Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I will speak to my Amendment 116. The Government are charging us all with getting behind the idea that there will be 1.5 million new houses by the end of the Parliament. I suggest that one way you could achieve that is by being serious about the number of empty homes in the United Kingdom, particularly England. There are 250,000 empty homes in England and, at the same time, 164,000 children and 124,000 families are caught in temporary accommodation. I am not saying it would be easy, but you could be wise and do nationally what Manchester, Plymouth and Wales are trying to do: incorporate empty homes into the fabric of their housing strategies. If that could be done, it would be a real plus.

I was born in Notting Hill, which was full of empty homes in the post-war period, along with Bayswater and that area. The middle classes did not go off to the colonies any more; they went to Bayswater and to Notting Hill, and they started to convert these voids into precious homes. Environmentally and socially, it was wonderful. It got too wonderful: the house that I was born into, which was a slum, would now cost about £20 million—if they have not pulled it down because it was such a slum.

Overall, it would be a good idea for the Government to say that they are going to empty our temporary accommodation and look at new ways of doing that that incorporate buildings that are left empty for over six months. Some 250,000 houses are screaming out, in my opinion, for us to intervene. There would be all sorts of problems because some people would find it inappropriate, but, if the Government were serious about this, those homes could be put to much more use. You could start kicking a hole in that required 1.5 million.

What the noble Lord, Lord Young, said was wonderful. If we spend all the money on new houses, what are we going to do about those failing estates and the voids? What are we going to do about the fact that many local authorities and housing associations cannot afford to convert void houses that are boarded up? This Government have to have a strategy on empty homes. I do not see that in the strategy at the moment.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that the regeneration of some of our social estates is a high priority. The last Labour Government spent a lot of money regenerating city centres. I hope that, if they have long enough, this Labour Government will give a similar high priority to the regeneration of some of our social estates.

It has not been easy, and more difficult in some respects, given the right to buy. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, regeneration takes a long time— 10 or 20 years—so it is difficult to see easy or quick returns, and resources are a huge problem. To achieve the regeneration of these estates, often you need partnerships, not just the local authority but housing associations and private developers. There is obviously an important role for mayors in this as well as we progress.

The main experience that I have had is of the Rowner estate, in Gosport, which was a Royal Naval estate. It was in huge dereliction after the Navy left its responsibilities. The regeneration of that estate has taken 30 years, with a genuine partnership that involved quite difficult decisions, such as the decision that to regenerate it would require it to be turned into an estate that was one-third owner-occupied, one-third private rented and one-third social housing. The transformation has been remarkable. There are many estates up and down our land that are neglected and need an initiative from the Government. In the rush to get high numbers of new houses, we must not forget the regeneration of our older estates.

[Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 117D, which I have tabled. This is the first time that I have tabled an amendment in Committee, so it is a momentous occasion, for me at least.

I apologise for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate as I was unavailable. Clearly, I missed something because the debate so far on the Bill has been extremely well informed and knowledgeable. It is a privilege to contribute, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has done so much to help homeless people in London. As a former Deputy Mayor of London, I can say that we are very grateful for the work that he has done over the years. I am not sure whether I support his amendment, but I certainly support his efforts.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Young, who reminded us of the housing action trusts, not least because one of those first trusts was in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. I can well remember the Chingford Hall estate, because it was in my ward, and the trust started its work in my first year as a newly elected councillor in 1990. I stayed in that ward for 12 years, so I was able to see the work continue and conclude. That estate has been transformed. There is clearly a lesson here for all of us.

I move to my amendment. As a former deputy mayor, I understand that housing is a challenging and complex issue for us to deal with, and many factors affect whether a mayor can achieve their targets. My noble friend Lady O’Neill reminded us that there are now 1.3 million households on the social housing waiting list. I am very much aware that the construction industry and the property sector in this country provide an underpinning for general economic activity. If we can get homes being built, we will provide jobs and skills for people, and we will feed more money into the economy. It is vital not just for providing homes for people but for growing the economy.

In London, I am afraid that the story recently has not been so good. In 2022-23, there were 26,000 starts, which was a pretty good performance, but, by 2023-24, that had fallen to just over 3,000. In response, the mayor has reduced the amount of social housing that he requires in developments from 35% to 20%; that will bring some developments within a range where it is profitable for the builders to build them, which was clearly not the case before, so it is a step forward, but even with that concession, London is still struggling. The most recent figures that we have, from the JLL Partners survey that took place earlier this year, was that in the first three months of 2026 only 7% of housing starts were achieved, which leaves London’s government with 93% to complete for the rest of the year, which I think noble Lords will agree is a challenging target.

It is against this background that I am promoting this amendment, which would provide a mechanism to ensure accountability not just for the Mayor of London but for mayors and authorities around the country. At this stage, we are just asking for a feasibility study, but I think the possibilities may range beyond housing targets: the results of the study could be applied to other targets and to democratic accountability for mayors in future. I place the idea before the Committee, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

As part of my ward work last month, I was surprised that a home in Brooke, in my ward where I live, under the Victory Housing banner, is actually owned by part of a much larger RSL headquartered in Gloucestershire. I mentioned it at Second Reading, and since then it has reached out to me to explain that it actually has a local team to manage these properties. That is reassuring, but the truth remains that the shots are called from miles away. It is a close-to-home example of the way in which the RSL landscape has consolidated, as small RSLs have bought up others and then in turn been taken over still further in the name of economies of scale.

I can understand why this has happened, but scale has not been good for tenants. Tenant reps have been excised from the landscape. There is a lack of local accountability, with national RSLs populating their boards with the great and good from out of town, the consequences being that a focus on local matters such as anti-social behaviour has been relegated to the subs’ bench—and I am conscious that the football starts in a minute.

At Second Reading, I suggested that the Bill could be stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of law-abiding residents, but it is not. That is one of the reasons that have prompted me to introduce Amendment 90 to mandate that and other desirable traits so that the social purpose of social providers is enshrined in law.

I explained how there has been a consolidation of actors in this space, but one of the reasons for liberalising certain financial powers in the Bill—which I do not oppose—is that it will drive financial engineering to new heights. It is the intended consequence of the Bill, but the liberalisation must come with strings attached. It should not be necessary, but it now has become so, to state what the social purpose of RSLs is, not least because there is £35 billion burning a hole in the Government’s pocket. Our job, it seems to me, is to ensure that there is conditionality attached to that largesse if RSLs are to be favoured with cheap money and government underwriting in a way that Berkeley, Norfolk Homes or Redrow—others are available—are not.

In too many cases, RSLs just do not grip the anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of neighbours. I know, because I have seen it myself, that others look away when the criminality is committed. We have the nonsense of community gardens left ungrown and untidy in the name of “No Mow May”, which lasts all year. It is lazy and slovenly, and impacts families miles away from the out-of-towners who sit on these boards.

It is telling that in a briefing on the Bill by the National Housing Federation, which explained that it runs more than 2.5 million homes, supporting 6 million people living in 62% of all the social homes in England, there was not a single mention of social purpose, save to say that the federation was driven by it without explaining what it means. Front and centre it certainly was not.

I know why this has happened. Candidly, among RSLs in particular, there has been far too great a focus on development. That has led to the loss of social purpose. The truth is that as RSLs have become overleveraged, they have been caught out by increases in build, finance and land costs, and there is no financial space for the social purpose—an omission the Bill should correct.

We are in Committee, so I have had a stab at defining what the social purpose could be. It is duplicated in Amendment 110. For those organisations that want to take the Government’s shilling in a way that is not available to other private developers, we need to look at the strings attached. My amendment would enshrine six key principles—I will not list them, in the interests of time, but they are there in the amendment—and regulations to codify them, along with success factors, would follow.

Too many RSLs have taken the wrong path. They have strayed from their original purpose. They have lost sight of the social purpose. Instead, they have been hooked on speculation and property development, on the back of cheap government finance, so we need to bring them back on track. If you take the money, my amendment would provide the hair on the deal. It is not too much to ask. If they want to take the cash in a way that is not available to private operators, they need to take their social responsibilities seriously—and if they cannot, they can go to Barclays, NatWest or Lloyds, or any other bank, just like the others. I beg to move.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I am going to speak very briefly—there are matters of life and death about to start in 10 minutes, and I am not going to stand in the way of that—but I am surprised by these amendments. They have been tabled by Conservative Peers going for centralisation and more regulation. We want better people running housing associations; we want good chairs, good chief executives and effective boards. I have to ask: do you want social entrepreneurial spirit, creative drive and a commitment to efficiency in customer services to be suffocated by overregulation, interference and process? We need a balance. I do not believe these probing amendments aim to provide a balance.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this group. Amendment 90, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks guidance on the social responsibilities and purposes of social housing providers. As we argued in our Amendment 108, we need to understand the other responsibilities that providers have towards tenants and the boundaries that exist. My noble friend’s amendment is very similar to our Amendment 109; it is clear that we are united in our priorities, but we can look at the drafting more closely ahead of Report.

Community engagement brings me to Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which proposes tenant board representation of at least one-fifth, as well as mandatory tenant advisory panels for the codesign of allocation policies and a requirement to publish complaints data by protected characteristic. We agree that tenant voices should be heard, with their dreams and aspirations for the places and communities in which they live. That is admirable and we welcome the intention behind the amendment.

I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Amendment 110 seeks a wider review of governance arrangements for social housing providers. This includes board composition, tenant representation and the role of elected councillors, but also their accountability to local communities, scrutiny arrangements and performance information. This is crucial. Community engagement should not be a box-ticking exercise or tokenistic; it should be rooted in existing democratic structures.

Amendment 111 would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. In my experience, I could always rely on my good relationships with local housing association representatives, but we realise this is not the case for everyone. Although we have argued for the independence of housing associations to be recognised, this should not prevent associations being held accountable to local elected representatives and having constructive conversations.

Amendment 112 would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including performance in relation to repairs, complaints, tackling anti-social behaviour, tenant satisfaction and void properties. This would be useful both for tenants and for local authorities, and for the associations themselves to help focus on areas for improvement.

Finally, Amendment 115 would empower social housing tenants to request an inspection from the Regulator of Social Housing. The Secretary of State could make regulations outlining the grounds on which this could be requested, including how many tenants would be required to support such a request and in what circumstances a request could be refused. We believe this is a balanced approach but one that is tenant-led. We hope that we can work together with noble Lords to finalise amendments to be brought forward on Report. I would be interested to hear the response of the Minister to those amendments.