Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate that so many people have made important points in. I declare my interests as chair of Look Ahead, a social housing provider that works with homeless people and those with mental health problems, and as a previous non-executive director of Aster and Southern housing associations.

The Bill is designed to protect existing social housing stock and to respond to long-standing challenges in the number of homes available by reducing the number of social homes sold through the right-to-buy scheme and removing significant disincentives for councils to build new supply with receipts received from such sales. The Bill is also designed as a route to home ownership for eligible long-standing tenants.

All social housing stock, as other noble Lords have said, should provide safe, secure homes for individuals and families in which to live. As so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, evidence demonstrates that there is a significant relationship between people’s physical and mental health and the security of a well-maintained flat or house in which to live.

The new consumer standard for social housing is resulting in greater investment in many of our current homes, but that actually means that many housing associations are building fewer newer homes because of the investment in current stock.

As many other noble Lords have said, there have been opportunities for people to buy their social homes at a substantial discount. Though in principle an extremely good concept, we know that it has been open to abuse through individuals exercising the right to buy, then subletting and ultimately using the increase in property value to benefit other family members; or through some tenants even borrowing money from unscrupulous lenders to purchase their homes, then being held to ransom, in effect, and forced to sell their homes at less than market value to repay the debt to those lenders. This effectively makes the so-called purchasers homeless, or results in them having to move to a less suitable property, with any remaining funds they have available after such a transaction.

The new Bill will increase the minimum qualifying period for exercising the right to buy for secure tenants from the current three-year period to a 10-year tenancy. That may result in individuals who can do so saving a deposit and choosing to leave their social homes and buying independently or through a shared ownership arrangement, thus releasing social housing provision for those on the waiting list.

However, the proposed Act makes little mention of tenants dwelling under a shared ownership arrangement, except regarding disposals notification requirements. Can the Minister indicate whether His Majesty’s Government could consider an amendment to the Bill for people who have bought a percentage of their property through shared ownership and paid rent on the other element of their home for 10 years also to be granted a discount reduction of 5% on the remaining property value after the 10-year qualifying period?

Many shared ownership tenants, particularly single people, have gone down this route due to their inability to access rented social housing. A change to enable shared owners to be part of a discount scheme would include many essential workers, such as paramedics or teachers, who could then take advantage of the proposed scheme. Indeed, the optimist in me thinks that it may encourage young people in essential occupations to stay in expensive areas that are hard to recruit to, when they have purchased a shared ownership property, as they feel they could get a discount at a later date. Depending on the Minister’s response to this issue, I hope to work with others in this House on an amendment to reflect parity of discounts for shared ownership residents. I welcome the content of the Bill and passionately believe that it will result in fewer families in more expensive private rental accommodation or, in worst case scenarios, living in bed and breakfasts due to a lack of availability of social housing stock in the area in which they live.

Finally, can the Bill make provision for councils to consider purchasing additional social housing stock that is currently vacant? The latest data, to which I was so kindly referred by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—I received her note only this afternoon—states:

“The overall number of unsold units increased”,


by December of last year, “by 11%” from the previous quarter,

“to 7,313, with the number of units unsold for over six months … increasing … to 3,016 units, the highest number since December 2023”,

indicating the points that other noble Lords have made about the difficulty of selling stock at the moment. Is it not time that we bought this stock and put it into social ownership for rent? Further investigations could be done across England to understand the detail more fully. How can we allow such properties to remain vacant for prolonged periods after completion while families with children live in temporary accommodation? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester identified this challenge.

The Bill is welcomed, but let us swiftly try to improve its intentions, so that we genuinely increase the social housing stock at pace and make life happier and healthier for many of our population.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

For that reason, I truly hope that the Minister can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others that she and the Government are “on it”, and that there will be very real actions to come to the aid of those hundreds of thousands of households living in this nightmare scenario.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made such comprehensive cases for Amendments 23 and 25. I have added my name to Amendment 25.

I declare my interests as a former non-executive on both Southern and Aster housing association boards and as the current chair of Look Ahead, which does not own any shared ownership homes but, I am pleased to tell your Lordships, works with rough sleepers—so I welcome the new Prime Minister’s remarks today.

Shared Ownership Resources is a charity that has sent information to me and other noble Lords regarding the urgent need to undertake a programme of improvements, exit mechanisms and buyback options to improve the situation of some shared owners, who appear to be trapped with spiralling service charges and the need for essential maintenance and upgrades to the buildings in which they live. These problems are in part a result of recommendations for fire cladding standards associated with the Grenfell fire.

I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in trying to improve the lot of shared owners, which will make the situation much better for many in the future. Problems, however, are of long standing, particularly for shared owners of flats in modern blocks who purchased prior to the Grenfell tragedy. I stand here as the mother of a teacher who was in a shared ownership property in Brixon—a converted Victorian flat—that was highly successful for her. She managed to sell it and now lives in a home in Bristol, so I am not anti-shared ownership.

There is clearly a need to review the situation for those who purchased a share in a property, one of these modern flats, early in the scheme. Some owners are trapped in circumstances that arise from the inherent characteristics of model shared ownership leases and other aspects of the scheme from the early 2000s. Many would like a system of buyback to be funded through a government grant mechanism; such homes would then become social rented units, reducing temporary housing options for many currently in bed and breakfast.

The problems have been described by many shared owners, who have written to me and other noble Lords. Aleksandra, who lives in a Peabody home in Croydon, says, “I have no control over my life anymore, trying to survive the ever-increasing costs of the scheme. I am unable to sell due to the building safety crisis and my housing association does not offer a buyback option”. Secondly, Quay, who lives in an L&Q unit in Tower Hamlets, has been granted permission to sublet but is unable to sell and is making a loss through subletting. However, he has been able to move.

The problems are not just London based. Eddie is in Southend-on-Sea and he says that, because of building safety issues, his home is, in effect, impossible to sell. There is no confirmed timetable for the remedial work necessary. He states that Moat housing association could convert properties into much-needed socially rented homes, but there is no realistic buyback option.

Rebecca bought her property in 2005 and has asked Hyde housing association if it will take back the 35% of the property that she owns. She reports that she would hand it over at no cost, as she has since met a partner and does not need the flat any more. She is currently subletting with the housing association’s agreement but is making a significant loss on rental income due to what she describes as “extortionate” service charges.

The final example is from the north of England. Holly purchased a shared ownership flat in Leeds in 2007. It was advertised as an affordable option for people on lower incomes. Nineteen years later, her home is, in effect, unsellable due to unresolved cladding and building issues. She has asked Together Housing to buy back her share, but it has refused because it has no funding available to do so. However, she reports that the association has acknowledged that the service charges have become unaffordable. She considers herself trapped with no viable exit route.

All these correspondents report the negative effects that such housing problems are putting on their health and well-being. As a mental health nurse, I firmly believe that to be true. For these residents and others in similar situations, these amendments are necessary so that the problems can be properly assessed and potential solutions identified in this Parliament. Other solutions may be identified, but central funding for buyback options should be seriously considered, particularly as such an approach would increase the number of social housing homes for rent. I hope that the Minister is in a position to report that the Government will accept at least one of these amendments, so that historical government-backed schemes can be reconsidered in the light of the powerful information provided by the charities and individuals that have outlined their issues to many in this House.

[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.