Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and to hear his contribution on the housing problems in his area.

I endorse our Front Bench particularly and the opening speech we heard on some of the problems with this Bill. In passing, I will take up my noble friend’s reference to veterans and the importance of helping them. Some time ago at King’s Cross station, I was sitting on a bench waiting for my train. A man came up and sat beside me, and we got chatting. He was a veteran. He had served in the Royal Marines for more than 11 years, including in Afghanistan, and had been shot in the back. He lived in social housing with his daughter. Shortly afterwards, before we spoke, his daughter had been killed in a taxi accident; the driver was found guilty of reckless driving and sent to prison. The man lost not only his daughter but his home and never knew where he was going to spend the night, at which station, but I have not seen him since at King’s Cross. I feel that this is a very important priority and should be given the same protection in law as the other categories that this Bill addresses.

One of the central premises of the Bill is that there should be more state housing and that the more social housing there is, the better. This is to be promoted by restricting the right to buy and putting more obstacles in the way of tenants trying to buy their own homes. These obstacles include increasing the number of years, as we have heard, from three to 10 and making it expensive, as we have also heard, for tenants to buy by amending the percentage discounts, so cutting the value of the tenant’s stake in the home they may have lived in over decades. They include reducing the stock of right to buy homes as a proportion of overall council housing; for instance, no newly built homes will be available to buy for the first 35 years, so you may, if you are a tenant there, in your working life, never be able to aspire to buy that home if you settle in that area. Another obstacle is creating delay and uncertainty for applicants by increasing the time landlords can take to respond to them, both on eligibility—from four to eight weeks or from eight to 12, depending on the sort of tenancy they have—and on giving information on the price and details: from eight to 12 weeks for freehold or from 12 to 16 for leasehold. In the light of these changes, can the Minister please let us know whether the Government consider that the increase we have seen in right to buy sales will continue or decline as a result of this measure, and what the estimated figures are over the first five years after the Bill becomes law?

The Bill will have further damaging effects. First, in terms of cost, it will increase the stock of housing owned, managed and run by local councils or those registered by them, thus augmenting the power of the state over men, women and their families and augmenting the costs for taxpayers. The DWP estimates that this year, the housing bill will be almost £39 billion, a rise of £913 million on last year—the highest, in today’s prices, since 1970, measured on similar data. By contrast, the taxpayer receives a significant, as things stand, return from social housing sales receipts. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham what is done with these housing receipts, which can alleviate the tax burden on taxpayers, who might have to meet other needs, or perhaps they might even help to lower taxes. In the financial year ending March 2025 alone, local authorities received £798 million from a reported 7,494 eligible sales, an increase of 7% compared to 2023-24. I ask the Minister, on a per annum basis for the first five years of the operation of this Bill, in respect of the decline in sales and the maintenance and overheads that must now be borne by councils and taxpayers, what is the estimated additional cost?

Secondly—this is a very serious problem, and we have heard about it today from noble Lords— the Bill will undermine the incentive for working people to be independent and support themselves and their family, preventing dependency on benefits not only during working life but well into old age and retirement. As we have heard, already in 2026, across England, Wales and Scotland, almost 6 million people—a record 5.95 million people—will receive housing support from the taxpayer this year. That is 1.2 million more than in 2019-20. In Cambridge, where I live, around 65% of tenants receive some form of benefit, with 55% on maximum housing benefit or universal credit.

Thirdly, the Bill will undermine overall economic growth and increase overall the ever-growing burden of taxation. This is an attack on property rights by taxing the earnings of working men and women to subsidise the unproductive public sector and a benefits culture. I therefore do not share the Government’s enthusiasm for increasing the size and power of the state over people’s lives, turning individual men and women into supplicants dependent on the state, potentially for the rest of their lives, without the incentive—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I must ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

—to earn enough to pay a market rent and take responsibility for themselves and their families. State housing, subsidised by the taxpayer and owned and managed by the state, is not home ownership. It is state dependency.

King’s Speech

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his maiden speech, and the noble Lords, Lord Booth and Lord Warner, on their speeches. I welcome the noble and learned Lord to the Front Bench as Attorney-General, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. I hope that despite his heavy responsibilities the noble Lord, Lord Khan, will continue to spread good cheer across the House.

Today’s debate on the King’s Speech raises fundamental questions about Britain’s constitution, on the role of two of its three pillars—the Executive and the legislature —and on the arrangements for our democracy. Although the gracious Speech is made by the monarch, it expresses the wish of his Government. Executive power is no longer exercised by kings and queens, but by Governments elected by the people of this country. This illustrates the evolutionary nature of constitutional change in this country: without bloodshed, the guillotine or the reign of terror; without dictatorships or any of the horrors that have marked other countries’ moves to democratic government.

Political matters were central to the lives and discussions of British people long before they had the power to vote. Their involvement in debate preceded the 19th century laws on the great issues of the time. Home rule, the Corn Laws and extending the franchise were debated in coffee houses, pamphlets and leaflets, the assembly rooms, the hustings and Parliament. Likewise, the extension of the vote between 1832 and 1928 reflected changes across national life that pre-dated the law. What followed was not imposed by decree or by the ideological aim of modernising, which smacks more of the rhetoric of Stalin’s 1920s or Mao’s four modernisations than it does of our evolutionary tradition.

Just a century ago, the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the radical contender to take on the mantle of government. It won trust because it ruled in line with constitutional tradition. As a result, the country settled down effortlessly to acquiescing in the new two-party system. However, this Labour Government appear, in so far as we can judge from the gracious Speech, to intend modernisation by rupture, by diktat, by committee and commission; in fact, everything but evolutionary constitutional change.

Pursuing modernisation by decree to remove the bits of the constitutional jigsaw that a regime finds uncongenial overlooks the fundamental nature of the British constitution: an evolutionary process over time, reflecting longer developments and following national discussion. Rather than impose a symbolic victory for the forces of the left wing in the ways announced in the King’s Speech—to modernise the practices of the House of Commons by committee and those of this House by eliminating hereditary Peers, despite the composition, powers and, yes, practices of both being a testimony to their evolutionary nature—I ask the Government not to press their advantage. Will they think again before they embark on their piecemeal but aggressive modernisation?

In some places, what is needed is not modernisation but a return to the principles on which constitutional arrangements are based. The Government promise to

“strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process”.

I support this. One practical place to start would be restoring the secrecy of the ballot and the principle of universal suffrage, to ensure that those women—whom I have met—who are entitled to vote can do so privately, so their vote is not used by someone else. I have been told on the doorstep by women in some communities that they are not allowed out to vote. When I ask, I find that the general right to a postal vote does not help, because their husbands or fathers vote for them. I therefore support the wish to promote the integrity of the election system, and I suggest that one way to do it would be to end the automatic right to a postal vote and reserve it for those serving in an official capacity overseas, the elderly or the incapacitated.

In general, the best approach to the constitution, especially to Britain’s slowly evolved one, is caution. Professor Sir John Baker, the Downing Professor of the Laws of England at Cambridge, told the Constitution Committee of this House that

“a constitution … should stand above government and should define and limit what a government can do … If a government takes over the constitution and manages it by making piecemeal reforms at its own behest, … we no longer have a constitution, because it is doing precisely what a constitution is supposed to stop … There really is no case for pressing forward reforms simply because they happen to be government policy and there is a majority of one. A constitution ought to have a consensus of people generally”.

In this country, the lively political debate among people has, over many epochs, led Parliaments to reflect this in the laws they made. I will end with that reference to a very distinguished legal historian, and I hope the Government will listen.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful introduction to take us through the Bill. Before speaking, I should declare my interest as in the register of interests; I am and have been a landlord, as well as a tenant and a leaseholder. I am not confident that this Bill will do what paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Notes says it aims to do, which is

“to ensure private renters have access to a secure and decent home and that landlords retain the confidence to repossess their properties where they have good reason to”.

I think we all agree with this very important aim; the Government are right to want it, but I am not sure that the Bill is the best method for achieving it. Rather, it will make for uncertainty in a number of ways. Here are some of them: the ending of assured fixed-term tenancies under the 1988 Act; the ending of no-fault evictions under Section 21 yet the introduction of alternative provision for landlords to repossess their properties when the Bill says they have good reason to do so; and the provision for a two-stage transition period for these arrangements—the second stage uncertain, to be fixed by the Secretary of State once the arrangements for the courts have been changed to accommodate the new system.

Other problems have been discussed by noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, spoke about the powers granted to local authorities to impose fines of £30,000—powers which I agree, and I urge your Lordships to think along the same lines, are properly for the courts to impose. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, discussed the implications for privacy around the data that will be collected on individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about pressure on the courts, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, spoke about the costs for private landlords.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Frost, I am particularly concerned about ending assured fixed-term leases. I will focus on what I see as the most problematic and unsettling proposal in the Bill: the abolition of assured fixed-term tenancies under the 1988 Act, which lays down that tenancies can be periodic, renewable after the rent period—typically a month—or fixed-term. We have heard today about some of the lengths of tenancy which are already in use and popular. This arrangement gives both landlord and tenant the security of knowing how long their letting is for and the option to propose and agree a variation to reflect wishes and circumstances, including renewal. Instead, the Bill proposes that in future all tenants will be on a single system of periodic tenancies, which are little more than a rolling tenancy of a month where tenants give notice of leaving and landlords cannot provide any notice of ending the lease other than on the stipulated “reasonable grounds” set out in the legislation. This is conceived in the Bill as part of a package, along with abolishing no-fault evictions. The overall aim is said to be to give greater security to the tenant to deal with problematic landlords who use no-fault evictions to end the tenancies. I understand that was a manifesto commitment by the Conservative Government, but getting rid of fixed-term tenancies was not, and, as other noble Lords pointed out, it is unnecessary to do so given the aims of this Bill. Yes, there are bad landlords, and the problem can and should be addressed, but you do not need to overturn the arrangements under settled law to address the problem of shameful properties let in appalling conditions.

I disagree with the Secretary of State, who told the House of Commons that this is a Conservative measure in the tradition of measures introduced by Conservative Prime Ministers. Previous measures were based on the principles of common law and the protections that it offers both parties, while improving on how they operated. Labour’s Rent Act 1977 did not permit no-fault eviction, but subsequent Conservative measures did. The Housing Act 1988 introduced the concept of the assured shorthold tenancy only when complex notice procedures were followed, while the Housing Act 1996 introduced amendments to make the assured shorthold tenancy the default option unless the parties agreed to the tenancy. I am grateful here to iHowz and Andrew Butler KC, who made available to Parliament an analysis of the background and have provided a more nuanced proposal than that provided in the Bill.

We have seen the extension of the private rental sector to account for one in five households. It seems rather silly, to put it mildly, to end the arrangements on which the private rental sector is based and has succeeded so well, and mushroomed, since the 1980s.

In a free society, the less interference there is by the state in people making contracts with each other the better, rather than politicising transactions in an area that should be a politics-free zone under the principles and protections of settled law. Yes, there should be regulation against unfair contracts. People should be able to enter into a contract with full knowledge of what they are taking on—each party, tenant and landlord. Entering an agreement with each other with full knowledge, openly, protected by law, should be for them to decide. Tenants should be able to stipulate their conditions, and so should landlords, and an agreement met. I agree that fixed-term tenancies should be an option for landlord and tenant alike.

Our think tank has been a commercial tenant. We have been on the receiving end of a request—not an obligation—to end a lease early, and the landlord made a generous offer of a rent-free period of a few months which gave us a cushion on which to perhaps find a more expensive property, have confidence and sort out problems before the lease would have otherwise come to an end. Indeed, during the pandemic, when the service charges amounted to more than the cost of the lease per annum, I asked a landlord whether we could leave because of our not-for-profit status being charitably funded. In both cases, these requests were met with due consideration by the tenant and the landlord —I being the tenant and the landlord making an offer on another occasion—and without any interference or bureaucracy on the part of the courts. This is how it should be when we enter into a transaction in this country: two parties under the rule of law.

I hope that we can amend this measure to leave in place fixed-term assured tenancies so that landlords and tenants alike will have the option of the certainty, if they want it, of a fixed-term lease, and that the security that the Bill aims for can be achieved by compensation clauses; for instance, by giving tenants a rent-free period in the case of a no-fault eviction. Such arrangements leave in place the clarity of contractual arrangements, rather than replacing them with a cocktail of written statements, responsibilities, letters, property portals and an ombudsman, the individual parts of which will become opaque under the bureaucracy that will surely follow in the Bill’s wake—that is, unless, with your Lordships’ help, we can ensure the real security at which the Bill aims.