Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Lewis Cocking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time, and I think he is a very competent and diligent Minister in the Department. Can he provide the evidence base for what he has just said? I was the leader of a local authority, and I never once met a housing provider that told me they cannot build any more social housing because of the right to buy.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is not my experience from discussing the matter with councils, and it does not reflect the feedback that we received in the consultation. Councils up and down the country tell us that they could build more if they had certainty that their stock would not be lost in the proportion that it is—and certainly not after a minimum qualifying period of three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lewis Cocking]

I ask genuinely about disposals, in a nice and polite way, so I wonder what the Minister’s comments will be. When housing associations or councils dispose of properties, they generally do so for a reason—for example, not being able to spend the money to get it up to a certain EPC grade that the Government have set for them. What evidence does he have that, where one company cannot do something for a social home, such as spending the money to increase the EPC rating, and therefore is selling it, another social housing provider will be able to do it? I want to understand where we are going with these amendments and this part of the Bill. When properties are disposed of, it is usually done for a reason. What makes him think that where someone cannot do it, someone else in the industry could?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair point. The particular reasons that individual providers dispose of stock vary wildly across the country. In the case of disposals that are driven by increases in standards, we are seeing some of that, but it is also the case that there are occasions when local authority or other providers are, for their own reasons, based on their own assessment of the stock, able and willing to take those homes on. I do not think that we can specify a general rule. What we are trying to do here is to give local authorities and other providers the maximum possible opportunity to pick up those stocks and to retain them in the social housing sector, if that is possible. To be very clear and honest with the hon. Member, that may not always be possible, and those homes may be disposed of on the open market, but we want to increase the chances of them being able to be retained in the sector, for all the reasons that we have gone into.

Amendments 1 and 5 would add the Regulator of Social Housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring that our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services that their tenants deserve. As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I am not persuaded that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable it to better regulate against the standards that it sets. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals; that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so it has an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

Amendment 101 would, similarly, require community land trusts with social housing in the area to be notified. Of course, community land trusts that are registered with the Regulator of Social Housing would already be notified under the requirements of the clause. I am aware that not all community land trusts are registered with the regulator, and that is their choice, but the focus of the clause is to keep homes in the regulated sector where it is possible to do so. The notification process is therefore focused on notifying providers that are registered with the regulator.

Amendment 99 would require a sales notice provided to the local authority and other registered providers in the local area to be published on the website of the private registered provider intending to dispose of the property. One of the main aims of the clause is to increase transparency around disposals. However, there is a balance to be struck between the benefits of transparency and the burdens and costs to private registered providers. We believe that the amendment would introduce an unhelpful level of bureaucracy around the disposal notification process. While some providers may choose to publish notifications of sale on their websites, requiring publication via legislation is disproportionate.