Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will stick to my words at the beginning and be as brief as possible and to the point. If the aim is to preserve existing stock, clearly this is a lever you have to pull. We would not disagree with that, even though it is so low, but let us be clear: if the average house price in my area—actually, perhaps the average is not a good way of looking at it, but if the median house price is about £450,000, you are still getting a discount of £90,000. How many of us would say no to that?

The other question we have to ask ourselves is: who pays for the discount? However much detail we want to get into about finances, the bottom line is that a sale does not build another house and that money has to be added. Those are simple reasons why we support this direction in the Bill.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her return to the Front Bench. I declare my interests as vice-president of London Councils—I will be there tomorrow morning—and as a part-owner of a rented property in Bexley. I also put on record that my parents had a right to buy. My dad was a bus conductor, and I am proud of that.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on what is ultimately a question of proportionality. The Government believe that the current level of discounts is too generous and that they need to be reduced. The question raised by these amendments is whether the reductions proposed in the Bill go further than necessary, and hence we have probed the inclusion of Clause 5. My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendments do not seek to preserve the status quo; rather, they offer an alternative approach that would reduce discounts while retaining a meaningful incentive for tenants considering home ownership, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. In that sense, they seek a compromise between the current arrangements and the considerably lower levels proposed by the Government.

Noble Lords have referred to the importance of preserving the viability of the scheme. That is a legitimate concern. If discounts are reduced to the point where the financial advantage of exercising right to buy becomes marginal, there is a risk that the policy ceases to operate as intended. The issue before the Committee is therefore not whether discounts should ever change but whether the Government have adequately justified reductions at the scale proposed in the Bill. Having listened to the debate, I am not yet persuaded that they have. For that reason, I hope the Minister will give further consideration to a more measured approach to better preserve the opportunities that the right-to-buy scheme has offered to many tenants over the years.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Thornhill and Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller. First, I will defend why Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. The right-to-buy scheme continues to provide an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. However, we must ensure that the scheme remains sustainable. This includes ensuring that discounts are set at the right level to enable long-standing tenants to buy under the scheme but without depleting levels of social housing stock.

The Government has already taken action to reduce the maximum cash discounts in November 2024 by returning them to pre-2012 levels. We committed to revising the discounts available as a percentage of the property value so that they align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause 5 delivers on our commitment to do this by reducing the percentage discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value after 10 years of public sector tenancy, with an increase for every extra year of tenancy up to a maximum of 15%.

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

We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to houses and flats, making the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants. This clause also extends the discount repayment period to 10 years after the original sale from the current five years, during which a purchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. This measure was supported by 72% of all respondents to our consultation. It will ensure that there is less of an incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme, and will encourage people buying under the scheme to retain the property and discourage some of the profiteering that we have seen. With this explanation, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

I turn to Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The intention of these amendments—to set the minimum percentage discount at 20% and the maximum at 30%—would undermine the core aims of the clause that I have just set out and would keep the percentage discounts too high. In practice, the lower maximum cash discounts would take effect over the percentage amounts, as the cash cap would often be the lesser of the two discounts and would determine the discount that the tenant would receive. This would also mean that tenants with longer tenancies would be less likely to benefit, because the cash cap would bite sooner on the actual discount received. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

34: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership(1) Within the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among former social tenants.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of this Act on—(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,in the calendar year prior to the review.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 34, I shall speak also to Amendment 74, in both my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

Too often, housing legislation is judged by the intentions rather than the results it produces. Yet, it is the outcomes that matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said earlier. Whether we are considering home ownership, social housing provision, affordability, public expenditure or the impact of the policy on different groups within society, Parliament should have access to the evidence necessary to determine whether reforms are working in practice.

To begin on Amendment 34, home ownership remains one of the most important aspirations for many people across this country. The amendment would require a review of the impact of this Act on those very ambitions. The Bill contains a number of significant reforms to a system that has aided home ownership. Thus, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should understand what effect those reforms have on people’s ability to own their own home.

I was also pleased to see Amendment 58A in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. There is a clear connection between her amendment and Amendment 34. If Parliament is to understand the impact of this legislation on home ownership, it should also understand the impact on right to buy and the opportunities available to social tenants who aspire to own their own home.

Amendment 73 would require a fiscal impact assessment of the Act. This is not an onerous request. The measures in the Bill will have implications for housing providers, local authorities, taxpayers and wider public finances. Parliament should be able to assess those impacts in a systematic and transparent manner.

These amendments are not about frustrating the implementation of the Bill. Rather, they are about ensuring that Parliament retains the ability to evaluate its effectiveness. Good policy should not just withstand detailed scrutiny but be rooted in evidence. If the Bill succeeds, the Government should be able to demonstrate that success. If it falls short, Parliament should have the evidence necessary to understand why, and to make improvements. That is the purpose of these amendments, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for the error and thank him for his kind comment.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

It is certainly one to note, is it not?

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for her response. The amendments in this group all seek to understand how we will know whether this legislation has succeeded. My noble friend Lady Lawlor rightly focused on the impact of the right-to-buy scheme and the opportunities for home ownership. I thank her for her work on this.

I was also interested in Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough—who was not a council leader. It raises important questions about the availability of homes delivered and whether the housing stock being provided actually meets the needs of families and communities. Understanding the impact of policy on the availability and affordability of larger social rented homes is certainly worth while.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, raise broader questions about transparency, accountability and how Parliament monitors the impact of housing policy across different communities. Noble Lords may have differing views on the precise mechanisms proposed, but these amendments seek to ensure that the consequences of the policy are properly understood and that disparities are identified where they exist. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points that have been made during this debate, as well as look at the equality impact assessment. However, I hope that the Government will also reflect on the broader principle that sits behind this group; namely, that Parliament should not simply legislate and move on but retain the means to assess whether its legislation is delivering the outcomes that are intended. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.