Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, this group of amendments begins with Amendment 28, in my name, and covers a range of different but vital issues. The concluding Amendment 76 in the group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, addresses the treatment of abuse victims who get into debt while living in temporary accommodation and lose their entitlement to a secure home. As I am sure the noble Baroness will explain, that is a vital amendment. I greatly welcome the wider definition of domestic abuse announced by the Minister in her letter to Peers of 14 July and encapsulated in the 46 government amendments in this group.

Amendment 28 picks up on a separate but related issue. It would ensure that social housing providers offered a new secure tenancy to a tenant who had been forced out of their social housing by threats of targeted youth or gang violence following police advice. This change was first proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. A constituent of hers, as instructed by the police, left her social rent home but thereby lost access to secure accommodation and was trapped in miserable temporary accommodation, with no right of return. She was penalised because one of her children had been threatened with serious violence by gang members, not because she or any member of her family had done anything wrong. Frighteningly, these cases of gang violence are not rare in some of our inner-city areas. The family of Helen Hayes’s constituent subsequently suffered the tragic death of a teenage son in a separate gang-related incident. The threats to life can be very real.

Amendment 28 would ensure that, in future cases, the fleeing household would not lose the right to return to a secure tenancy where the move was on the basis of police advice. I understand that the Government will be strengthening guidance to social landlords. What is needed is a firm obligation on the housing association to restore the household security of tenure in a decent property after a temporary emergency move.

Amendment 29 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I thank the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, the National Federation of ALMOs and the LGA for their work on this issue. Amendment 29 seeks to end the current legal anomaly whereby, on the one hand, social landlords are required to make checks of tenants’ homes for safety reasons while, on the other hand, the tenant may deny access. A recent court judgment has ruled that social landlords do not have a right of access in these cases. The social landlord can be penalised for failing to carry out safety checks, can be accused of regulatory failure and can face criminal prosecution, but they cannot fulfil the requirements on them because the tenant is denying access and the courts will not support the social landlord taking action to enter the premises.

Quite properly, the Government have been bringing pressure to bear on social landlords to improve their management and maintenance services, including by carrying out more safety checks and works. There is the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. However, the social landlord may make comprehensive and repeated attempts to secure entry to carry out these statutory checks but is still denied access. The tenant may have mental health difficulties, they may be hoarders or they may simply lead a chaotic lifestyle that makes appointments hard to keep, but taking the tenant to court as a last resort has revealed an ambiguity in the law, with a judgment last October that courts cannot grant access unless Parliament has clearly conferred such a power.

There is an urgent need to sort out the legal position. I know that MHCLG has been in helpful negotiations with all the representative bodies to bring together statutory guidance that would ensure good practice by social landlords and avoid accusations of trampling on tenants’ human rights. However, the blockage encountered in the courts suggests that social landlords need more than this important guidance. It seems that new legal powers are required.

I know the Minister has been pursuing this matter within MHCLG and with the other relevant government departments to resolve this legal dilemma. I was grateful to the Minister, as on so many occasions, for her willingness to meet and discuss the issue and for her subsequent letter in which she recognises the strength of the case and says: “I agree that the ability of landlords to access homes for essential safety checks is an important issue that we must take seriously. The early evidence suggests that there is an issue for government to resolve, and I am sympathetic to your amendment”.

Without a solution, the housing associations, councils and ALMOs are left in an impossible position. As always, the hard work behind the scenes by the Minister is much appreciated, and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, and I am delighted to see that it is grouped with the Government’s amendments extending protections for victims of domestic abuse, which I certainly support.

I was grateful for the Minister’s constructive response to this amendment in Committee, especially her recognition that the matter needs further consideration and her commitment to convene interested stakeholders to explore a way forward. I know that representative bodies from across the social housing sector have been working with officials on the best way to solve the issue of access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspection repairs and safety works. In Committee, the Minister raised important concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home, and I agree that that is extremely important in safeguarding a tenant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. However, the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ask simply: are existing routes for access clear, consistent and fast enough when tenants and residents do not engage and clear safety risks are posed? I am convinced that the answer to this is no.

We know that housing associations and councils increasingly report difficulties in gaining access to residents’ homes to carry out statutory safety inspections. Recent HQN research found that 60% of surveyed social landlords had growing or considerable concerns about access issues. The primary concern here must be the safety of residents and social housing staff. If gas safety checks or emergency repairs cannot be conducted, issues can be left unidentified or unresolved that pose significant and imminent danger not just to the resident in that property but to people in neighbouring homes as well.

Legal action is typically taken as a last resort after steps to engage directly with residents have proven unsuccessful, but even this has become more challenging. Housing associations have observed a shift in decisions from judges over the last 12 months, with judges seemingly less willing to approve requests for injunctions, particularly for matters other than gas safety. As I mentioned in Committee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just mentioned it too, a court judgment from October 2025 demonstrated that Parliament’s intention on forced entry is currently unclear.

Alongside the obvious risk to safety, there is the financial cost of inaction. In a 2026 White Paper, the Association of Safety and Compliance Professionals estimated that repeated access attempts cost the social housing sector more than £175 million annually in direct operational terms, with the figure rising to between £200 million and £245 million with legal escalation included. I urge that this money could be better directed towards work that will improve the conditions of residents’ homes or to building much-needed new social housing.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s approach so far. Whether through this amendment or another mechanism to clarify the process for securing access, I know that both she and social housing bodies want to work in partnership to develop a workable system with tenant safety at its heart.

[Baroness Neate (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 76 standing in my name, and I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This amendment would mean that landlords could not prevent domestic abuse survivors accessing social housing on the basis of debt incurred under coercive control or economic abuse. Research by Katherine Brickell of King’s College London and Mel Nowicki of Oxford Brookes University found that the allocations policies of only one in five local authorities in England currently exempt domestic abuse survivors from debt-related rules on social housing.

During my periods as CEO of Shelter and before that Women’s Aid, I saw the desperate impact of these rules on women and children who ended up homeless in temporary accommodation. Let us be clear what this means. Temporary accommodation is often just one room in a B&B, a converted office block or a hotel. Laying the table for tea often means laying the bed for tea. I have seen a GCSE student with nowhere to work but sitting on the toilet. I have seen a baby who could not be put down to crawl because there was no space between the beds. I have seen families having to live on unhealthy and expensive takeaways because they have no cooking facilities. Add all these challenges to the unimaginable trauma of domestic abuse followed by homelessness and you can easily see why many women literally risk their lives by staying with the perpetrator to spare their children from homelessness.

It was heartening today to hear the new Prime Minister prioritising the end of rough sleeping and, even more importantly, reiterating the commitment to a major programme of social and council housebuilding. The Prime Minister cited the model of Everyone In used during the Covid-19 pandemic but, while this was a great example of partnership and co-ordination, it is not a model for ensuring homeless people find safe and secure homes for the long term and not temporary accommodation in hotels. This is important context for this amendment.

Home Ownership: First-time Buyers

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are exemptions from stamp duty for first-time buyers, so that is not the case for them. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty land tax up to £300,000 and are able to claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. The Government are working closely with the Mayor of London. I will meet the deputy mayor for housing this week to talk about what further steps we can take to help the building of homes in London. It is not true to say that no housebuilding is moving forward. We had an increase in growth in the first quarter of this year.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, home ownership is important, but social housing must play a central role in meeting the housing needs of young people. Over the past year, government decisions have put the social housing sector in a much better financial position, so can the Minister confirm that enough funding will be made available in the first years of the social and affordable homes programme to match the ambitious bids that have been made to build the homes we so urgently need?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her recognition of the huge amount of funding—£39 billion, which is the biggest in a generation—allocated by the Government for social and affordable homes to be built. At least 60% of those homes will be for social rent. On 28 January, we published the update to our five-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal. We have had a significant number of bids for the first round of that funding, which will give councils and social housing providers the certainty they need, with the rent convergence procedure we have also introduced. Bids closed on 15 April and we look forward to those houses being built.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I apologise that I was unable to contribute at Second Reading, but I am pleased to speak now in support of Amendment 65 and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May, who made such a strong case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling the amendment. Given her experience at Shelter and Women’s Aid, I can think of no better person to take up this important issue.

The relationship between homelessness and debt resulting from economic coercion and abuse, which we have just heard about, was brought to my attention last year in a briefing on a book by Professor Katherine Brickell and Dr Mel Nowicki, Debt Trap Nation. This provided evidence on the general problem of domestic abuse survivors unable to qualify for housing because of restrictive housing allocation policies. They found that fewer than one in five local authorities specifically exempts survivors from housing-related debt rules. Indeed, significant housing-related debt is sometimes bracketed with being a perpetrator of domestic abuse under the rubric of unacceptable behaviour that provides grounds for exclusion from housing. Some debt is what the researchers called coerced debt, generated through financial transactions that the victim is told to make or is aware of the abuser making in their name. They cite the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse, which discovered that victims of economic violence were at high risk of having rent arrears. As Brickell and Nowicki note, debt chips away at women’s autonomy to make decisions in their own interests.

Moreover, as the Chartered Institute of Housing points out, children suffer as a result of these exclusionary policies. The researchers observe that adult and child domestic abuse survivors subject to them are, in effect, left in limbo in temporary accommodation until they can reduce or clear rent arrears. The effect on children can be traumatic. Reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation is one of the main aims of the child poverty strategy as well as of the homelessness strategy, so the amendment would contribute to both. The institute explains why it believes action should be taken in this legislation, rather than await the statutory guidance promised in the announced allocations review, as legislation would be more appropriate and there is a strong case for not delaying the matter. This very much accords with the strong argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. A few local authorities already pursue this policy; for example, Bedford Borough Council states:

“A blanket policy will not be operated in relation to housing debt and each case will be considered on its own merits ...Where a housing related debt has arisen as a direct result of a person being a victim of domestic abuse the debt will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the application”.


This is to be applauded, but survivors should not have to rely on the discretion of individual local authorities.

The Bill is so positive when it comes to the position of domestic abuse survivors that it would be a real shame not to include this amendment, or one that achieved the same aim. At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made it clear that this Bill should not be viewed as a Christmas tree Bill. That is understandable, but I believe that this amendment is no bauble to add to the tree but rather that it would strengthen the very roots of the Bill. It is totally consistent with the existing welcome provisions, as the noble Baroness made clear. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will be able to look upon it favourably before Report.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 12 and Schedule 1 introduce important new protections for social housing tenants experiencing domestic abuse. I welcome these measures, which will help ensure that victims can leave unsafe accommodation or remain in their homes safely without losing their tenancy rights. I also support Amendment 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Best, which seeks to guarantee continuity of secure tenancy where a tenant’s safety is at risk. No one should be forced to forfeit their secure tenancy as a result of violence or intimidation.

It is the case that the availability of adequate social housing is often a critical determining factor in cases where a victim of abuse or intimidation is unable to access a new secure tenancy. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and can therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Improving partnership working and best practice between housing associations and local authorities, as well as clear guidance for social housing staff, will be vital for these important new protections to work effectively.

I am also speaking in support of Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Best, relating to access for safety, to which I have added my name. I welcome the broad support for this amendment from the housing sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs. Housing associations are spending more each year to invest in existing homes but report increasing difficulty in securing access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspections, repairs and safety works. This reflects a growing mismatch between duties and powers. Providers rightly face stronger statutory obligations to identify and remedy hazards, yet they lack clear and consistent legal routes to gain access in the small number of cases where residents just do not engage.

The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on her comprehensive and forensic introduction to this report. I wanted to speak in this debate because the role of the regulator is crucial in delivering the Government’s aim of urgently building more homes and in resolving one of the most intractable social problems that the country faces: the lack of safe, healthy, affordable homes for everyone.

Of course, it is not just new homes that we should be concerned about. The Grenfell Tower tragedy put into stark relief the problems we face with existing stock. It is worth reminding ourselves that most housing stock is already ageing. Indeed, the majority of our homes are already more than 60 years old. It is a problem that has exercised all parties when in government. The previous Government set up the BSR following the Grenfell fire to improve the regulation of building safety standards. Grenfell Tower was built 50 years ago, and it was its refurbishment, and the materials and products used, that came under close scrutiny.

The Select Committee’s report is a timely review of whether the BSR has delivered on its intentions. Its findings make for sombre reading; it was very helpful to hear about the salutary other side of the argument, if you like, in my noble friend Lord Roe’s much more upbeat report on the progress made so far. The committee found that the BSR took far too long to make decisions on construction projects; that is still a problem, I think. There were also issues around staffing and skills, poor communication, a lack of high standards in some parts of the building industry and inefficient BSR processes.

My emphasis is on social homes, the majority of which are built by housing associations. The Select Committee heard from housing associations about how the BSR’s delays and a lack of clarity and communication are holding up vital safety work. I know that housing associations have been keenly focused on the safety of their residents and are doing everything they can to meet the deadlines in the Joint Plan to Accelerate Remediation of Social Housing, so it has been very frustrating that the BSR’s regulatory framework is having such a direct impact on enabling safer homes and on the delivery of new homes. The Government’s own data shows that the social housing sector has been completing works at around twice the rate of the private sector, so it is vital that these delays are resolved. I want to add here, though, that the collaborative approach from government—as well as the engagement work of the National Housing Federation to ensure that housing associations were able to feed into the joint plan’s development in order to secure agreed timelines—is an excellent example of the strong partnerships that we need to make buildings safe.

The report makes some powerful recommendations to resolve these issues. Its recommendations were welcomed by the Government, who have already put in train changes that have produced clear improvements in the BSR’s performance; my noble friend Lord Roe echoed that. There is no doubt that recent progress has been made. Since my noble friend Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley took over the leadership of the regulator, implementing new innovation units for both types of applications and recruiting more staff to review cases, there have been significant improvements in decision-making times. These welcome changes will ensure that housing associations can remediate and build at a faster pace, securing safer homes and the new social and affordable homes that we desperately need. Even more progress will be made following the publication of the guidance for applicants on good submissions to the regulator, which should give further clarity and reduce rejections. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some detail on when this will be published.

Collaboration between the BSR and housing associations is only growing stronger through these new initiatives. I know that the social housing sector is committed to continuing to work with the regulator on not only delivering remediation but resolving other safety risks, including transfer slabs and large-panel system buildings, to ensure that every single one of their residents feels safe in their own home.

I welcome this report. It is vital that we have a robust and proportional regulator to ensure that everyone in the country lives in a safe home. The report sets out very clear and practical recommendations on how to achieve this. The Government have welcomed them and have already taken action to improve the performance of the BSR. I hope that, in her response, the Minister can give us greater detail on any further initiatives that may follow.

There are two areas about which I remain concerned. One is leaseholders in high-rise buildings—the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, referred to this in her remarks—in terms of the remediation of dangerous cladding and other safety issues, in addition to financial uncertainty. All of these issues are compounded by the fact that leaseholders are already facing significant regulatory costs to examine and resolve safety issues for which they bear little or no responsibility. In his role as chair, my noble friend Lord Roe again gave us a much more reassuring picture, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an update on where precisely we are on high-rise buildings.

As I said earlier, one of the main causes of the Grenfell fire was its cladding, which is of course a building product. The committee questioned the BSR about the product testing regime and the fact that enforcement of the regulations has been almost non-existent. The noble Lord, Lord Best, also made this point. That was a very low bar indeed for the BSR to improve on. In reading the evidence, I was concerned that the BSR seemed to rely on a “nudge” approach, which it hoped would raise awareness and “ripple out”. I did not find that very convincing, and the level of enforcement action that is taking place was not clear from the report. I hope that the Minister can tell us what progress has been made in developing a rather more rigorous approach.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who has consistently championed the social housing sector.

Social housing is a vital national asset built to provide families on low incomes with a safe, secure, affordable place to live. After decades of marginalisation and underfunding, the tragic reality is that thousands of families still lack a safe and affordable home. Over 170,000 children currently live in temporary accommodation. I am proud that after a regrettable period of decline and marginalisation under successive Conservative Governments, this Government are once again asserting the value and importance of social housing. The Social Housing Bill is an important pillar of this work.

My noble friend has emphasised the targeted aims of the Bill. I welcome its narrow drafting. It is clear and precise. It aims to achieve three clear and laudable objectives: protect existing social housing stock, protect victims of domestic abuse living in social housing, and clarify the statute book.

With 1.3 million households on social housing wait lists, all social housing sold off under the right to buy should have been replaced, like for like. That has just not happened under the present system. In its current form, right to buy has unsustainably depleted the stock of social homes and restricted confidence to build and invest, depriving so many families of a vital resource.

Of course, social housing residents’ ability to buy their own home has an important role to play, but this must be done sustainably, protecting social housing stock where necessary and with clear safeguards against misuse. Measures in the Bill to increase the qualifying period to 10 years, reform discounts, and introduce a 35-year exemption for newly built social housing will help to ensure that the policy is more sustainable and offers better value for taxpayers’ money.

These reforms will also give councils greater confidence to invest in new supply, which is essential if we are to begin reversing decades of lost stock. This is particularly important in rural areas, where pressures are especially acute. Research from English Rural found that while 17% of the population live in rural communities, they receive just 7% of new affordable homes. Over 306,000 people are currently on rural waiting lists, and at current building rates it would take nearly 90 years to clear that backlog.

Rural development is always more challenging due to the availability of land, amenities and resources, but low replacement rates against right-to-buy sales have exacerbated these challenges further. I therefore strongly support the provisions in Clause 7 to disapply right to buy in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas. These changes will help safeguard vital social homes and better reflect the realities of constrained rural housing markets.

Among the most important protections are those contained in Part 2 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill, which confer new protections on victims of domestic abuse who live in social housing. We know that housing plays an important role in cases of domestic abuse, where housing uncertainty can be used by perpetrators to exert control. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people who are experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Social landlords are well placed to identify domestic abuse and prevent escalation through offering support and guidance to survivors of domestic abuse, but the present legal framework does not always allow them to respond effectively, particularly in cases involving joint tenancies.

That is why the National Housing Federation has said that it strongly supports measures in this legislation which allow survivors to apply to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy, giving the survivors greater housing security and the ability to remain safely in their homes where appropriate. This is a significant and welcome step forward. It is, however, a highly complex and sensitive area in practice. It will be critical to work closely with social housing providers on the implementation of these changes. We need to ensure that staff are fully equipped to protect victims and support them in rebuilding their lives. Can my noble friend the Minister say a bit more about the Government’s plans to support the implementation of these changes?

Finally, I turn to the topic of social homes being sold—referred to as “disposals” in the sector. We know that England has some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Many properties are ageing, require significant investment or no longer meet modern standards or regulatory requirements. It is understandable that there are concerns about any social homes being sold in this context. However, it is important to note that disposals act as a standard part of responsible asset management. Crucially, proceeds from these sales are reinvested to build new, higher-quality homes and improve housing stock. In some cases, a single sale can fund the building of more than one home, supporting the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes this Parliament.

The number of social homes owned by housing associations has consistently grown in recent years, increasing by over 26,000 per year for the last three years. The sale of housing association homes out of the social rented sector has therefore not resulted in any net loss of social homes. For some properties, regeneration could be a desirable alternative to disposals. The noble Lord, Lord Best, emphasised this point very effectively. I suggest that the Government could support housing associations and councils in increasing the rate of regeneration by introducing greater flexibility on net additionality rules in the social and affordable homes programme and providing other forms of assistance.

The Government’s plan to put in place the foundations for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing can deliver lasting change and finally turn the tide on the housing crisis. The package of long-term investment announced at the spending review last year was the first step towards doing so. This legislation is another. I echo the National Housing Federation in saying that this legislation

“demonstrates the government’s commitment to protecting the supply of social housing for future generations”.

I hope that the social housing sector continues to work in partnership with government to deliver a decade of renewal for social housing and ultimately to build the homes that our country so desperately needs.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, like every other speaker, I start by remembering the 72 lives lost and the countless others—the victims’ families, friends and the community—whose lives were for ever changed by the fire. The tragedy that took place at Grenfell Tower in the early hours of 14 June 2017 must never be forgotten. I, like others, was deeply moved by the direct witness of my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham and the heroism that he described, as well as the horror.

I welcome the Bill so empathetically moved by my noble friend the Minister. It will ensure the establishment of a fitting and lasting memorial, shaped by the community. It will not only commemorate the victims but serve as a lasting reminder of the avoidable actions that must never be repeated.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the stark words of Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell inquiry, when phase 2 of his report was published. He said that

“the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants”.

I and my party welcomed the previous Government’s commitment to delivering the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry in full, and I support the current Government’s plans to implement them all by the end of the current Parliament to ensure that a lasting legacy of this tragedy will be that everyone is safe in their own home. It was heartening to hear the commitment to this legacy from across the political spectrum when colleagues in the other place considered the Bill last month. I am proud that the same commitment is evident in this House today.

I particularly highlight the need for a change in culture towards one of transparency and accountability: a necessary change that the Grenfell inquiry emphasised. Collaboration across all these Benches is crucial if we are to ensure that such a change in culture is cemented in practice and in delivery, so that a tragedy like this is never allowed to happen again.

I will focus briefly on the social housing sector’s role in the remediation process. Housing associations are crucial to the delivery of the policy. The safety of their residents is of the utmost importance to them, and I know they are working at pace to remediate the buildings under their care. The collaborative approach of government and the social housing sector in the development of the joint plan to accelerate the remediation of social housing and its deadlines has been welcome. There is now a clear plan of action, which is coupled with sufficient resources to deliver the ambitious numbers planned.

The Government have given the social housing sector, including housing associations, equal access to the cladding safety scheme, which was announced in the 2025 spending review. This will be a transformative step towards securing the necessary resources. As everybody has said, progress has been far too slow. Now, alongside the package of measures the Government have introduced to bring about a decade of renewal for social housing, this has given housing associations more capacity to remediate buildings at a faster pace.

Progress is at last being made. Analysis by the National Housing Federation of the building safety remediation data published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government shows that the social housing sector has been completing works at around twice the rate of the private sector. However, it is clear that there is much more to be done, and we need to see this welcome commitment to securing residents’ safety from all actors across the wider housing sector.

It is crucial that the social housing sector has the resources available to continue delivering on its commitment to carry out remediation works as fast as possible. In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to commit to continuing to work closely with the sector to secure the on-time delivery of the deadlines outlined within the joint plan, to ensure that the tragedy that took place at Grenfell is not allowed to happen again elsewhere.

This Bill enables the delivery of a memorial that should be a stark reminder to us all of our duty to ensure the safety of people across the country in their own homes, which should be a long-lasting legacy of this terrible tragedy. I also hope that the memorial, the design of which will be led by the bereaved and the wider community, will be a place of remembrance of those who tragically lost their lives on that dark day in 2017.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, my amendment would extend the grounds of possession to a family in need of providing a full-time carer for a family member. Regarding comments made in the other place, I confirm that I have no direct interest with regard to any property. My interest came only through contact with rural letting agents who have clients who might need a carer themselves or have a family member who does and wish to use their property to house a carer.

The amendment has been revised since the Commons debate on 8 September. One of the concerns, as already mentioned by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the amendment is drawn too widely and open to abuse. The new amendment restricts who the carers can be used for, this being the landlord, their spouse, their child or a child they have legal responsibility for. We have also changed it so that, if the landlord wishes to give notice to a tenant, they must provide evidence with the eviction notice that a full-time carer is required to care for one of those individuals. This significantly tightens the range of the clause and therefore reduces the ability of an unscrupulous landlord to use it wrongly.

I acknowledge, from having spoken with housing charities, that landlords hold the power in the tenant/landlord relationship, and that approaching and challenging a landlord is difficult. With these changes, the onus would now be on the landlord to provide evidence rather than the tenant. The tenant could then go to the appropriate authority to challenge the eviction if no evidence is provided. We are not looking to change in any way the four-month notice period that a landlord would have to give if a family member needed the house.

I acknowledge that these grounds will be used on very few occasions, but when they are used it will be by a family at a very challenging time, when full-time care is required for an immediate family member. Landlords will evict only if they believe they need a carer for a significant amount of time, such as for an elderly person or a child with a long-term illness or disability.

A family that is fortunate enough to be in a position with the appropriate accommodation that meets the criteria of this amendment could, and most likely will, be in a location with limited supply of available or alternative properties, such as rural settings, or a city or town with high demand for rental properties, of which there are currently many. I acknowledge that a tenant needing to leave the property will cause upheaval, stress and potential cost to that family or individual, but surely a family has the right to use what possessions it has to maximise the quality of care for a family member and to support the rest of the family at a time of need.

I look forward to your Lordships’ support on this amendment. If I need to, I may test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 64B from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to create a new possession ground for carers. I know that every noble Lord here appreciates and values the important work that carers do in our communities. It goes without saying that we should take every step possible, every step we reasonably can, to help them in their work. The noble Lord has been thoughtful and very considered throughout these discussions, and clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he has again shown.

I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments that landlords who organise their own care are not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their properties to do just that. On the other hand, I note that these debates have previously highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has again today—the difficulty of housing carers, for example in rural communities.

The scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises the counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office—long-term members of the community who do not own their own homes. To evict them to house a carer for a landlord who may possibly be in the area for only a couple of years will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. It is worth adding that the only way currently to test whether there is a genuine need for a carer is if the tenant challenges their eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain a possession order. Unfortunately, I am afraid, experience shows that many tenants will not do that, as they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required.

I appreciate that this is very much a balanced argument but, on balance, I am of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers for landlords is not the right approach, because of the threat and disruption this would cause to tenants and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, we should not underestimate the danger that this could become a loophole for unscrupulous landlords. There are enough of them, as we all know and realise from our experience in the private rented sector, so this could be a real danger.

There are dangers and scope for wider misuse. In my view, therefore, the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should not be allowed to outweigh that disruption, so I hope that the Motion is not moved to a vote.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests as the joint owner of a small cottage in the village where I live.

I strongly support Amendment 64B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. It has had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and of caring organisations, which would be helped immediately, not just condemned to wait for the Casey review, which we are all very keen to see. The amendment has been tightened up considerably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to avoid any abuse, in response to comments that the Minister herself made in Committee, which is very helpful.

The Government’s negative response is an example of their unwillingness so far to take the demise of carers seriously. Being able to provide accommodation for carers can make a real difference to their availability.

Not every carer wants to be a live-in carer, especially if they have families, yet we need growing numbers of carers. This is because there are ever-growing numbers of the aged and the disabled, as well as a scarcity of care home and hospice spaces. There is an acute shortage of housing and a scarcity of short-term accommodation, partly as a result of this very Bill. At the same time, we have smaller families, more couples having no children and more people seeing their relatives working or moving overseas. The need for hired carers is increasing, therefore, and those carers need short-term accommodation—it can sometimes be for years—as they move, over time, from job to job in different locations. We need to look at this. This change will be a small and totemic positive that would help both the caring sector and families in need. I invite the Minister to think again.

Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: Cost Caps for Landlords

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Obviously, there is clear value in common standards. The reason we consulted on a different level for the social housing sector was twofold: to provide finance for social housing delivery and due to the fact that social housing landlords can often achieve an economy of scale in dealing with their properties. As I said, no decisions have been taken yet. To respond to the noble Lord’s point on financing, there were a number of proposals in the consultation about managing the cost burden on private landlords, including a cap on the maximum investment required per property, an affordability exemption and a range of other exemptions for circumstances in which upgrades may not be feasible or appropriate, such as in the case of traditionally constructed and heritage buildings.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a significant number of homes that remain hard to decarbonise for which the interventions required to meet energy efficiency standards can be extremely costly. In the social housing sector, while the majority of housing associations are on track to meet EER C by 2030, for some they can meet it only by selling homes, unless there is a cost cap. I note what my noble friend said in her reply, but I urge her to say a little more about whether the Government plan to implement the £10,000 spend exemption for MEES for the social rented sector, either in a time-limited way or as a permanent exemption.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the points the noble Baroness is making. That is one of the reasons why we consulted on two different levels. The consultation for the implementation of MEES would require social homes to have energy performance certificates at rating C or equivalent by 2030. There is currently no minimum energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector. Some 72% of social rented homes are already at EPC bands A to C. More than 600,000 social homes are in fuel poverty, so improving the energy efficiency of social homes will help reduce energy bills and tackle fuel poverty. This is important. Having gone through the debate on Awaab’s law the other day, I know it is vital that social homes are brought up to the standards we all want to see.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to find that I take exactly the opposite point of view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I see permitted development rights—as in my Private Member’s Bill, and as in my amendments to this Bill—as having a large potential to contribute substantially to housing expansion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I shall curtail my remarks in the hope that what the Minister says will be so enlightening that I shall not need to ask her further questions.

My amendments propose a targeted set of expansions to permitted development rights to boost uptake and delivery by methods such as: removing unjustifiably onerous restrictions, including those concerning the ability to convert commercial buildings in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or the inability to extend upwards on pre-1948 buildings of no defined heritage value, or buildings postdating an arbitrary date; clarifying the wording of prior approval conditions to remove vagueness, which leads to a lack of consistency in decision-making between LPAs and more uncertainty in their application to, for example, natural light, flood risk or transport impacts; and removing the subjectivity currently allowed for within external appearance conditions for upward extensions, which are regularly used to refuse or frustrate upward extension in classes A and AA to AD and which act as a strong disincentive for the use of these permitted development rights by SME developers and housebuilders.

Instead, the local design code-based conditions in my amendments would provide certainty and consistency to decision-making, permitting the combined use and application of class MA and classes A and AA to AD, to maximise the development potential for existing buildings to deliver new homes.

Design codes are hugely important in this. Mandatory local design codes, already supported by the NPPF, are essential to make permitted development rights work at scale. They would replace subjective judgments on external appearance with rule-based certainty, define acceptable height, density, daylight and amenity standards to reduce the risk for developers, and be capable of delivery via a public/private model with some costs recovered through planning fee reforms, which could target PDR applications.

Reforms would bring consistency, reduce risk and make PDR a viable route to delivery. Local design codes would improve outcomes and boost developer confidence and certainty in the uptake and use of PDR. PDR allows for greater numbers of conversions and extensions of existing buildings to provide new housing and sustainable urban environments. This would help to reduce the demand and strain of granting housing developments in less sustainable greenfield locations.

Together, the amendments that I suggest would unlock new housing capacity in the most sustainable and accessible locations and benefit smaller building firms, while still maintaining quality and control over the urban environment.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. With the Government’s ambition to increase the supply of social and affordable housing and the reforms to improve the capacity of the planning system, now seems the right time to reform PDR. The Government have rightly made the quality and safety of housing a priority, but conversions to PDR are not subject to the same standards compared to developments going through the full planning system.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in its report on the impact of extending permitted development rights on public authorities and communities, found that the quality of office-to-residential conversions was significantly worse than those which had been brought through the planning process. Other than the nationally described space standards and requirements around natural light, there are no minimum standards for these converted homes relating to safety, facilities, communal space, or connection to amenities.

It is essential that the housing that is developed is the right housing to meet local needs and make a positive impact on the lives of residents. It is necessary to make it a viable solution for addressing the housing crisis. At a minimum, conversions should meet the healthy homes principle brought forward by the Town and Country Planning Association’s Healthy Homes campaign. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these points.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Committee. Permitted development rights are a significant area of policy as they play a crucial role in both the supply and the quality of new homes. It is important not only for the delivery of more housing but also for ensuring that those homes meet the needs of the communities in which they are built. The rules which govern permitted development therefore deserve careful consideration and the contributions made in today’s debate have highlighted the balance that must be struck between delivering more homes and protections for local communities and ensuring quality homes.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a point of particular frustration for many homeowners in his Amendment 185A, and this reads across to other areas of government policy. I know owners of heritage properties and homes in conservation areas face particular challenges with increasing the energy efficiency of their home, and my noble friend is right to put this challenge to Ministers. I also note that the Government have announced that as of 2030 all private landlords will be required to meet a higher standard in their properties, with energy performance certificates of C or equivalent, up from the current level of E. Given the fact that many heritage and listed properties, including those in conservation areas, are often not permitted to instal double glazing—I refer to my comments in the previous group—can the Minister confirm that the new EPC requirement will not apply to listed and heritage properties? We look forward to hearing the Government’s view on these amendments and to understanding how they propose to address the concerns that have been raised.

Housing: National Tenant Body

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and for championing this issue on behalf of tenants. I have met with G15; I went to its parliamentary session and had a look at its very good report on social housing stigma. I agree that we need to make sure that the tenant voice is heard. I have also met with the regulator of social housing twice, I think, since I took over the regulators. The social housing regulator is looking very carefully at how to increase the emphasis on the tenant voice. It is very important that this national body, whatever it is going to be, is tenant-led. I am happy to meet any tenant groups to move this forward. We all want to see tenants having a powerful voice in designing social housing policy.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I can support the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. A lot of work is being done already in the social housing sector by the NHS, and in the private-rented sector by Shelter, Generation Rent, Acorn and the NUS. It is very important that all types of tenants are represented in this national body. There are a lot of organisations involved here. Is my noble friend prepared to go a little further and suggest that the Government have a role—maintaining distance, obviously, because that is clearly needed—in setting this organisation up, perhaps with a little seed corn to supplement the rather meagre resources that many of these organisations have?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. The important thing is that we get the balance right between ensuring that tenants feel this body is genuinely tenant-led and doing what we can to help convene the right people around the table to bring this forward. I will continue discussions with all the relevant housing organisations and bodies to make sure that we are doing all we can to help move this forward. It is time we had some real action in this area.