Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers.

Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill.

I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use a property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling the keys to a third party. Between now and Report, I hope we can look into this, and I hope the Minister will give this issue the attention it certainly deserves.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I will speak to Amendment 57, moved by my noble friend. My noble friend started by making a very valid point: if the Government have a firm commitment to build, say, 1.5 million new homes and a certain number of new social houses, there is a real risk that, when looking at the capital programme within the department, that commitment trumps funding for existing estates and the regeneration of existing housing stock. That is why Amendment 57 is important: it would make sure that we do not ignore the needs of the existing housing stock.

I draw attention to housing action trusts—an initiative under the Housing Act 1988 that focused very sharply on the most difficult-to-let estates in the country. This was an initiative from my noble friend Lord Heseltine, and, as one might expect, it was highly interventionist. A housing action trust was a time-limited body that took over the management and redevelopment of a local authority estate. However, before that could happen, there was a vote of the local authority tenants to seek their agreement to that time-limited transfer. Speaking from memory, I think there were seven housing action trusts, including one in Stonebridge, in Brent; one in Tower Hamlets; one in Castle Vale, in Birmingham; one in Liverpool; and one in Hull. They were highly successful, and they transformed those estates.

It was interesting that, at the end, the tenants were given a vote: they could either go back to the local authority or transfer to a resident-run or tenant-run association of their own. Speaking from memory, I think they all decided to stick with the alternative to the local authority. If one is looking at ways of transforming the most challenging estates in the country, it is worth looking at the history of housing action trusts, which, by common consent, were highly successful. They were expensive, but we should not ignore that model when deciding how to take further the regeneration of social housing estates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, it appears that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, withdrew from this section at a late time so, if it is the Committee’s pleasure, I will listen to the debate and the Minister, and save my comments till the end.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Would it be in order to speak to Amendment 66?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

For clarification, the question before the Committee is that Clause 14 stand part.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Amendment 66 in my name is a probing amendment relating to the paragraph which abolishes the provision in earlier legislation to phase out tenancies for life. It has much in common with Amendments 77 and 78, which are in the names of my noble friends.

There were two speeches at Second Reading which made me think the time had come to review the assumption that life tenancies are the best way to allocate a scarce resource. Neither speech, as it happens, was from these Benches. One was from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and this is what he said:

“Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham ... there we had our own beautiful piece of social housing. In that block of flats were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who were old. It was sociable and socially mixed”.


He went on to say:

“Unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]


The other speech was from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, and this is what he said:

“There are some policies pursued by Governments which are very much of their time. Perhaps regrettably, we do not review those policies sufficiently regularly and they become enshrined in our body politic, but they were the answer to the question of a different era”.


He was talking about the right to buy, but it struck me that the same might be said of security of tenure. It was the right policy at the time, but that does not mean it is the right policy for today. The noble Lord went on to make the point that times had changed, saying:

“Councils have ever-increasing waiting lists for council housing, and they face the massive financial and social challenge of dealing with the need for and cost of temporary accommodation. There is no spare housing, let alone properties which are hard to let; there is a housing shortage”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 693-4.]


Times have indeed changed. I looked at the speech which Nye Bevan gave on 16 March 1949, when he introduced the Housing Bill. He said:

“We shall, of course, go on providing additional homes until we have reached the position of providing a separate home for every family in the country. The House must reflect that when that is done—and we shall do it before very long—it will be the first time that any nation has done it in the recorded history of mankind”—


would that he had been right about that. But he went on to say that

“we should try to introduce in our modern villages”,

and towns, housing where

“the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street … in ... the living tapestry of a mixed community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/1949; cols. 2124-27.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.

While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership—including management fees, lease fees and so forth—tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity.

In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs. Rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats. But we are talking about affordable housing for people who do not have much money and cannot afford to pay a sudden lump of money.

Some landlords raise additional administrative charges. When we look at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when they are looking to buy and sell, we need to recognise that these people are often in chains and that the response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale.

Right now, many people who are aiming for 100% ownership through staircasing face too many obstacles. For example, in designated protected areas you may be able to buy only up to 80%. We have to start shifting the balance. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a handout: people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder in their communities, for the security of their future and that of their family. We need to change the balance so that the shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.

Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the Government’s ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead? If so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness?

Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier. We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charges, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats. Before expanding the model further, it is important that we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed.

Amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers and the differences in legal documentation. Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model.

These are probing amendments, intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities.

The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three.

I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership.

The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the NAO concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain.

The HCLG report was more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. It found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable and many shared owners never reach full ownership. It questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.

Then we have the ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, jumping from 324 cases in 2020 to 1,564 complaints more recently. That sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling.

The ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restore defects such as cladding or fire safety issues after they are raised. On the sales process, he found incorrect charges at the point of moving in, miscommunication regarding staircasing—buying larger shares of the property—and general delays from solicitors.

The ombudsman summed up the problems by saying that there is a “mismatch” between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord. He concluded that the Government should address the

“fundamental inequities in the way in which shared ownership is designed”—

a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

Bringing all that together may explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, and the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate—frequently below 30%. Any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council, Shared Ownership Resources, which has produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and has first-hand evidence of existing pinch points. I very much hope that the Government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the talent and the landlord.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young-of Cookham, and also the sense behind Amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in shared ownership—all the costs but only half the uplift, if there is one. The risks include very large unexpected costs, which my noble friend raised and I do not intend to repeat. There is 100% of the costs, but only half the capital.

This has been sold to people who one might say, without patronising, are less financially sophisticated, as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs on the whole would be less than the rent they are paying on the half. It is not necessarily low cost at all; one might go far as to suggest that there has been a degree of mis-selling here.

So, I support Amendment 105, which calls for a review. We cannot carry on as we are. My experience in my own council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down. There is now very low take-up. It is possibly a tenure whose time has passed. But the review could reinvigorate it. There is a case for low-cost housing for people to establish and build capital in their society. With this review, which I support entirely, there is the opportunity to try to get it back on track.