Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I add my congratulations to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on returning to the Front Bench. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this first day of Committee. This amendment would abolish right to buy altogether, and, in doing so, would remove one of the most significant routes into home ownership available to social housing tenants. The Conservative Government introduced right to buy, which was founded on the simple belief that ownership should not be the preserve of the wealthy or the fortunate few. Conservatives have long believed that people should have the opportunity to own their own home, build an asset, and enjoy the security and independence that home ownership brings. It is a hand up, not a handout.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned the percentages and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite rightly took him up on that. It is about need, surely; it is not about numbers. We need houses that people can afford to pay the rent on. At the moment, we are very sadly lacking in that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, it is very convenient that my noble friend Lady Scott is in the Chamber, so I can say many thanks for all that she has done and how she helped me come into the House. It is great following someone who is so good, because there is so much to learn and, fortunately, I am still able to access that learning, so I thank her very much.

My noble friend Lady Eaton rightly raises concerns regarding changes to the qualifying period, removing opportunity for many. What is the Government’s evidence that this will work and why is the change being made from three to 10 years? In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made either a compliment or a back-handed compliment—I am not sure which—it fundamentally comes down to our view that retaining a house with a family in it and not giving them the opportunity to buy it and stay in it, with the proceeds being used to build more social housing, does not remove anyone from the waiting list. Using that resource to build more housing, which could be temporary accommodation, social housing or specialist housing, is an opportunity to reduce the housing waiting list. It is about more homes for more people, and more opportunity.

I will use, if I may, the same pleading as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I do not fully understand what my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is proposing. But, certainly, his expertise is far greater than mine and using things such as digital lifecycle services, better technology and encryption technology to support tenants to provide information and to reduce levels of fraud is, surely, a good idea. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those matters.

We have the same concerns about Clause 1, and we are opposed to it until the Government have outlined sufficient evidence on what impact extending the qualifying period will have, not only on housing stock but on tenants who want to own their own home. To many, this, along with other measures proposed in the Bill, would appear to be a deliberate government strategy to undermine right to buy: death by a thousand cuts, so to speak.

Amendment 5 proposes a mechanism to protect existing tenants, and as a result these changes would not affect those who have entered a secure tenancy before this clause comes into force. There is precedent for retrospective protection in legislation, as was done in the Housing Act 2004 passed by the previous Labour Government. There are tenants currently under the impression that they will have the opportunity to own their own home after three years and we should realise the impact that this will have. Alternatively, Amendments 120, 121 and 123 would delay the commencement of Section 1 by three years, thereby giving tenants who are just now entering secure tenancy the opportunity to exercise their current right to buy should they so wish, rather than suddenly snatching it away.

Amendments 7 and 8 reflect our concerns about Clause 2. These probe whether right to buy should be restricted on the basis that a spouse or civil partner, living or deceased, has exercised it in the past.

Amendment 9 also questions the ability of a landlord to be satisfied that persons not married or in civil partnership were none the less living together in that way. These provisions raise key questions about how the state treats two people living together and whether that should affect their property rights. How do the Government plan to communicate these changes so that tenants are aware how their relationships could affect their right to buy? This is particularly pertinent in relation to the Cohabitation Rights Bill, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the Government’s consultation on reforming inheritance for unmarried couples.

Furthermore, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 6 and 122 to introduce a new clause to prevent the right to buy being exercised if a person, their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee already owns other residential property. There are various scenarios I ask the Government to consider. First, as my noble friend Lady Coffey raised, how are the Government defining a relationship in this instance?

As we have seen recently in Scotland, a wife claimed to be completely unaware of a £125,000 motorhome owned by her husband for three years and parked on her mother-in-law’s drive. In all seriousness, it is an optimistic assumption that all those entering relationships are aware of their partner’s current finances and assets. So, how will the Government be able to justify taking away the right to buy from someone who is unaware of a separate asset that they have no stake in? Do the Government accept that there may be additional and unexpected complexities to this proposal?

It also seems to be a contradictory rationale to ban right to buy for tenants in this situation while simultaneously permitting a lifetime tenancy at below-market rates. That seems slightly puzzling. We are not willing to accept these amendments at this stage, and not until further scrutiny of these proposals has taken place on Report.

Finally, Amendment 35 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance promoting the right-to-buy scheme and financial literacy among young people. People need to be aware of their options and rights, and young people especially need to be given roots to stand on their own two feet. As the Minister herself has previously said, young people need to be more aware of opportunities that are out there for home ownership. Of course, it is not just the case that young people are unaware; they need to be given the financial skills to help navigate the housing market.

I therefore hope the Government will consider our amendments on how we can better support young people to own their own home and look at delaying Clause 4 until such time as this House has had a greater opportunity to scrutinise it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first refer to Opposition comments about government amendments, as that will probably be the most helpful. Tenants who own another property are, by definition, already homeowners, and the right-to-buy scheme was introduced to support tenants who otherwise would be unlikely to access home ownership. Therefore, they should not be given a discount to buy a second home when so many others have not been given the opportunity to purchase a first home. Existing homeowners can generally not join the housing register for the allocation of social housing, including those who own property outside their local authority or abroad, meaning that the measure to exclude such property ownership aligns with existing allocations guidance.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, there is a very detailed explanation of the exclusion in the amendment itself. I will not read it out, because everyone can look at it in the amendment, but the cohabitee part of the amendment refers to

“the co-habitee of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs; and, for that purpose, one person is the co-habitee of another person if they live together as if they were a married couple or civil partners”.

However, I will reflect on the noble Baroness’s comments if it is not as clear as we hope it is. But, from looking at it again, though, it seems very clear to me in the amendment we have tabled.

I will now tackle the question of whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 increases the minimum tenancy length required for tenants to be eligible for the right-to-buy scheme from three to 10 years. The core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to prevent social homes from being sold off without being replaced. Maintaining the eligibility period at three years would contribute to council homes continuing to be sold off at an unsustainable rate and would reduce the ability of our councils to replace those homes.

Furthermore, increasing the minimum eligibility period has received strong support from stakeholders. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked me about evidence. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of all respondents, of which 62% were tenants, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents, 54%, supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.

This takes me neatly on to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, which seeks to extend the eligibility period under the scheme to five years, instead of the proposed 10. The Government firmly believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing longer-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting our much-needed social housing stock. Increasing the eligibility requirement to 10 years will better support councils to rebuild the stock of council homes and will ensure that it is tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for many years who are able to own their own home through the scheme. Ten years is also the average length of tenancy of someone buying under the scheme currently, meaning that this will not substantially change the average eligibility period of those buying under the scheme.

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to amend Clause 1 of the Bill so that the provision only applies to secure tenancies entered into after the measure comes into force, which would mean that existing secure tenancies would still be eligible for the right to buy after only three years of tenancy. Excluding existing tenancies from the eligibility change would mean that the existing three years’ eligibility would continue to apply to the vast majority of council housing tenants and that we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy is secured. As set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on these measures, we have been clear that the intention is that this change would apply to both existing and new tenants to protect existing social housing stock. For these reasons, we cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments 120, 121 and 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seek to delay commencement of Clause 1 by three years. It is imperative that we increase the eligibility requirement for right to buy as soon as practicable to ensure we support long-standing tenants in retaining the right to buy, while ensuring that our councils are not losing homes at an unsustainable rate. As such, we intend to bring Clause 1 into force on Royal Assent. This ensures that we act quickly to protect council housing stock and that we prevent a potential spike in sales as a result of these changes. Allowing a three-year lead-in time for Clause 1 would only increase the loss of social homes to the right to buy. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the reasons I have set out and withdraw her amendment, and I commend this clause to the Committee.

I turn now to Clause 2, which has been opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Repeat purchases through the right to buy go against the core aim of the scheme, which is to support tenants into long-term home ownership. It also undermines the objectives of maintaining and expanding social and affordable housing stock. The vast majority of respondents to the government consultation stated they would support preventing someone who has previously benefited from the right to buy from being able to exercise the right to buy again. Clause 2 delivers on this, with exceptions for victims of domestic abuse and in cases of irretrievable relationship breakdown. The terms of these exceptions are set out in the clause and will be reinforced by updated guidance when the Act comes into force. It will be for social landlords to be satisfied that the exceptions apply, for which they will be able to ask for evidence from the applicant as part of the application process. This is something councils are well practised at doing, as under the current rules those who have previously exercised the right to buy have their discount reduced if they seek to exercise the right to buy again.

I now turn to Amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which intend to probe whether the right to buy should be restricted if a spouse or civil partner of tenants have exercised the right to buy before. The Government have carefully considered these restrictions and feel it is appropriate that this policy should include where spouses and civil partners exercised the right to buy in the past, as the household in question can therefore be assessed as having already benefited from the scheme. Allowing repeated purchases within married couples or civil partnerships could lead to the gaming of the system and would undermine the objective of preserving and expanding social housing stock.

Amendment 9 seeks to probe how social landlords could be satisfied that, where a tenant is seeking an exemption to be able exercise the right to buy again due to relationship breakdown, the tenant was not married or in a civil partnership but were living as such—that is, that they were cohabiting. As part of the application process, applicants seeking an exemption will be required to provide evidence of their previous situation. If the landlord is satisfied with that evidence, the right to buy could then be exercised. To reiterate and reassure, we will be providing additional guidance to landlords on Clause 2 and how it will operate. With this explanation, I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments and commend Clause 2 to the Committee.

Amendment 35, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, intends to create a separate piece of guidance for the right to buy specifically aimed at promoting the scheme and financial literacy among young people. I point noble Lords to the existing guide Your Right to Buy Your Home, which is accessible on GOV.UK to all tenants regardless of age. This provides comprehensive guidance on the right-to-buy scheme, including on the costs of home ownership. The guidance will be fully updated in light of the reforms to the scheme. The guidance also includes information on how to access the Money and Pensions Service, which provides free, impartial advice to help people make informed choices about managing their money. This service is accessible to young people. As we do not wish to duplicate any existing guidance, the Government cannot accept this amendment. As I have already alluded to, we will continue to update and promote guidance to tenants on the right to buy through usual channels, notably GOV.UK. We will also share relevant information about the scheme and changes to it with local authorities so that they can disseminate it to their tenants.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 3, 10 and 13. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for these amendments, and for his technical knowledge which enabled him to bring them before the Committee today. They seek to introduce a centralised digital lifecycle service for the right to buy, alongside new requirements for audit and fraud tracking. I recognise the intention behind these proposals—improving transparency, supporting tenants through the process and strengthening safeguards against fraud are all important objectives. However, the Government do not consider that a centrally mandated digital service is the right approach to achieve these aims. The right to buy is fundamentally a landlord-led process. Individual social landlords hold the relevant tenancy information, determine eligibility and manage applications directly with tenants. This reflects the fact that eligibility depends on detailed, case-specific information—such as tenancy history, property type and previous use of the right to buy—which sits with the landlord, not with central government.

These amendments would require a significant shift away from that established model, creating a national service to replicate functions that are already carried out locally. To operate effectively, such a service would depend on the continuous input and standardisation of very large volumes of data from social landlords across the country. That would not be a simple enhancement. It would require the design and delivery of complex digital infrastructure, the resolution of significant data-sharing and governance issues and the ongoing maintenance of accurate, real-time information across a highly diverse sector. In practice, this creates a substantial delivery risk. There is a real danger that such a system could become burdensome, duplicative and inflexible, placing new administrative burdens on landlords while not improving the core experience for tenants.

Similarly, mandating specific technologies, such as a blockchain-based audit trail, risks imposing disproportionate cost and complexity without clear evidence of additional benefit over existing systems. Landlords are already required to maintain accurate records and have processes in place to identify and investigate potential fraud. For these reasons, while I understand the objectives behind these amendments the Government consider that they would introduce unnecessary complexity, cost, and risk into a system that is best administered at the local level. We therefore cannot support these amendments and I kindly ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I would like some clarification about government Amendment 4. This is an issue of principle, to some extent. This is an amendment of more than two pages; it is not a small technical correction. As the Minister will have heard from me and my noble friend Lady Coffey, we have some concerns about understanding issues such as what is a cohabitee and when is it defined, and so forth. We genuinely believe that there is a principle here that this House should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise government amendments, and this government amendment has come just after the Bill was published. Why was it not in the original Bill, and why should we not be given the opportunity, given that it is quite a large amendment, to take it to Report, which would give the Government and us the opportunity to clarify some of these issues that have been raised here today?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I set out in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, a clear definition is set out in the new clause. I accept what the noble Lord says. Perhaps, if he would rather reflect on this between now and Report, I will have further discussions with him on that. Is he suggesting that I should not move the amendment at this stage?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Yes; we would be very happy if the noble Baroness did not move the amendment. We would prefer that that amendment is moved on Report after we have had the opportunity for clarification and conversations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Forgive me, but it was my understanding that it had been agreed through the usual channels that we could move this amendment today.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That was not my understanding.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to begin this debate by stating our concerns with Clause 6. Perhaps they are the same concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has.

The right of first refusal dictates that, if you bought a property through the right-to-buy scheme and decide to sell it within 10 years, you are required to offer the property back to your former social landlord before putting it on to the open market. The current measure provides an opportunity for previous social landlords to reacquire. However, extending it indefinitely raises a number of potential complexities and practical issues. It also undermines the principle of property ownership. What happens if you leave the property to your children? Does it impact any subsequent sales if the landlord decides not to reacquire it the first time?

Many owners will decide to stay on their properties well beyond the 10 years before they even think of selling, or they may decide, as I mentioned, to pass it on to their children. If the right of first refusal is extended in perpetuity, what happens if a former social housing landlord has changed? A council may have merged with another or split into two—or in some cases three, under the current local government reorganisation—and it is not clear who the former landlord is. The housing association may have closed. Have the Government considered these practicalities and scenarios, and who is responsible in each of them for ensuring that the right of first refusal is upheld? Perhaps that is one for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to consider with technology and blockchain.

Turning to Clause 7, we have several concerns. Amendment 17 in my name probes the necessity of replacing the specific and widely understood term “warden” with the general and less specific term “manager”. I would appreciate the Minister providing some justification for this change.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, opposes the question that Clause 8 stand part of the Bill. As I have set out already in my response to the previous amendment, Clause 8 ensures that the reforms to right to buy are applied fairly and consistently. Together, these provisions ensure a smooth and legally certain transition, protecting both tenants’ rights and the integrity of rural housing protections. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I believe the Minister made a very helpful clarification, and I want to ensure that I heard correctly that it would be up to the local council to have the right of first refusal. Therefore, somebody who owns a right-to-buy house would have to contact only the local council and give it the opportunity of right of first refusal. Just for clarity, I am assuming that, in two-tier areas, it would be the council which has the housing responsibilities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, we are moving to single-tier councils across the country, but he is quite correct in his assumption.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification; it certainly would make it easier that somebody does not have to chase 15 different housing associations that have merged or demerged.

This has been an insightful debate, and I thank noble Lords for the points they have raised. There are evidently some concerns about the Bill’s implications across the Committee, not just about the practicalities but about fairness and things such as definitions of rurality. I am grateful to the Minister for her response to our concerns. However, we still have concerns about extending the right of first refusal in perpetuity and about how this will affect families in the future and former landlords. The clarification addresses some of the complexities, but it is still a basic principle that if you own a house for some period of time, it should truly become yours. I ask the Government to look again.

Clause 7 is certainly controversial, and a number of noble Lords have spoken about the definition of rurality. We have not heard many noble Lords in this Committee saying that they want to give the opportunity to the Secretary of State to define rurality without sufficient parliamentary oversight or without a proposed definition accompanying the Bill. We appreciate that defining rurality is not straightforward—I am pleased with my noble friend Lord Fuller’s definition, “Can you get an Uber?”, and on that basis I am definitely in a rural area. This requires further debate, and I am sure that we will come back to this at a later stage. The point is that, while we recognise the challenges of delivering homes in rural areas, we do not believe that removing the right to buy is fair on those tenants.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that we need to find ways of building new homes in rural areas because the demand is there, and without ensuring that we have a thriving community, the schools, pubs and shops will shut. As an example, in one of my villages, 100 new homes had been built on a new housing estate and when I was knocking on doors—as I do quite regularly—people were saying that the school cannot cope. I had to inform them that the school was half full and that, without that housing estate, it would shut. We are having fewer children per household, and we need to think about having a thriving community, which in some cases needs more houses. We need to think about that more.

On the question of the 35-year restriction for newly built social housing, there is a genuine lack of clarity. I appreciate that the Minister said that 30 to 35 years is often the period over which you recover the full cost of the house. But you are selling the house, and in doing so with the appropriate floor price, you would recover the funding anyway. So it is not clear to me why that is necessary.

Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, raises some interesting questions. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and as a councillor I am all in favour of councils receiving more resources for the good work that they do, but I want to understand the implications of this amendment financially. How many homes would this apply to? What level of resource would it involve? Is it a few million pounds, or could it be billions of pounds a year? There are times when it will be right to buy an existing home. However, at a time when we have a housing shortage and desperately need to build more homes, should we really be focusing limited resources on buying existing homes rather than building new social homes? We need to do more than just think about how we move around the ownership. We need to look at how we increase the number of homes. That is one of the reasons that we are in favour of right to buy: it provides more resources rather than calling on the Government’s limited resources.

I hope that the Government will reflect further on the points raised across the Committee and ensure that these various amendments are duly considered before Report.

Clause 6 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

26: Clause 9, page 8, line 7, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. Our amendments are concerned with the governance of capital receipts, and in particular the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 9 to determine their use. As currently drafted, Clause 9 confers a very wide discretion, including the ability to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively. Our concern is not with the principle of having some flexibility but with the balance of power between executive powers and parliamentary scrutiny, and the need to provide certainty to councils which are seeking to build new social homes to replace those sold through right to buy.

We have had discussions earlier in the Bill about the difficulty of getting new social homes built. From my time leading Central Bedfordshire Council, I can attest that setting up a programme to build new council homes is not easy. It involves building a team with the appropriate skills, acquiring sites to build on and generating a pipeline of projects and the financing to fund it. The key to this is a good degree of funding certainty, and that means ensuring the certainty of right-to-buy receipts. Making these potentially subject to the whim of the Secretary of State could fundamentally undermine any such council housebuilding programme. These amendments, therefore, provide that changes to the use of capital receipts should instead be made through regulation rather than through determination. This ensures that changes affecting local authority finances are set out in a transparent framework, subject to appropriate scrutiny and clearly understood by those required to operate within it.

It might have been better for the Government to put their planned level of capital receipt retention in the Bill so we could debate that today. The Government have chosen not to do so, but I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee at what level they intend to set the capital retention. Will local authorities retain 100% of these receipts, or in future will it be set at a lower level, at the whim of the Secretary of State?

Amendment 30 is particularly important. It would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to apply different provisions to different local authorities through determination. Quite clearly, if a council is seeking to build homes in its area and putting in all the effort, and potentially funding, then the last thing that it would want to see is right-to-buy receipts transferred to another authority. While we recognise fully that housing pressures vary across the country, the principle remains that differentiation should be achieved through considered and published frameworks, not through ad hoc determinations decided solely by the Secretary of State. Consistency of framework is the foundation of fairness between authorities.

Amendment 33 introduces a requirement for consultation prior to determination. That reflects a basic principle of good governance: that local authorities, whose financial capacity and housing delivery are directly affected, should have the opportunity to contribute before decisions are made, not simply respond afterwards. Amendment 34 provides for a review of the impact of the Act on home ownership rates. This is a sensible accountability measure: if the policy is intended to support and sustain routes into ownership, Parliament should be able to assess whether it is achieving that objective in practice.

Taken together, these amendments are not about constraining government unnecessarily; they are about ensuring that significant financial decisions in the housing system are taken within a framework that is transparent, consistent and properly accountable to Parliament, and about providing greater certainty for councils seeking to establish their own council housebuilding programme. I look forward to hearing the insights of other noble Lords on this subject. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 52. Before I do so, however, I am sure my noble friend Lord Jamieson misspoke when he referred to Amendment 34, which is actually in the next group.

At Second Reading, I explained that I had a bit of previous in the delivery of social housing; when I was the leader of South Norfolk Council, we consistently delivered more than 1% of the entire national social housing stock in each and every year of the 2010s. We built more affordable homes than the rest of Norfolk put together: it can be done. We were able to do that because I welcomed the way in which receipts received by a council can be recycled by that council in pursuance of the replacement principle. That method—when a home a sold, a new one is built—allows us to refresh the stock of social housing in general.

I have concerns, however, that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one, even if they are in the same housing market assessment area. Let me explain. When my neighbour, Norwich City Council, could not spend its right to buy receipts in time, they were transferred to me, as their neighbour, and new social homes were built in my district, but no more than a mile from the city boundary. My reading of the Bill—and I am quite happy to be corrected on this—is that this desirable substitution behaviour would be left to chance. This is an omission that would see receipts that could really help a local area being grabbed by Ministers instead.

Separately, councils aside, we know that RSLs can allow homes to be acquired but, sometimes, those RSL homes are lost too. My amendment, therefore, would ensure that, for both councils and RSLs, the receipts should be applied to a replacement in the same strategic housing market area, the SHMA, by default. The SHMA is a technical study used by planning authorities to understand current and future housing needs; it evaluates population growth, economic projections and market trends to inform the local plan and housing policies. The SHMA is a thing, and it exists over a housing market area rather than respecting the administrative boundaries of individual councils. SHMAs provide the natural canvas over which people live their lives.

If you are in the housing or planning game, you know what one of these is. Your plan is based on the boundary of the SHMA, not necessarily the administrative boundary of the council, and the numbers for today and tomorrow are predicated on it. I was therefore grateful to the Minister for the drop-in where she explained that it was very difficult to define these territories. I disagree. It is easy: it is in the SHMA. That is how we define housing need. In the previous group, we heard that the Government have defined place-based carve-outs for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, so it is not that hard to define these territories after all.

My amendment would ensure that receipts must be recycled locally by default in a cascade: initially within the council and then between neighbouring councils before being snaffled by the centre; and, in the case of the RSL, within that area. As part of my ward work last week, I was surprised that a home in Brooke in Norfolk, in my ward, where I live, is now managed or directed from Gloucester. The freedom to move receipts from Norfolk to Gloucester within the RSL estate does not really help local people at all. Unless we protect stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it is cheaper, not where it is needed.

So we should recognise that protecting the stock cannot just be a national numbers game and that housing is more local than that. There is a sense that housing is not just part of a place; it defines the place. Ensuring that recycled right to buy receipts are recycled within the place that is defined by the strategic housing market assessment, which all the players in the housing market and planning market know—you can see why my amendment is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

I would like to reassure the House on our intentions behind Clause 9 of the Bill, which relates to the use of receipts from the sale of homes under the right-to-buy scheme. Clause 9 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Every stock-holding authority currently has an agreement with the Secretary of State allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided it spends those receipts on replacement social housing. In practice, this is administratively burdensome for both councils and central government. Currently, whenever the rules on receipts change—for example, permitting councils to combine their receipts with grant funding—the department must reissue all the retention agreements to every stock-holding authority, which is around 160 individual agreements.

Clause 9 replaces this with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to modify these requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements many times over while maintaining oversight. This clause therefore reduces administrative burden, improves responsiveness and supports councils to deliver more homes. The rules on pooling of right-to-buy receipts will continue to be governed by the regulations and any significant changes to those rules will continue to need to be made through a statutory instrument, subject to the negative procedure.

I know it has been a concern of some noble Lords that we may be seeking to use this clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. I reassure noble Lords that this is absolutely not the case. We have committed to allow councils to retain all their right-to-buy receipts indefinitely, and Clause 9 makes it clear that the power of determination cannot be used to increase the amount that local authorities are required to return to the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for Amendments 26 to 32, which would replace the power Clause 9 introduces for the Secretary of State to make determinations on right-to-buy receipts with a requirement to use regulations in all cases. In July 2024, we were able to act quickly to give local authorities greater flexibility to spend their right-to-buy receipts to accelerate the delivery of new social and affordable homes. Importantly, this included permitting receipts to be combined with Section 106 contributions and removing the cap on the proportion of a new home that can be funded by right-to-buy receipts.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would remove that flexibility and require all changes on right-to-buy receipts to be made through regulations. In practice, this would mean that the existing process would remain in place, with the administrative burden it entails for councils and central government. It would also result in delay and complexity in the system and make it harder to respond to the operational needs or make technical adjustments in a timely way. For these reasons, the Government cannot support these amendments. The current approach strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require the Secretary of State to consult local housing authorities before making any determination on the use of capital receipts. I reassure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the importance of engaging with local authorities on these matters. Where changes to rules governing the spending of right-to-buy receipts are proposed, it is standard practice to engage with the sector to ensure those changes are informed by local experience and delivery considerations. Placing a blanket statutory duty to consult in all circumstances would introduce unnecessary rigidity and could delay the implementation of technical or operational changes. It is important that we retain the ability to act flexibly and responsively while continuing to engage with our local authorities in a proportionate and meaningful way.

Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, proposes a new clause be added to the Bill to recycle right-to-buy receipts within the same housing market area before these are returned to the Secretary of State. Under the existing right-to-buy receipts framework, where local authorities are unable to spend the receipts on new affordable housing within the five-year period, the unused receipts must be returned to the Secretary of State. They are then given out as grant to other social housing providers by Homes England, or for receipts in London by the GLA.

Homes England seeks to redistribute those receipts where possible to the same geographical area in which they were generated, and all receipts generated in London are spent in London. Under the framework, local authorities are also able to work with other local authorities on the spending of right-to-buy receipts on new affordable housing and with other local housing providers. The Government are also extending the period in which receipts must be spent to 10 years for receipts generated from 2027-28 onwards, ensuring receipts are retained in the same housing market areas for longer. This is intended to support councils to plan and deliver longer-term and larger projects.

We therefore reject this amendment on the grounds that there is already flexibility with the right-to-buy receipts framework for local authorities to work with other local housing authorities and providers on delivering new affordable homes using those receipts, and that the system for the recycling of receipts already looks to prioritise the spending of the receipts in the area where they were generated.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Much of the discussion has centred on the proper balance between flexibility and accountability. No one disputes that government requires a degree of flexibility in managing housing finance, and for minor technical changes there is reasonable ground for a determination or something similar. There is also no disagreement that local circumstances differ across the country.

However, while I appreciate this is a complex area and some of these things may require a degree of complexity, the basic principle that right-to-buy receipts should be recycled and reused in the area in which they arise is something we feel is important, and it should not be subject to a Secretary of State determination without consultation or some affirmative procedure in the House. That is the key question here. If the Minister is going to bring forward suggestions at a later stage that differentiate between a minor technical change and the principle we are talking about, that would be a much better solution than those we have seen here, which potentially give the Secretary of State much greater powers than many of us would like. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.