Social Housing Bill [HL]
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, from the Front Bench.
Amendment 82 is a sound and compassionate amendment. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way that the exchange of data between the Prison Service and local authorities with regard to placing ex-offenders does not happen as it should. I felt that the noble Lord’s comment about all local authorities taking their share is particularly pertinent, as I found out from bitter experience. To cut a long story short, I noticed a spike in homelessness and offences in certain neighbourhoods. When I dug under those statistics and spoke to the Probation Service, it turned out it was to do with the lack of homes for ex-offenders. I said, “How come it’s all congregating here?”, and they said, “Well, Hertfordshire councils aren’t very co-operative”. I then found out that only two of the 10 authorities in Hertfordshire actually co-operated and tried to work with this group of people. I am pleased to say to the Minister that they were Watford and Stevenage.
However, I fear that Amendments 86, 87 and 88 confuse a lack of action with a lack of oversight. The social housing sector is not short of reviews, strategies or regulators; what it is short of is homes. On Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, was absolutely right that every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone in real housing need. We should tackle tenancy fraud whenever it occurs, but I am not persuaded that yet another review from Whitehall will tell us anything that landlords do not already know. In my experience, the challenge is not a lack of understanding but often a lack of capacity and resources.
My greatest concern is with Amendment 87. Of course we want fewer voids, faster reletting and better use of existing stock—yes, yes, yes—but this amendment seems to assume that nobody is already collecting the data, monitoring performance or holding providers to account, and I do not believe that this is true. We already have a Regulator of Social Housing overseeing governance, financial viability and consumer standards; we already have the Housing Ombudsman scrutinising landlord performance and identifying systemic failings through complaints; and housing associations and councils already operate under significant scrutiny and reporting requirements. The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it. A national strategy will not relet an empty home and another set of metrics will not house a family; good management does that, as does investment and building more homes.
As for Amendment 88, we support strong governance, transparency and tenant representation, but those principles are already embedded in the existing regulatory framework. Housing associations are independent organisations, subject to robust oversight, not bodies waiting for Whitehall to tell them how to behave.
Therefore, while I support the objectives behind these amendments clearly and firmly, I cannot support the assumption behind them: that every challenge in housing requires another review, another strategy or another layer of central direction. The sector is already regulated, scrutinised and awash with data. What it needs is the freedom, capacity and investment to focus on what matters most: providing and managing good homes for the people who need them the most. For that reason, we oppose these amendments.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Farmer.
A common theme has run through this group: making better use of the social housing stock we already have. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Farmer addresses the important issue of prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Stable accommodation can play a crucial role in helping individuals rebuild their lives and in reducing the risk of reoffending. His amendment rightly seeks to improve co-ordination and information sharing between agencies, and I know that the House will have listened carefully to those arguments.
Amendments 87 and 88, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, are fundamentally about making the best use of the social housing stock we already have. We all hear calls for more social housing, but that conversation inevitably turns immediately to building more homes. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, new supply is important, but it will not arrive overnight. Before we ask taxpayers to fund more homes, is it not reasonable to ask whether the homes we already have are being used as effectively as possible?
We need to make better use of the homes we already have. To do that, we need a more accurate view of how many we need. When an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied, there is a strong case for a national strategy that tackles tenancy fraud, reduces void periods and improves re-letting performance. The Government themselves estimate that 5,800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short-term letting platforms. There could be a lot of people making a lot of money out of that. That demonstrates why tackling tenancy fraud must be part of any serious strategy for improving the use of social housing stock. Even if that figure proves to be overstated, it underlines the importance of having accurate data and a clearer understanding of the scale of the challenge.
Likewise, we need to understand how accurate housing waiting lists are and when they were last reviewed. Circumstances change, and it is only with a timely review that a more accurate and transparent assessment can be made of the number of dwellings actually needed, as well as ensuring that the list is assessing accurate prioritisation. Without that information, it is difficult to judge how many additional homes are genuinely required and how many could be made available through better stock management.
At a time when the demand for social housing continues to grow, it is not enough simply to talk about building new homes. We must ensure that the homes we already have are being managed as effectively as possible. Too often, concerns are raised about lengthy void periods, delays in re-letting, outdated waiting lists, tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. Every property left empty unnecessarily is a missed opportunity for a family in need. Every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone on a waiting list.
Our amendment would require the Government to produce a national strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing housing stock. It would improve transparency, requiring key information to be published on void properties, re-let times, recovered properties and enforcement activity relating to unlawful subletting. It is not about creating additional bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that landlords, local authorities and government focus on making the best use of an extremely valuable and scarce public asset.
The related amendment on unlawful subletting seeks to better understand whether current enforcement powers are being used effectively and the barriers that might exist. Before calling for ever more supply, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the stock we already have is being managed as efficiently as possible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for Amendment 82, which seeks to ensure that local authorities receive the necessary information and collaborate with others to support prison leavers at risk of homelessness. I echo the noble Lord’s words about my noble friend Lord Timpson. He was an exceptional Minister who brought both the discipline of running a business and the compassion that he embodies in the principles by which he runs his business to his ministerial role. He has been an incredible success as a Minister and I wish him well for the future.
This amendment is focused on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice recognise. Supporting people into accommodation on release from prison is critical to reducing both homelessness and reoffending. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for meeting my officials and for the work that he has done previously with my noble friend Lord Timpson on this issue. Although I recognise and am supportive of the intent of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Public bodies such as His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are already required to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice.
The Government have also outlined an ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness. Collaboration is key to achieving this goal. As the noble Lord said, we have committed to consulting on a duty to collaborate to compel certain public bodies to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. Getting the design right will be important to ensure that public services work together more effectively to identify those at risk of homelessness as early as possible. I always get a little nervous when I read out something such as “getting the design right”, because that sometimes means a very long time thinking about it. Let us therefore be optimistic about our new Prime Minister’s pledge to end rough sleeping. We know, as the noble Lord said, that a lot of these issues lead to rough sleeping, so I hope that our PM’s pledge to end it will accelerate progress on this issue.
My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison through the CORE data collection and publishes this annually. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising the important issue of effective use of social housing stock in Amendments 86 and 87. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Addressing illegal subletting, as Amendment 86 would, is an important element of that. However, as I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which will report later this year—not too long to wait for that. It will examine issues covered by these amendments, including voids, underoccupation, unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature to legislate for a separate review or strategy before that work has concluded. This will enable us to properly assess its findings and inform next steps.
The amendments would also duplicate existing data collection. Much of the information they seek to mandate is already collected through sources, including the CORE social housing lettings data and local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined.
Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly. This may include taking legal action. I was very pleased to read about a case in Hertfordshire today where technology was used to detect and convict on a housing fraud case. That will be a very useful tool in supporting this work.
On 8 July, the Government announced a new, innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for the families that need them and are not in the hands of criminals. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that these amendments are not moved.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on governance standards for registered providers of social housing. It is of the utmost importance that registered providers are well run organisations and that fundamental principles such as transparency and accountability are core to all their operations. However, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, registered providers of social housing are already subject to standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Specifically, private registered providers are required to meet the outcomes that are set out in the regulator’s governance and financial viability standard. This standard requires private registered providers to have effective governance arrangements that deliver their aims, objectives and intended outcomes for tenants and potential tenants in an effective, transparent and accountable manner.
Local authority-registered providers are not subject to this standard but instead are subject to a range of other governance requirements, including the statutory best-value duty. This requires them to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, all registered providers of social housing must meet the outcomes set out in the regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard, which requires that they take tenants’ views into account in their decision-making on how landlord services are delivered. Consequently, I am of the view that further governance standards set by the Secretary of State would duplicate these existing requirements set by the regulator. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, not to move their amendment.
That said, the regulator is currently seeking views through its discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, on its approach to economic regulation. This includes exploration of good governance and how to regulate for it. If there are specific ideas about how to strengthen governance requirements in the sector, I encourage noble Lords to engage with this process. If anybody needs any help with that, my officials will be happy to facilitate.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
The Minister said that the stock management review would come before the end of the year. Can she be clearer about a timescale? Will it be in the autumn or on Christmas Eve? Will that review show the data openly and transparently so that people can assess who is doing well and who is not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is a review of the practices of stock management. It is intended to flag up good practice but also look at what needs doing further to make stock management easier. I am going to say yes to the second question. To the first question, the safest that I can say is “by the end of the year”. The year ends, as far as I know, on 31 December, so it will be before that. I hope that it will be earlier than that, because we all want to get on with this work.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
Taking that one step further, is the Minister likely to share that with the House at that time? Obviously, I am hoping that she will still be in her place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Discussions will take place when the review is complete. We have had some good discussions around this in the House. It is obviously of interest to noble Lords. I am very happy to discuss it further when we get the outcome of that review.
“National strategy for management of social housing stock(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing social housing stock.(2) The strategy must include proposals for—(a) reducing vacancy periods;(b) improving re-letting performance;(c) tackling unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud;(d) improving waiting list management;(e) addressing under-occupation;(f) tackling barriers to downsizing, where appropriate;(g) improving transparency and data collection in stock management.(3) Every local housing authority and registered provider of social housing must publish annually, in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, information relating to—(a) the number of void properties;(b) average re-let times;(c) unlawful subletting investigations and prosecutions;(d) recovered properties;(e) the date on which the housing waiting list was most recently reviewed.(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report summarising and analysing the information published under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require a national strategy to improve the management of existing social housing stock and requires social landlords to publish key stock-management data, with the Secretary of State reporting annually on performance.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
Based on the commitment made earlier by the Minister, I am happy not to move this amendment.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley ExcerptsMonday 20th July 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 33-I Marshalled list for Report - (16 Jul 2026)
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22, which again is about transparency. I am sure the Minister is going to say again that all the information is out there, but this is actually about collating it, so that we do not have to hunt for it, and it is easy to read. I am grateful to the Local Councils Network for highlighting this issue and the gap in current reporting arrangements. This amendment would require post-disposal reporting to distinguish between homes let at social rent and those let at affordable rent. It would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish annual data in a form that allows useful analysis over time.
This is important as, although both tenures fall within the broad category of affordable housing, they are not the same. Social rent remains the only tenure that is genuinely affordable for many households on the lowest income, while affordable rent can be set at up to 80% of market rent. If social rent homes are being sold and replaced by homes at affordable rent, it represents a significant change in the nature of our social housing stock. At present, Parliament has no way of assessing whether that is actually happening.
The Regulator of Social Housing has confirmed that it has collected disposal data since 2017 but has never published any analysis of it. As a result, although we know that more than 28,000 homes have been permanently sold out of the social housing sector since 2018-19 through disposals, we cannot establish just how many of those had been at social rent and how many had been at affordable rent. Without that information, it is impossible to judge whether we are losing the homes that are most affordable for those who need them most or whether they are being replaced on a like-for-like basis.
The regulator already collects the information that this amendment asks for, but we need the data published in a way that enables Parliament, local authorities, housing providers and the public to understand what is actually happening to our social housing stock over time. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House whether the Government see any objection in principle to the regulator publishing this information annually. If the data is already being collected, what is preventing it from being published in a way that enables proper parliamentary scrutiny?
This is quite an interesting group, and I support quite a lot of these amendments, including Amendments 17, 21, 26 and 27, which are all good. I will support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young—he is not listening to me. I think he might divide the House, and I will be supporting him on Amendments 23 or 25.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I will continue with the brevity. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate. Given it is my first time speaking this afternoon, I remind your Lordships of my interest as a part-owner of a rental property in Bexley and as a vice-president of London Councils.
We have heard a range of important contributions on how the disposal of social housing should be managed, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey and to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward these amendments for consideration.
First, there is the importance of transparency. Whether through the provision of additional information on sales notices, the establishment of a national register or post-disposal reporting requirements, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the need for greater visibility of what is being sold, to whom, and with what consequences for local housing provision.
Secondly, there has been a strong focus on ensuring that social housing assets remain within the sector, wherever reasonably practicable. Amendments concerning notification periods, opportunities for other registered providers to purchase properties and the development of a code of responsible disposal practice all seek to address that objective.
Thirdly, several amendments have recognised that not all social housing is the same. Homes adapted for people with disabilities, homes in rural communities and homes let at social rent all make a particularly valuable contribution to meeting local housing need. It is understandable that noble Lords wish to ensure that such properties are not lost without proper consideration of the consequences.
We have also heard persuasive arguments regarding the recycling of capital grant and the importance of replacing homes within communities from which they are lost, wherever possible. As housing pressures continue to be felt across the country, there is clear merit in ensuring that local areas benefit from local reinvestment. From these Benches, we believe that housing providers should have the flexibility to manage their stock effectively, but that must be balanced against the equally important objective of maintaining the supply of social housing and ensuring confidence in disposal decisions.
This has been a valuable debate which has explored how that balance might best be struck. I once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. I will now address those amendments relating to the operation of the disposals measure in the Bill. This measure is simple: it will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. In doing so, we hope it will do what we all want it to do, which is to maximise opportunities for other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.
The new requirement must of course be balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are free to make their own responsible decisions about how to manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. I am pleased that noble Lords are largely supportive of the measure, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues raised in Committee with noble Lords ahead of this debate.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 25 in this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill. This amendment calls for a review of shared ownership. I emphasise that this proposed review should cover the special circumstances of shared ownership for older people.
Fortunately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I have the honour to chair, produced an excellent analysis of the key issues back in 2023 from our inquiry into shared ownership for an ageing population. A large section of our ageing population cannot afford to downsize to more manageable, accessible homes but will never be eligible for social housing. This squeezed middle can benefit in later life from the opportunity to move from family-sized accommodation to somewhere more compact, starting a chain of sales that help young and old alike. Savings accrue to the NHS and social care, alongside the direct benefits to the older person, but it has been a struggle to find a form of shared ownership that can be provided on an affordable basis for the less affluent home owner. The right shared ownership model could achieve this.
Homes England has devised its own older people’s shared ownership model—OPSO. The trouble is that this product currently involves an anomalous form of grant aid, which needs fixing. The OPSO grant means that, if potential occupiers can afford a 75% share, they will not be charged any rent on the 25% that remains in the ownership of the provider. This is very helpful, but the OPSO terms then stipulate that, if the shared owner can afford only 70% or less, they must pay full rent on the remaining 30% or corresponding share of the going rent. Someone who can afford only a 50% share must pay 50% rent; the combination of a 50% rent plus a significant service charge could be just too expensive for owners of middle-value homes.
Amendment 25, in its call for a review of shared ownership, needs to include the specific circumstances of older people and sort out the rather weird offering currently available from Homes England. The amendment could trigger a review that leads not just to an improvement in the amount of shared ownership housing for older people but that also means more sensible terms for the product itself—an excellent opportunity for a reset of a tenure that has much unrealised potential for young and old alike.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. They have brought forward these amendments and highlighted the very real challenges faced by many shared owners. I thank Lucy and the many others who have shared their examples with us that have brought this to light.
This has been a valuable debate on an area of housing policy which was intended to provide a bridge to home ownership but which, for some households, has been increasingly difficult to navigate. We have heard concerns about affordability, rising service charges, the costs associated with staircasing and the difficulties faced by leaseholders whose homes may be difficult to sell or mortgage. We have also heard concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock, where shared ownership properties leave the sector altogether.
The amendments before us seek above all to shine a light on these issues. Amendment 23 focuses on gathering better evidence about unsaleable and unmortgageable homes and on understanding the extent to which affordable housing stock is being lost. Amendment 25 asks the Government to undertake a broader review of whether the shared ownership model is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve.
From these Benches, we continue to support the principle of shared ownership as a route into home ownership for those who might otherwise be excluded from the housing market. However, support for the principle should not prevent us from examining how the scheme operates in practice and where improvements are needed. A review of the sort proposed by my noble friend Lord Young would provide an opportunity to assess the evidence, understand the experiences of shared owners and identify any barriers preventing the scheme from fulfilling its original purpose. If my noble friend is minded to move his amendment, we shall support him. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling Amendments 23 and 25, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill, for their support. I recognise the constructive and persistent way in which the noble Lord has raised issues relating to shared ownership throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, in previous Bills. In my responses, I in no way want to undermine the difficulties of shared owners, which I understand have caused great anxiety and for which I am deeply sympathetic. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the department is doing to provide support for some of the issues the noble Lord raised.
I turn first to Amendment 23. Shared ownership landlords are independent bodies and decisions about the repurchase of individual homes sit with them. However, landlords already have the option to buy back homes, including where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues. Landlords can already use their recycled capital grant funding to cover up to 100% of the cost of that.
Furthermore, allocating social and affordable homes programme grant funding for use on shared ownership buybacks would not be conducive to the core strategic objective of that new programme, which is to maximise supply, particularly of social rent homes. We expect landlords to set out any buyback policies, or confirm if they do not have one, on their websites. Ultimately, the solution for those struggling to sell their homes due to building safety issues is the remediation of unsafe buildings.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is.
I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse.
Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing what she says on how she will meet the requests of housing associations there.
Finally, we welcome the expansion of scope in laying out and making sure that these provisions apply to other forms of abuse including, for example, sibling abuse or child-to-parent abuse. These are made available by the amendments that the Government have tabled here. We really welcome that change.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims.
It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition.
During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle.
We have also heard valuable contributions on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The proposed duty to ensure continuity of tenancy for those forced to move because of threats of targeted youth or gang violence raises an important issue. Nobody should face the prospect of losing the security of their tenancy because they are compelled to move for the safety of their family.
Likewise, the amendment concerning access for registered providers to undertake essential safety inspections addresses a long-standing and very practical problem. Social landlords have a significant statutory duty in relation to gas safety, electrical safety and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Where access cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, there needs to be a proportionate mechanism that can protect both the rights of tenants and the safety of the residents. This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for achieving that balance.
This debate is therefore united by a common theme of ensuring that the law provides appropriate protection, whether for victims of domestic abuse, tenants facing serious threats to their safety or residents whose well-being depends upon essential safety checks being carried out. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her engagement on these issues.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Neate, Lady Lister, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill. I will be moving government Amendments 30 to 75; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will move them en bloc and not one at a time.
This Bill introduces important changes to give greater security and stability to social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse while giving landlords stronger powers to take action against perpetrators. While these protections have been warmly welcomed, we have listened closely to the legitimate concerns raised that the Bill’s protections, which focused on abuse involving a resident partner or that partner’s resident family member, are too narrow. They risk excluding victims of familial abuse in non-partner relationships, such as abuse between adult parents and adult children, siblings or other relatives. The government amendments close that gap. I especially thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for her engagement on this issue.
The amendments align the Bill’s provisions more closely with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. by focusing on the victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and who occupies the home or has had to leave because of the abuse. They additionally make a number of consequential changes to who the court should consider when examining reasonableness under the discretionary ground or approving suitable alternative accommodation in joint tenancy cases. These amendments will deliver a fairer outcome for victims of familial domestic abuse. They demonstrate our Government’s commitment to engaging with the House and stakeholders, and to strengthening the Bill where there is a clear case to do so.
Commenting now on Amendment 28, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling this amendment. It raises the serious issue of how the housing system responds when an existing social housing tenant needs to move urgently for their or their household’s safety. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement with me on this issue. I also thank Helen Hayes MP; it was truly shocking to hear of the circumstances of her constituent, Georgia, and the shocking murder of Georgia’s son, Damarie Roye.
I agree that social housing tenants should not have to choose between their personal safety and the security of their home. There are existing protections: the social housing allocations framework requires that, where people need to move on welfare grounds, they must be given reasonable preference for social housing. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to give additional preference to those fleeing violence. The Renters’ Rights Act will strengthen security of tenure for social housing tenants on assured tenancies from October 2027. However, I recognise the importance of considering whether we can go further to ensure that those who need to move for safety do not lose the security and associated benefits of their tenancy, which may have been built up over a number of years.
We need to consider carefully how any new duties on landlords would operate, particularly in assessing whether there is a threat to safety and where a landlord does not have suitable accommodation. We believe that further work is needed before any solution to this policy issue can be put forward. I have asked officials to explore this matter at pace, and we are keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and stakeholders on possible solutions, ahead of the Bill moving to the other place. I hope the noble Lord will understand how committed I am to ensuring that nobody should have to choose between their safety and their tenancy.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 29, which seeks to introduce a statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to fulfil their statutory safety duties. Since he last introduced this amendment, we have had a helpful discussion about these issues and my officials have been working closely with sector bodies. I recognise that there is growing concern from the sector that a lack of legal clarity leaves it unable to conduct necessary tests and repairs, and risks tenant safety.
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement and thank Philip Rycroft for his thorough review. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures to tackle foreign interference in our democracy and recognise the value of Philip Rycroft’s review. However, an independent review is not a substitute for ministerial engagement with political parties where recommendations affect the rules by which political parties compete with one another. The Government have traditionally sought broad political agreement before legislating.
The threats posed by hostile states are real and growing, so protecting the integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our elections. Every political party represented in this House has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are robustly addressed. However, we remain concerned about both the process the Government have adopted and aspects of the proposals now being taken forward.
As my noble friend Lady Finn said during last week’s debate, there is a simple constitutional principle at stake. The rules governing political finance are not ordinary legislation; they are the rules by which political parties compete with one another. Governments are therefore the trustees of those rules, not their proprietors. The reason why that convention exists is straightforward: Governments should not use their parliamentary majority unilaterally to legislate on the finances of their political opponents. Once that principle is abandoned, it becomes easier for future Governments of any political persuasion to do the same and risks importing the kind of hyper-partisan approach to electoral law that has proved so damaging elsewhere.
For many years, Governments of all political persuasions have recognised that changes in this area should, where possible, be developed through consultation and broad cross-party agreements, rather than imposed unilaterally by the Government of the day. That is why the Government’s approach is so disappointing. Rather than waiting for Philip Rycroft’s review to conclude, Ministers introduced the Representation of the People Bill before publishing their response. They have now chosen to cherry-pick two recommendations from that review and insert them into the Bill through significant government amendments during the stages in the other place without first engaging in proper cross-party talks. Simply informing political parties of changes after they have already been drafted is not consultation. Why did the Government not publish a consultation paper, formal or informal, or convene proper cross-party discussions before deciding to legislate?
Constitutional conventions exist precisely because changes to the rules of democratic competition should not come as a surprise to those expected to operate within them. An independent review is valuable, but it is not a suitable political consensus on the rules governing political competition. However, the Government have immediately accepted two recommendations from the Rycroft review—a moratorium on cryptocurrency and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors—before publishing their full response to the review or consulting political parties on how these proposals should operate.
More troubling still, these measures are intended to have a retrospective effect from March this year. Political parties are therefore expected to comply with legal requirements whose detailed legislative provisions have not yet been debated by Parliament or, indeed, published in draft. That is full-on retrospective legislation and is constitutionally very difficult to justify.
More fundamentally, why was the Representation of the People Bill introduced before the Rycroft review had reported? Given that there was no imminent general election, why did Ministers not pause the Bill for a matter of weeks to bring forward a coherent package of reforms? Alternatively, if the Government wished to proceed urgently with electoral reforms, why were the political finance provisions not introduced in separate legislation, as previous Governments have done? Can the Minister also outline the consultation that has taken place with the Electoral Commission, parliamentary authorities and political parties on these proposals? What additional resources will be provided to ensure that any new regulatory responsibilities can be implemented effectively?
Finally, legislation is only one part of the answer. Effective enforcement is equally important. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what additional resource will be provided to the Electoral Commission, and to any other enforcement bodies, to ensure that these reforms can be properly implemented and enforced?
Good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires proper consultation, careful scrutiny and, in this area above all, broad political consensus. We will continue to support proportionate measures that genuinely strengthen our democracy against foreign interference, but we urge the Government to return to the long-established constitutional principle that the rules governing political competition should be made with political parties, not simply imposed upon them. Protecting our democracy should unite Parliament and not become another area for partisan legislation.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to ask the Minister to remind us what consultation the previous Conservative Government carried out with either his party or mine over, for example, changing the electoral system for elections of mayors or expense limits for general elections.
Instead, to go to the heart of the matter, these Benches very much share the concerns set out in the Rycroft review about the risk of foreign money influencing, or even corrupting, our politics. We therefore broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the report. However, I have some concerns about the intended speed of implementation, some of the loopholes that will remain, and one particular issue that is not mentioned in the Government’s response, which I suspect the Minister can successfully predict.
I turn first to the intended pace of implementation. On recommendation 4, regarding non-party campaigners and related issues, the Government have said they will
“commit to consultation and further work”.
They are not even committing to action on that one. On recommendation 14, on internet advertising, the Government have promised “proposals in due course”. On recommendation 16, on think tanks and associated issues, the Government’s commitment is that they will
“consider opportunities for further work”.
I fear that you can almost hear the wheels of Whitehall grinding to a halt as you consider that phrase. I hope the Minister can set out clear timelines for the Government’s intended progress on those recommendations, which are, after all, on substantive major issues such as the role of online advertising.
On loopholes, I have raised before the question of the Government’s apparent inconsistent approach to politics and the media. They appear to be sticking to a significant control test for companies that permits greater foreign ownership of a company that donates to our politics than is permitted for a company that owns one of our newspapers. It remains unclear to me why the Government think that a lower level of protection against foreign interference in our politics than in our media is appropriate. I hope the Minister might be able to clarify that.
The Government are proposing—in a broad sense, this is a welcome step in the right direction—introducing a new threshold of £2,230, above which pre-campaign donations to individual candidates would need to be declared. That sounds a reasonable threshold, until one remembers that British-wide political parties will typically stand 633 candidates across the country, or, if not contesting the Speaker’s seat, 632 candidates. Therefore, 632 lots of some £2,000 gets you to nearly £1.5 million-worth of donations that could be made legally, legitimately and in secret, unless the Government also propose to go a little further and introduce aggregation requirements around those donations to individual candidates. I hope the Minister can tell us what is intended on that front.
Indeed, the Government Statement is rather silent on whether similar protection will be extended to, for example, elections for the Mayor of Greater Manchester or the Mayor of London. Those, among other elected posts at other levels of election, have important power, and, although we have not yet had a track record of having to worry about foreign money in such elections, it would seem to me prudent to extend such protections.
Finally, I turn to the consolidation of election law and the dangers, costs and complexity that arise from the messy and fragile state of election law, In the past, I have used the parallel of a teenager with a messy bedroom—the Government never quite decide that now is the time to start cleaning up that bedroom The Rycroft review said:
“I urge Government to consider”
action in this area. Because that was a boxed-out urging of the Government to consider, rather than a formal recommendation, the Government’s response so far has been silent on that particular part of the Rycroft review. I hope the Minister, having been urged by Rycroft to consider this issue, can tell us what consideration the Government have come to.
To push on one specific example, consolidation does not have to a be a big project, put off for ever only to be done in one big bang. It is possible to pick off little individual issues. For example, it is possible to look at redundant legislation on the statute book, the repeal of which would have no or only minimal knock-on consequences. It is a bit like picking up the dirty crisp packet from the middle of the floor—we are not going to tidy the whole bedroom but can at least pick up some of the easy bits. I have one specific question. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 seems to me to be the perfect crisp packet—an easy thing that could be picked off and repealed under the Representation of the People Bill. I hope the Minister can tell us that that is going to be added to the Government’s plans.
Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Jamieson; in doing so, I remind Members of my interest as vice-president of London Councils.
Most councillors will tell you the value of being able to refer planning decisions to a planning committee for consideration in public. As has just been said, it can mean that local residents can participate in the debate. They can draw issues to the attention of those making the decision as well as witness the decision-making process as it happens. It is therefore disappointing that this statutory instrument appears to reduce that opportunity by allowing an even higher number of applications to be delegated to officers. Written submissions, I am afraid, are not the same thing.
Indeed, there was a debate in the other place last week when Labour Members of Parliament were referencing the value of Article 4 directives to ensure that planning applications for houses of multiple occupation would be required. Fortunately, the Conservative council in the London Borough of Bexley, of which I have knowledge, did indeed seek an Article 4 directive to ensure that this was the case, as we believed it would ensure that the impact of those individual requests on our residents and infrastructure could be considered.
It is difficult to square seeking democracy in the planning process one week and reducing it the next. The planning process needs to be open and transparent, allowing planning applications to be referred to the democratically elected committee if members choose to do so. This can also add value, as it means that any potential issues or benefits can be aired, considered and possibly addressed. That quite often results in impacting the decision or applying conditions that might resolve some of the potential issues. It needs to be taken seriously.
This could be particularly relevant for reserve matters, as was said earlier, or the use of Section 106 money on larger developments, as the impact on the local community will be even greater. Residents are rightly interested in what is happening in their area, and while it is often difficult to explain that applications must be considered on planning grounds, referral to a committee allows that to happen. It also protects council officers. I am sure we have all heard the rumours about alleged brown envelopes over the years. What better way to ensure residents see the decision-making process in action than at a planning committee?
The suggestion is that referral could be by the gateway test, but that would be through an agreement between the head of development control or the named person and the planning committee chairman. They need to agree on the rationale and, as my noble friend Lady Eaton has just said, when that does not happen, the decision should remain with members. We live in a democratic society. We all know that the majority of applications are not contentious and are determined by officers. But when there is a reason for transparency, surely there should be a mechanism to allow for determination by committee. Planning applications can greatly impact residents’ lives, so surely they should be able to witness and participate in the process. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that this SI does not water down the system.
Edinburgh Anti-Muslim Attacks
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There has been a statement from both the Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland, and I do not accept the characterisation that there is in any sense a lack of response to this. We understand that this problem of anti-Muslim hostility is getting worse. We take it seriously, and when incidents such as these occur, we will want to see the full force of the law used, and we will demonstrate the sort of leadership the noble Baroness is seeking. I do not quite recognise the picture she paints.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I welcome the noble Lord to his place; I think it is his first time at the Dispatch Box, so welcome. We also associate ourselves with his comments about the Edinburgh incident.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country reject hatred and violence. However, recent years have seen increasing tensions between communities and the growth of extremist narratives from different quarters. What assessment have the Government made of these trends, and what action are they taking to strengthen social cohesion and mutual respect across society?
Jo Cox Civility Commission
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate today and thoroughly embarrassing and humbling to hear the contributions of many Members.
It is with a deep sense of duty that I rise to address the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and the broader imperative of safeguarding those who participate in public life. The murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were not merely acts of violence against individuals but profound violations of the democracy that binds our society together. They also remind us of the values that Jo Cox lived by: working together, respect for others and a belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us. Every speaker has mentioned that, so it is a really good testament. Those values must shape not only our response to rising hostility but the kind of political culture that we wish to build. However, despite the clarity of the commission’s recommendations and the urgency of the threat, the Government’s response has been insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge before us. The commission issued 28 recommendations, yet only seven have been adopted so far, and I think we all would encourage the Government to look at the others very quickly.
It is particularly troubling for people like me that none of the recommendations relating to local government has been implemented. As has been said, local councillors, who often serve without staff, without security and without the institutional protections afforded to Members of either House, remain acutely vulnerable. As the former leader of Bexley council, I know this vulnerability all too well. My colleagues and I have ourselves been subjected to sustained abuse, often anonymous, often from keyboard warriors, often deeply personal and mainly inaccurate, simply for carrying out the responsibilities of public office.
The fallout has impacted both officers and members: their health, their families and their lives. It is an experience that is shared by councillors across the country and underlines why the commission’s recommendations on local government cannot be treated as optional. The commission’s call to expand Operation Bridger to support local councillors was clear and unambiguous. The Government’s inaction leaves a significant gap in our national resilience. It is entirely proper to ask how we will ensure that local democracy is not treated as a secondary concern.
The Government frequently cite the Online Safety Act as evidence of progress, yet the lived experience of elected representatives tells a very different story. As has been mentioned, the 2025 survey of Members of Parliament revealed levels of threat and intimidation that should trouble every Member of this House. Women and Members from minority ethnic backgrounds face disproportionate levels of abuse. Candidates in the 2024 general election were twice as likely to face abuse if they were women and three times as likely if they were from minority ethnic backgrounds. The commission’s recommendation that social media companies provide enhanced support to candidates, particularly during election periods, remains unimplemented.
The dangers of social media are no longer abstract. They influence who feels able to stand for office, who feels safe to speak and who feels welcome in public life. A third of girls and young women now say that they are deterred from entering politics because of the hostility they see online. If we do not address this, we risk losing a generation of talent.
Furthermore, the commission identified the absence of a central government unit as one of the principal obstacles to progress. Without such a unit, efforts across police forces, regulators, political parties and tech companies remain fragmented and inconsistent. The renewal of the Defending Democracy Taskforce is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a dedicated, properly resourced co-ordinating body. The commission was unequivocal: this is a systemic challenge that requires a systemic response. The Government must provide one.
The commission’s call for impartial political and media literacy to be embedded in the curriculum is timely and necessary. Yet the Government’s proposed reforms will not take effect until 2027, with the teaching beginning in 2028-29, five years after the commission’s first call to action. In a digital environment where misinformation spreads in seconds, this delay has real-world consequences. We must recognise that civility is about not only how we conduct politics but how we sustain community cohesion. Loneliness and social disconnection remain significant challenges. They weaken trust, reduce civic participation and increase vulnerability to polarisation. Jo Cox understood that democracy is strengthened when communities are connected. That is why the Great Get Together, now marking its 10th year, matters. It is a reminder that respect is built locally through the simple act of bringing people together.
Within the Representation of the People Bill, we welcome the measures that protect candidates from harassment and intimidation. However, we remain vigilant against any drift towards the policing of legitimate political expression. Democracy must protect those who serve within it, but it must also preserve the right of citizens to criticise those who hold power.
At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires care, vigilance and a willingness to confront the uncomfortable realities. The Jo Cox Civility Commission has provided a thoughtful and comprehensive blueprint for strengthening the integrity of political culture. It is now for the Government to act: not with selectivity or delay but with the seriousness that this moment demands. If we fail to protect those who serve, we risk diminishing the very institutions on which our freedoms depend. If we fail to foster respect, we risk losing the trust that holds our society together. If we fail to work together, we risk forgetting the message that Jo Cox gave us: that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2–II Second marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jun 2026)
“Social housing estates: regeneration(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a document setting out proposals to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates.(2) The document under subsection (1) must include proposals relating to—(a) funding to deliver alternative housing for existing tenants during the redevelopment of social housing estates,(b) support for increasing density as part of social housing redevelopment where appropriate,(c) the use of public land and housing assets to facilitate regeneration, and(d) grant funding for energy efficiency improvements as part of redevelopment schemes.(3) In preparing the document under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase overall housing supply within existing urban areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to bring forward proposals within 12 months to support regeneration of social housing estates, including decant funding and densification opportunities.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I add my best wishes to the England team tonight: even if we are not finished in time, we will no doubt get a nice, quiet journey home because everyone will be watching it.
I speak to Amendments 57, 58, 75, 83 and 107 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Much of the debate around housing understandably focuses on building new homes. That is undoubtedly important. However, if we are serious about tackling housing need, we must also focus on how we effectively manage, maintain and utilise the housing stock that already exists. These amendments are intended to probe whether sufficient attention is given to the condition, management and efficient use of existing social housing assets.
Amendment 57 would require the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of social housing estates. Estate regeneration is often difficult, sometimes controversial and takes many years. The noble Lord, Lord John, sitting over there, will know that from pain in Elephant and Castle; I certainly know it from the years dealing with Thamesmead, and I am sure many others in this Chamber will know it too. It takes a long time, but there are opportunities.
Amendment 75 raises the crucial issue of illegal subletting in our social housing system. I note the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, which passed through this House in 2013 under the watch of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It provided important powers to tackle this problem, but it is reasonable to ask whether those powers are being used ineffectively and whether enforcement activity is sufficient. Given the pressure on waiting lists across the country, every property recovered through anti-fraud activity represents an opportunity to house someone who is legitimately entitled to that support. In 2024-25, there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. However, the Tenancy Fraud Forum’s 2023 report, Lost Homes, Lost Hope, estimated that 148,000 social homes were subject to tenancy fraud in 2023. In a separate report in 2025, it estimated that there were 50,000 tenancy frauds in London alone. This is shocking and urgently needs addressing. Rather than curtailing right to buy, this is the issue that the Government should prioritise to bring housing forward quickly.
Amendment 83 would require a national audit of social housing stock. It is difficult to manage assets effectively without a clear understanding of their condition, occupancy, utilisation and future investment requirements before making major policy decisions. Government should have the clearest possible picture of the stock already available. Similarly, Amendment 107 seeks a broader strategy for improving the management of existing social housing stock. Better stock management can often deliver benefits more quickly and at a lower cost than new construction alone.
I should also mention Amendment 117D in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. This is a probing amendment, but it raises an important question about accountability. Across England, elected mayors are being given increasing responsibility for housing, planning and regeneration. If powers are increasingly devolved, it is reasonable to ask how performance should be measured, and how local people can judge whether housing commitments are being delivered.
The country faces substantial housing pressures. There are now around 1.33 million households on local authority waiting lists—the highest figure for a decade. Against that backdrop, transparency regarding housing delivery matters. Noble Lords may have different views on the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, but the broader principle remains that where significant powers are devolved, there should be clear accountability for the outcomes, and that these are the right outcomes.
I would also be interested to hear from the Minister how long social housing properties typically remain vacant between tenancies. Every week that a property sits empty is a week in which a household remains on the waiting list. Understanding void turnaround times is therefore an important part of understanding the efficiency of the system as a whole. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that we make the best possible use of the housing stock we already have, while continuing to build for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers.
Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill.
I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use a property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling the keys to a third party. Between now and Report, I hope we can look into this, and I hope the Minister will give this issue the attention it certainly deserves.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and, of course, to the Minister for her response. I especially mention my noble friend Lord Evans, as he saw this as an important debate to make his first contribution in.
The discussions highlighted an important point. Although much attention is devoted to increasing housing supply, making best use of the homes that we already have has to be equally important. The amendments in the group have approached the challenge from a number of angles, including regeneration, supported housing, stock management, fraud prevention and the utilisation of vacant properties. Although they focus on different aspects of the system, they all ask whether existing housing assets are being used as effectively as they could be.
I remain particularly concerned that, at a time when housing waiting lists remain high, we should do everything possible in our power to ensure that social housing properties are occupied by those who are entitled to them and that homes do not remain vacant for longer than necessary. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about turnaround times and look forward to seeing that information. Effective management is not an alternative to new supply, but it is certainly an essential component and should not be forgotten.
I was interested in the discussion around regeneration. Done well, regeneration can improve housing quality, strengthen communities and increase housing supply simultaneously. It is therefore important that the Government continue to think strategically about how existing estates can contribute to meeting future housing need. The need may change. It is not easy. We all know that, at the start of a regeneration project, you have decamped people. If you have not got the empty homes, it is difficult to make that happen.
On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, concerning empty homes, I agree that long-term vacant properties can represent a missed opportunity, particularly where housing need is acute. However, I sound a note of caution. Property rights remain an important principle. We should be careful about any approach that assumes that the state should have an ever-expanding role in determining how privately owned homes are used. The challenge is to strike the right balance between encouraging properties back into use and respecting legitimate private ownership. That does not mean that we could not address the empty ones in social housing—about 92,000 homes, according to the House of Lords Library.
I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for her contribution and hope that we can work together ahead of Report to tackle fraud in the social housing system. We need to make use of the powers and encourage others to use those powers. We know that, in a lot of these cases, these are the tenants who are not going to raise their head above the parapet because they are not going to want to be seen. I heard of a case at the weekend in which a key worker thought that they were privately renting a property for £2,000 a month but had a knock on the door from the council. It was actually a council property, costing the council tenant £800 a month. Someone is making a nice amount of money while the wrong person is living in the property. We need to concentrate on this.
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points that were raised in the debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Rather than the noble Baroness waiting for a letter from me, I can give her the answer to her question about the time spent between tenancies now. It is a median of 30 days.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, but I am also going to make a few remarks to wind up this group on behalf of our Benches. We are trying hard not to duplicate speakers, aware that everyone is desperate to see the football—all right, not everyone, but most people—and we have an awful lot to get through.
There have been a number of powerful and helpful contributions on this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has huge authority and experience in this area, and it is notable that the sector supports the amendment she has tabled, arguing that it is really needed. The heart of the Bill is around protection for victims of domestic violence, and my concern is that, without an amendment like this, we leave out one hugely important plank—an area that gives abusers the power to continue to exercise control and leave women without access to the protection we want to provide. I remind the Minister that this amendment has cross-party support, and it was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, a former Home Secretary, advocate for it. I hope the Government will take this away and consider how it might be brought forward, perhaps at a later stage. As others have said, without this measure, child maintenance could be withheld—coercive control around money is often at the heart of abusive relationships—so I urge the Government to consider this amendment.
I listened carefully to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, about Amendments 61 and 62. These amendments seem to us to make good points, particularly about access for safety checks. I was going to refer to the legal case the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to— Southern Housing v James Emmanuel in October 2025 —arguing that, without parliamentary action, it is not clear whether housing associations have the power to force access for safety reasons. In the light of so many recent issues around fire, for example, we really have to tackle this issue and make it clear to social housing providers whether they have the power to take such action. We are also supportive of Amendment 61 and urge the Government to think about how we might ensure continuity for secure tenancy in cases where, on police advice, people are forced to leave their homes because of violence.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so thoughtfully to this sensitive and highly important debate. As my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading, we welcome the Government’s efforts to empower landlords and the courts to protect all victims of domestic abuse.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments, which focus on the issues concerning tenants’ safety. His Amendment 61 asks us to consider threats to personal safety due not only to domestic abuse but to escalating disputes with neighbours or targeted youth and gang violence. It is right that we consider how tenants can be protected from those other threats, and Amendment 62 seeks to give providers greater powers to carry out legally required safety checks. I hope the Government will give those amendments their due consideration.
Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to ensure that vulnerable groups such as older tenants, veterans, care leavers, disabled people, those with mental health conditions and families with children in temporary accommodation have the necessary statutory provision. We will also touch on prioritising veterans in another amendment later today, but my noble friend is right that we should consider the specific needs of these groups too, and that we expect local authorities to do so as well.
Amendment 65, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and was responded to by many others, raises a very important issue. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this. Victims of financial abuse should be protected, not prevented from bidding for social housing. I would be interested to hear from the Government how that could be implemented by working together with local authorities, and how we can ensure that such protections are not themselves abused.
Amendment 64, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, seeks to ensure that the court system has the capacity and resources to effectively determine whether domestic abuse has taken place within a household with a social housing tenancy, an issue that a few of the speakers referred to. Court readiness was debated at length in relation to the Renters’ Rights Act, and it is important that the Government ensure that landlords and courts are ready for these changes too, so that victims are protected effectively.
Amendment 108, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, raises the issue of which local authority is responsible for safeguarding needs when a tenant is moved out of an area of one local authority to another. Our amendment suggests that, where a local housing authority secures accommodation for tenants outside its area, that authority retains responsibility for safeguarding oversight and the costs involved. We welcome the insights of other noble Lords on this issue and what scenarios must be taken into account, but I hope the Minister will look into it and how the Bill could address it. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very thoughtful debate on these amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling Amendment 61, which addresses an important issue around the safety and security of tenants facing violence. I am very sympathetic to this amendment’s aims to protect all tenants of social housing providers registered with the Regulator of Social Housing and thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue forward. I want to be clear that tenants should never fear losing their security of tenure if they need to move because of the threat of violence and abuse.
While I am supportive of the intent of the amendment, as drafted it will mean a fundamental shift in the role of the Regulator of Social Housing as currently set out in statute. The regulator’s statutory remit does not include intervening in individual tenancy decisions. The regulator focuses interventions on systemic issues, and this amendment would change this and risk cutting across established principles of regulatory best practice. Furthermore, the consumer standards set by the regulator already place on registered providers several requirements relevant to this amendment, including to work with partners to support victims of domestic abuse and to demonstrate how they deliver the outcomes of these standards.
In addition, there is already legislation in place that seeks to protect people at risk of violence in need of urgent rehousing. If a local authority grants a victim of domestic abuse a new tenancy for reasons connected with the abuse, it is required to give former or existing secure tenants another secure lifetime tenancy rather than a fixed-term tenancy. The social housing allocations framework dictates that where people are homeless or need to move on welfare grounds and apply to be rehoused through a local authority waiting list, they must be given reasonable preference—priority—for social housing. By extension, these protections can also engage private registered providers through the duty to co-operate with their local authority in housing people with priority. Homelessness legislation is also clear that, where appropriate, victims of serious violence are able to access support from homelessness services should they need to relocate, and that a vulnerable victim of domestic violence has priority need for accommodation.
Measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse also seek to achieve a similar aim to this amendment by ensuring that a joint tenant remains housed either in their original home or in suitable alternative accommodation where this is available. While it does not oblige a registered provider to act, it does empower it to do so. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, I recognise that this is an important issue and have asked my officials to consider this matter further. I or my officials or both would be happy to meet the noble Lord before Report to discuss this matter.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 62, which would introduce a new statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to meet statutory safety duties. I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that landlords are able to carry out essential safety checks, including gas and electrical inspections, and to ensure that smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are installed and functioning properly. I also recognise that access to homes is a growing concern. However, I am not persuaded that creating a new statutory access route is necessary to achieve this.
Landlords already have established routes for enabling access to homes. In addition, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1998 imply a right of access to tenancies where landlords are required to meet repairing obligations. Where a tenant refuses access, landlords can seek to remedy this through an injunction from the court. I reassure the Committee that, following a joint consultation with the Ministry of Justice on housing disrepair claims, we are currently analysing the responses to deepen our understanding of how the current process works, including what does not work or is unclear, so we can make sure that that process is as effective as possible.
Extending the needs of landlords to enable them to force access must be balanced, of course, against tenants’ existing rights, including the right to respect their private and family life and their home under Article 8 of the ECHR. Where a landlord has taken appropriate steps and cannot gain access, the Government made it clear in our response to the decent homes standard consultation that guidance will set out steps providers should take, and we will work with the sector and tenants to develop this guidance.
This amendment would introduce a separate, highly prescriptive statutory process alongside the existing routes and work we already have under way to consider access to homes for emergency safety reasons. In particular, the provision to authorise the use of reasonable force raises concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home. The amendment would also impose detailed procedural requirements that could reduce flexibility and delay action where timely access is needed to meet critical safety obligations. However, I recognise that this matter needs further consideration, so I intend to convene interested stakeholders to discuss access in emergency situations and identify the next steps.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it appears that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, withdrew from this section at a late time so, if it is the Committee’s pleasure, I will listen to the debate and the Minister, and save my comments till the end.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Would it be in order to speak to Amendment 66?
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, especially my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I thank the Minister for the response. I hope she realises that these amendments were tabled in view of our previous amendments and in light of trying to make best use of the stock available. However, we accept what the Minister is saying. These amendments are probing ones to explain some of those options, but I accept the Government’s response.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new affordable homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of homes, particularly adapted homes. We are an ageing nation, we are getting fatter and nowadays many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. As a council leader, I spend about £1.5 million a year adapting homes for this ageing and impaired population. I remember that, when devising our local plan, there was a need for 3,500 adapted homes and supported living units; it was about 10% of the total housing need. It is an important issue, but not one you would gather from this Bill. At Second Reading, I explained how councils might install an adaptation so that a resident with an impairment could live comfortably. I explained that it might be a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, in my council, we spent £75,000 on a complete extension that was required to enable that family to live decently.
In preparation for this debate, and in pursuance of that simple truth, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He tells me that about half the improvements relate to wet rooms. That is important, because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it keeps our hospital wards clean. Half the wet room adaptations are combined with wider doors so that someone in a wheelchair can shower hygienically. Together, cleaning and better access represent half the improvements for disabled facilities, grants and aids and adaptations.
Other examples might be a kitchen with low-level worktops—again, suitable for wheelchair use. Typically, it takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation: directionally two to three months for the assessment and the report by the occupational therapist, then a couple of months for the specification contracting and then the construction itself. In my experience, our district council delivered about 150 such projects a year at an average cost of about £10,000 each. I would say that one of my best interventions as a councillor was to ensure that a widow who lived in Mill Road in Seething was able to keep herself clean, by expediting the process of creating a wet room in her social home.
I feel that I have laboured the point, but I tell that story with pride because the simple truth is that we just do not have enough of these adapted homes, and that is why the state invests in them. MHCLG distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities, and some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs top up that allocation still further. I ensured that we reinvested all the profits from our trading activities to top up that money. So, in total, it adds up to about £1 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change, ensuring that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and on with, maintaining personal pride and hygiene.
Here is the problem that my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. A new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money, it reduces the pool of adapted homes, and it is bad for everyone, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice: once to put it in and once to take it out. I recall one example where we had built a brand new accessible home with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for a wheelchair-bound resident. As it happened, the first tenant was really tall, and by and by he tired of bending down to move the pots and pans around the hob, so the council was obliged by law to rip out that kitchen and put in a normal one—oh dear. That is absurd. It should have been let to a wheelchair user in the first place. So I ask the Minister directly: where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of and investments in adapted homes for the ageing population? Why can we not offer rights of first refusal to those who need help to keep themselves clean down there?
I have heard it said, “Well, this is an allocations issue and we’re not going there in this limited Bill”. I profoundly disagree with that. That is why I asked for this debate to be de-grouped so it could have the importance it deserves without being clouded by other issues. My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock. It is about protecting a £1 billion investment— a significant sum that should not be lightly discarded— and it is about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. So I do not see this as an allocations issue, in the sense that preference should be given to an individual veteran or a certain type of local person. This is about protecting the pool of adapted homes, not least because we are all getting older. It is about ensuring that the wider cohort who carry an impairment have sufficient protected stock for them to have a go at, where they get preference, to make the best of their lives and to make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that, what is it for? Casually dismissing this as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection.
We must grab this sufficiency issue now. We are in Committee. I want to probe the matter more deeply between now and Report. Unless we make some progress, I anticipate that this is an issue on which I will seek to divide the House on Report, on the grounds that the Bill aims to protect the social stock for those in need, and my amendment seeks to achieve precisely that.
I have nearly said enough but I want to give Kevin Philcox, my expert on the ground, who has been around a long time in this space, the final word. He told me that, among the dedicated housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way that I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country—it is number one on the wish list. That is quite a statement.
The opportunity to protect that £1 billion a year investment and look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society is before us here and now. If we fail to take it, there is no one else to do it in our place. As it is, there are no powers to protect those adaptations or to give those in need first refusal, but there should be. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the important subject of adapted social housing. As we have argued throughout this day of Committee, we must improve how we manage the existing stock of social housing by making better use of what we have and what is being built. It strikes us as entirely sensible that, where possible and appropriate, homes that have been adapted are then given to applicants who would also benefit from those adaptations. That would save social housing providers money and ensure that we made the best use of resources and housing stock. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any details that she might be able to give us on how it might be implemented.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we seem to have wandered a long way this evening from the straightforward purpose of the Bill: to adjust right to buy, to give confidence to local authorities to deliver social housing, and to protect domestic abuse victims. Anyway, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. He says he is disappointed. I have probably been disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for most of the last 15 or so years that we have known each other, so I am just carrying on in that vein, I am afraid.
We recognise how important home adaptations are in enabling disabled people to live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. Disabled facilities grant funding helps adapt over 55,000 homes annually, helping disabled people and their families live independently, reducing demand for health and social care support. It is also important that local authorities make the best use of the homes they have available, particularly any adapted properties.
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.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns a range of mechanisms to strengthen the tenant voice and engagement across the social housing sector. It is a bit odd, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, to be in this parallel universe where the Conservative Benches are arguing for more regulation—I find that a bit strange.
Matters relating to tenant voice and engagement are already central to the Regulator of Social Housing’s existing consumer standards. The regulator’s approach is proactive and outcomes-based, setting clear standards that providers must deliver, while allowing flexibility on how those outcomes are achieved. On that basis, my concern is that a number of these amendments would introduce new statutory requirements that would duplicate or cut across the existing regulatory framework. This would result in unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and potential confusion for the sector, without materially improving outcomes for tenants or communities.
I turn briefly to Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and Amendment 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am not persuaded that additional statutory guidance from the Secretary of State is necessary. Core elements of these amendments and any subsequent guidance are already central to the regulator’s regulatory standards.
The consumer standards require providers to deliver safe and well-managed homes, to engage with tenants and take their views into account, to work with partners to tackle anti-social behaviour, and to support the well- being of the communities in which they operate. The regulator already has the power, through Section 195 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, to issue codes of practice on matters relating to its consumer and economic standards. These can be used to amplify requirements that registered providers must deliver, and the regulator exercised this power in 2024 in relation to consumer standards.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raises the question of the balance between the development of new supply and the social responsibilities of registered providers. If he has not been notified of this, on 9 June, the regulator published a discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, which explores how the regulatory framework can be adapted to support the delivery of more and better social housing. I hope the noble Lord is reassured that the objectives behind the amendments are already central to requirements placed on registered providers by the regulatory standards and is content to withdraw.
On Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I recognise the importance of governance underpinning effective services for tenants. However, as I said, the regulator already has a proactive role in assessing how far providers perform for their tenants, including through the regulation of consumer standards and routine inspections. The areas identified in the amendment, including tenant voice, accountability, transparency and performance, are already core components of the framework.
I turn to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. While oversight of registered social housing providers is important, it would be disproportionate to require a senior officer of a registered social housing provider to attend a local authorities’ overview and scrutiny committee. However, the Government will keep this under review, as part of the conversations we are having on local scrutiny committees, given their larger geographical footprint. It is important to establish scrutiny at the appropriate level. Imposing a statutory duty at local authority level, when a similar and more flexible function is being introduced at mayoral level, would be duplicative and may be unnecessary.
On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I recognise the importance of landlords being transparent and accountable to their tenants in supporting tenant voice and accountability. To that end, registered providers are already required to publish information through the tenant satisfaction measures. These measures have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have the information they need to hold their landlords to account, and to ensure consistency across the sector while balancing the burden on landlords. In addition, private registered providers already submit data to the regulator through the annual statistical data return, and local authorities provide that information through the local authority housing statistics. We do not consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate the publication of quarterly void property performance metrics. This would introduce additional reporting burdens without any clear benefits to tenants.
Sustainable Drainage Systems
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s point, but the substantial cuts to local government funding imposed by the party opposite mean it has been very difficult for local authorities to fulfil all the functions they need to undertake. Our local authorities understand that it can be devastating for households and communities that are affected by flooding, particularly where we get sudden downpours and there is an influx of water. I know they take this very seriously. We have introduced a new fair funding formula, which has increased the funding substantially to local authorities. I am sure they take their responsibilities extremely seriously.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, our changing weather is bringing more frequent episodes of surface water flooding, and the importance of sustainable drainage systems in the new developments has been increasingly clear. While the revised National Planning Policy Framework strengthens expectations, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that local planning authorities have the expertise and resources to implement these requirements consistently?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I know I did so yesterday, but I welcome the noble Baroness to her place. She has great experience in local government and I look forward to working with her. She is quite right that it is important that local authorities take the maintenance seriously. Planning practice guidance already sets out that local authorities should be satisfied that all SUDS have clear maintenance and adoption arrangements in place for the lifetime of developments. In June we published new national standards on SUDS that introduce the need to consider the multiple benefits of SUDS—reuse, run-off quantity, water quality, amenity and biodiversity—and those standards should be used by developers to provide the best possible SUDS and by local planning authorities to assess the quality of proposals, with the aim that they will be consistently provided and, importantly, consistently maintained.
New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this very helpful debate and to the Built Environment Committee for its extensive work behind this second report on new towns. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his chairmanship of the committee and the insights he has provided, and all the speakers in the debate.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course support the delivery of new homes, especially for young people, and we recognise the Government’s manifesto commitment to build new towns. In 2019, we promised to build 1 million new homes, and we did, on time and as promised by 2024, and there was a little thing called a pandemic in the middle. However, we want to ensure new homes are built in the right places and that housing delivery is, first and foremost, driven by a genuine “brownfield first” approach, as we have emphasised time and time again in your Lordships’ House.
The second and latest report highlights the need for long-term, compelling vision from central government both to inspire the design and place-making of these new towns and to manage their operational delivery, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to when he said that we needed drive, leadership and inspiration. However, “vision” is not a word that is frequently associated with the current, caretaker Prime Minister, let alone “long-term”—I think the noble Baroness should perhaps have a word with him and pass on some of her enthusiasm and energy. Indeed, the Government have already cut five of their 12 proposed new towns, with just seven remaining, and with the withdrawal of proposals for Adlington in Cheshire, all the proposed new towns are really urban extensions rather than stand-alone towns.
We cannot think about new towns in the abstract. Our islands have a long history and every corner has its own local identity, heritage and traditions that should not be steamrollered over by Whitehall. People do not want greenwashed housing estates concreting over their countryside, as my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs articulated clearly earlier.
The second report recommends that these new towns should not repeat past mistakes. We particularly welcome the recommendation for design standards to be supplemented by locally sensitive design standards for each individual new town. We must follow the evidence collected by those such as Create Streets of what ordinary passers-by and residents like to see, and to empower small and medium-sized builders.
As the Government’s former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, said during the last general election:
“We’re always hearing that people want tree-lined streets of townhouses, so that’s what we’ll build”.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, could give some advice there around the trees. What has changed? The previous Government started this work to overcome the design disconnect, yet the Labour Government began by deleting references to aesthetics and beauty in the National Planning Policy Framework, despite the hard work undertaken by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.
We began the work for Greater Cambridge, too, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referenced, as a potential urban extension. I remember some of the early work through Homes England. The current Conservative Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is committed to growth and to tackling long-standing infrastructure challenges, yet Greater Cambridge seems absent from the Government’s latest plans. Local planning authorities and developers benefit from certainty and long-term consistency from central government. Can the Minister update the House on what plans the Government now have for Greater Cambridge specifically?
The committee’s latest report recommends that the Government move beyond short-term metrics to measure the cost-effectiveness of individual new towns, and the second report makes clear the need for government to bring in private investors from the start. Good design with inclusive infrastructure built in from the start saves money in the long term, and this needs to be measured effectively, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson reminded us. What steps are the Government taking to cut the public costs of design and delivery phases?
Making the design and delivery more straightforward for planning authorities and developers requires leadership from the Government, rather than letting public money be used to pay for external consultants with no clear outcome or action in sight, or for endless public consultations, which, in reality, do not take people’s views on design seriously.
As the Social Housing Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House, I would be interested to hear from the Minister how social housing will form part of their seven remaining new towns. How will new social homes be allocated and how will new tenants be prioritised?
We are seeing the consequences of a Government who came to power without a plan and a party which campaigned on the promise of attractive homes only to backtrack a few weeks in, which pledged 1.5 million new homes that may take more than five and a half more years to deliver, and which promised a new generation of new towns only to cut five of the 12 proposed, with Tempsford being the only genuinely new town. The Government did not, and still do not, have a long-term vision, let alone one backed by a thought-through plan for delivery.
I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister and, looking ahead—if indeed housing delivery remains a priority for this Government—when this House can expect the Government’s full response to the committee’s latest report on creating communities.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley ExcerptsMonday 1st June 2026
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, that I was a previous leader and councillor for the London Borough of Bexley and vice-president of London Councils, and that I have had involvement in the Local Government Association.
I must admit that when I heard the title of this Bill, I was really quite intrigued, as in my opinion there are so many avenues it could have gone down. But for a Government who say that they want to solve the housing crisis, I was so disappointed when I read that the main focus seemed to be about the right to buy. To put that into context, I grew up on a council estate in Lewisham, in the very early days of the right-to-buy scheme. I recall the aspirational conversations of my parents and their peers that this was their opportunity to own their own homes. That discussion was not about making profits; they fully intended to remain in those homes in which they were raising their families. None of them was high earning, but they were prepared for mortgages and taking responsibility for their home and improving it.
I am sure that many from that time will recall that the first thing the majority of those people did was to change the front door—and did we not all recognise that when canvassing, years later? But it was not just the front doors, as they also had a sense of pride in their surroundings and put many hours into helping with the maintenance of the area, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referenced earlier. The other thing it did was to give them independence, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referenced, so that as they got older and circumstances changed, there were options and the possibility of moving to more appropriate accommodation to ensure that they could continue to live independent lives. That probably saved a lot in social care support that we will never recognise.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I am a supporter of the right-to-buy policy. For every story you will hear of people making profits and being greedy, we should not forget the reality of the majority of people who remained in the property, and intended to continue to do so. However, given that the Bill is supposed to be about delivering on the Government’s manifesto to prioritise the building of new social rented houses and to better protect existing stock, there seem to be a number of important aspects missing, as my noble friend Lady Scott referenced earlier.
The first one, from my perspective, is about making sure that social housing is being used by those for whom it was intended. I vividly recall a conversation with a local housing association when we were embarking on a large regeneration scheme in Bexley, when I asked how it could be sure that the people living in the properties were who they thought they were. I am afraid that digital communications and electronic banking have ended the days of the rent man calling regularly and seeing the tenants, which has meant that the system is open to abuse; the “key job”, where social housing can be sublet, is a very real risk. The man from the local housing association looked at me as if I had two heads at the time, but once the work started in earnest to establish decant need, he admitted that I was right and he was amazed at what they found.
The second aspect is the council waiting list, which has been referenced here many times this afternoon. It appears that the size of waiting lists is sometimes championed in the same way as “My dad is bigger than your dad”. However, if those lists are not regularly revisited, they will not only continue to grow but become inaccurate and lead people into a false sense of security. A regularly refreshed list means that the right priorities are used when nominations are being considered. More accurate information could also ensure that the right people are getting the nominations. Probably most importantly of all, it would mean that those on the list will have a more accurate view of the possibility of housing becoming available.
The next issue is whether tenancy of social housing should be assumed to be lifelong. The Bill seeks to repeal addressing the lifetime tenancy that was introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Is it right that high-income earners remain in subsidised housing that the less fortunate cannot access due to unavailability? While the Government suggest that addressing high-income tenants could bring about disincentives, do they really believe that? The viability of increasing the supply of new social housing, whether through new build or regeneration, needs a mature conversation, and we should recognise that regeneration means decanting, which actually makes it even more costly.
Yes, right-to-buy receipts as well as Section 106 and CIL moneys can be used, but is it sufficient? If it is not viable, does there need to be a conversation about the cost of building or the cost of not building? That needs to be a grown-up conversation. If social housing is to be created, why not seek to ensure that good tenants can be rewarded and backfill with new nominations, which could often mean downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family homes?
The cost of creating supported accommodation is not viable, either for the elderly or for others who may need support. That is short-sighted and needs addressing, again because that could free up family accommodation but also because it means pushing costs into other areas such as social care.
The proposal in the Bill that concerns me is around domestic violence. Although I agree that there is a need to address tenancy issues, the suggestion is that the perpetrator has to be convicted, which could take some time to come about, so that needs to be considered, as does whether the person who has been abused needs to move from the area. These are two things that I am sure will come out through the Bill’s passage.
Another issue is the disposal of social housing through sale. I very much agree with this proposal, as we found out that one of our local housing associations was selling ex-council properties as a consequence of seeing them pop up on auction sites. Bearing in mind that Bexley’s social housing stock is held by registered providers—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness wind up, please? She is over time.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
That means that that is actually taxpayers’ money. There are many other things that the Bill could go into. It seems a shame that the Bill presents an opportunity to address some of those issues that really impact people, but I am sure that the Minister will be open to conversations throughout its passage.