Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)
Gareth Bacon ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. No food or drink is permitted during the sittings, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
New Clause 36
Fiscal impact assessment
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the fiscal impact of this Act.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) any impact on local authority finances;
(b) an analysis of the extent to which social housing represents value for money for Government expenditure; and
(c) any changes to the financial ability of social housing tenants to access Right to Buy.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a fiscal impact assessment of the Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 54—Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership—
“(1) Within two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on the number of social housing tenants becoming homeowners in the previous year, relative to each of the preceding ten years.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,
(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and
(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,
in the calendar year prior to the review.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among social housing tenants.
New clause 59—Review of the impact of the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the impact on the Act on—
(a) the supply and retention of social housing;
(b) the extent to which social housing tenants’ rights are protected by the provisions of the Act;
(c) the exercise of the right to buy; and,
(d) the exercise of the right to acquire.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of the Act on the supply and retention of social housing, tenants' rights, and Right to Buy and Right to Acquire.
Gareth Bacon
Good morning, Mr Vickers. It is nice to resume our proceedings under your chairmanship.
The Bill will change how social housing is funded, how receipts are used and who can afford to buy their home. Understandably, that will create unhelpful uncertainty for local authorities and social housing providers and, by extension, for tenants. Local authorities are right to be anxious, because clause 10 hands the Secretary of State sweeping powers over capital receipts, and councils cannot plan if they do not know what they will lose or gain.
New clause 36 would simply require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a fiscal impact assessment. It must examine the effect on local authority finances, whether social housing offers value for money for the taxpayer and how the Bill changes tenants’ financial ability to use right to buy. If the Government are confident in their figures, they have nothing to fear from publishing them.
The Bill represents an assault on the aspiration of social housing tenants to own their own homes. It is an ideological attack on a policy that, for over 40 years, has given millions of people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder who might otherwise never have been able to do so. By extending the qualifying period and slashing discounts, the Government are effectively seeking to abolish people’s right to buy their own home, and to force residents into renting for longer and longer.
My new clause 54 would therefore require a review of the impact of the Bill on the rates of home ownership among social housing tenants. The impact assessment shows a dramatic projected decline in right-to-buy sales within the first two years of the Bill coming into force, with sales nearly halving. With little effort to support people on to the housing ladder, and with cuts to measures such as first-time buyer stamp duty relief, the Government are tearing up not only one of the most effective routes to home ownership for social housing tenants, but one of the only routes, full stop. That is why it is critical that we understand the Bill’s full impact and demonstrate the disaster that awaits social housing tenants who aspire not just to live in their own home, but to own it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to new clause 59, which, in a similar spirit to the official Opposition’s new clauses 36 and 54, asks that the Secretary of State carry out a review. My new clause asks that the review takes place 12 months after Royal Assent.
We come at this with a different aspiration: I feel the Opposition amendments have been tabled to catch the Government out, whereas we support the objectives of the Bill. However, although we support the changes to right to buy and the tightening of stock disposal, it is only right that the House be able to see, via a review by the Secretary of State within 12 months, whether those objectives have indeed been met or whether we need to legislate further to continue to protect social housing stock, on which we are in full agreement with the Government.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I will speak to new clauses 36, 54 and 59. Members of the Committee will have heard my opinion of the merits of Opposition amendments that seek further statutory reviews in general, so they can guess where I am heading with some of these.
Although we share the aim of ensuring that the impact of our reforms is properly understood, the Government do not believe that further statutory review requirements are necessary or proportionate. We have already published an economic impact assessment. We have arrangements in place to monitor the effects of the Act. The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million.
New clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants’ rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the Bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. More broadly, the Government already publish comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right-to-buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority-level data. We will continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing datasets and established statistical releases. We therefore do not think that new clause 59 is warranted.
On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with hon. Members about the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act’s effects. The Government’s priority is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. For those reasons, I am afraid we cannot accept new clauses 36, 54 and 59.
Gareth Bacon
I have listened carefully to the Minister. In the light of what he says, we will withdraw new clause 36. However, when the time comes, we will press new clause 54 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Provision of social housing: foreign public office holders and associated persons
“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance concerning the provision of social housing by foreign public office holders.
(2) A local housing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning applications for social housing made by foreign public office holders and associated persons including—
(a) persons holding senior public office in a foreign state; and
(b) spouses or civil partners of such persons;
(3) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision relating to—
(a) public office holders subject to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom;
(b) disclosure requirements; and
(c) verification of overseas assets.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any guidance issued under this section before Parliament.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require guidance relating to social housing eligibility for certain foreign public office holders and associated persons.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Every home that is illegally sublet is a home taken from a family who need it. With waiting lists as long as they are, that is nothing short of theft from the public. It is also unfair to the many tenants who play by the rules. We know that the problem exists, yet we have little idea of how well it is being tackled. How many prosecutions are brought? How many properties are actually recovered? What stops landlords and councils acting?
The new clause answers those questions. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. The Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to the new clause. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Tackling illegal subletting is an important element of that. We are clear that landlords should be taking action to clamp down on such unacceptable practices. I very much agree with the shadow Minister’s comments about how unacceptable they are; they are a misuse of social housing.
New clause 38 would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of enforcement activity relating to the illegal subletting of social housing. The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement.
As I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management that specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the stock management review will inform any future action; I can give the shadow Minister that assurance.
In addition, much of the information that the new clause seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value, while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers. The shadow Minister is a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, so I am again surprised that he is urging the Government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. In our view, they are not warranted; we think they would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery.
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, which may include taking legal action. The Government are already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes. Through the Cabinet Office’s national fraud initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered.
On 8 July, the Government also announced a new innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the PSFA within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for families who need them, not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the Government taking action on fraud. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Gareth Bacon
On balance, I will accede to the Minister’s request. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Standards relating to maintenance of social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance relating to standards for the maintenance of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).
(3) Guidance under this section must also include provision relating to—
(a) damp and mould,
(b) electrical safety,
(c) response times for repairs, and
(d) tenant complaints procedures.
(4) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Government to issue guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 47—Social responsibilities of registered providers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance concerning the social responsibilities of registered providers of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include consideration of—
(a) tenant wellbeing,
(b) estate management,
(c) anti-social behaviour,
(d) community engagement,
(e) neighbourhood quality, and
(f) support for vulnerable tenants.”
This new clause would require the Government to provide guidance on the wider social responsibilities of registered providers.
New clause 48—Review of registered providers of social housing: governance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the governance arrangements of registered providers of social housing.
(2) The review under this section must consider—
(a) board composition;
(b) accountability to local communities;
(c) the role of elected representatives;
(d) tenant representation;
(e) transparency and scrutiny arrangements; and
(f) the publication of performance information.
(3) A report of the review must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
This probing new clause would require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing.
New clause 49—Social housing governance standards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance on minimum governance standards for registered providers of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include provision on
(a) financial transparency,
(b) tenant representation, and
(c) publication of performance criteria.”
This new clause seeks to strengthen governance and transparency among registered providers.
New clause 50—Attendance before local authority scrutiny committees—
“(1) A senior officer of a registered provider of social housing must attend a meeting of a local authority overview and scrutiny committee if—
(a) complaints have been made about the performance of the registered provider in relation to the quality or provision of social housing, and
(b) the registered provider is requested to attend the meeting by that authority.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only where the registered provider owns or manages more than 10% of the social housing stock within the authority’s area.”
This new clause would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings.
New clause 51—Quarterly performance information—
“(1) Registered providers of social housing must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, publish quarterly performance information.
(2) The information published must include—
(a) repairs which are not completed within 6 months,
(b) complaints received and upheld,
(c) instances of antisocial behaviour,
(d) percentage of tenants satisfied with their housing service, and
(e) number of properties void for longer than three months.”
This new clause would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information.
New clause 61—Social housing quality standards—
“After section 92K (fundamental objectives), of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, insert—
‘923KA Quality standards
(1) In discharging the regulator’s objectives under subsection (3) of section 92K (fundamental objectives), the regulator must, within twelve months of the passing of the Social Housing Act 2027, publish—
(a) specific quality standards (the “Home and Place Standard”) for social housing; and
(b) a methodology for assessing providers against those standards.
(2) The Home and Place Standard published under this section must include provision on—
(a) the quality of—
(i) homes,
(ii) service to tenants, and
(iii) surrounding environment, including green space and access to transport links; and
(b) the long-term environmental sustainability of social housing developments.’”
This new clause would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish a new Home and Place Standard, along with plans to assess social housing providers against those standards.
Gareth Bacon
Every hon. Member will have heard from constituents living with damp, mould, faulty wiring or repairs that never arrive. The death of Awaab Ishak shamed this country, and we all promised that it would never happen again. Since then, the Government have introduced new housing regulations, but regulations alone do not help a landlord who is unsure what compliance looks like, or a tenant who does not know what to expect.
New clause 39 attempts to fill that gap. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State would be required to publish guidance including detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It would also cover damp, mould, electrical safety, response time for repairs and complaints procedures. Registered providers would have to have regard to it. Clear standards protect tenants and give good landlords certainty.
On new clause 47, social homes are safe havens for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Whether they face destitution, abuse or persecution, some of those with the greatest need in our society find their safety and peace in social housing, yet for too many residents, estates are poorly managed, antisocial behaviour is rife and tenants are unsupported. Residents must not bear the burden of poor management practices. My new clause 47 would therefore require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish guidance on the social responsibilities of providers.
Up and down the country, many providers already exercise good practice and due diligence and uphold their social responsibilities. However, there exists a small fraction within the system who do not fulfil their responsibilities as required. New clause 47 would strengthen the Government’s hand in ensuring and enforcing good practices and would give tenants greater protections against unscrupulous behaviours.
On new clause 48, social housing is not an issue that ends with the housing of vulnerable people; it begins with it. Once homes are found for those in need, it is vital that registered providers be properly managed, run and governed. At present, I believe that not enough is done to ensure that. My new clause 48, a probing clause, would therefore require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing. It should not be the case that, just because someone is vulnerable, they have little say in how their estate is run, who runs it or what agreements are being made. That is why new clause 48 has a specific focus on key points such as accountability to local communities. We want to see a fair and accountable social housing sector, and I call on the Minister to assure the Committee of that future here today.
On new clause 49, registered providers are responsible for nearly 3 million homes—about 63% of all the homes that make up the national social housing stock. In some parts of the country, housing association stock outweighs that of local authorities by huge margins. In the north-west, 86% of stock is owned by private registered providers. Tenants in such housing deserve nothing less than openness and clarity about how their estates are run. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, guidance on minimum governance standards, covering financial transparency, tenant representation and publication of performance criteria. New clause 49 is a probing amendment. It aims for clearer standards, not red tape. It makes a simple and straightforward ask, and I hope the Minister will give assurances on that point.
On new clause 50, social housing residents deserve accountability. Where life has dealt a weak hand, where the unexpected has created hardship or where vulnerabilities have led to inhibitions, social housing should be a fair, open and accountable backstop. That is why new clause 50 seeks to enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. For the most vulnerable in society, protections are essential, so it is necessary to scrutinise the performance of registered providers. As I say, the vast majority of providers are fair, efficient and honest, but it is unfair on tenants to assume that without checking. That is why I tabled new clause 50.
Finally, on new clause 51, across the public and private sectors it is good practice to evaluate and publicise the performance of any department, business or team. The same practice should apply to registered housing providers. That is why I tabled new clause 51, which would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including on vital indicators such as repairs left incomplete after six months, complaints, antisocial behaviour, levels of tenant satisfaction and void properties. Those are critical issues that cannot be left unsolved in an efficient and trustworthy social housing system.
Mr Dillon
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 61, which is a probing amendment. As the new clause outlines, a home and place standard would be a design and place-making framework for an organisation to enable the measurement of housing quality, to guide strategic investment and to shape resident wellbeing. The core pillars of such a standard should focus on customers, on homes and on the place. It should also make sure that social housing providers are part of a sustainable future.
Although it may not be appropriate to mandate in the Bill a standard on to private registered providers, I would be keen to hear from the Minister how his Department is shaping the future standards for the sector and encouraging those PRPs to go further: to think beyond just their bricks and mortar, and about where their homes are situated, about the role they play on an estate, about the role that they can play in a town, about encouraging sustainable transport into new developments and about having a holistic approach to what makes social housing so important and making it even more successful.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.
New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.
All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.
I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Minister for his lengthy answer. I will accede to his wishes and will not press my new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 40
Fixed-term tenancies for social housing
“Nothing in this Act prevents a local housing authority or registered provider from granting a fixed-term tenancy for social housing in accordance with existing enactments.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The most recent data available to us shows that the waiting list for social housing stands at a shocking and shameful 1.34 million people. However, that data, which comes from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publication from March 2025, is now well out of date. To understand one of the fundamental problems that we are here to rectify, which is how to get people off the streets, out of temporary accommodation and into social housing, we must understand the full scale of the issue before us.
My new clause 52 would therefore require housing register applications to be reviewed at least every three years to ensure that the waiting list remains accurate and up to date. Without that, it is impossible for resources to be properly distributed, stock to be efficiently allocated and decisions to be made promptly. Efficiency means more than people getting a roof over their head and a place to call home. That is why I believe the proposals in my new clause would make essential and much-needed changes to the system.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to this new clause. I am enjoying the irony of a shadow Minister who bemoans this Government’s, in his words, zealous overcentralisation and penchant for regulation, but who proposes a new clause that would impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to review their housing register at least once every three years—a new duty that would create additional administrative burdens—without any evidence that it would improve allocation decisions.
Local authorities take different approaches to managing their housing register. It is right that they have the flexibility to do what works best for their own local area. In addition, councils already reassess housing need both before a household joins a waiting list and again before allocating a social home, and thereby ensure that social homes go to those most in need.
Gareth Bacon
On this occasion, I will respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation. I stand by my remarks. If we do not understand the scale of the problem, we cannot possibly tailor our solutions correctly. We seek to divide the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 20, page 16, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the power to amend or repeal, by regulations, provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before or in the same session as this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 20, page 16, line 15, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under Clause 20.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 78.
Clauses 21 to 23 stand part.
Gareth Bacon
Amendments 80 and 81 are about transparency and accountability. We believe that the Bill is unsuitable for its own stated purpose of making provision for social housing. Already on Second Reading, and here in Committee, we have seen an unwillingness from the Government to reshape the Bill into something that not only is fit for purpose but actually delivers provisions to benefit social housing tenants. If they cannot be trusted to deliver for tenants over the full process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would be unwise to let the Secretary of State alone make further changes to the system without the same level of oversight.
Let us be clear: clause 20, page 16, line 10 —subsection (2)—is a Henry VIII clause. It allows the Bill, after all the debate, analysis and scrutiny here and in the other place, to be selectively amended at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. It has been clear to date that the Government are misguided in their approach to reforming the social housing sector, so it would be unwise to let further reforms go unchecked in the future. That is why I have tabled amendment 80, which would ensure that Ministers cannot just use regulations to amend or repeal existing Acts.
On amendment 81, the Government have done their best to centralise power and avoid scrutiny throughout the last two years. The demolition of local democracy by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the cancellation of elections and now the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are just a few examples from this Department alone. It is critical that such power grabs do not go unchecked, and that is why I have tabled amendment 81, which would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 20.
I recognise that it is sometimes necessary to tackle less consequential points or issues in need of immediate response through secondary legislation, but that does not mean that Ministers have an excuse to avoid the watchful eye of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that all hon. Members will support amendments 80 and 81.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister made clear, amendments 80 and 81 concern the power in clause 20 to make consequential provision and the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should apply. I recognise that they seek to ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny, but as we have already discussed during our proceedings, the Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
Amendment 80 would prevent consequential regulations from amending or repealing primary legislation. That could mean that any consequential changes identified following Royal Assent would require additional primary legislation. That would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time and could delay implementation. The power is expressly limited to provisions that are consequential to the Act. It cannot be used to pursue new policy objectives, whether related or not, to the legislation approved by Parliament in the Bill. Any regulations made beyond what is consequential on the Bill’s provisions would be open to legal challenges, as well as parliamentary scrutiny. Importantly, clause 20 already provides additional scrutiny where this power is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, with such regulations requiring the approval of both Houses.
Amendment 81 would go further by requiring all consequential regulations to be approved by both Houses. We do not consider that to be proportionate. Where regulations do not amend or repeal primary legislation, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny for more technical, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. The power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act and is intended to ensure its effective implementation and the maintenance of a coherent legislative framework. I therefore consider that clause 20 provides the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while avoiding unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. On that basic, I hope I have sufficiently reassured the shadow Minister, and I ask that he does not press amendments 80 and 81.
Gareth Bacon
I wish to press Opposition amendments 80 and 81 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
May I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Vickers, and the other Chairs of the Committee? I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings, and my officials and private office for all their support in bringing forward this piece of legislation. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for their valuable insights.
I have had a spirited and constructive dialogue with the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I accept fully that there are principled points of disagreement, but I have valued their challenges and contributions. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.
Gareth Bacon
I echo the Minister’s sentiments. Obviously, on a subject like this, there will be disagreements across the House, but they have been largely respectful and, at times, quite good-humoured. I thank the Minister, his officials, my hon. Friends from the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and all hon. Members on the Committee. I look forward to seeing you all on Report.
Gideon Amos
I repeat the thanks from the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to officials. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me, and the Minister for taking on board so many amendments—at least in spirit, if not in reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(3 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, whom I have seen more often in the past few days than my own wife. I appreciate the remarks that he has made, and I welcome the opportunity on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to address this measure, but I must be frank: we do not like the draft order very much, because it appears to be little more than an act of state-sponsored thievery. In this Halloween season, lurking in the shadows is not a vampire or a monster, but the larcenous light fingers of Marsham Street.
The draft order seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to hive off a portion of the interest accrued on someone else’s money and pocket it on behalf of the Government. As a Conservative—as a believer in private property—I am astounded to find the Government pushing through yet another stealth tax just days after the Budget. I know I should not be—after all, it is not the first, and I doubt it will be the last stealth tax we see in this Parliament—but the brazen lack of respect for other people’s money beggars belief. That is why the Opposition will seek to divide the Committee and will vote against the draft order today.
As the Deposit Protection Service has stated, at present interest goes towards the effective running of the scheme, back to tenants or landlords, or in some cases to charity. In siphoning off funds to pay for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s litany of costly policies, the Government’s action raises a number of questions—some of which, to be fair, the Minister may have just answered. For example, will the draft order leave the deposit protection schemes financially exposed? What assessment has been made of the funding needed to keep these schemes running so that tenants and landlords are protected with certainty, along with the jobs that these companies provide?
The draft instrument has no clear purpose, outlines no formula and sets no clear cap. We are being asked to approve a power without knowing how much money the Government are seeking to take, nor what limit the Secretary of State will impose on herself in a scheme that lets the Government profit from other people’s money.
I also want to raise concerns about the relationship between this policy and the planned abolition of insured tenancy deposit schemes. Taken together, hiving off the interest on deposits for the Government’s benefit and moving all deposits into the custodial schemes will create a perverse incentive. If the Government take income from the same custodial deposits that they are forcing the whole market towards, how can they demonstrate that profiting from interest on other people’s money has played no part in their decision-making process?
That is a very serious concern and it deserves far greater parliamentary scrutiny than hon. Members have been afforded today. We believe that there is a convincing argument that these changes should be made not through a statutory instrument, but in primary legislation. We can make no amendments today, we have little time to probe the details and we are being asked to approve a new tax outside the place best suited constitutionally to scrutinise financial legislation. The draft order lets the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, take a share of the interest earned on tenants’ deposits. It does not say how much, it does not say what the money is for, and it sets no cap and no formula. The Government are asking the House for a blank cheque to draw down on other people’s money. That money does not belong to the Government.
By changing the system a week after a tax hike on landlords, the Government are creating another stealth tax. That comes on top of a new database fee and a rewritten tenancy system, in a sector in which landlords are already considering the viability of their portfolios. Every cost eventually lands on renters. The Opposition’s tests are simple. Is this a stealth tax? Yes, it is. Is it the Government’s money? No, it is not. Does it deliver for renters? Clearly not. For all those reasons, we will divide the Committee and vote against this instrument.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth for their contributions. I will clear up a few misconceptions on a couple of points, and then I will respond to the other discrete points that have been put to me.
First, it is worth pointing out that the Government have already improved the value that tenancy deposit schemes deliver for tenants and landlords. The current administrators of custodial schemes are already expected to pay part of the interests accrued, in addition to the original value of the deposits, to tenants. The allocation mechanism is different for each of the three current schemes, but requiring administrators to pay interest to tenants and landlords will continue to be an option for future arrangements.
As I tried to make clear in my opening speech, the order is not intended to enable Government to profit from tenants’ deposits. It enables future scheme arrangements to provide for part of the interests accrued on protected deposits to be paid to the Secretary of State. That additional flexibility, as I said, will be particularly relevant where high interest rates mean that scheme returns on the deposits held considerably exceed the administrators’ costs of providing the scheme and wider ancillary services. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, is perfectly at liberty to take issue with the principle of that and to take the view that administrators should benefit from the entirety of the interest accrued on the deposits. We take a different view. We think we should have the flexibility to provide for other uses.
I hope I can provide the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, with some assurances on that point. Our intention is that the funds received would be used towards programmes or activities that benefit tenants in the private rented sector. They would not be, as he asserted, siphoned off into some Treasury fund that does not deliver on that purpose.
Gareth Bacon
If that is so, why not simply put that into this statutory instrument? I share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—he and I seem to be agreeing a lot these days, which I am sure makes us both feel uncomfortable. The Minister has used this phrase again, “the Government expect”, which we have heard so many times over the years. An expectation is not the same thing as something actually happening. It needs to be put into the law. Why not simply put it into the SI?
Matthew Pennycook
Simply because—I was coming on to make this point—this order is enabling in nature. It does not require any payment to be made to the Secretary of State, nor does it prescribe how any payment amounts would be determined. Those matters would be determined through future scheme arrangements established via procurement and contractual processes. I have said it before, and I will say it again for reassurance: the Department will publish information about any amounts received, the programmes funded and any metrics demonstrating the value delivered, so there will be full transparency on the use of funds.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(3 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister said that there were “encouraging signs of progress”, but the truth is that the housing industry faces a bleaker and bleaker future under this Government: housing completions are at their lowest for more than a decade; planning permissions are down 31%; output is down 6%; London is at a standstill; and the Government are just 29% of the way through their target in nearly half the time allotted for it. Does the Minister agree that this broken record of failure needs urgent repair?
Matthew Pennycook
There is no record of failure: there has been a 15% increase in housing starts over the 12 months up to June. We will remain committed to that target. What is the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues’ answer to this problem? It is worth noting that in its recent assessment, the Office for Budget Responsibility made it clear that the changes we have made to the national planning policy framework will, on their own, “boost housebuilding significantly”, yet the Conservatives opposed them. Are they going to change their position in light of the macroeconomic challenges facing house builders across the country?
Gareth Bacon
The Minister wants to talk about the OBR, so let us do that. Last week, the OBR was damning in its assessment of the viability of house building in England. It highlighted how regulatory and fiscal burdens are crushing viability. The Chancellor promised no new building regulations, but that is not enough. The Minister knows that viability—or, rather, the lack of it—is killing the house building sector. The existing environmental and net zero regulations and taxes are causing the viability crisis, so will the Minister join me in supporting the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), with her plan to cut £50,000 of regulation and taxes from the cost of building new homes to make sites viable again?
Matthew Pennycook
There is no doubt that viability pressures are acute across the country, but I draw the shadow Minister’s attention—I know he agrees with me on this—to the fact that many of the regulations highlighted by the OBR in its recent assessment were introduced by the Conservatives during the last Parliament, and they included measures on building safety and biodiversity net gain. We know that the Conservatives would now scrap the future homes standard, ensuring that customers pay higher bills and that we have to retrofit even more homes in the future. Perhaps the shadow Minister could tell us what other safety, decency or environmental requirements the they now plan to slash.
Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)
Gareth Bacon ExcerptsThursday 29th October 2026
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
Gideon Amos
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, which anticipates the Liberal Democrats being in government and in a position to ensure delivery of housing. I point him to Eastleigh council, which has taken over a development of 2,000 homes not being delivered by its developer. It has made it a local authority development and is now driving it through. I recently went down to visit Liberal Democrat-run Cornwall council. The previous Liberal Democrat administration set up a housing company that is building 180,000 homes a year—sorry, I mean 180; I wish it were 180,000—and is using the profits from that to build social rent homes.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in my constituency, where we are building 400 council homes on the North Taunton estate and have retained our council housing stock. Sadly, because of right to buy, it is not the 30,000 units it used to be—it is now only 6,000 homes—but we are doing what we can. My colleagues in Somerset council are bringing new council houses to parts of Somerset for the first time in a generation. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the activity of Liberal Democrat authorities on the ground.
New clause 1 would set a target of 150,000 social homes a year, which would something for the Government to aspire to. If not that target, what target will the Government set and when? The new clause does not require that many to be built; it is not a money resolution. It would simply require the Government to publish a strategy for what would be required to reach the target. If the Government are serious about the housing crisis, they should have no objection to setting a target of this kind. In our manifesto, we set an allocation of £6 billion a year towards that achievement. I appreciate that it would take a number of years to reach 150,000.
In the interests of time, I will move on to new clause 4, concerning borrowing restrictions on local authorities. I will give some “Hear, hears” to the Government for the Prime Minister’s words about reviving council housing and delivering a lot more of it, though I fear there are more words than pounds in his pronouncement. Shelter has commissioned research from Savills examining the impact of the housing revenue account debt on councils’ ability to build new social homes. The research found that writing off HRA debt could unlock between 190,000 and 284,000 dwellings.
Shelter also recently published research with Pragmatix Advisory that assesses the economic and financial case for cancelling HRA debt and investing in social housing. The central conclusion is that the policy would be compliant with the Government’s fiscal rules, while generating a substantial long-term economic benefit of £140 billion over a 60-year timeframe. My colleagues in Somerset council told me that if were not for the Government’s self-financing debt rules, they could build out another 630 council houses on top of the ones that I outlined to the hon. Member for Rugby.
I appreciate that the costs of writing off that debt would be significant—I am sure that the Minister has made that point—but if the Government will not write off all that debt, will they write off some of it? In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats put an extra £2 billion a year into this area. Will the Government put in £2 million to write off some HRA debt? It is important to get councils building again. Those that have their housing revenue account maxed out have the political will, and in many cases the experience, to do so, but they lack the necessary financial headroom. If we want to get councils building, we need to look seriously at the HRA debt.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my new clause 34. I regret that my pointing out that the Bill will not create a single new social home appeared to get under the Minister’s skin on Tuesday, but the fact is that the Bill does not create any extra housing. That is not a surprise, as it comes from a Government who have built just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of their time in office. None the less, it is simply not good enough.
Moreover, in the places—few and far between—where the Government have tried to get Britain building, that has nearly always come at the cost of green belt protections, despite the fact that research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could swiftly be met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024.
Deirdre Costigan
The hon. Member talks about the importance of building on brownfield land first. That is certainly the policy of this Government. Would the hon. Member agree that although the previous Government professed to want to focus on developing brownfield land, they did absolutely nothing to make that viable, whereas this Government are putting money into the brownfield land release fund, which will help to clean up that land? Those are steps that the previous Conservative Government absolutely failed to take.
Gareth Bacon
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but we are looking forwards, not backwards.
Gareth Bacon
The hon. Lady says that the Government are making brownfield land development more viable. Where are the signs of that? There is no development happening. Development in this country has ground to a standstill under this Government. That malaise did not start under this Government—I will accept that criticism—but it is most certainly being exacerbated by this Government. They are doing nothing to turn back the tide. In fact, they are pushing it further.
Those 1.41 million starts would amount to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which seeks to require the Government to publish a strategy for prioritising brownfield land for social housing development.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak in support of new clause 34, which is about prioritising brownfield for development. We always hear from the Government that they want to protect the green belt. I often laugh when they say that, because there is nothing in legislation: they never want to put anything on the face of the Bill or issue anything to protect the green belt.
Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has found that 1.4 million brownfield sites have been left unbuilt since 2007. As I said on Second Reading, that number is rather close to the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, which they have all but admitted they will not meet.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence.
In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove.
I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward.
On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so.
Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy.
On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers.
The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary. It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.
In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight.
In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.
Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart—in this case, I think it is my first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this debate. I also welcome this opportunity to address the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
A fair, honest and accountable private rented sector is important for landlords, agents and tenants alike—I think there is no dispute on that. Indeed, any system concerning people’s homes and property must be transparent. From what I have heard, providers in the private rented sector are broadly united in agreement on that point. The National Residential Landlords Association said,
“If designed well, the Database should make it easy for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their obligations…whilst empowering tenants to distinguish between the responsible majority and the rogue and criminal minority of landlords.”
The Large Agents Representation Group said:
“With the correct design, it would make compliance easier to demonstrate for landlords and their agents…give tenants greater confidence about the homes they rent and provide local authorities with better information to target enforcement against those who fail to meet the required standards.”
However, the NRLA has described these regulations as “a costly mess”. The idea of a national register is not in itself disagreeable, but the proposed implementation and structure of this database is alien to any common-sense approach. First, and most strikingly, the Government have designed the database with barely a fifth of the providers in mind. Landlords with a single property are responsible for just 21% of tenancies in England, according to the 2024 English private landlord survey. The other roughly four fifths of tenancies are managed by landlords with more than one property, including some with thousands. Indeed, around one in five landlords hold nearly half of all tenancies.
It is 2026. Advanced technology is available, yet the Government’s proposals envisage the manual uploading of each individual property. The regulations as they stand make no provision for bulk uploads, forcing landlords to upload properties one by one—Noah processed more animals on to the ark at a time than that. Each property requires around 70 data points, so that is an awful lot of admin with huge time implications, and much of the information required is already submitted to councils through existing licensing schemes.
The Large Agents Representation Group, which represents some of the largest portfolios in the country through clients such as Chestertons, Hamptons, Knight Frank, Savills and Foxtons, calculates that if it takes 10 minutes to register an individual property, as the Government’s estimate apparently shows, that means over 1,600 staff hours for a 10,000 property portfolio—or about 3,300 hours for the 20 minutes it actually expects it to take.
On that point, larger providers disagree with the Government’s estimate of the time it will take to upload data, so the associated costs of uploading per property could be even higher. Assuming that it takes 30 minutes per property and there are seven productive working hours in a day, that amounts to 214 working days for a 3,000 property portfolio and 714 days for a 10,000 property portfolio.
That is a long way from being the only problem with the proposed database. The regulations stipulate that landlords must start and end the registration themselves, and agents can supply only certain information. That directly contradicts the Government’s impact assessment, which assumed that agents would register on the landlord’s behalf.
Then there is the lack of an audit trail. Because of the system favoured by the Government, landlords have no ability to verify and validate data on a portfolio basis. They have no access controls nor an audit trail for data uploads, changes or deletions. The consequence of that is obvious: a heightened risk of exposure to administrative errors, consequent fines, which can range from £7,000 to £40,000, and a host of compliance and audit risks.
Then we come to the subject of cost. The Renters’ Rights Act included in its impact assessment an estimated data registration fee of £28.85 per property every three years. Now the Government have confirmed a fee of £65 per property every single year, as the regulations require entries to be renewed every 12 months. For the 80% of landlords in the market who care for more than one property, that represents a significant and unplanned recurring cost, and no one in the sector knows where the £65 figure came from nor how it can be justified. Perhaps the Minister can provide a clear explanation in his closing remarks of how that £65 has been calculated.
Although the providers in the private rented sector are in broad agreement with the concept of a database, they are also united in viewing the approach of this Government as a total disaster. None of the concerns that I have outlined should come as news to the Government, because they have all been raised directly with Government officials by industry representatives. Many of those who I have spoken to thought that the Government had heard their concerns and were making adjustments, only to discover later that they had been ignored entirely. How do the Government expect to earn or maintain the trust of the whole sector when they ignore its concerns and blindside it with extra financial and labour costs?
The Large Agents Representation Group has summed up the Government’s proposals:
“Instead of making best use of data already held across Government and other established systems…the proposed approach required landlords and agents to manually and repeatedly input and maintain information that in most cases is already available elsewhere…creating unnecessary duplication, administrative burden and risk of inaccuracy for all stakeholders. The decisions being made now about its underlying architecture risk embedding unnecessary bureaucracy and practical problems from the outset. This is concerning when significant fees are being imposed and non-compliance carries substantial and lasting penalties.”
The significant additional costs and administrative burdens imposed by this approach are likely to have damaging repercussions. Voices in the build-to-rent sector, a sector vital to assisting in the delivery of new homes, have said
“This will inevitably deter much-needed investment in new homes…particularly at this time of ‘viability crisis.’”
These are just a few of the significant issues shared with me by industry. The database, as proposed by the Government, is not fit for purpose. It is not good enough to impose something that everyone knows is not going to work just so that the Government can claim that they are taking action. The regulations represent the very worst of a Government hellbent on regulating first and worrying about the consequences later. Empty promises of continuing improvements do not cut the mustard. The sector, already saddled by over-regulation and tax hikes, needs efficiencies, not even more constraints.
I implore the Minister to pause the impending roll-out of the regulations, which are due for implementation in just a couple of weeks’ time, scrap the current proposals and produce new ones after proper consultation with industry. I say that more in hope than expectation, so the Opposition will seek to divide and vote against the measures.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, but if landlords have a way of integrating their service and of providing that faster upload, that is precisely what we are trying to look at already.
Gareth Bacon
Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?
Matthew Pennycook
We are not going to pause—I say this to the shadow Minister quite plainly—because we want the database in place. It has benefits for landlords in understanding their legal responsibility, and it has benefits for tenants. This is the first of two statutory instruments, as I have made clear. We think we can do that work, working with the sector to understand how we might integrate their management systems.
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
Gareth Bacon ExcerptsTuesday 27th October 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) In exercising functions under this section and section 171A, the Secretary of State must have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the independence of housing associations when exercising powers under new sections 171A and 171B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 20.
Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
“(h) whether the dwelling is let at social rent,
(i) the dwelling’s energy performance certificate rating,
(j) whether the dwelling meets the Decent Homes Standard,
(k) whether the interest to be disposed of is freehold or leasehold,
(l) details of any accessibility adaptations made to the dwelling,
(m) details of any public grant received in relation to the dwelling, including any disabled facilities grant, and
(n) whether the dwelling was previously transferred from a local housing authority and, if so, the consideration paid on that transfer.”
This amendment requires that sale notices provided by a private registered providers to local housing authorities must provide additional information about the dwellings for sale.
Amendment 100, in clause 12, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) The private registered provider’s stated reason for making the relevant sale must be one of the following reasons—
(a) financial viability,
(b) the cost to retrofit energy efficiency measures,
(c) stock rationalization, or
(d) another specified reason as set out in regulations made by statutory instrument.
(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A)(d) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 8—Monitoring and reporting on private registered provider disposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on notifications and disposals of social housing by private registered providers.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the number of sale notices given under section 171A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in the period to which the report relates or otherwise notified to Homes England;
(b) the number and tenure of the dwellings to which those notices related;
(c) the number of those dwellings that were subsequently disposed of;
(d) the number of disposed dwellings that remained within social housing; and
(e) the number of disposed dwellings that ceased to be social housing.”
Gareth Bacon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will be relatively brief. I tabled amendment 82 to introduce a vital legal safeguard to protect the structural integrity of the UK housing association sector.
Private registered providers are independent, non-profit businesses. They work hard to run a fair and efficient sector providing social housing and to see much-needed homes built. The amendment would protect registered providers from overreaching state interventions that could have serious, if inadvertent, financial consequences.
Housing associations can rely on private debt to fund development, and any perception that central Government can arbitrarily dictate their financial operations is a threat, both to business independence and to the positive outcomes that they effect. We must ensure that even well-intentioned regulatory oversight does not compromise the financial viability and building capacity of some of the most important businesses in our housing industry. We will seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.
Mr Dillon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I would like to speak to amendments 100 and 7. Amendment 7, which in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, really gets to the “what”: what is being offered for disposal, whether it is at social rent and what the energy performance certificate rating is. Amendment 100 is a follow-up to that: the “why”. Why is a property being disposed of? Is it for financial viability? Is it because of the cost of retrofit? If we were to collate that data, the Government would be able to reflect on the success of this policy in later years.
Matthew Pennycook
I will deal with both, in that case. Amendment 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would significantly expand the information required to be included in sales notices where a private registered provider intends to dispose of a property outside of the regulated sector, to include, for example, whether a property complies with the decent homes standard, its EPC rating and whether it has been adapted for accessibility.
The Government’s view is that adding requirements for more information to be included in the sale notice would not be proportionate. We do not want to impose additional unnecessary burdens on providers, and we certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced that would mean additional reports need to be produced, or surveys carried out, though I note the hon. Member’s amendment does seek to avoid this.
Our view is that extending the notification window to eight weeks will allow providers to have the opportunity to request further information that they judge to be necessary to their consideration of a potential purchase. However, I do not think that requiring the inclusion of all this information by law is a proportionate response. Our aim is to capture the basic elements that will always be relevant to providers when considering purchasing a home, and provide more time for inquiries to be made where needed. That point has come up previously. The provisions in the Bill do not prevent those notifications and requests for further information between the parties in question from being made. That is the basis on which I brought forward amendment 19, which requires information on the category of rent, which we think is an important improvement.
Amendment 100, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newbury, would require providers to categorise their reason for disposing of a property as either financial viability, the cost of energy efficiency retrofits, stock rationalisation or some other reason that might be specified through secondary legislation. My concern is that seeking to prescribe particular categories of reason in the notice might result in a less helpful notification. Let me explain why.
First, it requires providers to identify one particular reason behind the sale. It is possible that the proposed sale will be based on more than one of these categories. It is also possible that there might be a different driver entirely. In response to a very reasonable question from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I tried to give a sense of the variety of reasons that individual providers might be disposing of particular stock.
Secondly, there is a risk that by setting out the categories in legislation, providers will just use the default descriptions of the reason and fail to provide a fuller and more helpful description for those being notified. Thirdly, although I do not think this was the intention of the hon. Member for Newbury, the amendment would have the effect of preventing sales from going ahead. No sale can proceed without a notice, and the notice must be valid. To be valid with this amendment in place, the notice must include one of a limited list of reasons. The Government cannot support an amendment that would prevent legitimate disposals. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment to a Division.
Gareth Bacon
I have heard the Minister’s response. As always, I do not in any way doubt his sincerity, but unfortunately he will not always be in post. We would prefer to keep the Government honest on this point, so we intend to press amendment 82 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
Shared ownership is an important route into home ownership and has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to get on to the property ladder who otherwise would not have been able to do so. However, the Government are fully aware that shared owners continue to face serious difficulties relating to affordability, transparency, management, staircasing and resale challenges. Although some of these challenges affect leaseholders more widely—high and rising service charges are a good example—they can have a disproportionate impact on shared owners, given that the product is aimed at households on lower-to-middle incomes.
Yesterday, I tabled a written ministerial statement setting out the Government’s position on shared ownership and the action we are taking to improve the experience of shared owners. We are determined to ensure that shared ownership is fair, transparent and affordable across its life cycle. That is why we are taking forward a phased programme of targeted improvements. The first phase, which has been under way for some time, has focused on improving the customer experience and giving providers greater certainty, stability and confidence to deliver new shared ownership homes.
We have set clearer expectations for registered providers receiving funding through the social and affordable homes programme, including giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness around costs, and allowing customers to opt out of fees for optional services. We have also made it clear that fees charged to shared owners should not be used as a source of profit or to cross-subsidise other activity.
Work is now under way on the second phase of our improvement programme. This will include reducing barriers and costs associated with staircasing; exploring options to support resales; improving information and guidance for existing shared owners; and reviewing buy-backs as an exit route for those who either cannot afford to remain in or cannot sell their home. Alongside that, we will improve shared ownership data quality and collection, helping us to better understand the experience of shared owners over time and pressures such as long-term affordability.
Clause 13 would require a statutory review of shared ownership. I recognise the concerns that motivated the amendment in the other place—Lord Young has been a consistent and forceful champion for shared owners and I commend his work in doing so—but these are precisely the issues the Government are already focused on and will continue to progress through the improvement programme that is already under way.
As is set out in the written ministerial statement I made on Monday, we have done lots to date. There is more to come on those issues I identified. For that reason, we feel that a statutory review would duplicate that rather than deliver the practical improvements that shared owners need beyond the work that the Government are already undertaking. I urge the Committee to oppose the question that clause 13 stand part of the Bill.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to new clauses 41 and 45, which are in my name. I was obviously aware that it is the Government’s intention to strike down clause 13 and remove it in its entirety from the Bill. I heard what the Minister just said about what the Government are doing at the moment. The Opposition are not convinced that the clause would require unnecessary duplication. What it would do is make sure that a review is actually done and published, so we disagree with the Government.
My noble Friends in the other place worked hard and successfully on a cross-party basis to bring shared ownership into the debate and into this Bill. Shared ownership issues have gone on for far too long and for far too many people it has been a logistical, legal and financial nightmare when it should have been their first and proudest step on to the housing ladder. This is an important national issue, and the commitments that my noble Friends made must not be stripped from the Bill. Indeed, we must build on them. That is why I tabled new clause 41, which would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. I call on the Minister to repair shared ownership, back first-time buyers and support this new clause.
New clause 45 asks the Secretary of State to publish a model of shared ownership agreement within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Opposition believe this is a crucial development for the future of shared ownership. What should be a pathway towards owning a first home is for so many people, as I have just said, a logistical and legal labyrinth of rent reviews, service charges, admin fees and staircasing costs, which makes the dream of home ownership a nightmare. A model shared ownership agreement would provide a consistent framework with clear protections for buyers, and it would also require registered providers to have regard to it. Not only do I hope the Minister agrees with that, but I hope he will give assurances as we debate the new clauses, even if the Government choose not to support them.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
As always, Mr Western, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to support clause 13 remaining part of the Bill. With his typical eloquence, the Minister set out both the opportunities and challenges presented to those with shared ownership, including the regulatory challenges sitting around it. He also described the very real impact that it can have on those individuals—who are often starting off on the path to home ownership—when it does not work well.
I therefore think that clause 13 is important. I do not in any way want to gainsay the important work that the Minister is doing. As I said this morning, I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is extremely able and I know that he will be pursuing this work with vigour. However, I believe that a statutory review offers the opportunity for a much broader look at this issue in the round, and actions such as those that the Minister has outlined can sit under such a review perfectly reasonably.
The two things are not in contradiction. A statutory review would not stop the Minister from continuing to pursue some of the immediate actions that he has already set out. It just provides an opportunity to take a step back and look at this important sector of home ownership to assess whether it is working well. Where there are things that the Government or the Minister may have missed—as diligent as I know him to be— it gives that extra opportunity.
I know that the Minister has been very clear in his determination to continue pursuing shared ownership, as he set out in his written statement and in his announcement. However, I have to say that this Minister, in whom I have a lot of confidence, may not always be in this post. When he inevitably ascends to higher office, his successor may not be as focused on this issue as him. Therefore, I think that a statutory review as set out in clause 13 offers the opportunity to publish something that has been considered carefully, which Members of this House and future Ministers can then refer back to when considering the way forward. I do not think that it trammels the Minister’s freedom in deciding what to announce or his discretion in any way; it would just be a very important addition.
Mr Dillon
I will speak to amendment 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington. The amendment looks at the impact of rent arrears on a victim of domestic abuse and quite simply asks that that not be a consideration when bidding for a future social home.
While on my feet, I will also talk about clause 14 in its totality. We Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled on domestic abuse, but will the Minister outline why the Government use only discretionary powers rather than mandatory powers, such as ground 7A, which is mandatory for antisocial behaviour?
Gareth Bacon
I will speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment. There is much in this Bill that is fundamentally political or ideological, but I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that supporting victims of domestic abuse is an issue that we all agree needs critical, cross-party work. We will not oppose any of the 52 amendments that the Government have tabled to this part of the Bill, because it is vital that anyone stuck in an abusive household receives the urgent care, support and access to legal pathways that they need.
That is why I have tabled new clause 30, which would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting domestic abuse victims. If the Bill is to make real change in this area, I believe it is only right that the Government give victims a guarantee that they will closely analyse and monitor the effectiveness of these measures. I look for an assurance from the Minister on that when he sums up.
Edward Argar
I will speak briefly to this grouping, simply to reiterate what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has just said. In a Bill of this sort, there is inevitably much that we will to-and-fro across this Committee about and disagree on. However, throughout my time as Victims Minister, and under the new Government now, there has been significant consensus about a shared desire, on both sides of the House, to make progress in supporting victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse. I therefore just reiterate my hon. Friend’s and my party’s support for what the Minister seeks to do here. There is genuinely a high degree of consensus on this group; we want to move forward and make that difference.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 17 introduces schedule 3, which will repeal uncommenced provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies and required new social housing tenants to be given fixed-term secure tenancies instead. As with the provisions that we have just debated, the rules were never brought into force and would have reduced security for tenants. Indeed, the inclusion of the fixed-term provisions in the 2016 Act received strong objections throughout the Bill’s passage.
The Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households, and help people to put down roots in their communities. Security of tenure matters, particularly for families, older residents, disabled people and others for whom a settled home is the foundation of wider wellbeing and opportunity. That was the rationale for the changes we recently implemented through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Although we promote the use of lifetime tenancies, the Government expect landlords to make the best and most effective use of their homes to meet housing need. Landlords can support tenants to downsize, transfer or mutually exchange their homes if their circumstances change. That helps people to move to properties that are better suited to them and ensures that social housing is used in the fairest way possible.
Retaining the option for landlords to grant fixed-term tenancies is an important tool that allows councils to respond to specific circumstances, such as supporting time-limited resettlement schemes. The schedule also retains the existing approach to succession by reinserting the relevant provisions from the 2016 Act, ensuring that there are no substantial changes to how succession works in practice.
The repeal of the uncommenced provisions will provide greater certainty to tenants and landlords, and ensure that the law continues to work properly after they are removed. The previous Government confirmed in their 2018 social housing Green Paper, after listening to residents’ concerns, that they had no intention of implementing those provisions. Once again, this Government are going a step further and repealing them from the statute book.
Government amendments 75 to 77 make minor and technical changes to the succession provisions in schedule 3. Amendment 77 corrects the provision dealing with demoted tenancies so that it refers only to changes that apply to those tenancies. References to provisions that apply only to introductory tenancies are removed, as those cases are already covered separately. Amendments 75 and 76 make it clear that the sections 143H and 143J to which the provisions refer are sections of the Housing Act 1996. The amendments do not change policy or tenants’ rights; they simply clarify the Bill’s wording and make sure that references are correct and in order. I commend clause 17 and Government amendments 75 to 77 to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to new clauses 40 and 58, which I tabled.
Social housing is not a one-size-fits-all, and new clause 40 would protect the invaluable and expert knowledge of local authorities by giving them a greater say over the type of tenancy that they can offer to local people. That would preserve local authorities’ discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing. Used appropriately, fixed-term tenancies allow a landlord to review a household’s circumstances at the end of a term and make sure that the home can be put to best use for those who need it most. They allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure that when a tenant’s situation has improved, a home can be made available for local people with the greatest need. The new clause is about empowering local authorities and delivering an efficient social housing system—two things that the Bill fails to do in many ways. Importantly, it imposes nothing and takes nothing away. It protects local knowledge, expertise and discretion.
Social housing exists for the express purpose of providing those who are most in need with not just shelter, but a place to call home. In a system under severe financial strain and lacking in adequate supply, it is essential that social homes are allocated to those in genuine need who are at the most severe risk, not just those who once needed them but no longer do. That is why we have tabled new clause 58, which would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs. It would also ensure that existing stock is used as effectively as possible. With 1.34 million people on the waiting list, a record number of people sleeping rough and a staggering 178,000 children in temporary accommodation, not a single social home can afford to be filled by somebody who could reasonably afford market rent or buy their own property.
Danny Beales
I completely agree that there is a desperate need for social homes in this country after decades of under-delivery, which this Government are starting to turn the tide on. It is interesting that earlier in Committee, Opposition Members were proposing amendments to support the further loss of council homes through allowing extensive right-to-buy provisions. The arguments do not seem to be compatible. Does the shadow Minister have any reflections on that? Does he not think that the threat of a review and potentially losing a council home if a person earns a bit more money might dampen their aspiration of trying to progress in life and get a better job?
Gareth Bacon
As I said earlier, the Bill will not add a single social home to this country’s current tally. If social housing was in abundant supply, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not. It is a scarce resource and the important thing that we are trying to make clear is about how we use that scarce resource.
Right to buy generates receipts that can be reinvested in building more social housing. Given that the overwhelming majority of people living in social housing are in lifetime tenancies, regardless of their circumstance, that housing is not available to people on the waiting list. It is already occupied and nobody is saying that that should change. So, it is not the case that right to buy causes a depletion of available social housing stock— it simply does not.
New clause 58 is not an eviction notice. It would not grant new powers to remove people from their homes. It is a common-sense move to assess how best to ensure that scarce resources are used for those who need a home most.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start with new clause 40, which seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies.
Fixed-term tenancies will no longer be available within the assured tenancy framework once the relevant Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms take effect. I therefore understand that the proposal is aimed principally at ensuring that local housing authorities and other secure tenancy landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies when appropriate.
I want to be clear that the new clause is not needed. Nothing in the Bill prevents secure-tenancy landlords from granting fixed-term tenancies. As I have said, the Bill repeals uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies to be fixed-term tenancies. As we have just debated, those provisions were never brought into force and we are now removing them in order to provide clarity. Secure-tenancy landlords will still be able to offer fixed-term tenancies where they consider it appropriate to do so; as I have said, the Bill does not change that. The proposed measures risk repeating what is already the case in law for secure-tenancy landlords and would create confusion by suggesting that the Bill removes flexibility in this area when it does not. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister not to press new clause 40.
New clause 58 would require local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years. I made it clear when speaking to clause 17 that the Government support the use of lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for households and help people to put down roots in their communities. That is precisely why we are repealing uncommenced provisions in the 2016 Act that would have phased out lifetime secure tenancies in favour of mandatory fixed-term tenancies.
We expect local authorities and other social landlords to make the best and most effective use of their stock to meet housing need. However, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for local authorities to review every secure tenancy once every five years would be an appropriate way to support them in doing so, given the administrative burden that that would entail. We also believe that it would have detrimental impacts on tenants and communities. Those are some of the reasons why the previous Government did not commence the provisions they had legislated for in the 2016 Act.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 18 will repeal unimplemented provisions that would have required councils to charge higher rents to higher-income social tenants. We are now removing them to provide certainty and clean up the statute book. The provisions, as with others we have debated this afternoon, were never implemented. Once again, I note that the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections during the passage of that legislation.
A mandatory pay-to-stay scheme would be difficult and costly to administer. Indeed, the previous Government, despite legislating for this policy, chose not to commence it on the explicit basis that the costs outweighed the benefits. Income alone is also not the only determinant of who is allocated social housing. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances which mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list.
Social housing is targeted at those who need it most, but some tenants’ incomes may rise over time. Our focus is on keeping rents affordable and supporting all social tenants, not penalising tenants for improving their circumstances. As we debated in the previous group, landlords can encourage tenants to move if their circumstances change. Where tenants want to move or downsize, we expect landlords to support them to do so through transfers or mutual exchanges, which helps people move to properties that are better suited to them, and helps to ensure that social housing is used in the fairest way possible. Where councils and private registered providers choose, they can run voluntary pay-to-stay schemes, which allows landlords to decide whether a scheme is suitable for their area.
Councils can also consider an applicant’s income and financial circumstances when deciding whether they qualify for social housing and what priority they should receive. Households with higher incomes may be given less priority, or may not qualify at all. However, councils will also consider whether the household has other needs, as I have referenced, which can mean that social housing is still the right option for them.
Repealing these measures provides a fairer and more workable approach. This change will help keep rents affordable for social tenants, especially those on lower and middle incomes, avoid disincentives to work and mean that tenants are not incentivised to reduce their working hours to avoid higher rent. I commend clause 18 to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
I rise to speak to new clause 42. If the Bill fails to build any new social housing, which we know it will, it could at the very least ensure that stock is allocated to those most in need. We believe that one of the fairest and most suitable ways to do so is to review the income eligibility thresholds for social housing. At present, up-to-date figures from the English housing survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000. That is both an injustice and an inefficiency in need of fixing, yet the Bill will not do so.
We must ensure that any changes to the structure of the social housing system are made to enable a fairer and more effective programme for the most vulnerable to find shelter. Social housing is a safety net, not a guarantee. People’s circumstances change over time. Those who have the means to pay market rent should do so, and that is why new clause 42 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. Without the new clause, the Bill would provide no avenue through which we can manage stock to free up more homes, no route towards building more social housing, and no light at the end of the tunnel for the 1.34 million people on the waiting list.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I respond to new clause 42, I must address something that the shadow Minister keeps saying, which is that the Bill does not build any new social housing. I have made this incredibly clear, and I encourage him to go and talk to his local authority, although I am not sure its record on social housing is a particularly good one. Local authorities are very clear and have said to us in plain terms that the measures in the Bill will incentivise them to build more social homes. Of course, it is not the case that this piece of legislation is the only means by which we are building new social and affordable housing. We have a £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, which dwarfs anything that the previous Conservative Government allocated in this area, and there is additional funding to come on top of that.
New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing within two years of the Bill’s passage, and every five years thereafter, and to publish the findings and lay them before Parliament. Each review would consider trends over the previous five years in household earnings, regional housing costs, housing affordability and demand for social housing.
I recognise the importance of considering income to ensure that social housing is targeted at those most in need. Indeed, it is a sad truth that the residualisation of social housing over many years—not least because of the engineered decline of it under previous Conservative Governments, with increased right-to-buy discounts explicitly targeted to ensure that more is sold—has meant that, in most cases, it has become targeted to those on very low incomes, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary.
Eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process, and there is no general national income eligibility threshold for social rented housing. As I have made clear, local authorities can take financial resources into account in determining qualification and relative priority under their allocation schemes, subject to statutory requirements, and private registered providers also operate their own lettings polices. This allows local and individual circumstances to be taken into account.
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
Gareth Bacon ExcerptsTuesday 27th October 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.
I rise to support the clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important and significant clause in the Bill, as it constrains the selling off of council houses. It is concerning that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment that would essentially reverse it. With 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list and 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing that we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. There has been a net loss of 2 million social homes since the introduction of right to buy. If that does not show that we cannot fill the bath with the plug taken out, nothing does. We stand squarely in support of the clause, although we would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend right to buy completely if that is right for their area so that they can rebuild their stock of council housing and social rent homes.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s welcome: it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers.
This Bill fails the British people. It effectively destroys right to buy for millions of families. It does nothing to free up stock for British nationals. It fails to introduce efficient stock management regulations. Most egregiously, it fails to build a single social home—a point completely missed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. In scrutinising the Bill line by line, it is critically important that we defend aspiration and refocus the debate on the delivery of new homes.
I will speak to new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, in my name. On new clause 55, in the past, Conservative Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty discounts made a real difference to people buying their first home, and helped about 1 million first-time buyers to get on to the housing ladder. That contributed to 800,000 people buying their first home under the previous Government. However, since 2024 the Government have not shown that they have the aspiration to match that. Instead, they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers getting on to the housing ladder.
Even when the Government try to support young people into property ownership, it emerges that all that glisters is not gold. I am primarily referring to the Your First Home scheme—a policy limited to new homes and expected to be constrained by income caps. Young people, especially young people in social housing, deserve better than that.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions Your First Home—the product that the Government announced to get young people on to the housing ladder. Does he agree that the targeted approach of that new idea is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government’s Help to Buy scheme? About half of the people who bought under that scheme were already able to buy a home, and it just allowed them to buy a bigger home, probably in a more affluent area.
Gareth Bacon
It rather depends on the detail, but if the income caps that we hear about in the press are even remotely accurate, we can rule out the whole of Greater London and the south-east of England, because people will not be able to access the financing. That would be yet another example of the Government pretending to do something without actually doing it, but we await the detail on that.
Right to buy is not a shameful practice, nor is it an exercise in capitalistic greed. It is a hand up on to the housing ladder for those in need, and an extension in the fundamental rights of property. New clause 55 would help realise that for young people. After all, it is critical that more is done to help young people to buy their first home. They face the greatest barriers to home ownership of any recent generation, and yet the Government’s answer is to cut one of their only routes to property ownership. We believe that that approach is fundamentally wrong, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting young people by backing new clause 55.
On new clause 57, clause 1 in its current form not only enables the injustice of preventing future hard-working residents from owning their own homes but prevents current tenants from doing so. The Opposition are completely against that retrospective change. The Government have shown time and again that they have no regard for the property rights of individuals. The Government’s socialistic focus has targeted landlords, freeholders and renters, now they turn their gaze towards residents in social homes.
The vast majority of people in social housing deserve a hand up on to the property ladder and a chance to share in the pride of owning their own home. Many people in social housing know that their best chance at getting that is through right to buy.
Rachel Blake
On new clause 55, can the hon. Member share the evidence base for his proposal, including the number of tenants aged between 16 and 25? I struggle to believe that the proposal would make any difference in terms of home ownership for people aged between 16 and 25. In fact, it is the long-run shortage of genuinely affordable homes, rental properties and home ownership products that is responsible for young people struggling to get on to the housing ladder.
Gareth Bacon
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but she does not say how the Government will increase home building. There is no increase in home building. The point of the new clause is to raise awareness of right to buy among 16 to 25-year-olds. The point of the new clause is about aspiration—something this Government have absolutely no idea about. Aspiration turned into opportunity by the Conservative party in the 1980s is being arbitrarily and retrospectively axed by a Bill that offers no other route into the housing market, builds no more social housing and effectively excludes 5 million people from the fundamental right to property ownership.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Gareth Bacon
I will not give way. I need to make some progress.
That is the least that can be done to support families aspiring to own their own home, whether they find themselves on the cusp of reaching their three-year qualifying period or on day one of the road towards making their home ownership dream a reality.
On amendments 84 and 85, the Bill opens with a statement claiming that its purpose is to make provision about social housing, but clause 1 makes no effort to increase the supply, build-out rates or funding for social housing. Instead, an ideological aversion to property ownership—a fundamental right—takes the top spot at the very beginning of the Bill. Ever since Margaret Thatcher gave millions of people the chance to own their own home, rather than rent it from the state, local authority or a registered provider, Labour MPs have for generations sought to crush that right and the aspiration that it exists to serve.
Gareth Bacon
No. More than 2 million households have exercised the right to become homeowners and gain a stake in society. Until 1980, that would have been out of reach for far too many British people, but the Government are determined to wind back the clock to the 1970s and cut off the right for hard-working families up and down the country to own their own home.
Amendments 84 and 85 would take out the extended qualifying period from the day the Bill is passed, thus preventing clause 1 from coming into effect for three years following Royal Assent. That would delay the Government’s dogma and continue to support the right of 5 million people to find their place in the community, and to feel the pride and safety that comes with owning one’s own home.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Orpington for tabling new clauses 55 and 57 and amendments 84 and 85, and for speaking to them. I should say at the outset that, in political terms, he and I could not be further apart. However, he is a decent and diligent shadow Minister, as is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—I do not want to leave him out. I very much look forward to the robust yet civil debates we will have over the coming sessions.
I do not want to dwell too long on the more general points made by the hon. Member for Orpington, but I think it is worth responding to two of them. We are not extinguishing the right to buy through the Bill. We could have abolished the right to buy outright, but that is not what we are doing. We are ensuring that those who benefit from the scheme are long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Bill having no impact on supply, he really ought to get out and speak to local authorities. They tell us that the benefits that they will see from the regulatory certainty and stability that we are providing, as well as the grant funding, will give them the confidence to go out and build new social homes, safe in the knowledge that, thanks to clause 1, they will not be immediately sold off after three years.
The Chair
You did not bob. I stated the need to do that at the beginning of the sitting.
The Chair
You did not bob, Gareth. We will move on.
Clause 7
Right of first refusal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I can see no one bobbing, so I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Exceptions to the Right to Buy
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 8, leave out from line 2 to end of line 18.
This amendment removes the restriction on those living in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and areas designated as being exempt from Right to Buy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 13.
Amendment 104, in clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1)(a) above must use the Rural Urban Classification to determine whether an area is rural or urban.”
Amendment 83, in clause 8, page 8, line 25, leave out “35” and insert “10”.
This amendment seeks to reduce the period during which newly built social housing is exempt from the Right to Buy from 35 years to 10 years.
Amendment 9, in clause 8, page 9, line 10, at end insert—
“Community-led housing
20 Irrespective of the provisions of paragraph 18, the right to buy does not arise in relation to a dwelling where—
(a) the dwelling is owned, managed, controlled or on land owned by—
(i) a Community Land Trust;
(ii) a Community Benefit Society;
(iii) a housing co-operative; or
(iv) another community-led housing body prescribed by regulations; and
(b) the dwelling is subject to arrangements intended to secure affordability in perpetuity.”
This amendment seeks to provide a permanent exemption from Right to Buy for community-led housing, instead of the 35-year exemption otherwise provided by the Bill.
Government amendments 14 and 15.
Amendment 91, in clause 8, page 9, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
“(c) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require an affirmative parliamentary approval for regulations defining rural exempt from Right to Buy.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 16 to 18.
New clause 2—Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy—
“Before section 121(A) of the Housing Act 1985 insert—
‘Power of local housing authorities to suspend or abolish right to buy
(1) A local housing authority in England may make a determination that the right to buy does not arise in relation to dwelling-houses in its area.
(2) A determination under subsection (1) may apply to—
(a) all dwelling-houses within the authority’s area, or
(b) dwelling-houses of a description specified in the determination.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed by a local housing authority in making a determination under this section.’”
Gareth Bacon
It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to speak to amendment 90, which stands in my name.
Since 2024, when the Government have raised rural issues, they have often found themselves in trouble. The Opposition were therefore surprised to see the elements of clause 7 giving the Secretary of State the power to decide what is classed as rural housing and to restrict the rights of those deemed to live in rural areas.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member is quite right. Not only that, but local authorities end up paying over the odds for placing families in temporary accommodation, sometimes in homes that were built as council houses to provide for those families in the first place. Now they are being sublet, sometimes multiple times, to provide that housing.
Gareth Bacon
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made a point that has been made by Members today and on Second Reading: right to buy diminishes the social housing stock. I would agree on paper that it does, but that has to be read in the context, as shown by the House of Lords Library, that right to buy applies only to people in long-term tenancies who have been social tenants for a long time. Some 78% of people living in social housing are on lifetime tenancies. Those properties are not available. They could not be given to anybody else because they are lifetime tenancies. Right to buy is actually providing the receipts to build more social homes for people to live in.
Gareth Bacon
Stopping people from getting on the housing ladder does not help one bit, because it does not increase the supply, and that point seems to have been missed completely by the Liberal Democrats and by the Government.
Gideon Amos
I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition spokesperson has entered into the realm of social housing supply, given the record of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, we need to increase supply as well as saving the stock that has been built with public funds—taxpayer’s money—for the community, rather than giving over discounts, sometimes to the extent of a £70,000 or £80,000 transfer of cash, from the taxpayer into the hands of individual property owners for no good reason.
We need to increase supply. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a target to build 150,000 social rent homes per year. I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s party’s target for the delivery of social housing—they did not build many when they were in government. We need to give local authorities the power and flexibility to decide for themselves whether it is right to continue with right to buy in their areas. If we believe in local communities and local democracy, we should give them the ability to say that right to buy and the loss of more council housing stock is no longer right for their area. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee and urge all Committee members to vote for it.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that clarification from the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment 91 would require regulations made under section 37 of the Housing Act 1985, which allows restrictions to be imposed on the disposal of a home in a rural area, to be approved by both Houses before they could come into force. I understand that the intention of the amendment may have been to require the affirmative procedure to designate areas as rural for the purposes of the right to buy. Under self-designation, rural areas will be designated by local authorities instead of by regulations, so no parliamentary procedure will be needed.
The new power to prescribe the criteria will be, as I have said, subject to the negative resolution. In any event, the Government do not accept the premise that the affirmative procedure is required in that instance; there may be a principled point of disagreement on that. The current powers are subject to the negative procedure—that is the existing arrangement—which, in our view, provides an appropriate, proportionate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The powers amended or created by the Bill are also subject to the negative resolution procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure would add an additional parliamentary step without affecting the substance or effect of the policy. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, not to press amendment 91.
Amendment 83 would reduce the exemption from the right to buy for newly built social homes from 35 to 10 years. The Government cannot support the amendment. Our starting point is that the exemption should reflect the time needed for rental income to repay the costs of building a new social home. That payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on the viability of the site. We therefore concluded that 35 years strikes the right balance. It protects councils from losing newly built homes before they have recovered their investment while retaining a route to home ownership for tenants over the longer term. Reducing the exemption to 10 years would not provide sufficient protection and would act in direct contradiction to our commitment to back councils to build again at scale. It would allow homes to be sold long before their development costs have been recovered. A 35-year exemption will give councils the certainty and confidence to build, knowing that new homes will remain available as social housing for a meaningful period.
New clause 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concerns that motivated this proposed new clause. However, the Government cannot support a proposal that would allow individual local authorities to suspend or abolish the right to buy in their area. We remain committed to a reformed right to buy that continues to provide long-standing council tenants with a route into home ownership while better protecting social housing stock, and we are reforming the scheme nationally to strike that balance. This new clause would create inconsistent access to that statutory right, with a tenant’s position depending on the local authority in which they live. That would, in effect, create a postcode lottery and make it difficult for tenants to understand whether the right to buy is available to them.
We believe that the right approach is a consistent national framework, supported by national reforms that better protect council housing stock. That will ensure a fair and consistent offer for council tenants across the country. We also recognise that housing markets vary significantly across England. However, rather than creating different rights in different areas, the Government’s reforms reflect those differences through the discount regime. As I have already set out, discounts are calculated as a percentage of a property’s value and are subject to regional cash caps, helping to ensure that the scheme responds to local property market conditions while maintaining a fair and consistent national entitlement for eligible tenants.
Amendment 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, has been spoken to by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. Again, I recognise the intention behind this amendment. Community-led housing is established to meet local needs and often includes arrangements intended to protect affordability for the long term. This Government have done a huge amount in this area and there is more to come to better support community-led housing. But in our view, the amendment is not necessary in relation to the principal form of community-led housing it identifies. Homes owned by community land trusts and fully mutual housing co-operatives are already outside the right to buy, and for those reasons the amendment would not provide the protection intended, beyond that which already exists. For those reasons, I would respectfully ask that hon. Members withdraw all their amendments, and I commend clause 8 to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon
We do not share the Government’s position on this. We will be pressing for a Division on amendment 90. On amendment 83, I understand the point that the Minister made about recouping the cost. However, we believe that that is a convenience for local authorities, not for local people, and we are more interested in local people.
Gareth Bacon
No, I will not. I am just summing up. We will press for a Division on amendment 83, because we think that 10 years is more appropriate than 35. On amendment 91, we also disagree with the Government. We think that there should be an affirmative rather than negative procedure for this, so we will also be pressing that to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
This simple and straightforward clause ensures that the reforms to the right to buy are applied fairly and consistently. It protects tenants who have already made a valid application by ensuring that applications received by landlords ahead of the reforms coming into force will continue to be subject to the existing rules. That will avoid retrospective changes that could disadvantage applicants partway through the process.
The clause also makes important provision in relation to rural exemptions, which links directly to the reforms in clause 8 and Government amendments 13 to 18. It provides that existing rural designations will continue to have effect after commencement, as if they were made under the new powers introduced by clause 8. That means that there will be no gap in protection for rural areas while the new framework in which local authorities self-designate as rural is implemented.
Together, these provisions ensure a smooth and legally certain transition, protecting both tenants’ rights and the integrity of rural housing protections. Overall, the clause provides legal clarity, fairness and continuity as the reformed right to buy scheme is introduced.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Right to Buy: receipts
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”.
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 93, in clause 10, page 10, line 29, leave out “a determination” and insert “regulations”.
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.
Amendment 94, in clause 10, page 10, line 30, leave out “A determination” and insert “Regulations”.
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.
Amendment 96, in clause 10, page 10, leave out lines 33 to 40.
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make different provisions in respect of different local authorities and to make retroactive provisions through a determination.
Amendment 97, in clause 10, page 10, line 39, leave out “determination is” and insert “regulations are”.
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make a determination, but that changes to the use of capital receipts must be made by regulations instead.
Amendment 95, in clause 10, page 10, line 41, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 5 on page 11 and insert—
“(5E) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 98, in clause 10, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
“(5F) Before making a determination relating to the use of capital receipts under this section, the Secretary of State must consult local housing authorities.”
This amendment would require consultation before determinations are made on the use of capital receipts.
Clause stand part.
Gareth Bacon
The amendments concern the Bill’s proposals for the governance of capital receipts. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State would gain new powers to make significant determinations, including scope to vary provisions between local authorities and to apply determinations retrospectively.
Much like my concern about deciding the definition and scope of “rural”, this is not about firming up an already over-rigid system, but about ensuring that the Bill does not tear away too much power from Parliament and give it to Whitehall. It is only right that Parliament, not unelected civil servants, should decide the criteria for the allocation of capital receipts. That is why we have tabled these amendments, so that a regulatory framework can be established to provide parliamentary oversight and to give confidence and certainty to local authorities. This is an essential change to the Bill, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it.
As it stands, leaving determinations to the whim of the Secretary of State means leaving local leaders unsure of the direction of future decisions. It undermines precedent and destabilises already fragile funding requirements. The amendments replace the proposed determinations with clear and unequivocal guidance, with amendment 95 specifically ensuring that such decisions come with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 98 doubles down on that by also requiring consultation with local authorities.
The Minister may believe that bringing such decisions in-house comes with the bonus of speeding them up, but we believe that making decisions in Marsham Street’s corridors rather than in town halls means local authorities will be left with uncertainty, which will not speed up the building of social homes, but slow it down. Moreover, nothing would be a greater barrier to building social homes than watching receipts being siphoned away.
Under clause 10, the ability to reallocate capital receipts between local authorities will always lead to some councils losing out. It is never going to be popular with councils when they find that, after running the numbers, planning the funding, consulting local people and preparing the foundations, the Secretary of State has robbed them of their funding and given it to another council. It sounds suspiciously similar to the injustice arising from the Government’s disastrously unfair funding review. I therefore urge colleagues to support amendments 92 to 98 and ensure that power stays local.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. They involve a perfectly reasonable and proportionate request for this House to have a role in scrutinising what is put forward by the Government and recommended by the Secretary of State.
I spent six years as a Minister. I took countless statutory instruments through Delegated Legislation Committees. By and large, it is not a complex process; it requires a bit of time on the part of officials to get the drafting right, but the process in this House is not complicated. It ensures that a Minister is directly accountable: they have to be on their brief, and they have to be able to clearly articulate the rationale behind what they are doing and, quite rightly, to be challenged by right hon. and hon. Members. That is so important in maintaining or even in creating trust from our communities—the transparency that that democratic accountability brings to what, as my hon. Friend clearly set out, will on occasion undoubtedly be relatively, if not significantly, contentious decisions relating to significant sums of money.
My hon. Friend set out the case for amendment 95 very clearly. The powers in clause 10, when exercised, may well see some local authorities feeling that they are losing out, to the benefit of other local authorities. Without getting into what those decisions may be or where the money may go, in terms of process and democratic accountability, it is not unreasonable that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the powers in clause 10.
Gareth Bacon
The Minister has said that his intent is to improve efficiency and, as always, I respect his sincerity and what he said. It is simply a point of difference between us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made a compelling case about the democratic accountability and transparency of the affirmative procedure as opposed to the negative procedure. The point that we have made in the amendments is about the process not the outcome, and our contention is that the process should be as democratically accountable and transparent as possible. We will therefore press all the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with. I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry.
According to the Home Builders Federation, house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 for biodiversity net gain and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes standard—and that is not the end. Indeed, under this Government’s watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements, such as nutrition mitigation requirements.
Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London:
“Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”.
She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases.
It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point.
It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases.
The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the explanatory notes and in the other place, the Government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review.
It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications.
A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability.
Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000.
Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, as a result of the gap between the fees they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on the principle of the matter, that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service.
The shadow Minister spoke at some length about viability pressures and the role of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain pressing in many parts of the country—London is a good example—and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing.
I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.
Gareth Bacon
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.
On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service.
On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced.
The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities.
On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities.
To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister.
The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations.
As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities.
Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side?
Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more.
Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement.
For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins.
As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater.
It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.
Grey Belt Land: Definition and Application
Gareth Bacon Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to take part in this debate about the definition and application of so-called grey-belt land. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate and for his excellent opening speech.
The first mention of the Government’s novel term “grey belt” came in their 2024 election manifesto. Labour MPs campaigned on a promise to release
“lower quality ‘grey belt’ land”,
which they described as scrub land, disused car parks and old petrol stations, alongside a commitment to “preserving the green belt”. Those policies were part of an overarching pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029.
Just over two years later, however, and almost halfway through this Parliament, we are left wondering where it all went so wrong, because the Government are not releasing low-quality land, they are not preserving the green belt, and they are nowhere near their stated target of building 1.5 million homes. How could that be the case, given that they have such a mammoth majority with which to make it happen? The answer is that the concept of the grey belt was a fiction from the start. It is, and always has been, a thinly veiled conceit. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) highlighted, the grey belt has been talked up as low-quality land made up of disused car parks, but behind the façade it is usually found to be prime green-belt land.
That is not just a political point; it is a factual one. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England has shown that by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes that had been approved by Government planning inspectors on so-called grey-belt land, 88% were earmarked for building on previously undeveloped countryside. To be clear, that is not disused petrol stations or low-quality land, but our local and valued countryside. What is worse is that those developments made up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on allegedly grey-belt sites.
With so much grey belt looking far more like green belt, at least according to the Government’s own NPPF definitions, what is the true definition of grey belt? For the sake of our concerned constituents, perhaps the Minister can explain what definition inspectors are working to, as it is clearly not the same as the one that has been codified and publicised.
Even if the Government stuck to their stated definition of grey belt and refused to waver from it, we would still be left without a clear route to their target of 1.5 million homes. As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) pointed out, that is because the Government have done nothing to make development on previously developed land any more viable than before; indeed, they have made it worse.
The Government have made an effort to increase and swiften planning permissions, but there has been no corresponding effort to make proposed sites more viable. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 did much to silence the voices of democratically elected local councillors in order to push planning permissions thicker and faster through the system, but it did nothing to make building new homes more affordable. There has been no recognition at all of the barriers—largely been created by the state—that have been thrown in the way of developers. The top-down housing targets that our rural councils were saddled with, representing an increase of up to 487% in some cases, make sites no more viable; they just put more pressure on local planning authorities to grant more permissions.
Superficially, supposedly grey-belt sites may be an attractive prospect for development because there are likely to be fewer complications than anticipated for brownfield development. However, when supposedly grey-belt sites are released, they might not deliver substantially more housing because the Government will still have done next to nothing to improve the site’s viability. The Government have imposed the golden rule of at least 15% affordable housing above local policy requirements, up to a 50% cap. Sites still come with a biodiversity net gain requirement; they still require landfill tax payments, they still have to meet building regulations and soon they will be subjected to the building safety levy.
After a site’s release, some building will likely take place. But given the Government’s unwillingness to help to make brownfield sites more viable, we will be left with the lamentable scenario of losing chunks of green-belt land without getting anywhere near the required housing numbers. As the Government hide behind their own nebulous grey belt definition, they chip away at our local green belt without making a dent in their 1.5 million homes target. That is not progress; that is failure.
The statistics show it too. It is estimated from the energy performance certificate lodgements data that the Government oversaw the net addition of just 392,400 homes between 9 July 2024 and 14 June 2026—a paltry 26% of their manifesto target. Far from using the green belt to meet their targets, they are ditching its protections and removing its special place in our communities, all for the sake of plodding progress towards an increasingly distant target.
I am pleased to say that there is a way out of this malaise that dually serves to protect the green belt and build more houses. Instead of sham terms and shady insincerities, the Opposition stand for a genuine brownfield-first approach to building. We on this side of the Chamber will not just pay lip service to brownfield development but prioritise it and make it easier. It can and will be done. We all want to see more homes built, but they must be built in the right places, with local understanding and on brownfield sites first. That is the common-sense answer. It is the Opposition’s answer, and it is an achievable outcome.
Further research from the CPRE shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could be swiftly met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024. The same data shows that, as of September 2025, more than half of those sites had planning permission already. The 1.41 million amounts to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. Perhaps when considering this, the Secretary of State may change her mind again and once more view 1.5 million homes as a viable goal rather than a “stretch target”, as she described it at the weekend.
The Government must change course. The returning Secretary of State has already U-turned on her disastrous and costly programme of local government reform. Perhaps the Minister can use his platform to join Conservative colleagues and stand against concreting over our green belt. I hope he uses his time to do exactly that. I hope he also takes the chance to not just acknowledge but to respond to the concerns shared by hon. Members and take a better and fairer approach to our green belt.