National Empty Homes Strategy

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for raising this very important debate and for his impressive work helping homeless and vulnerable people over 35 years—I must admit that it shocked me when I heard that it was 35 years. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, shared with us his experiences, and I thank him for that. My father was a bus conductor, and I experienced as a youngster my parents being able to buy their social housing, so I am going to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on that because, at the end of the day, many people such as them stayed in their properties; they were long-term tenants, they did not go anywhere, so actually the homes were not lost as a result of them buying.

On the doorstep of No. 10, the Prime Minister pledged to end rough sleeping by Christmas. I do not think anyone in this room would disagree with that pledge, and we would all love to see it happen. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham recalled his interventions to address the issue many years ago, and I want to continue in that vein. I remind people about the previous Government introducing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which came into force in 2018. That included the duty to prevent homelessness, moving it to the other side, and the duty to relieve homelessness into the statutory housing duty. It saw 740,000 families helped into housing and long-term accommodation between 2018 and 2024. I saw the benefit of that scheme as a council leader.

I know my colleague here, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who it is lovely to have back again, served us well through that period. These things made a big, big difference, but the previous Government’s rough sleeping initiative provided over £2 billion to help rough sleepers find work, access services and secure accommodation. It was a long-term fix; it was not just a revolving door. What is more, they allocated £11 billion to the affordable homes programme from 2021 to 2026, and met the promise to build 1 million new homes over the last Parliament.

However, when the new Prime Minister’s pledge was made, there was no detail on how it would be achieved, how much it would cost or where the money would come from. These are not just technicalities to be ironed out further down the line. Furthermore, it is not the first time that the Prime Minister has made the pledge. He did the same as Mayor of Manchester, where the number of rough sleepers proceeded to rise. He set up the Bed Every Night scheme and then a Housing First scheme. How exactly will the Get Everyone In for Christmas scheme differ from and work better than those two schemes? Is the national plan to end homelessness, published only last December by the Government, still being followed, or has that now been shelved?

In addition, the Prime Minister has called for the biggest council housing programme since the post-war period, then backtracked on his proposal for the Government’s £10 billion 10-year affordable homes programme to be spent entirely on social housing. Can the Minister clarify exactly how many social homes they are planning to build?

During the passage of the Social Housing Act—of course, many of your Lordships in this Room were on that journey—we on these Benches made constructive proposals to enable the building of more social homes and reduce waiting lists. For example, an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied; that is a big theme that I have and an issue that I feel needs resolving. The Government themselves estimate that 5,800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short-term letting programmes, and we heard some comments earlier about some short-term lettings. Yet in 2024-25, there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. When there are people out there on the streets in genuine need, this is unacceptable. Those are British people for whom the welfare state should be there. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this Government’s plans, how they will be funded and exactly what the Government will do to achieve the numbers. I look forward to hearing her response.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, it is an understatement to say that this is a constitutionally significant Bill. Particularly at a time when the political landscape is so turbulent, this is where your Lordships’ House proves its worth—with careful, considered scrutiny to improve the Government's legislation as best we can. Indeed, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is driven by the need for this thorough scrutiny, and I thank him. I thank all those who are speaking today; I am sure that a number of very important matters will be raised, and we will be listening to them very closely.

The Bill seeks not only to give children the right to vote in all elections but introduces automatic voter registration, reforms political finance law and tackles foreign interference, while potentially leaving the door open for foreign citizens to vote. I also flag that the Bill was drafted with minimal engagement with other political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that

“any legislative change on elections should be informed by the experience and insight of the electoral community, including electoral administrators, political parties and the wider regulated community”.

There was no consultation with political parties on the 2025 election strategy, nor after the initial Rycroft recommendations. Why did the Government not wait two months until the Rycroft review was completed before proceeding with Second Reading of the Bill in the other place?

If the Government wanted to fast-track their manifesto commitments on the voting age, why could they not separate the election measures from the political finance measures, as indeed the last Labour Government did with the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? This is not how election rules should be reformed. As Sir Winston Churchill said at the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill in 1948:

“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.]


Some of the provisions are indeed deeply troubling and risk setting dangerous precedents. Bills such as these should not be hyper-partisan, particularly in complex areas such as political finance. Even just the perception of partisan, targeted legislation risks breaking down long-standing political conventions and, crucially, trust in the system. We will all have heard the reports this weekend of crypto donations to Reform UK. It is our current understanding that these donations would be caught by the overseas contributors cap, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how this proposed cap would work. Do the cap’s provisions apply to long-standing domestic electors and not just to overseas electors and overseas electors who return to domestic registration?

Can the noble Baroness confirm the requirement for a full calendar year of prior UK residence when making a donation? The legislation commences these provisions retrospectively from March 2026, but the calendar year of UK residence requirement may predate March 2026. If an elector has dual permanent residence at home and abroad, would this class the elector as an overseas contributor? It is important that laws are clear. I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on this matter if she so wishes.

As to the Bill’s other provisions, let me be very clear that we will not stand in the way of the Government’s manifesto commitment to lower the voting age. Noble Lords opposite may see themselves as having a monopoly on progress, but I gently remind them that when the Reform Act 1832 was passed—they know the answer—the Conservatives won the general election in 1841. It was the Conservatives who championed the Reform Act 1867, and we once again defied expectations following the Reform Act 1884, when the Liberals lost their majority in 1885 and the Conservatives returned to power in 1886. When women finally got the vote in the following decades, they were more likely to vote Conservative than men—very sensible. And when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969, the Conservatives won the general election the following year. From the days of the Primrose League to our Young Conservatives today, we will never be afraid of making our case to the British people.

However, the Government’s position in this Bill is inconsistent with their policies elsewhere, which raises serious questions. The Government must decide whether they see 16 and 17 year-olds as children, in line with the Children Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If not, then why not 15 year-olds or younger? What exactly is the Government’s rationale? Will they change other laws as a result? Children currently cannot stand for election, be deployed in the Armed Forces or buy alcohol or cigarettes. The Government have raised the age for buying fireworks, vapes and knives or for using sunbeds to 18 and are proposing to raise the age for obtaining a driving licence from 17. Where do the Government draw the line and why?

We are also concerned about automatic voter registration. We believe it is up to individuals to register, to be inspired to register rather than be forced, and to undergo proper checks to protect the system from fraud, which is why individual registration was introduced in the first place. Do we really trust algorithms to keep accurate registers when there may be out-of-date entries on other databases, for example? How will it prevent those with residence but who are ineligible being registered, such as certain second home owners or unqualified Commonwealth and EU voters? So much for tackling foreign interference. Voters’ rights are rightly based on citizenship and not residency. No EU member state allows non-national citizens to vote in its national elections. Can the Minister confirm that eligibility to vote in general elections will remain the preserve of British citizens only?

What is more, the Bill will water down requirements for photographic identification at polling stations, yet we still require photo ID to drive or for under-25s to buy alcohol. Again, what is the rationale? Where is the consistency? Amid the legitimate concerns in the recent Gorton and Denton as well as Birmingham City Council by-elections around family voting, is this really the time to water down safeguards against electoral fraud?

This brings me to the rise of sectarianism in our country. In the other place, the Government, alongside the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, voted against an amendment to ban political campaigning materials in foreign languages. The Government have not said whether any assessment has been made of sectarianism in election campaigning. This is counterproductive to integration and brings into question whether this Government are serious about social cohesion.

There are, of course, some aims in the Bill which we welcome. We support initiatives to safeguard candidates, campaigners and elected representatives from unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence while protecting the right to robust debate on strongly felt issues. The previous Government took several actions on this and we are happy to build on this work. Similarly, we will be constructive when it comes to election advertising regulation. The Elections Act 2022 introduced imprints for digital material, and the Conservative Party already voluntarily labels digital content which is AI generated.

As I said earlier, the kinds of reforms proposed in the Bill should be based on consensus and cross-party consultation. Clearly, there are areas we agree on, but there are also areas of serious concern, not just about the proposals themselves but about the way in which the Government have introduced them. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the points raised and I look forward to hearing the valuable insights of other noble Lords on this hugely significant and wide-ranging Bill.

Home Owners and Home Ownership

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by reminding your Lordships of my declaration of interest: I am a vice-president of London Councils and a co-owner of a rental property in Bexley.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Eaton on securing this debate. It is an important subject, and I know she feels as passionately about it as I do. We recently had some conversations about home ownership as part of the Social Housing Bill debate. I hope that this debate will allow expansion of that discussion, especially around the value of right to buy and the potential of the shared ownership model.

Contrary to some of the comments from the Government, we should recognise that right to buy council properties gave opportunity to many who would not otherwise have had that chance. Many were on low incomes. It afforded them the aspiration to be a home owner. Ownership did not go without benefits to their communities and, contrary to what is often suggested, the majority of tenants who bought continued to live in those properties and raise their families. If they had not bought under the scheme, they would likely have remained council tenants.

It was noticeable that one of the first things that many of them did was to install a new front door. I am sure that most of us saw that when we were out canvassing. I do not know why that was so important, but it seemed to be the first action that most former tenants did when they transferred to being a home owner. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, the sense of pride in those who bought through right to buy did not stop there. They got more involved in their surroundings and their community. That benefited others, as well as what was happening within their property.

There were other benefits as well. Research says that the children of people who bought under right to buy did better in schools. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Jamieson will remind the House that receipts could be used to build additional social housing. Ownership through right to buy benefited many people and it is such a shame that the Government are looking to water it down.

Moving on to shared ownership, as we discussed during the Social Housing Bill, shared ownership can also allow some to get a foot on the property ladder who would not do so otherwise. This often includes the key workers whom we all depend on to run our vital services on a daily basis. However, as we heard during the social housing debate, there can be issues with the current offer around service charges, legal costs and sales. I thank the Government for agreeing to a review and hope that any change brought forward through that review will make the offer more attractive to potential purchasers.

Right to buy and shared ownership can help people who want to buy their own home. However, for the vast majority of those who are looking to buy, there are many other barriers, some of which have already been identified. The first, of course, is affordability. The average cost of buying a property now is out of the reach of many, and the multiple of salary, size of deposit or length of mortgage can be eye-watering. Many cannot access the bank of mum and dad, and the cost of private rental often means that they are unable to save the required deposit.

Often, the cost of private rental is higher than a mortgage payment might be. The previous Conservative Government’s help-to-buy scheme and saving schemes helped many first-time buyers. There is now a gap in that support. The Minister did say that conversations were being held with banks and building societies to come up with some more attractive products. Maybe she can share some of that information with us this afternoon.

Stamp duty is another barrier—one reason why our party is promising to look at that and take action. It is not only expensive but can stop people accessing the housing market. They might not buy that starter flat with a view to moving into a bigger home, or it might discourage those considering downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family accommodation.

Another barrier to home ownership is availability of the right type of properties, whether that be starter homes, flats and apartments for those commuting, student accommodation, family accommodation, supported living or properties for those wishing to downsize. While it is important to build, it is also vital to consider the types of homes that are being built to ensure that need is met. It is also worth considering the knock-on impact to other public sector services if that does not happen.

Nobody is suggesting that home ownership is right for everyone or that it is the only type of accommodation, but we should definitely recognise the benefits it can bring.

National Infrastructure Projects: Devolution

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, there is hard evidence—we have just had a Conservative speaker.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I did not get up quickly enough then, but I did this time.

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is plenty of time for both noble Lords. We have just heard a Conservative Member, so we will have Labour and then the Front Bench.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We now have the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which removes some of the obstacles that were causing delays in the planning system, but we have also recently republished the National Planning Policy Framework. It is now a much more straightforward, rules-based system of planning which we hope will make the planning system run more smoothly while removing some of the jeopardy around JRs and so on in the planning system. That, alongside investment in planning officers and the planning system, will make a real difference.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, in January, the Government announced plans to allow data centres to opt in to the nationally significant infrastructure projects scheme. What are the Government doing to promote innovation in this area to increase their reliance on grey water rather than drinking water and the use of closed-loop cooling systems?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Data centres are a useful example of why the planning system needs flexibility. Some data centres will go through the local planning routes and some will be NSIPs because of their scale, power requirements, economic role or resilience applications. The noble Baroness makes a very valid point around how we use grey water and so on, and how we can use the heat output from data centres for use in residential or commercial applications.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this quite significant Statement. The Government have suddenly paused the reorganisation plans they started for local government. This is astounding. Proposals to merge councils in Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire, and Essex have been withdrawn. The 14 areas which formed the third tranche of the programme have also been put on hold. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, which were awaiting the Government’s decision, now face further uncertainty for residents, councillors and council officers.

We are told that this new review follows updated legal advice but is also to align the plans for local government with new government priorities. The only area unaffected is Surrey, where the two new unitary authorities have already been established. This has come too late for them.

It was only in June that we were told that this Government

“remain fully committed to the timetable already set out”,—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 141WS.]

and that their local government reorganisation programme was

“a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 139WS.]

Time has hardly passed, and the programme is paused.

Let us not forget that local elections were postponed. Now, elections in May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries. So much time, not to mention money, was spent drawing together proposals, conducting and responding to consultations nationally and locally, with staffing, governance, finance and service delivery about to be restructured—without, by the way, any guarantee that this would end up saving taxpayers any money or improving services for local people. Are we now being told that it may have all been for nothing because the Government did not think through the legal implications or because the new Prime Minister simply does not fancy it?

What is the estimated total cost of this review, both to national government and to the authorities affected? Do the people making those decisions have any idea how damaging the uncertainty and inconsistency is to many councils, including to staff recruitment and staff morale? Councils are losing large numbers of staff who want certainty on their future, and, for the same reason, cannot recruit replacements.

Your Lordships’ House spent eight days in Committee and two days on Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Bill would

“drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation”.—[Official Report, 8/12/25; col. 30.]

However, we now have the rewiring of state White Paper to look forward to, which will focus on devolution and local government. Can the Minister clarify, if this new Bill is to deliver devolution, was the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act not devolution at all? As we said at the time, it was not community empowerment. It shifted power away from the local to the regional and to Whitehall—from locally elected councillors to mayors, and from democracy routed in local identities to new managerial, technocratic boundaries. Will this new Bill reverse that direction of travel?

We are hearing the same platitudes from this Government to disguise their lack of long-term vision. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the priorities of the new Prime Minister are, and how they will differ? What certainty can she give to local councils receiving this news? I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Across England, there will be thousands of councillors and council officers who have worked for months, sometimes years, to deliver an effective solution to the Government’s top-down reorganisation diktat. They will have devoted scarce resources in both funding and precious time. Today, they will be despairing. With the stroke of a ministerial pen, all their careful planning has been consigned to the waste bin.

The principle of devolution is the right one. Unfortunately, the Government have conflated devolution with local government reorganisation, and that has resulted in this sorry mess. There are any number of questions that the Minister must answer, given that, in July, she gave an assurance in this Chamber that a decision on the final reorganisation plans for the remaining councils would be made in October.

I am confident that there will be many specific questions about individual councils, so I will restrict my questions to general principles. First, given that the Government’s decision has been made following legal advice, can the Minister publish that advice and provide a summary for us in her response? Will she tell the House when those councils with agreed plans were informed? Some councils had already developed financial planning on the basis of agreed reorganisation. What support will the Government provide for those councils now facing severe financial pressures?

Today’s announcement has left councils and their residents in limbo. The Statement makes it clear that elections for districts will take place next year. That indicates a longer timeframe for reorganisation than a speedy review. Asking people to become councillors for a non-specific period is difficult. Equally, encouraging voter enthusiasm will be more challenging. What are they voting for? How long will it last? Local democracy has been the real loser in all this, with elections cancelled and democratic terms of office extended on a whim.

The process by which the Government determined the parameters of this reorganisation defied the importance and relevance of local communities. For example, new councils were told they had to have a population of at least 300,000, with a maximum of around 500,000—although, of course, one of the new Surrey councils has a population of 700,000. That was stated despite many existing unitary metropolitan councils being smaller than that. For instance, Calderdale, in my own west Yorkshire, has a population of just over 200,000. Many councils in the Manchester mayoral authority have a population of around 300,000 or fewer. That was one reason why communities lost out in this top-down reorganisation.

This is a thorough and embarrassing dog’s breakfast for the Government. It has all stemmed from the flawed notion that the financial crisis facing county councils could be resolved by changing the seats around the table and going for reorganisation, while ignoring the historic community ties around which many councils were created. The Government have much to do to put the “local” back into local government. I look forward to a thorough explanation from the Minister.

Voter Registration, Election Turnout and Compulsory Voting

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I very much look forward to debating this when we start the Representation of the People Bill on 14 September. I am sure there will be lively discussions about all matters to do with elections. Of course, I am always happy to debate things that are already in the Bill or things that people want to have in the Bill as we go through that process.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, the Representation of the People Bill proposes automatic voter registration, which will obviously involve new computers and new data systems. Can the Minister clarify how much this is expected to cost?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We want to make sure that the system is adequate to deal with all voter registration. We are assured by the Electoral Commission and the electoral administration authorities that we have sufficient processes in place, because the system is set up to register all voters who are eligible to vote. What we need to do is encourage them to do so and make sure they are on those systems.

Electoral Commission Investigations

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We want to see all those who are entitled to vote having the information they need to enable them to do so. That is a very important part of the process. We continue to explore with local authorities, the Electoral Commission and electoral registration officers how we might better do that and make sure that the information is available to everyone who is entitled to vote. Of course, the offence of undue influence, first under Section 8 of the ROPA Act 1983 and then amended by the Elections Act 2022, protects electors from intimidation and malicious interference with their vote. We need to tackle this from both angles: from the education angle and by making sure that people are not coming under undue influence and that those offences are prosecuted.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, to return to the original question, such investigations depend on good record-keeping, such as the submission of election expenses. Can the Minister clarify how that data is held, how many estimates are not submitted accurately, and the capacity of the police to investigate suspicious activity?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Record-keeping is subject to both the Electoral Commission and local authorities, which are the initial point of contact for this. We want to make sure that there are always sufficient resources to do that. I do not think local authorities have been helped in their management of elections through the cuts they have had in their funding in recent years, but we will continue to make sure that we are talking to our local authority partners about the resources for doing that. On police investigation, we are working very hard with police colleagues to make sure there are sufficient resources to do what needs to be done. Under the current enforcement framework, most political finance offences are treated as possible criminal offences, even when they amount to minor administrative breaches. The new Bill will put that right so that we are focusing attention where it needs to be, which is on the actual criminal activity.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22, which again is about transparency. I am sure the Minister is going to say again that all the information is out there, but this is actually about collating it, so that we do not have to hunt for it, and it is easy to read. I am grateful to the Local Councils Network for highlighting this issue and the gap in current reporting arrangements. This amendment would require post-disposal reporting to distinguish between homes let at social rent and those let at affordable rent. It would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish annual data in a form that allows useful analysis over time.

This is important as, although both tenures fall within the broad category of affordable housing, they are not the same. Social rent remains the only tenure that is genuinely affordable for many households on the lowest income, while affordable rent can be set at up to 80% of market rent. If social rent homes are being sold and replaced by homes at affordable rent, it represents a significant change in the nature of our social housing stock. At present, Parliament has no way of assessing whether that is actually happening.

The Regulator of Social Housing has confirmed that it has collected disposal data since 2017 but has never published any analysis of it. As a result, although we know that more than 28,000 homes have been permanently sold out of the social housing sector since 2018-19 through disposals, we cannot establish just how many of those had been at social rent and how many had been at affordable rent. Without that information, it is impossible to judge whether we are losing the homes that are most affordable for those who need them most or whether they are being replaced on a like-for-like basis.

The regulator already collects the information that this amendment asks for, but we need the data published in a way that enables Parliament, local authorities, housing providers and the public to understand what is actually happening to our social housing stock over time. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House whether the Government see any objection in principle to the regulator publishing this information annually. If the data is already being collected, what is preventing it from being published in a way that enables proper parliamentary scrutiny?

This is quite an interesting group, and I support quite a lot of these amendments, including Amendments 17, 21, 26 and 27, which are all good. I will support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young—he is not listening to me. I think he might divide the House, and I will be supporting him on Amendments 23 or 25.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I will continue with the brevity. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate. Given it is my first time speaking this afternoon, I remind your Lordships of my interest as a part-owner of a rental property in Bexley and as a vice-president of London Councils.

We have heard a range of important contributions on how the disposal of social housing should be managed, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey and to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward these amendments for consideration.

First, there is the importance of transparency. Whether through the provision of additional information on sales notices, the establishment of a national register or post-disposal reporting requirements, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the need for greater visibility of what is being sold, to whom, and with what consequences for local housing provision.

Secondly, there has been a strong focus on ensuring that social housing assets remain within the sector, wherever reasonably practicable. Amendments concerning notification periods, opportunities for other registered providers to purchase properties and the development of a code of responsible disposal practice all seek to address that objective.

Thirdly, several amendments have recognised that not all social housing is the same. Homes adapted for people with disabilities, homes in rural communities and homes let at social rent all make a particularly valuable contribution to meeting local housing need. It is understandable that noble Lords wish to ensure that such properties are not lost without proper consideration of the consequences.

We have also heard persuasive arguments regarding the recycling of capital grant and the importance of replacing homes within communities from which they are lost, wherever possible. As housing pressures continue to be felt across the country, there is clear merit in ensuring that local areas benefit from local reinvestment. From these Benches, we believe that housing providers should have the flexibility to manage their stock effectively, but that must be balanced against the equally important objective of maintaining the supply of social housing and ensuring confidence in disposal decisions.

This has been a valuable debate which has explored how that balance might best be struck. I once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. I will now address those amendments relating to the operation of the disposals measure in the Bill. This measure is simple: it will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. In doing so, we hope it will do what we all want it to do, which is to maximise opportunities for other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.

The new requirement must of course be balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are free to make their own responsible decisions about how to manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. I am pleased that noble Lords are largely supportive of the measure, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues raised in Committee with noble Lords ahead of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 25 in this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill. This amendment calls for a review of shared ownership. I emphasise that this proposed review should cover the special circumstances of shared ownership for older people.

Fortunately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I have the honour to chair, produced an excellent analysis of the key issues back in 2023 from our inquiry into shared ownership for an ageing population. A large section of our ageing population cannot afford to downsize to more manageable, accessible homes but will never be eligible for social housing. This squeezed middle can benefit in later life from the opportunity to move from family-sized accommodation to somewhere more compact, starting a chain of sales that help young and old alike. Savings accrue to the NHS and social care, alongside the direct benefits to the older person, but it has been a struggle to find a form of shared ownership that can be provided on an affordable basis for the less affluent home owner. The right shared ownership model could achieve this.

Homes England has devised its own older people’s shared ownership model—OPSO. The trouble is that this product currently involves an anomalous form of grant aid, which needs fixing. The OPSO grant means that, if potential occupiers can afford a 75% share, they will not be charged any rent on the 25% that remains in the ownership of the provider. This is very helpful, but the OPSO terms then stipulate that, if the shared owner can afford only 70% or less, they must pay full rent on the remaining 30% or corresponding share of the going rent. Someone who can afford only a 50% share must pay 50% rent; the combination of a 50% rent plus a significant service charge could be just too expensive for owners of middle-value homes.

Amendment 25, in its call for a review of shared ownership, needs to include the specific circumstances of older people and sort out the rather weird offering currently available from Homes England. The amendment could trigger a review that leads not just to an improvement in the amount of shared ownership housing for older people but that also means more sensible terms for the product itself—an excellent opportunity for a reset of a tenure that has much unrealised potential for young and old alike.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. They have brought forward these amendments and highlighted the very real challenges faced by many shared owners. I thank Lucy and the many others who have shared their examples with us that have brought this to light.

This has been a valuable debate on an area of housing policy which was intended to provide a bridge to home ownership but which, for some households, has been increasingly difficult to navigate. We have heard concerns about affordability, rising service charges, the costs associated with staircasing and the difficulties faced by leaseholders whose homes may be difficult to sell or mortgage. We have also heard concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock, where shared ownership properties leave the sector altogether.

The amendments before us seek above all to shine a light on these issues. Amendment 23 focuses on gathering better evidence about unsaleable and unmortgageable homes and on understanding the extent to which affordable housing stock is being lost. Amendment 25 asks the Government to undertake a broader review of whether the shared ownership model is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve.

From these Benches, we continue to support the principle of shared ownership as a route into home ownership for those who might otherwise be excluded from the housing market. However, support for the principle should not prevent us from examining how the scheme operates in practice and where improvements are needed. A review of the sort proposed by my noble friend Lord Young would provide an opportunity to assess the evidence, understand the experiences of shared owners and identify any barriers preventing the scheme from fulfilling its original purpose. If my noble friend is minded to move his amendment, we shall support him. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling Amendments 23 and 25, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill, for their support. I recognise the constructive and persistent way in which the noble Lord has raised issues relating to shared ownership throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, in previous Bills. In my responses, I in no way want to undermine the difficulties of shared owners, which I understand have caused great anxiety and for which I am deeply sympathetic. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the department is doing to provide support for some of the issues the noble Lord raised.

I turn first to Amendment 23. Shared ownership landlords are independent bodies and decisions about the repurchase of individual homes sit with them. However, landlords already have the option to buy back homes, including where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues. Landlords can already use their recycled capital grant funding to cover up to 100% of the cost of that.

Furthermore, allocating social and affordable homes programme grant funding for use on shared ownership buybacks would not be conducive to the core strategic objective of that new programme, which is to maximise supply, particularly of social rent homes. We expect landlords to set out any buyback policies, or confirm if they do not have one, on their websites. Ultimately, the solution for those struggling to sell their homes due to building safety issues is the remediation of unsafe buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is.

I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse.

Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing what she says on how she will meet the requests of housing associations there.

Finally, we welcome the expansion of scope in laying out and making sure that these provisions apply to other forms of abuse including, for example, sibling abuse or child-to-parent abuse. These are made available by the amendments that the Government have tabled here. We really welcome that change.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims.

It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition.

During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle.

We have also heard valuable contributions on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The proposed duty to ensure continuity of tenancy for those forced to move because of threats of targeted youth or gang violence raises an important issue. Nobody should face the prospect of losing the security of their tenancy because they are compelled to move for the safety of their family.

Likewise, the amendment concerning access for registered providers to undertake essential safety inspections addresses a long-standing and very practical problem. Social landlords have a significant statutory duty in relation to gas safety, electrical safety and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Where access cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, there needs to be a proportionate mechanism that can protect both the rights of tenants and the safety of the residents. This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for achieving that balance.

This debate is therefore united by a common theme of ensuring that the law provides appropriate protection, whether for victims of domestic abuse, tenants facing serious threats to their safety or residents whose well-being depends upon essential safety checks being carried out. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her engagement on these issues.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Neate, Lady Lister, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill. I will be moving government Amendments 30 to 75; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will move them en bloc and not one at a time.

This Bill introduces important changes to give greater security and stability to social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse while giving landlords stronger powers to take action against perpetrators. While these protections have been warmly welcomed, we have listened closely to the legitimate concerns raised that the Bill’s protections, which focused on abuse involving a resident partner or that partner’s resident family member, are too narrow. They risk excluding victims of familial abuse in non-partner relationships, such as abuse between adult parents and adult children, siblings or other relatives. The government amendments close that gap. I especially thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for her engagement on this issue.

The amendments align the Bill’s provisions more closely with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. by focusing on the victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and who occupies the home or has had to leave because of the abuse. They additionally make a number of consequential changes to who the court should consider when examining reasonableness under the discretionary ground or approving suitable alternative accommodation in joint tenancy cases. These amendments will deliver a fairer outcome for victims of familial domestic abuse. They demonstrate our Government’s commitment to engaging with the House and stakeholders, and to strengthening the Bill where there is a clear case to do so.

Commenting now on Amendment 28, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling this amendment. It raises the serious issue of how the housing system responds when an existing social housing tenant needs to move urgently for their or their household’s safety. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement with me on this issue. I also thank Helen Hayes MP; it was truly shocking to hear of the circumstances of her constituent, Georgia, and the shocking murder of Georgia’s son, Damarie Roye.

I agree that social housing tenants should not have to choose between their personal safety and the security of their home. There are existing protections: the social housing allocations framework requires that, where people need to move on welfare grounds, they must be given reasonable preference for social housing. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to give additional preference to those fleeing violence. The Renters’ Rights Act will strengthen security of tenure for social housing tenants on assured tenancies from October 2027. However, I recognise the importance of considering whether we can go further to ensure that those who need to move for safety do not lose the security and associated benefits of their tenancy, which may have been built up over a number of years.

We need to consider carefully how any new duties on landlords would operate, particularly in assessing whether there is a threat to safety and where a landlord does not have suitable accommodation. We believe that further work is needed before any solution to this policy issue can be put forward. I have asked officials to explore this matter at pace, and we are keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and stakeholders on possible solutions, ahead of the Bill moving to the other place. I hope the noble Lord will understand how committed I am to ensuring that nobody should have to choose between their safety and their tenancy.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 29, which seeks to introduce a statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to fulfil their statutory safety duties. Since he last introduced this amendment, we have had a helpful discussion about these issues and my officials have been working closely with sector bodies. I recognise that there is growing concern from the sector that a lack of legal clarity leaves it unable to conduct necessary tests and repairs, and risks tenant safety.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Farmer.

A common theme has run through this group: making better use of the social housing stock we already have. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Farmer addresses the important issue of prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Stable accommodation can play a crucial role in helping individuals rebuild their lives and in reducing the risk of reoffending. His amendment rightly seeks to improve co-ordination and information sharing between agencies, and I know that the House will have listened carefully to those arguments.

Amendments 87 and 88, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, are fundamentally about making the best use of the social housing stock we already have. We all hear calls for more social housing, but that conversation inevitably turns immediately to building more homes. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, new supply is important, but it will not arrive overnight. Before we ask taxpayers to fund more homes, is it not reasonable to ask whether the homes we already have are being used as effectively as possible?

We need to make better use of the homes we already have. To do that, we need a more accurate view of how many we need. When an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied, there is a strong case for a national strategy that tackles tenancy fraud, reduces void periods and improves re-letting performance. The Government themselves estimate that 5,800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short-term letting platforms. There could be a lot of people making a lot of money out of that. That demonstrates why tackling tenancy fraud must be part of any serious strategy for improving the use of social housing stock. Even if that figure proves to be overstated, it underlines the importance of having accurate data and a clearer understanding of the scale of the challenge.

Likewise, we need to understand how accurate housing waiting lists are and when they were last reviewed. Circumstances change, and it is only with a timely review that a more accurate and transparent assessment can be made of the number of dwellings actually needed, as well as ensuring that the list is assessing accurate prioritisation. Without that information, it is difficult to judge how many additional homes are genuinely required and how many could be made available through better stock management.

At a time when the demand for social housing continues to grow, it is not enough simply to talk about building new homes. We must ensure that the homes we already have are being managed as effectively as possible. Too often, concerns are raised about lengthy void periods, delays in re-letting, outdated waiting lists, tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. Every property left empty unnecessarily is a missed opportunity for a family in need. Every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone on a waiting list.

Our amendment would require the Government to produce a national strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing housing stock. It would improve transparency, requiring key information to be published on void properties, re-let times, recovered properties and enforcement activity relating to unlawful subletting. It is not about creating additional bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that landlords, local authorities and government focus on making the best use of an extremely valuable and scarce public asset.

The related amendment on unlawful subletting seeks to better understand whether current enforcement powers are being used effectively and the barriers that might exist. Before calling for ever more supply, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the stock we already have is being managed as efficiently as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for Amendment 82, which seeks to ensure that local authorities receive the necessary information and collaborate with others to support prison leavers at risk of homelessness. I echo the noble Lord’s words about my noble friend Lord Timpson. He was an exceptional Minister who brought both the discipline of running a business and the compassion that he embodies in the principles by which he runs his business to his ministerial role. He has been an incredible success as a Minister and I wish him well for the future.

This amendment is focused on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice recognise. Supporting people into accommodation on release from prison is critical to reducing both homelessness and reoffending. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for meeting my officials and for the work that he has done previously with my noble friend Lord Timpson on this issue. Although I recognise and am supportive of the intent of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Public bodies such as His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are already required to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice.

The Government have also outlined an ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness. Collaboration is key to achieving this goal. As the noble Lord said, we have committed to consulting on a duty to collaborate to compel certain public bodies to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. Getting the design right will be important to ensure that public services work together more effectively to identify those at risk of homelessness as early as possible. I always get a little nervous when I read out something such as “getting the design right”, because that sometimes means a very long time thinking about it. Let us therefore be optimistic about our new Prime Minister’s pledge to end rough sleeping. We know, as the noble Lord said, that a lot of these issues lead to rough sleeping, so I hope that our PM’s pledge to end it will accelerate progress on this issue.

My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison through the CORE data collection and publishes this annually. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising the important issue of effective use of social housing stock in Amendments 86 and 87. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Addressing illegal subletting, as Amendment 86 would, is an important element of that. However, as I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which will report later this year—not too long to wait for that. It will examine issues covered by these amendments, including voids, underoccupation, unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature to legislate for a separate review or strategy before that work has concluded. This will enable us to properly assess its findings and inform next steps.

The amendments would also duplicate existing data collection. Much of the information they seek to mandate is already collected through sources, including the CORE social housing lettings data and local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined.

Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly. This may include taking legal action. I was very pleased to read about a case in Hertfordshire today where technology was used to detect and convict on a housing fraud case. That will be a very useful tool in supporting this work.

On 8 July, the Government 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 that social housing properties remain there for the families that need them and are not in the hands of criminals. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that these amendments are not moved.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on governance standards for registered providers of social housing. It is of the utmost importance that registered providers are well run organisations and that fundamental principles such as transparency and accountability are core to all their operations. However, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, registered providers of social housing are already subject to standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Specifically, private registered providers are required to meet the outcomes that are set out in the regulator’s governance and financial viability standard. This standard requires private registered providers to have effective governance arrangements that deliver their aims, objectives and intended outcomes for tenants and potential tenants in an effective, transparent and accountable manner.

Local authority-registered providers are not subject to this standard but instead are subject to a range of other governance requirements, including the statutory best-value duty. This requires them to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, all registered providers of social housing must meet the outcomes set out in the regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard, which requires that they take tenants’ views into account in their decision-making on how landlord services are delivered. Consequently, I am of the view that further governance standards set by the Secretary of State would duplicate these existing requirements set by the regulator. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, not to move their amendment.

That said, the regulator is currently seeking views through its discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, on its approach to economic regulation. This includes exploration of good governance and how to regulate for it. If there are specific ideas about how to strengthen governance requirements in the sector, I encourage noble Lords to engage with this process. If anybody needs any help with that, my officials will be happy to facilitate.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

The Minister said that the stock management review would come before the end of the year. Can she be clearer about a timescale? Will it be in the autumn or on Christmas Eve? Will that review show the data openly and transparently so that people can assess who is doing well and who is not?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is a review of the practices of stock management. It is intended to flag up good practice but also look at what needs doing further to make stock management easier. I am going to say yes to the second question. To the first question, the safest that I can say is “by the end of the year”. The year ends, as far as I know, on 31 December, so it will be before that. I hope that it will be earlier than that, because we all want to get on with this work.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Taking that one step further, is the Minister likely to share that with the House at that time? Obviously, I am hoping that she will still be in her place.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Discussions will take place when the review is complete. We have had some good discussions around this in the House. It is obviously of interest to noble Lords. I am very happy to discuss it further when we get the outcome of that review.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

87: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“National strategy for management of social housing stock(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing social housing stock.(2) The strategy must include proposals for—(a) reducing vacancy periods;(b) improving re-letting performance;(c) tackling unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud;(d) improving waiting list management;(e) addressing under-occupation;(f) tackling barriers to downsizing, where appropriate;(g) improving transparency and data collection in stock management.(3) Every local housing authority and registered provider of social housing must publish annually, in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, information relating to—(a) the number of void properties;(b) average re-let times;(c) unlawful subletting investigations and prosecutions;(d) recovered properties;(e) the date on which the housing waiting list was most recently reviewed.(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report summarising and analysing the information published under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require a national strategy to improve the management of existing social housing stock and requires social landlords to publish key stock-management data, with the Secretary of State reporting annually on performance.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Based on the commitment made earlier by the Minister, I am happy not to move this amendment.

Amendment 87 not moved.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

This is a serious and substantial package of reforms that will bring more transparency to political finance, tighten donation rules and strengthen enforcement. This response shows the Government acting now where action is needed. This is a Government who are prepared to do the long-term work to keep our system secure. I thank Philip Rycroft for his important work. The Government will now move swiftly to implement his recommendations. The people of the UK must know that their elections are free, fair, and protected from foreign interference. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement and thank Philip Rycroft for his thorough review. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures to tackle foreign interference in our democracy and recognise the value of Philip Rycroft’s review. However, an independent review is not a substitute for ministerial engagement with political parties where recommendations affect the rules by which political parties compete with one another. The Government have traditionally sought broad political agreement before legislating.

The threats posed by hostile states are real and growing, so protecting the integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our elections. Every political party represented in this House has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are robustly addressed. However, we remain concerned about both the process the Government have adopted and aspects of the proposals now being taken forward.

As my noble friend Lady Finn said during last week’s debate, there is a simple constitutional principle at stake. The rules governing political finance are not ordinary legislation; they are the rules by which political parties compete with one another. Governments are therefore the trustees of those rules, not their proprietors. The reason why that convention exists is straightforward: Governments should not use their parliamentary majority unilaterally to legislate on the finances of their political opponents. Once that principle is abandoned, it becomes easier for future Governments of any political persuasion to do the same and risks importing the kind of hyper-partisan approach to electoral law that has proved so damaging elsewhere.

For many years, Governments of all political persuasions have recognised that changes in this area should, where possible, be developed through consultation and broad cross-party agreements, rather than imposed unilaterally by the Government of the day. That is why the Government’s approach is so disappointing. Rather than waiting for Philip Rycroft’s review to conclude, Ministers introduced the Representation of the People Bill before publishing their response. They have now chosen to cherry-pick two recommendations from that review and insert them into the Bill through significant government amendments during the stages in the other place without first engaging in proper cross-party talks. Simply informing political parties of changes after they have already been drafted is not consultation. Why did the Government not publish a consultation paper, formal or informal, or convene proper cross-party discussions before deciding to legislate?

Constitutional conventions exist precisely because changes to the rules of democratic competition should not come as a surprise to those expected to operate within them. An independent review is valuable, but it is not a suitable political consensus on the rules governing political competition. However, the Government have immediately accepted two recommendations from the Rycroft review—a moratorium on cryptocurrency and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors—before publishing their full response to the review or consulting political parties on how these proposals should operate.

More troubling still, these measures are intended to have a retrospective effect from March this year. Political parties are therefore expected to comply with legal requirements whose detailed legislative provisions have not yet been debated by Parliament or, indeed, published in draft. That is full-on retrospective legislation and is constitutionally very difficult to justify.

More fundamentally, why was the Representation of the People Bill introduced before the Rycroft review had reported? Given that there was no imminent general election, why did Ministers not pause the Bill for a matter of weeks to bring forward a coherent package of reforms? Alternatively, if the Government wished to proceed urgently with electoral reforms, why were the political finance provisions not introduced in separate legislation, as previous Governments have done? Can the Minister also outline the consultation that has taken place with the Electoral Commission, parliamentary authorities and political parties on these proposals? What additional resources will be provided to ensure that any new regulatory responsibilities can be implemented effectively?

Finally, legislation is only one part of the answer. Effective enforcement is equally important. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what additional resource will be provided to the Electoral Commission, and to any other enforcement bodies, to ensure that these reforms can be properly implemented and enforced?

Good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires proper consultation, careful scrutiny and, in this area above all, broad political consensus. We will continue to support proportionate measures that genuinely strengthen our democracy against foreign interference, but we urge the Government to return to the long-established constitutional principle that the rules governing political competition should be made with political parties, not simply imposed upon them. Protecting our democracy should unite Parliament and not become another area for partisan legislation.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I will resist the temptation to ask the Minister to remind us what consultation the previous Conservative Government carried out with either his party or mine over, for example, changing the electoral system for elections of mayors or expense limits for general elections.

Instead, to go to the heart of the matter, these Benches very much share the concerns set out in the Rycroft review about the risk of foreign money influencing, or even corrupting, our politics. We therefore broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the report. However, I have some concerns about the intended speed of implementation, some of the loopholes that will remain, and one particular issue that is not mentioned in the Government’s response, which I suspect the Minister can successfully predict.

I turn first to the intended pace of implementation. On recommendation 4, regarding non-party campaigners and related issues, the Government have said they will

“commit to consultation and further work”.

They are not even committing to action on that one. On recommendation 14, on internet advertising, the Government have promised “proposals in due course”. On recommendation 16, on think tanks and associated issues, the Government’s commitment is that they will

“consider opportunities for further work”.

I fear that you can almost hear the wheels of Whitehall grinding to a halt as you consider that phrase. I hope the Minister can set out clear timelines for the Government’s intended progress on those recommendations, which are, after all, on substantive major issues such as the role of online advertising.

On loopholes, I have raised before the question of the Government’s apparent inconsistent approach to politics and the media. They appear to be sticking to a significant control test for companies that permits greater foreign ownership of a company that donates to our politics than is permitted for a company that owns one of our newspapers. It remains unclear to me why the Government think that a lower level of protection against foreign interference in our politics than in our media is appropriate. I hope the Minister might be able to clarify that.

The Government are proposing—in a broad sense, this is a welcome step in the right direction—introducing a new threshold of £2,230, above which pre-campaign donations to individual candidates would need to be declared. That sounds a reasonable threshold, until one remembers that British-wide political parties will typically stand 633 candidates across the country, or, if not contesting the Speaker’s seat, 632 candidates. Therefore, 632 lots of some £2,000 gets you to nearly £1.5 million-worth of donations that could be made legally, legitimately and in secret, unless the Government also propose to go a little further and introduce aggregation requirements around those donations to individual candidates. I hope the Minister can tell us what is intended on that front.

Indeed, the Government Statement is rather silent on whether similar protection will be extended to, for example, elections for the Mayor of Greater Manchester or the Mayor of London. Those, among other elected posts at other levels of election, have important power, and, although we have not yet had a track record of having to worry about foreign money in such elections, it would seem to me prudent to extend such protections.

Finally, I turn to the consolidation of election law and the dangers, costs and complexity that arise from the messy and fragile state of election law, In the past, I have used the parallel of a teenager with a messy bedroom—the Government never quite decide that now is the time to start cleaning up that bedroom The Rycroft review said:

“I urge Government to consider”


action in this area. Because that was a boxed-out urging of the Government to consider, rather than a formal recommendation, the Government’s response so far has been silent on that particular part of the Rycroft review. I hope the Minister, having been urged by Rycroft to consider this issue, can tell us what consideration the Government have come to.

To push on one specific example, consolidation does not have to a be a big project, put off for ever only to be done in one big bang. It is possible to pick off little individual issues. For example, it is possible to look at redundant legislation on the statute book, the repeal of which would have no or only minimal knock-on consequences. It is a bit like picking up the dirty crisp packet from the middle of the floor—we are not going to tidy the whole bedroom but can at least pick up some of the easy bits. I have one specific question. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 seems to me to be the perfect crisp packet—an easy thing that could be picked off and repealed under the Representation of the People Bill. I hope the Minister can tell us that that is going to be added to the Government’s plans.