Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

Every hon. Member present should support greater parliamentary oversight of a lasting and binding policy that the Government are trying to take out of our hands and away from the scrutinising eyes of parliamentarians. I therefore hope that Members will join me in supporting amendment 91.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to my own amendment 104, as well as amendment 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I agree with the Opposition that amendment 104 is about seeking clarity from the Government around how a rural area would be designated.

I welcome the Government amendments tabled since the publication of the Bill that hand more power to local authorities to determine the designation. Amendment 104 would provide some certainty regarding what classification could be used in that determination. What decision-making process would the Minister use to arrive at a designation whereby he has the power to make regulations for a rural area?

On amendment 9, as a party we believe that social housing is a crucial element of a settled society and protecting that stock is a must. That is why we support the overall objectives of the Bill, but we seek to go further than what the Government have currently legislated for by ensuring that community-led housing is included in the prohibition on losing stock to the private market. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who represents west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, has tabled amendment 9.

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to speak to our Liberal Democrat amendments. New clause 2 would provide local authorities with the power to suspend right to buy in an area completely and bring it to an end. Perhaps for the first and last time, I agree 100% with the hon. Member for Orpington, completely and wholeheartedly; he said that local areas are best placed to decide what is right for them on council housing provision and council housing stock. That is why we would give local authorities the ability to say that they have lost enough council housing. Some 2 million council homes were lost to right to buy and 4 million social homes have been lost altogether. Enough is enough. Local communities should have the right to decide whether they want to continue to see the loss of council homes in their area.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn now to amendment 104, also tabled by the shadow Minister—

[Mr Dillon]

No, it wasn’t.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My apologies; it was tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The amendment would require the Government to use the urban-rural classification system when determining whether an area is rural or urban for the purposes of the designated rural area exemption. As I have made clear, our intention is to continue with the long-established criteria for rural designation. Areas will need to have a population of 3,000 people or fewer and a population density of two persons or fewer per hectare, and we intend to set out those criteria in regulations. In our view, that strikes the right balance in defining designated rural areas for exclusion from the right to buy. Including areas with a population of 10,000 or fewer would bring far too many areas into the scope of the exclusion. For those reasons, I will not be able to take—[Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Newbury, and I give way.

[Mr Dillon]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for speaking to amendment 104. In the light of Government amendment 13 and the commitments we have just had from the Front Bench, I would be happy not to press my amendment to a vote.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady appears to be making a point that I was not actually making in my remarks. My point is about the process. As I said before she intervened, I am not making a judgment on the decisions the Secretary of State may or may not make about those capital receipts; I am making a point about democratic accountability and transparency.

Going back to the earlier group of amendments praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the procedure that is used when legislation comes before Delegated Legislation Committees in this House is not complex. It does not engender lengthy delay; it just ensures that our constituents can see that we are considering that legislation, that we are debating it and that the Minister can answer the questions put to him. I have no doubt, in the case of this Minister, that he will be able to answer them; sadly, it has not always been the case that every Minister, on both sides of the House, has been capable of doing that. However, I am sure this Minister would have no challenges in coming before a Delegated Legislation Committee and answering the questions put to him.

Amendment 98, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, would require consultation before determinations were made on capital receipts. Again, consultations do not have to be overly complex or lengthy. If Members go on gov.uk, they will see that there are myriad Government consultations out there at any one time on very significant issues, down to issues such as, for example, the methodology used for reporting land use statistics in the country. The Government routinely consult on a whole range of things, whether that be a significant, detailed and lengthy consultation on something complex or, often, a very short and sharp consultation. They give people the opportunity to have their say, and those who genuinely have something in the way of expert knowledge to contribute.

[Mr Dillon]

On amendment 98 and the consultation, have the right hon. Member and the Opposition considered whether, if a local authority felt it had not been consulted, that would open up a legal route to delay the allocation of capital financing and therefore slow down the growth of house building?

[Edward Argar]

Over many years, I have found that consultation done properly leaves very limited legal risk. Where Governments get it wrong—I do not want to overly speculate on what has happened with the Government’s consultations and process around local government reorganisation—the hon. Member is right that there is a potential for JRs, although I would highlight that a judicial review can focus only on process, not on whether the decision should be relitigated.

If consultation is done well—I would have thought that consultation on this issue should be fairly simple—I believe it can enhance the transparency that is important in bringing our constituents with us and in ensuring that the Government are directly accountable to hon. and right hon. Members in this House. When the legislation is introduced, under our amendments as a regulation, that consultation is there to be drawn on. I genuinely believe—I have seen it for myself—that when a Government are willing to listen to a consultation response, they can, if they do things openly, often come up with a slightly better or tweaked outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 12, page 11, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) In the case of a dwelling—

(a) in a designated rural area, or

(b) with four bedrooms or more,

condition D also applies.”

This amendment, along with Amendment 103, would require written consent from a local authority for the sale of certain social housing properties.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 101, in clause 12, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

“(ba) each community land trust providing social housing in that area at the time the sale notice is given, and”.

Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert—

“(d) the Regulator of Social Housing.”

This amendment seeks to extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing.

Amendment 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) Condition AA is that a copy of any notice given in relation to the relevant sale is published on the registered provider’s website.”

Government amendment 19.

Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 36, leave out “four weeks” and insert

“eight weeks, or twelve weeks if the property is in an area designated as a rural area under paragraph 17(1)(c) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985,”.

This amendment seeks to extend the timescale for notice to be given of a sale.

Amendment 1, in clause 12, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) A sale notice given under subsection (2) must be given to the Regulator of Social Housing at the same time as it is given to the persons specified in that subsection.”

This amendment requires the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of every sale notice at the same time as local housing authorities and registered providers are notified.

Amendment 103, in clause 12, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) Condition D is that, in the case of a dwelling in a designated rural area or a dwelling with four bedrooms or more, the local authority has given written consent for the sale.”

This amendment, along with Amendment 102, would require written consent from a local authority for the sale of certain social housing properties.

Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, at end insert—

“171BA Extension to the notification period

(1) Where condition B under section 171A is met but condition D is also met, the period of four weeks beginning with the relevant day is extended by a further four weeks beginning with the day after the end of the four weeks.

(2) Condition D is that a local housing authority or registered provider has—

(a) notified the disposing provider that steps are being taken to offer to acquire the dwelling; and

(b) provided evidence of substantive steps taken towards making an offer, including but not limited to—

(i) obtaining a valuation of the dwelling,

(ii) securing funding for the offer, or

(iii) seeking necessary approvals for the offer.”

This amendment seeks to extend the four week notification period for the disposal of social housing where a local authority or another registered provider can provide evidence that it is preparing to offer to purchase the property.

[Mr Dillon]

Before I begin my remarks on amendment 102, I declare an interest: my wife works for a social housing provider. I apologise to the Committee for not declaring that before my earlier contribution.

Amendment 102 is a simple amendment that would protect larger homes within social housing stock. It refers to designated rural areas, which the Committee covered during earlier consideration, but also to homes with four or more bedrooms. The reason for that is simple: of all our social housing stock, larger homes are the most precious commodity.

We know that the social housing market makes up 48% of properties that are considered overcrowded in the UK. If we look at Merton or Westminster council, for example, there is a 90 to 99-year wait for a three or more bed property; if we go north to Rochdale, about 550 families there were registered for a four-bed home, but only 14 became available in a year; if we go to Bath in the west of the country, an officer there said that, in principle, a family could be on the register for a four-bed for over 200 years, and added that four-beds are popular under right to buy but are also expensive to build. When you add those comments to our ambition to ensure that overcrowding impacts as few people as possible, making four-bed or larger homes exempt means that we protect the homes we really need.

Amendment 101 is similar to a previous amendment, which went into more detail. It would make sure that each community land trust that provided social housing was also given notice of a sale. It would expand the remit of who is notified, so that if providers were willing to take up those social homes when they were being disposed of, we would retain them in some sort of community ownership.

[Gideon Amos]

I will speak to amendments 5, 6, 1 and 8. Amendment 5 would extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing.

Amendment 6 would extend the timescales of notice from four to eight weeks. I note that, since we tabled the amendment, the Government have come up with their own amendment to extend the timescales; they have obviously been reading everything we table closely. I am glad that we are already having an impact on the Bill and I will be happy to press the amendment to a vote if necessary, to ensure that the Government succeed in getting the change in timescale that they clearly want. Otherwise, depending on the order of voting—I still sometimes have a problem following that—I am sure that one or the other will fulfil the same purpose.

Amendment 1 would require the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of the notice. Amendment 8 is effectively a stop-the-clock amendment, whereby, if negotiations are ongoing for the acquisition of a social home by a local authority, the time period would be extended by a further four weeks. I recognise that the amendment refers to the four-week period in the Bill, which may be extended to eight weeks through other amendments. However, the principle of allowing an extension of time when negotiations are ongoing is significant, and something that the Local Government Association would support. Although I will not push amendment 8 to a vote, it would be helpful if the Minister considered whether an extension could be provided where negotiations are ongoing, so that there is a real chance for the purchase of that property to be completed and for the local authority to succeed in that endeavour.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to Government amendment 19 and respond to each of the eight amendments in this rather large group. I have listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and stakeholders over recent weeks and months that a four-week period between a private provider notifying a council or other provider in their area of the sale of a social home and the disposing of that home is not sufficient for local authorities to consider purchasing the property.

I appreciate that local authorities were concerned that a four-week window would not align with their internal timing constraints, such as monthly cabinet or committee meetings. On that basis, the Government have tabled amendment 19 to extend the window of time that must pass between notification and the sale of a property from four to eight weeks. We think the amendment strikes the right balance between maximising opportunities to retain social homes and not causing undue delays to sales. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made about negotiations that are in train.

Amendments 6 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seek to extend the disposal notification period. Amendment 8, as he just argued, would require an extension of the window to eight weeks where a provider could demonstrate they were taking steps towards purchasing the property. The Government’s amendment 19 goes further than that proposal by requiring eight weeks in all cases, so I hope he will support it.

Amendment 6 would require a further extension to 12 weeks in areas designated as rural. We are not persuaded by the case for a longer notification window specifically for rural areas. A statutory minimum of 12 weeks could unnecessarily delay sales and require providers to deal with the additional burden and costs associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods. I should also stress that the notification period is just a minimum. I would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond that period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector.

[Mr Dillon]

The Government do not accept that there is a compelling case to extend the period to 12 weeks for rural areas, but an organisation may be looking to buy a property in an area of outstanding natural beauty or where there is no hard-wired infrastructure. Does the Minister not accept that more consideration needs to be given when taking on a social home in a rural area than in a well-developed town, and that someone in that situation should be given longer—on top of what the Government have already graciously accepted—to go through the sale and make sure they have all their ducks in a row and can convert the property however they might want to under restrictive planning laws?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the concern. I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is just a matter of fact that there will be different challenges in different areas. What we have tried to get to with the increase in the notification period from four to eight weeks is a period in which we think it is reasonable for all local authorities to consider these matters. What I have not had is compelling evidence—if he has any, I would like to see it—to suggest that local authorities would not be able to deal with these matters in an eight-week period. I stress again that the notification period is just a minimum. We would expect private registered providers to engage and be flexible beyond this period where there is a serious interest from another landlord in the social housing sector. I hope that reassures him.

Amendments 102 and 103, tabled by the hon. Members for Newbury and for Taunton and Wellington, would require written consent from the local authority for the sale of a social home in a rural area or one with four or more bedrooms. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. I and the Government want to ensure that every opportunity is taken to protect much needed social housing stock. I would expect private registered providers to think particularly carefully before selling homes that meet acute housing needs in local areas. However, housing associations remain independent organisations responsible for their own asset management, and the Government cannot support an approach that would prevent landlords from making legitimate business decisions about how to manage their stock without the agreement of the local authority. I am happy to go into the reclassification risks that arise in this area with the hon. Members. I have debated those points at length with a number of Members on both sides of the House.

I should also point out that the previous restrictions that required approval by the Regulator of Social Housing for disposals of homes had to be removed in 2017—the hon. Member for Newbury, with his experience in the sector, will remember this—to reclassify the housing association sector back to private. I fear that introducing a requirement for local authority approval would represent a significant classification risk. It is not the only classification risk—these things are considered by the Office for National Statistics in the round—but nevertheless it is a material risk from our point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I certainly do not make it a point of principle to resist all amendments despite how sensible some will be. The hon. Member will see in the list of Government amendments that we will be debating many points that were raised by noble peers and that we have taken on. I will go away and reflect on how much of a burden this would be, but let me make a general point. This is my third Bill Committee as a Minister, and I sat on probably 13 while in opposition. The natural tendency of Oppositions is to call for further requirements, further regulations, further reviews and further assessments, because often they have nothing more to say on the point of principle of the particular clause. There is a cumulative impact of layering all of that on top. We want to ensure that the balance is struck properly, and that the disposals process is proportionate and is streamlined to an extent, but I will go away and reflect on the particular point and review whether requiring private registered providers to do what he suggests would be as burdensome as we think.

[Mr Dillon]

I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and appreciate the Minister’s commitment to go away and reflect on them. May I just add a plea? There is concern, when stock is being disposed of in local communities, that the community does not know what is going on. Having disposal notifications published online would not just allow the sector to know what is going on, but allow the local community to know what is going on with its housing stock.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take the hon. Member’s point and, as I committed to doing in response to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, I will go away and reflect. I am happy to provide a fuller, written answer to both hon. Members.

[Mr Dillon]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) Condition AA is that a copy of any notice given in relation to the relevant sale is published on the registered provider’s website.”—(Mr Dillon.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.