I am the first to admit that that is very difficult to deliver because the systems do not exist for that to become a possibility. But, in time, that should be the objective; otherwise, there is a huge danger that we are not defining the powers and responsibilities of local government on the one hand and of mayors and strategic authorities on the other, which will become a source of conflict. I just hope that here in Committee the Government will be sufficiently open to discussions on this matter, which will assist the delivery of a more powerful form of devolution than is currently within the Bill.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wish to speak in favour of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson.

From the outset, the Title of the Bill is quite wrong and misleading. The Bill is not about devolution; it is about centralisation. The number of directed powers it awards to the Secretary of State to instruct combined authorities is alarming. The purpose clause proposed by my noble friends reinvigorates the Bill to achieve what matters most to local government now and the issues most likely to be of concern in the future—namely, sustainable council finances and keeping the “local” in local government through locally led decision-making.

Putting aside the tax-raising powers for mayors enshrined in the Bill, it does nothing to address the serious concerns the sector has about putting the finances of our councils back on to a sustainable footing, or on the ever-increasing DSG deficits or the seismic pressures placed on upper-tier authorities in the delivery of their SEND responsibilities. However, what we had before Christmas was the Government’s unfair funding announcement, which left many councils worse off than before following the withdrawal of the remoteness adjustments metric, which in turn has left councils such as Buckinghamshire £44 million worse off.

We then come to the part of this purpose clause on local decision-making, which my noble friends are correct to underpin. At the start of my contribution, I referenced centralisation. It is astonishing that a devolution-facing Bill will essentially award mass powers to the Secretary of State to impose LGR and strategic authorities without any say from local authorities and groups in those areas. If devolution is to work, it needs to be locally led by local leaders and the community, not forced on communities by Whitehall. Over recent years, we have seen that local government reorganisation and the creation of combined authorities can be agreed by a consensus in local communities and without the imposition of Whitehall. Just look at Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire—two examples of unitarisation which have gone to plan. I welcome the addition in this purpose clause of ensuring that reorganisation and the creation of strategic authorities are locally led.

The Government’s approach to this has already been fairly shambolic. County council leaders who had elections postponed were of the clear understanding that mayoral elections, shadow unitary authority elections or a combination of both would happen in May 2026. Instead, we have had further delay as a result of Whitehall not working closely with local leaders. This is why the point in the proposed new clause about locally enshrined decision-making is worthy. I hope the Government will accept this amendment so that the purpose clause sits in the Bill.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I have no interests to declare, other than that I want legislation to be as good as it can be. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment because it provides the foundation for my Amendment 251 that would provide for post-legislative scrutiny, which we will come to much later. Too often, Ministers see legislative success in terms of getting a measure on to the statute book. The real measure of success is when the Act delivers what Parliament intended to deliver. To check whether it has done that, post-legislative scrutiny is necessary some years after it has passed.

To assess whether the Act has achieved what it intended, one needs to know clearly what its purpose is—in other words, the basis on which you are undertaking the measurement. This amendment has the great virtue that it stipulates the five purposes that the Bill is intended to deliver. That would provide the measure against which a body set up to engage in post-legislative scrutiny could examine whether it has actually delivered. That is the great value of this amendment and, for that reason, the Government should have the confidence to accept it, as it would show they believe that the Act will deliver what it is designed to do. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring forward a purpose clause of their own to demonstrate what they believe are the key purposes against which success can be measured?

Rutland Lieutenancy

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, I grew up in a new town in Hertfordshire, which, when it was first announced, was not the most popular decision. That was back in 1946. We have all worked together on this, and now we have a very coherent picture in Hertfordshire. People work with us, and we are working on our unitary proposals. There are always memories of historical areas that people want to retain, and I think the Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question set out that the Government recognise how important these ceremonial areas are. Some of them go way back in history, and we have a lot to do to undertake the local government reorganisation. So, if there is any further reorganisation to be done, we can certainly consider it. But I think there is enough going on for the moment. These historical memories are really important to people, and we should value and treasure them. That history and heritage are part of our country.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Rutland County Council is one of England’s highest-performing local authorities, not least in the area of adult social care. Rutland residents have always felt very close to their council and their elected members, and all decisions have been made locally. With that in mind, will the Minister outline the tangible benefits for Rutlanders of forcing this small but perfectly formed council to become part of a larger unitary authority, and what data has the Minister based her views on?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First, no forcing is involved here. We put out an offer to submit proposals and have had proposals back. I have met all the councils in Leicestershire and Rutland and, separately, the Mayor of Leicester. There is a very strong will in the county to work together—they have been working very well together—and we look forward to taking these proposals forward with them. I hope it is of reassurance, not only to Leicestershire, Rutland and Leicester but to other counties in our country, that administratively they will be working under different boundaries but that will not affect some of the historical links that they have between them.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as the part-owner of a small number of rented properties in West Yorkshire.

I will speak in support of Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36, which are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Your Lordships may recall from my contribution at Second Reading that I am deeply concerned about the impact of this Bill on rented housing supply. I remain concerned about this issue. However, these amendments provide me with the reassurance that I know the rental market is also looking for. The amendments are technical, but sensible and clearly thought through.

If the Government are to get anywhere near reaching their ambitious 1.5 million new homes target, we need to support and give clarity to the responsible institutional build-to-rent landlord sector, which is building thousands of new, high-quality rented homes each year. I know that this part of the rental market supports the Government’s aim to raise standards across the private rented sector. However, with the uncertainty it faces around how much rent it may reasonably receive and how many rent increase challenges it may receive, I worry that its development pipelines will slow or, at worst, completely halt, while it assesses this new landscape where any renter can challenge any increase without any jeopardy.

Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36 would allow for those providing new, net additional high-quality rental homes to the market to continue to do so without undue impact from Section 13 rent increase challenges. They would allow the institutional landlord sector to continue delivering the net additional rented homes we need without uncertainty. Crucially, the amendments would deter spurious rent increase challenges and allow vulnerable renters the access to justice that they rightly deserve.

I acknowledge the Government’s amendments on Section 13 notices, but they also leave me concerned that, in this place and indeed in the rental market, we and the sector are being asked to place a significant amount of faith in the Government, and the data they have but will not publish, on how many renters might challenge their rent increases. If a renter can save themselves months of rent increase for free and without any jeopardy, why would they not?

I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the amendments in names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, provide the requisite amount of clarity to the sector, while ensuring renters’ rights are improved. I urge the Government to take them on board to give everyone clarity while improving renters’ rights and access to justice for vulnerable renters.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I strongly support Amendment 29 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I recall that, when we debated this in Committee, the noble Baroness got a favourable response from the Front Bench, and it may be that on this amendment the ice is beginning to melt.

I am also struck by the contrast between the certainty that we get with Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the absence of any clarity and certainty from government Amendments 37 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is normal procedure in law if a rent increase is valid to backdate it from the date that it was due, so the Government are introducing a wholly new concept in law in their Amendment 67, which does not actually take the trick because, as I understand it, they are going to wait until the system is gummed up before they activate the process.

This is simply no way to govern. The Government ought to accept Amendment 36 with its clarity and certainty, rather than this doubtful procedure whereby there remains every incentive to appeal and only when the system becomes even more clogged will the Government intervene. That cannot be good government, and I urge the Minister to think again about Amendment 36 or the other amendment that achieves the same objective in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I just do not think that this takes the trick.