Homes and Planning Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 13th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

I entirely agree. Although I have highlighted rural and coastal areas such as my own, I am well aware that London and many inner urban areas also have an issue with the proliferation of second homes.

In fact, that brings me to what I was hoping to talk about some moments ago: the clauses of the Bill itself. The first four—the community-led homes element of the Bill—are simply a logical extension of community rights relating to assets of community value. The powers would simply extend those rights to the identification of land or buildings either in or adjoining a community. That would enable a local community organisation to advance a project to deliver affordable homes for local communities.

I declared an interest as having been a professional in this sector in the past, and I am still a volunteer in it; I therefore have some experience of being involved with local communities that wish to address their local housing needs. This is the opposite of the nimby: the yimby. This is, “Yes, please, in our backyard; we would like affordable homes,” not more unaffordable homes, which is what the planning system seems to deliver for many local communities in areas like mine.

How can we deliver more affordable homes? The way to do it, if all potential development sites are taken, is to undertake a call for land. In many of the cases in which I was doing that, through community land trusts or parish and town councils, there would be no response: the price available for affordable housing on rural exception sites was significantly more than the agricultural value currently available to the landowner, but less than might be available to that landowner—easily by a factor of 10 or 100—if the land were to get planning permission for unaffordable, open-market housing. Landowners therefore would not come forward with sites to deliver affordable housing. The purpose of the first four clauses is to give communities the powers—as a community right—to identify that land. That would strengthen the ability of communities—through parish and town councils, community land trusts and other community-led organisations—to meet unmet local housing need, including through the delivery of in-perpetuity social and affordable housing.

The Bill contains a number of safeguards. The local authority must be consulted, and land made available would have to be at a scale commensurate with the moderate growth of the community. Provisions would prevent the expropriation of private gardens and similar land, there would be a vacancy and utilisation test, and powers would be exercised only as a last resort, after a call for land and all other measures had been pursued.

The planning background to the Bill is that in places such as Cornwall we have for decades followed the policies of successive Governments in meeting very high house building targets. Indeed, Cornwall has been one of the fastest growing places for housing in the United Kingdom—almost trebling its housing stock in the past 60 years—and yet the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. One of the lessons that one learns from this is that pursuing a policy of a means to an end rather than an end in itself—that is, the building of homes, rather than meeting the need—has been an abject failure. This Bill would put need first, rather than simply building homes.

Cornwall has had its house building targets significantly increased—almost doubled—as a result of the Government’s changes to housebuilding targets. That has resulted in the counter-productive outcome that sites previously identified for affordable homes—rural exception sites on the edge of towns and villages—have, as a result of planning appeals, had those permissions changed to now deliver unaffordable homes. In other words, all the affordability has been stripped out of the development, and planning inspectors have been obliged to permit those homes to be delivered purely as open market homes.

The reason that the planning inspectors have said this is the case—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering at me; I am very happy to take an intervention from him if he wishes. Planning inspectors have said that because local authorities have had the rug pulled from underneath them, they are no longer able to demonstrate that they have a five-year supply of land. It takes two or three years for a local authority to go through the process to identify sites. Cornwall had identified a five-year land supply at a prior stage, but when the Government announced the new figures, it immediately no longer had that.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

To clarify for the hon. Gentleman, where an adopted up-to-date local plan was in place at the point we introduced the new national planning policy framework, its housing need requirement remained as per that adopted plan. Transitional arrangements were put in place. Yes, as the system progresses, local authorities will have to plan on the basis of the new standard method, but it is not the case to say that when we changed the NPPF in December 2024, immediately across the country those new targets kicked in everywhere.

[Andrew George]

In that case, the Minister has not explained that to his planning inspectors. If he looks at the appeal reference APP/D0840/W/25/3367358 for land east of Meneth, Bonallack Lane, Gweek in my constituency, he will see that Inspector Harrington was very clear on 23 February 2025 that a location that previously had permission for an all-affordable rural exception site was converted to an open market site, purely as a result of the lack of a five-year land supply. I think the Minister needs to look at this again. We need additional tools to address the housing need of local people because the current tools are simply not working; indeed, they have been undermined by the Government’s own policy.

The problem with the house building target approach is that it is built on a delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their finished product. We have found over a decade—certainly in Cornwall—that developers will only deliver their homes at times when the market is buoyant, and they will not collude with Government in order to achieve those outcomes.

I know the Government have a series of concerns with the Bill and, in the interests of time, I will quickly rattle through them. They say there is a risk it is not compatible with property rights under the European convention on human rights. I do not think that applies as far as the powers of my Bill are concerned. In any case, there would be other measures that we could introduce that would resolve these issues and provide additional safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

I would be pleased if the hon. Gentleman brought that data to the House. I must admit that I am struggling with some of the opposition to the Bill from Labour Members. We have heard that it is not radical enough, and that we need to build more homes. The hon. Gentleman said he wanted data; well, I have a stat: between 1961 and 2011, Cornwall’s population almost tripled, and during the 2000s, Cornwall built 770 homes for every 1,000 new residents, which was double the national average of 377 at the time.

We are not short of homes or houses in Cornwall. We have record—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) chuntering from a sedentary position; I am happy to give way. We are not short of residential properties, which are being built every year, but, as I highlighted in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, many of those homes, once built, are rapidly turned into second homes and holiday lets, and the local authority has no control.

I warmly welcome the measures in the Bill. I thought there was consensus in the House on giving local areas the choice and the powers to make decisions for certain parts of the country—for example, towns and villages in my North Cornwall constituency such as St Minver Lowlands, which has 71% non-first homes, or St Merryn, which has 60% non-first homes. Other Members have highlighted the impact on community life, school staffing, nurseries and other local facilities. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s attempt to take forward this legislation to give local people, local authorities and local areas decision-making powers where there are far too many second homes compared with affordable first homes for local people. We should give those areas the right to choose and the power to balance the market.

As my hon. Friend said, we are not against second home owners, and we are certainly not against holiday let owners—they are an important part of the accommodation mix for the tourism industry in Cornwall—but may I humbly suggest that if the proportion gets to over 70% it is possibly too much? Despite the massive house building numbers I mentioned, Cornwall’s housing register list has over 25,000 families who cannot find a safe and warm place to live. I suggest that in those specific areas we give local people, local authorities and local councils the chance to decide how many and where any holiday lets and second homes might be appropriate.

My hon. Friend, along with some Government Members, touched on the council tax loophole, whereby if holiday homes can be easily flipped to holiday lets, they qualify for business rates and, often, small business rate relief, so they do not pay double council tax and they pay no business rates at all. In fact, they do not pay any tax, full stop. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that loophole which, as I understand it, can be backdated several years.

On infrastructure, Cornwall is, as has been mentioned, very good at meeting our house building targets, and we have built thousands of homes. Unfortunately, as I have explained, they do not always end up in the hands of local residents, as they should. But in Cornwall, as well as a housing crisis we now have an infrastructure crisis. In my town of Bodmin—the largest in my constituency—the surgery is operating at 160% of capacity, yet we cannot get a new surgery building past the local integrated care board. We have part but not full funding, and yet by 2030 Bodmin will see 3,500 more homes built. Unless new homes come with infrastructure, we are storing up enormous issues for our local residents.

I would really welcome the Housing Minister explaining the very ambitious house building targets. As I say, if those houses are for local residents who really need them, I am fully supportive, but I have highlighted the issues around those arbitrary targets.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As has been mentioned—I say to the hon. Gentleman again—one of the most effective ways in which communities can shape development in their area is to have up-to-date local plans in place. Cornwall’s local plan was adopted in 2016 and, again, the infrastructure funding statement alongside that, which is so important, is out of date. Cornwall is now taking steps to get an up-to-date plan in place, but it is very late in the day.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. He knows as well as I do that it takes years to put together neighbourhood plans, and lots of those were disregarded when the new legislation came forward. I hope that he will say something on that. As we move forward with our Cornish devolution deal, perhaps something can come with that.

I want briefly to take the rare opportunity to praise the Conservative Government—I am not often found doing so in the House, and I will have to caveat this carefully. Just before the general election—I leave it to hon. Members to consider the cynicism of this and how likely they felt it was that they would be returned to enact the measures—they proposed much of what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives does in his Bill in requiring planning permission when a residential property is turned into a holiday let. I must admit that I am extremely frustrated and disappointed to see the Labour Government not taking that on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

It is important to remember that the last time this country consistently built the number of houses that we, across the House, agree we need was the 1960s, when councils were building houses. If the new Labour Government, who have had two and a half years to get this right, are still going to blame the Liberal Democrats’ small part in a coalition, in a fairly powerless time, some 10 years ago, then they really need to look forward and concentrate on what they can deliver.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that, last year, this Labour Government delivered the highest number of council homes since records began in 1991-92?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing fourth place in the ballot, and I thank him for bringing his Homes and Planning Bill before the House. He is a passionate advocate for more social and affordable housing in his constituency. He brings a wealth of frontline housing experience from his time away from the House and he has campaigned tirelessly—I recognise this—over many years for greater control over the number of second homes and short-term lets in the wonderful towns and villages he has the privilege to represent.

[Amanda Martin]

Does the minister agree that if the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is so passionate about this issue, he should have a conversation with his Liberal Democrat colleagues who run my city council and clearly do not share the same ambition as him?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have always found that Liberal Democrats operate like a sort of franchise system around the country, where responsibility for individual decisions is not taken at the national level. I encourage Liberal Democrat Members to talk to their colleagues in those parts of the country where they are not acting along the lines that they have been advocating for today.

[Ben Maguire]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am just going to make a bit of progress. I am happy to give way later.

As the hon. Member for St Ives knows from our recent discussions, despite agreeing with the Bill’s overarching intention, namely to support the housing needs of local people, the Government unfortunately cannot support it for the reasons I will set out in as much detail as I can in the time available to me. However, I want to reiterate from the outset that the Government recognise the acute need for social and affordable homes in rural and coastal communities. We understand and appreciate fully that many local authorities want more tools to bear down on excessive concentrations of second homes and short-term lets within them.

As the hon. Gentleman set out in opening the debate, the Bill contains essentially two measures: one relating to land for affordable housing, and the other concerning planning controls in relation to second homes and short-term lets. I do not intend to exhaustively detail the Government’s position on each individual clause in the Bill. Instead, I will set out our position in respect of each of these measures, starting with land for affordable housing.

Clauses 1 to 4 extend provisions around assets of community value and the community right to buy, so that they can apply to land for affordable housing. Clause 1 is the core operative clause in the group and we understand the intention behind it. We all want suitable land to provide affordable housing to meet identified local need. However, extending the assets of community value regime to allow vacant, substantially unused or materially underused land to be nominated because of its potential for affordable housing is not, in our view, a proportionate means of achieving that objective.

The new community right to buy, enacted through our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, was carefully designed to balance the legitimate rights of property owners with the ability of communities to protect buildings and land that are important to them. Bringing potentially much larger quantities of land within the assets of community value framework could, in our view, increase interference with property rights in an unjustifiable way.

[Andrew George]

On the franchise point, the Labour party seems to franchise different approaches with both the local Labour party member who delivered the petition in favour of the Bill, and the Welsh Assembly. The Minister heard what I have to say on the issue: these proposals could be improved and streamlined in Committee. If he wishes, we could find another route for that and deliver the second half of the Bill in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but when a Bill is this flawed—I will come in detail to how it is flawed in several other respects—it is too much to ask the Government essentially to redesign it in Committee, with all the capacity that would require. I will come to what the Government are doing on these issues in due course.

The community right to buy already provides for a 12-month moratorium and a right of first refusal. Extending those effects across a wider class of land might also increase compensation claims against local authorities, including claims arising from delay to a sale or diminution in value following listing. Although the Bill now includes additional evidential requirements and chief planning officer scrutiny, those safeguards do not resolve our fundamental concern about the implications arising from expanding the purpose and reach of the regime.

The national planning policy framework already provides strong support for community-led development, including community-led exception sites, and the August 2026 revisions strengthened and clarified that support. Members are saying that such things are not working, but that measure was introduced only a few months ago. Our considered view is that those changes need time to embed before further primary legislation is considered.

Clauses 2 and 3 concern the identification of land in neighbourhood development plans, and the acquisition of land required to enable affordable housing respectively. Again, we understand the intention behind the clauses, but they seek to add further statutory processes and powers where relevant ones already exist—several hon. Friends made that point in their speeches. Clause 4 seeks to provide a safeguard in respect of the new provisions in clauses 1 to 3, in the form of a limit of one hectare of land for every 1,000 people in an adjacent settlement over each five-year period, thereby aggregating land listed as an asset of community value identified in a neighbourhood plan or authorised for compulsory acquisition. I understand fully why the hon. Member has included that clause in the Bill, and I commend his efforts to try to tweak it to reassure the Government about the effects of clauses 1 to 3, but I am afraid it does not resolve our fundamental concerns about those provisions.

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way, although I can already feel Madam Deputy Speaker’s glare.

[Andrew George]

Unless I am wrong, I will not be given the opportunity to wind up this debate, but on that point, the Minister needs to accept that there are thousands of communities around the country where, irrespective of the Government’s tools—those are all welcome in their own right—if there is a call for land for affordable homes, because of the frailties of the way humans operate, they will not get any offers of land. There have been dozens of cases where there is simply no land available for affordable homes because people want an open market.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about public land and what more can be done in that area. As I said, we strengthened rural exception site policy in the NPPF. I am interested—I have made this offer to him previously, and I make it to other hon. Members—to know why rural exception sites in particular parts of the country are not coming forward at the scale required. On the safeguard, in our view a national hectare-to-population formula risks imposing an arbitrary constraint that may bear little relationship to local need or the characteristics of a particular site. The requirement for population figures, land management, aggregation, record keeping and avoidance also demonstrates the administrative complexity of the model.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a bit of progress. The established planning system is the appropriate framework for assessing housing need, land supply, site suitability and the scale of development in the light of local circumstances. The Government therefore do not believe that the additional statutory ceiling is justified.

I will now turn to clauses 5 and 6 individually, starting with clause 5. I recognise the concern that has given rise to this provision. Excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes can impact the availability and affordability of homes for local residents to buy and to rent, as well as local services, and we agree that local authorities need effective tools to manage those impacts.

However, we believe the clause is problematic for the following reasons. First—I say this gently to the hon. Member for St Ives—the proposal appears to misunderstand the effect of the use classes order. The order is permissive: it provides that a change of use within the same use class is not development, and therefore does not require planning permission. However, it does not provide that a change between different use classes will necessarily require planning permission. The introduction of new use classes C5 and C6 would not therefore automatically mean that a change to or from those uses is a material change of use requiring planning permission, and whether a particular change of use is material would still need to be considered on the facts of the case.

It would also provide for a C5 second home use to cease automatically when a property is sold or otherwise subject to a relevant . A future owner wishing to use it as a second home would need planning permission for that use. Again, this requirement would be subject to specific carve-outs, such as a transfer between spouses or civil partners.

The important point here is that planning use classes run with the land or building and are not based on ownership. Automatic reversion on sale would cut across that established principle and create complexity for property owners, conveyancers and local planning authorities. Furthermore, the proposed exemptions would be at odds with the current functioning of the order and wider legislative scheme.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way a final time.

[Andrew George]

Has the Minister raised this matter with the Senedd? Has the Minister considered what is known as the St Ives clause in neighbourhood development plans, where permissions can be granted for accommodation only where it is specified that they cannot be used for non-permanent occupancy? This already exists in planning law. I am afraid that whoever is advising the Minister is not advising him correctly, because this can be done. It has been done in Wales, and it is being done here as well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? He has expertise in this area, but I think it is slightly rich of him to say that the expertise available to Government, including legal expertise, is wrong on this point. The Welsh Government do have a particular approach, as I have heard mentioned several times today; that does not need to contend with the 90-night short-term let limit in London, which creates additional legislative complexity in England. We are engaging with the Welsh Government, who are due to publish their final impact evaluation on a series of measures, including on planning use classes. As I have said many times in this House, we continue to give serious consideration to what further powers local authorities need in order to bear down on excessive concentrations of second homes and short-term lets.

As I was saying, the clause does not propose that C6 short-term uses would revert to C3 at the point of sale, nor does it propose an alternative method to facilitate the return of existing short-term lets for use as primary dwelling houses. There is therefore an asymmetry in the proposed clause. This could most negatively impact the place most in need of properties reverting from a short-term use to a sole or main residence use.

It is also not clear how the proposed new C3 dwellinghouses definition would interact with existing C3(b) and (c) use classes, which include up to six residents living together as a single household where care may or may not be provided to residents.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to give way. I can feel your glare, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel it in every debate, but I can feel it more intensely now. I can see that you wish me to make progress.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister consider whether that really was a glare? [Laughter.]

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The Minister is spelling out quite clearly how the use of planning to control the number of short-term holiday lets is complicated and difficult. I view using the planning system on these sorts of issues as a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Will the Minister confirm whether, as the Government consider ways of controlling the number of holiday lets, they will consider a licensing system, and whether a cap could be applied to such a system?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Look at what is being done across the rest of the world under different regimes: some use licensing alone, some use planning alone, and some use both planning and licensing. We are reviewing what further powers local authorities might need and considering all options. As I have said, I am more than happy to continue to engage with hon. Members across the House on this point.

We share the ambition of improving access to housing for local people, but changes to the use class system must be judged by whether they would achieve that objective in practice. We are not persuaded that the approach proposed in clause 5 would work.

Recognising the underlying pressures, the Government have taken action, including abolishing the furnished holiday lettings tax regime, legislating for a national registration scheme for short-term lets, and preventing landlords from evicting tenants simply to convert a home into a holiday let. Any further planning changes will require careful consideration alongside those measures.

I will turn briefly to clause 6. It is right that communities should be able to respond to the effects of second homes and short-term lets through the plan-making system. However, the clause largely restates powers that are already available to local planning authorities and qualifying bodies. Neighbourhood plans can already include policies relating to second homes and short-term holiday lets, and local plans can also introduce principal residence or principal occupancy policies. Indeed, clause 6(4) explicitly recognises those existing powers.

The clause therefore largely sets out an approach that the existing planning system already enables. For that reason, we do not believe that the case for further statutory provision has been made, and nor are we persuaded that prescribing matters that plan-making bodies must take into account when preparing such policies via a separate statutory provision would improve the operation of existing plan-making powers.

I thank the hon. Member for St Ives once again for bringing forward the Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. There have been some great speeches from my hon. Friend the Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). A number of issues have been raised that are well beyond the scope of this particular Bill, including the housing revenue account, rough sleeping, and fleecehold leasehold. I am more than happy to sit down with hon. Members from across the House to discuss those matters.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will conclude.

The Government commend the motivation behind the Bill. We want to see more social and affordable homes come forward in rural and coastal communities, we want to empower communities to shape their local areas, and we recognise the important contribution that community-led housing can make to meeting local housing needs.

We simply disagree that the measures in the Bill, which is problematic in a number of respects, are the right way to achieve those objectives. Taken together, its measures would add considerable prescription and complexity to the planning and land system. In a number of cases they would duplicate functions that can already be exercised through the existing planning framework, while in others they risk constraining the flexibility that local authorities and communities need to respond to very different local circumstances.

For the reasons I have set out, the Government are unable to support the Bill, but I very much look forward to having an ongoing constructive dialogue with the hon. Member for St Ives and other right hon. and hon. Members on the matters raised in the debate, with a view to realising our shared aim of supporting the housing needs of local people.

Leasehold Regulation

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

This Government made a clear and unambiguous commitment in our manifesto to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. To prevent the renewal of that system, we will legislate through our forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill to make commonhold the default tenure.

In the commonhold future that is on the horizon, existing leaseholders will not be left behind. We will legislate to ensure that more of them are able to take control of their buildings, and more easily convert to commonhold as and when they judge the time is right for them. We will also continue to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders in the here and now.

Our forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will contain a number of measures that provide existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes, including capping ground rents at £250 a year, and the abolition of leasehold forfeiture and its replacement with a modern, proportionate lease enforcement system that addresses breaches fairly, with appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.

However, providing relief to existing leaseholders struggling with the cost of living requires us to switch on a number of remaining measures from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

Leaseholders across the country are subject to a range of unfair and unreasonable practices but chief among their complaints are rapidly escalating and frequently opaque service charges that are placing huge financial strain on millions of hard-pressed leasehold homeowners.

Today, the Government are acting to protect them by introducing regulations that will improve the fairness and transparency of service charges and help transform the experience of home ownership for millions of leaseholders across the country.

We have laid a group of five complementary statutory instruments, three of which are subject to the affirmative procedure and will require parliamentary approval before they can come into force, that will work in tandem to help leaseholders better understand what they are paying for and empower them to challenge charges where they believe them to be unreasonable. Taken together, these SIs provide for the following:

Clearer, standardised information about charges, fees and buildings insurance

From 1 April 2027, leaseholders will gain stronger rights to request information about their service charges, building insurance, and the management, maintenance and repair of their buildings.

From 1 November 2027, landlords will be required to provide leaseholders with a standardised building insurance disclosure document, giving them clear information about their insurance cover and costs, how it was arranged and any financial incentives, relationships or potential conflicts of interest between the parties involved.

From 1 November 2027, all landlords other than social landlords must proactively give leaseholders clearer information through standardised service charge demands, annual reports and accounts. In addition, all landlords will have to provide up-front clarity about the administration fees that leaseholders are asked to pay in a clear, standardised administration charge schedule. Where these costs cannot be established in advance, the schedule must be clear on how these fees will be calculated.

From 1 November 2028, the requirement to provide leaseholders with clearer information through standardised service charge demands, annual reports and accounts will extend to social landlords. We have staggered the implementation of these measures to give affected parties sufficient time to prepare, while ensuring that leaseholders benefit from the reforms as soon as practicable.

Reform of the litigation costs regime

From 1 April 2027, the litigation costs regime will be reformed to address the current imbalance between leaseholders and landlords, thereby removing a significant barrier to challenging poor practice.

Landlords will in most cases need to seek court or tribunal approval before they can recover their litigation costs through a service or administration charge. Leaseholders will also have a new right to recover their own litigation costs from their landlord, with court or tribunal approval.

The measures include a targeted, proportionate exemption for litigation costs recovered via administration charge, which will allow lower value litigation costs incurred by landlords to be recovered without court or tribunal approval.

A further SI concerning litigation costs will be laid later this year and will come into force at the same time as the relevant litigation costs SI laid today.

Fairer and more transparent building insurance payments

From 1 November 2027, commission sharing with landlords and managing agents will be banned and replaced with transparent permitted insurance payments. This will ensure that leaseholders are only charged for specific insurance-related services provided to them by their landlord or managing agent, thereby preventing the cost of excessive commissions being passed on.

[HCWS470]

Fire and Rescue Services: Suicide Prevention Training

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate, and I thank the other Members who have spoken. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his kind words; I was actually on the morning rounds speaking about service charge protections for leaseholders, but I was very glad to speak about youth unemployment and a variety of other topics as well.

Mr Efford, as will be evident to you, I am not the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who would ordinarily respond to a debate on this subject; my hon. Friend is currently taking the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill through its Committee stage, and so I am responding in her stead.

In the time I have available to me, I intend to provide some further clarity about the Government’s support for the fire and rescue services. Before I do, I make two general points. The first, as several hon. Members have alluded to, is that we should not lose sight of the people at the heart of this debate, namely individuals who have been lost to suicide or those whose suicidal feelings have led them to attempt to take their own lives. Every life lost to suicide is a tragedy, one that leaves a lasting impact on families, friends and communities. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in paying tribute to the work of the Samaritans. We value their expertise in suicide prevention and we take very seriously their concerns in this area.

Secondly, on behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to those firefighters, but also the control room staff and other emergency service personnel, who respond at some of the most difficult moments in people’s lives. The impacts of dealing with the situations that we have discussed this afternoon can stay with them long after an incident has ended, so it is vital that we support them with the skills and confidence they need to help people in crisis and to ensure their own wellbeing.

The data, as hon. Members have mentioned, is perfectly clear: firefighters are attending more suicide-related call-outs. In the year to March 2026, fire and rescue services in England attended 3,270 non-fire incidents involving suicide or attempted suicide. That is a 151% increase from 10 years ago. That trend reinforces the importance of firefighters being properly prepared and supported. But the attendance data does not tell us what training those firefighters receive, whether that training was adequate, why attendance has increased or how many individual firefighters have been exposed. The figures therefore provide a strong reason to examine current provision, but they do not demonstrate that existing training is inadequate or that mandatory training is the appropriate solution.

Our first step is to work with the sector to understand whether there are any material gaps in existing provision. We will seek the health and wellbeing task and finish group’s advice on current provision, and, taking account of that advice, consider with the National Fire Chiefs Council whether any further sector-led work is needed. If the evidence does identify material gaps, we will consider with the sector what further action would be appropriate. This could include the role of standards and inspection in providing greater assurance, but we do not want to pre-empt what the evidence tells us.

The important point to make clear is that any significant new national requirements, funding or assurance arrangements would require separate decisions, because further action will be informed by the evidence and what is practical and proportionate. I am glad the shadow Minister mentioned the need for proportionality. Our position is that work needs to be proportionate and predominantly sector-led unless the Government consciously decide to reprioritise resources. Responsibility for delivery is kept with fire and rescue authorities, while allowing the Government and sector partners to determine whether any further national or sector-led action is justified.

I want to make it clear, because this is the central point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and others have put to me, that we are not ruling out mandatory national training in future. However, a nationally mandated requirement would represent a significant departure from the current approach. Fire and rescue authorities are responsible as employers for determining the training that their staff need, and the Government do not currently mandate individual training requirements. Our approach is generally, as I said, to support sector-led improvement, including through funding the National Fire Chiefs Council to target support where it is most needed. We do not currently have evidence that would justify making an exception to that approach for suicide prevention training.

In the Government’s view, the evidence does not demonstrate systemic failure across the sector or establish that mandation would be the most effective or proportionate response. However, given the increase in suicide-related incidents, stakeholder concerns and the policing commitment, there is good reason to work with the sector to understand whether there are material gaps in existing provision. As I said, if that work identifies significant and persistent gaps that cannot adequately be addressed through sector-led improvement, guidance or clearer expectations, we will consider what further action is justified by the evidence. But our immediate priority, as I have said, is to establish the evidence.

I should just make a point in terms of a comparison with the police because, as part of establishing the evidence base, we will draw on learnings from the police force. Police officers are being given protected time for trauma and suicide prevention training. Although there are important parallels between the services—firefighters and police officers can find themselves responding side by side to traumatic incidents—the policing commitment responds to the specific evidence and circumstances within policing, including geographical variation in workforce support and wider wellbeing pressures. The evidence of a particular problem in some police force training does not in itself demonstrate equivalent systemic gaps across fire and rescue services.

There is also existing support for the fire and rescue service, including the National Fire Chiefs Council’s suicide prevention and postvention toolkit, the development of which was supported through Government grant funding. The toolkit provides practical resources and pathways to support prevention, early intervention and postvention. We also recognise the important contribution of specialist organisations, including the Fire Fighters Charity and Samaritans. The Fire Fighters Charity provides dedicated suicide prevention resources and a 24-hour crisis line for the fire service community, which received more than 200 calls in its first year. Many services also work with Samaritans and other specialist organisations.

I will just say a little on improving existing training. Alongside our commitment to building the evidence base, the Government will also work closely with the sector to better understand best practice—there is good practice out there—and to identify where there might be material gaps in existing provision.

We will seek the advice of the cross-sector firefighter health and wellbeing task and finish group. Taking account of that advice, the Fire Minister—Baroness Blake of Leeds—will discuss with the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Local Government Association and other partners what further sector-led work is needed to identify and address material gaps. We will also engage with the Fire Standards Board and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services to consider how standards and inspection can provide stronger assurance.

[Marie Goldman]

The Minister has said “sector-led” a few times in his response, which is important. However, it is my understanding that this training is essentially something that Samaritans is asking for, and who can say that Samaritans does not lead the sector when it comes to suicide prevention? I wonder what more he needs to see from the sector to suggest that providing this training would not be the right approach to adopt.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have tried to convey that although we take very seriously the concerns of Samaritans—we will work with Samaritans and we are interested in its evidence—it is the Government’s assessment that we do not have the evidence base that would justify, at this moment in time, mandating national guidance in a way that would be a significant departure from the current approach. However, as I have also tried to make clear, we are not shutting down the option of mandating such guidance; we want to explore whether it is required.

I will say a little on cross-Government work, because the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned it; I will ensure that colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care register his concerns. The Government are addressing the impacts of work-related trauma more widely through our broader work on firefighter health and wellbeing. My Department and the Department of Health and Social Care are working jointly with the sector on prevention, early intervention and longer-term support. This includes development of a cross-sector firefighter health and wellbeing concord, research into occupational health risks, and work to develop an enhanced health monitoring offer, building on existing arrangements and tailored to the occupational risks that firefighters face. That matters because, as I have said, the effects of traumatic incidents do not necessarily end when the incident ends; they may emerge later, or build up over a career. The Government’s approach recognises both the skills that firefighters need to help members of the public in crisis, and—as I have also said—the support that they themselves need.

Finally, as the Government have already announced, we intend to launch the college of fire and rescue in 2029 to strengthen professional standards, skills and training across the sector. The Government will carefully consider what support we might provide as the college’s functions are finalised, and I will ensure that the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham is considered by the Fire Minister.

I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and I thank hon. Members for contributing. Firefighters are being called to increasing numbers of these deeply difficult incidents. They need the skills and confidence to help people experiencing suicidal crisis, and they deserve support for the effect that such work might have on them. Although I have not been able to commit to mandating a particular national training model today, I hope that in my response to the debate I have been able to reassure hon. Members that the Government are not simply assuming that current provision is good enough. As I have made clear, we want to work with the sector to understand whether there are material gaps in existing provision and to determine what further action, if any, is needed.

As we do so, I know that the Fire Minister will be more than happy to keep my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and other hon. Members updated, and I will make sure that she responds specifically to a number of the points that my hon. Friend made, not least regarding what engagement she has had as Fire Minister with the Fire Brigades Union.

Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

I will begin by speaking to new clause 39. I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments on standards and decency. It is reassuring to know that his deregulatory zeal does not extend to Awaab’s law, the decent homes standard or minimum energy efficiency standards.

As well as delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, we are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Maintenance is a critical part of that. We have set out the standards required for social housing through the decent homes standard. In the coming months, we will provide more detailed guidance on how landlords can meet that standard. We have also published electrical safety guidance that sets out rights and responsibilities for landlords, local authorities and tenants.

On complaints, social landlords are already subject to the Housing Ombudsman’s statutory complaint handling code. We are working closely with the ombudsman to ensure that it has the resources and capacity to meet increased demand and support better complaint handling by landlords. We have also introduced Awaab’s law, with its clear time-bound requirements on social landlords to investigate hazards and take action. Ahead of phase 2 of that law coming into force on 30 November, we have published updated guidance to support landlords to comply with its requirements.

Awaab’s law promotes a person-centred approach, putting the need to make individuals safe at the heart of legislation. Again, I commend the Opposition, because it was a Conservative Act of Parliament that provided the powers to introduce Awaab’s law into the social rented sector. However, in our view it would not be appropriate for the Government to tell landlords how to put individuals at the heart of the legislation, as the solutions will vary depending on individual circumstances. For that reason, we do not believe that the additional guidance called for in the new clause is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. What provision is he putting in place to replicate those arrangements where there is no mayoral authority?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As members of the Committee know, I worked in social housing for 14 years before entering this place. One of the more challenging elements of my role was ensuring the safety of our residents, particularly with annual gas safety checks. We had to make three attempts to carry out the check before going to court and seeking an injunction to access the property, not only resulting in legal costs for the social provider, but extending the time that a tenant was residing in a property without the boiler having its approved checks done. The same problem can also extend to five-year electrical safety checks. Only yesterday, I hosted a roundtable with the British Pest Control Association, where we spoke about how delays to access in such instances are causing further damage through pest infestation. Bedbugs, for example, often move within a block of flats, so quick access to all dwellings in that instance is key to stopping the spread and its impact.

The new clause has come from experience of working in the sector. I have never known a judge not to grant an injunction when a social landlord has been able to prove that it has made those three attempts. Although article 8 and the right to a private life may come up, that is of course a qualified right. As long as the access is in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate, or pursuing a legitimate aim, article 8 considerations can be laid aside.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for tabling and speaking to the new clause. It raises an important issue that we recognise has been an area of growing concern, and on which there were some particularly considered and constructive debates in the other place; I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his engagement. Those debates reinforced the incredible complexity of the issue, which involves the interaction of the fundamental rights of tenants, the legal duties placed on landlords and the safety of both residents and their neighbours.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, since those debates in the other place, the Government have been undertaking an intensive process of engagement and policy development to examine the issue. In that respect, we are grateful for the input and expertise that we have received from a range of residents’ groups, landlords, representative bodies and charities. That engagement has put it beyond doubt that this is an issue that must be resolved. However, it also made it clear that we cannot act in haste and risk creating new systemic problems, and there are a range of challenges that arise from various options in this area.

For that reason, the Government cannot support new clause 60, but we will shortly bring forward a consultation that will examine the issue in the round to get at some of those challenges and find out what the potential solutions might be. It will also look at the design and the necessary safeguards for any new law in this space. To support the sector with practical advice, we will bring forward plans to develop best practice guidance on access procedures.

I absolutely understand and recognise the expertise of the hon. Member for Newbury in this area. He raises a valid point, but for the reasons I have given, I hope he will withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank the Minister for his reply and for his Department’s understanding of the wider impact. I welcome the consultation being launched. I agree that the balance between a landlord’s rights and a tenant’s rights needs a lot of thought. When I was drafting new clause 60, I did not include pests as a hazard; I appreciate that that should have been included as well. I look forward to seeing the Government’s progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 62

Ability of tenants to request an electric vehicle charging point

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to enable tenants to request and install a domestic Electric Vehicle Charger.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) made under this subsection must include—

(a) the grounds on which a request can be declined including—

(i) electrical standards,

(ii) planning requirements, and

(iii) cost; and

(b) a requirement for social housing providers to respond to the request within one month.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Mr Dillon.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dillon]

These are simple new clauses and we hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will support them. In effect, new clause 62 would allow social tenants the opportunity to have an electric charging point on existing stock, and new clause 63 seeks the same for new builds.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to improving access to convenient home charging for tenants, including in social housing. However, we do not believe that new clause 62 is the right way to achieve that objective.

Tenants can face hurdles in getting landlord or freeholder approval, sometimes without a clear reason; that is not in dispute. The Department for Transport is already consulting on an ability to charge for tenants and leaseholders. That consultation, published on 21 October, considers both legislation and non-statutory guidance to give residents clearer routes to request permission for a charge point. It also seeks views on setting clearer expectations for landlords and freeholders when responding to those requests, including in social housing.

New clause 62 would pre-empt that consultation by introducing requirements before the Government have considered any evidence or fully assessed the impacts. In our view, that risks introducing grounds for refusal, which could be inappropriate and have the unintended consequence of deeming certain scenarios unreasonable when they are not, limiting access to home charging for tenants rather than making it more accessible. We want to ensure that any intervention is workable for tenants, while also taking proper account of the legitimate responsibilities and constraints on landlords and freeholders.

New clause 62 would risk creating an inconsistent approach between different property types, which could cause confusion for housing providers and leave other tenants without the same protections. Support with installation costs is already available, with existing Government grants providing up to £500 towards the cost of installing an eligible charge point.

New clause 63 seeks to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newbury about the importance of ensuring that new homes are equipped for the transition to electric vehicles. In schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, part S, which was introduced in 2021, already requires charging infrastructure in new residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations in England, including in social housing developments. In our view, the new clause is therefore not required. The Government are also currently considering whether those requirements should be strengthened via the DFT consultation.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

On new clause 63, does the Minister agree that, before we worry about electric vehicle charging points, the new developments must have enough parking spaces? As it is, I suspect that hon. Members’ postbags are full due to new developments coming forward without enough parking spaces, even before electric vehicle charging points are put in as well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to opine on a completely different issue. The hon. Member for Newbury may correct me, but car parking spaces are not in the scope of his new clauses. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is more than welcome to write to me with specific concerns about local authority action in that area.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw new clause 62 and will not press new clause 63.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to speak again—no day would be complete without a sitting of this Committee. New clause 66 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). In proposing the new clause, she said:

“There are hundreds of thousands of empty homes across England and Wales, while many families wait years for a social home or remain in temporary accommodation.

My amendment would require the Government to carry out a review of how empty homes could be used as social housing. It would assess how many properties could be brought into use, the potential benefits of a dedicated scheme and the barriers that would need to be addressed.

Bringing empty homes back into use can be a faster and more cost-effective way of increasing social housing supply, while also helping to regenerate local communities. This review would give the Government the evidence it needs to act and I hope it will receive support from across the House.”

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I particularly draw attention to the regeneration benefits of bringing empty homes back into use, which are significant. As hon. Members know, many of our town centres have too many empty buildings, and there is a real bottleneck in the procedure for getting them back into use.

The late Liberal Democrat Housing Minister Andrew Stunell started the last significant empty homes programme that any Government have introduced. Begun in 2010, it brought 120,000 empty homes back into use; that is 10 times the number of social homes created last year and a significant contribution to meeting the need for housing.

When the Conservatives took over in 2015, that programme was abandoned—its funding was ended. The number of empty homes is now on the increase again. As a result of the programme, it fell to a record low, from 315,000 to 203,000. However, it has gone up again under subsequent Governments. By October 2026, it had risen to 303,000, almost back to its 2010 level, up 14% on 2024 and 50% higher than in 2015 when the programme ended.

The programme brought units into use for affordable rent, low-cost home ownership and social rent. It therefore made a significant contribution to not just housing but social housing. Its grant was around £22,000 per dwelling—significantly less than the average subsidy for creating new social housing. It was therefore a very important factor.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in the country. We need a programme to bring them back into use. That is the missing link in the Government’s housing policy. A Liberal Democrat Government would bring in an empty homes programme forthwith. We commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for speaking to new clause 66, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He rightly pointed out that there are currently more than 300,000 homes that have been empty for six months or more. The Government absolutely want to see more empty homes brought back into use across the country, but we do not believe that a national review or a national empty homes strategy supported by a new ringfenced fund is the right approach.

The scale and causes of empty homes vary considerably between places, as do local housing pressures and the interventions that will be most effective. Therefore, we believe that local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities are best placed to understand those circumstances and determine the right approach for their areas. Local authorities can already access funding to bring homes back into use, including through the social and affordable homes programme, the local authority housing fund and the long-term rough sleeping innovation programme. Loan funding is also available through the Public Works Loan Board to support the acquisition of empty homes.

We are also strengthening local authorities’ powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders, removing evidential requirements and reducing the period that a property must be empty before it is eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months.

[Mr Dillon]

The Minister has outlined a number of funding packages and processes that are already set up to tackle empty homes. Can he say how well they are working, and whether the Government need to go further? A national strategy, with a regional breakdown or local levers within it, could help tackle the problem.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question. I commit to give him, in writing, a sense of the local and regional breakdown of the use of EDMOs and these powers. Funding is available, but the point I am making is that although funding can be a barrier, it is only one part of the solution. Local authorities have a range of powers and incentives available to tackle empty homes. We want to continue empowering them to use those, but we think it is right that they retain the flexibility to respond to particular local priorities.

Although the Government agree with the sentiment behind the new clauses, we do not believe that this Bill is the best route forward. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing new clause 66.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the rate of house building.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

This Government are determined to achieve high and sustainable rates of house building, which is precisely why we have undertaken the most rapid, holistic and radical overhaul of the housing and planning system in decades. The headwinds are without question severe, but there are encouraging signs of progress, not least the 15% increase in housing starts that we saw over the last 12 months, ending in June this year.

[John Cooper]

Statistics are like bathing costumes: what they reveal is interesting, and what they conceal is absolutely vital. The statistics we heard in that answer conceal the fact that this Government are on line to build fewer houses than the last Conservative Government did in a parliamentary term blighted by covid, when many building sites were completely shut down. When it comes to housing, this Government are drowning, not waving, aren’t they?

[Matthew Pennycook]

This Government are building, and that 15% increase in starts is a testament to that. I have lost count of the number of times that I have made it clear in this Chamber that our 1.5 million new homes target is an incredibly stretching one, but we remain committed to it. We will not take lectures from a party that fell short of its own distinctly unambitious target of 1 million homes in the last Parliament.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

In coastal communities like mine, the issue is not the rate of house building, but the rate of affordable house building. In 2024-25, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council built just 89 affordable homes. What plans do the Government have to take back land that developers are banking and to start building the council houses we need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will not have to wait long for a package of build-out transparency measures, which will include the right for local authorities to refuse permission in instances where particular developers repeatedly get planning consent but do not build out the sites.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The increase in starts is welcome, but the Government’s package of reforms was designed to increase consents. The most recent quarterly figures show that although consent applications are down, the rate of granted consents remains high at 88%—that figure is over 90% when councillors are involved in making the planning decisions. Does that not show that taking away powers to make decisions on major applications—those of over 150 homes—from councillors through the NPPF has made no difference whatsoever to the number of consents? Will the Government give those powers back to councillors, who support over 90% of applications when they come to committee?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the national scheme of delegation. Those powers were only commenced on Saturday, so he is a bit premature in saying that they have had no impact.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister clearly did not hear: I referred to the removal of councillors’ powers to make decisions on applications relating to over 150 homes, which happened at an early stage of the year.

Moving on, the warm homes grant has come in for cuts. We have now discovered that not only is £1 billion being cut from the scheme, but an extra £1.5 billion will be cut from the loan system that goes towards those warm homes. How will people get the renewable energy and efficient homes they need if the scheme is being dismantled in this way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will leave my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to answer on the warm homes plan specifically. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that when it comes to decency, safety and quality, this Government have taken a number of steps, including Awaab’s law, a new decent homes standard, new minimum energy efficiency standards and a new future homes standard. I know he agrees that that future homes standard should be kept in place, not abolished as the Conservative party would have us do.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of reducing the value of thank you payments under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme on the retention of hosts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of trends in the level of new housing in Chesterfield.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The housing delivery test is an annual measurement of housing delivery in local planning authority areas over a rolling historical three-year period. Chesterfield borough council achieved a housing delivery test result of 168% last year, indicating very strong delivery against the number of homes that the area requires.

[Mr Perkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that good news. Chesterfield borough council is keen to assist the Government by achieving those housing targets, but in areas such as Chesterfield where there has been historical industrial blight and coalmining, it is more expensive to complete certain projects than it is in areas without those challenges. Our ability to achieve the housing targets in the east of our town was dependent on the creation of the Staveley bypass, and we were disappointed to hear recently that it would not go ahead at this stage. How is my hon. Friend working with other Departments to ensure that the industrial blight of the past does not make such projects too expensive to proceed with in future?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know that my hon. Friend’s council wants to play its full part in our house building ambitions. As he will know, the Government provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas with the greatest housing demand. While I cannot express an opinion on specific plans or schemes, for reasons that I know he will appreciate, my understanding is that Chesterfield borough council foresaw the site in question coming forward later in the plan period, and in the light of the Department for Transport’s decision in respect of that particular transport upgrade, the authority may need to look again at the allocation when developing its next local plan. However, I would be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

6. If her Department will take steps to improve protections for renters and owners of park homes.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government are committed to improving protections for renters and owners of park homes. On 5 March, my Department published a call for evidence with a view to establishing the rationale for the required payment of a commission of up to 10% of the sale price when a park home is sold. We continue to analyse the feedback received. I hope to be able to publish a detailed summary of the responses in the near future, and, as per the commitments that I have previously given, we will set out the Government’s final position on this matter by the end of the year.

[Chris Ward]

Tudor Rose Park in Peacehaven is a park home with 107 residents. Many are elderly and vulnerable; all have suffered years of unfair charges, crumbling buildings and poor maintenance. Just this morning at my surgery, two residents told me of the “despair, exploitation and intimidation” that many feel at the hands of park owners. I know that the Minister is looking at this closely, so can he tell me when the Government will act and introduce changes that will end the wild west of park homes and protect my constituents in Tudor Rose Park?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the park home owners and renters at Tudor Rose Park in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are acting, not least in respect of the commission, and, as I have said, we will confirm the Government’s final position on that by the end of the year. Park home residents who believe that they have been bullied or intimidated should contact the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service for free, independent advice on their rights and the most appropriate course of action. I would like to meet my hon. Friend to hear a bit more about why, by the sound of it, some of the powers that local authorities have in this regard are not working in this instance.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I have over half a dozen park home estates in my constituency, so I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government are reviewing whether to get rid of the 10% charge that owners have to pay if they sell their park home. No other property owner has to pay such a charge, and my constituents feel very strongly that this is iniquitous. May I make a submission to the review on their behalf? They would be very grateful if the Minister were to abolish the charge.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will take that submission. We are outside the consultation period, but I am sure we can gratefully accept it. There are a range of very strongly held views on this issue. The previous Government looked at it; they concluded that they did not have the necessary evidence and that we needed to go out again. We have done that, but as I say, we will make a decision by the end of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to further regulate the use of houses in multiple occupation.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The new national planning policy framework, published on 17 August, includes a more flexible and proportionate policy design to provide greater clarity on the circumstances in which article 4 directions may be appropriate, including where there is an overconcentration of small HMOs. We want to ensure that councils can act properly to regulate HMOs where it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area, and we will continue to keep the powers to regulate HMOs under review.

[Antonia Bance]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Residents in Wednesbury and Tipton are absolutely sick of family homes being turned into HMOs and—now that that is getting more difficult—into supported exempt accommodation, too. I have campaigned for more controls on HMOs since the day I was elected, but supported exempt accommodation is essentially unregulated. When will this Government bring in further controls on supported exempt accommodation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for all her campaigning to ensure that an article 4 direction is finally being introduced in Sandwell.

On supported exempt accommodation, we published guidance for local authorities earlier this year on developing supported housing strategies. On 15 October, we launched a consultation on draft regulations for a supported housing licensing regime. That consultation closes on 10 December. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Homelessness, who is responsible for this policy area, will have heard the calls to expedite the laying of those regulations.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Earlier this year, Liberal Democrat-run Three Rivers district council put in a notice for an article 4 direction. However, it will not come into effect until June 2027, with the council citing financial concerns, despite repeated calls from me and local Conservative councillors to do it sooner and protect my residents from overcrowded and unwanted HMOs. What advice can the Minister offer my residents, such as those who live in Muirfield Road in South Oxhey, who have already been affected by this issue?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. All HMOs are obviously subject to management regulations, and local authorities must license HMOs in certain cases. An article 4 direction is often the way for local planning authorities to get control, but by the sound of it, that should have come a lot earlier in his local area.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Many communities, including those in my constituency, are concerned about the concentration of HMOs. There is a perception that local authorities do not have the powers to be able to tackle this. I want to be very clear that I am not against HMOs in principle; this is about how they are abused. I know the Government have carried out a consultation, but do they feel that local authorities are able to strike the right balance between meeting housing needs and maintaining community cohesion?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question. We do keep the powers to regulate HMOs under review, and I do want to know from any Member of the House where local authorities do not think those powers are adequate. The key to ensuring that HMOs are properly regulated, particularly where that is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area, is having strong policies in an up-to-date local plan. I know that our local authority is putting in place strong policies in our area.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

HMOs are the only way many young people can afford to rent, but their unregulated growth leads to the loss of family homes. However, Bath and North East Somerset council has taken action, and has included in its draft local plan a ban on the conversion of homes that would otherwise mean the loss of three-bedroom homes in Southdown, Twerton and Odd Down. Will the Minister congratulate Bath council?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will congratulate the hon. Member’s local authority. As I say, it is through up-to-date local plans and strong policies on HMOs that local authorities can ensure that they are properly regulated. After all, development plans are the basis on which decision makers, irrespective of whether they are officers or committees, will make their decisions. There is good practice out there in the country—including in my own local authority area, as I have said—and I encourage any local planning authority with concerns to familiarise itself with that good practice.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

To residents across the country, a standard family home being converted into an HMO for a large number of adults is a material change. It changes the character of an area, and it places pressure on parking and local services. Too many HMOs are being used to house people who come to this country illegally, and we know for a fact that many of these men are dangerous. However, the current rules do not reflect the negative impact an HMO can have, with landlords not needing to apply for planning permission if it is for less than five occupants, and the article 4 direction does not go far enough. What work is the Minister doing to investigate changing the rules so that all HMOs, regardless of size, require planning permission so that local people’s voices can be heard?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I feel for the shadow Minister in the sense that that question was clearly drafted before the set of answers I have just given. We have acted to strengthen national planning policy in this area. I have made it clear how important it is to have up-to-date local plans in place and to get strong policies. If he has any particular instances of where the existing powers do not go far enough, I am more than happy to hear from him.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to help regenerate Dudley high street.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to support first time house buyers.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government remain determined to revive the dream of home ownership. In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed £4.7 billion for the Your First Home scheme, providing equity loans to help those who cannot rely on the bank of mum and dad to buy their first home. The Chancellor also announced a new first-time buyer ISA and reduced the lifetime ISA withdrawal charge to 20%.

[Andrew Cooper]

House prices in Mid Cheshire are nearly £20,000 higher than the regional average and have continued to rise over the last year. The Your First Home scheme will be a big help for my constituents, but it is also important that we increase the number of affordable homes being built. The National Housing Federation estimated that we could have delivered an additional 41,000 homes outside of London in the latest round of the social and affordable homes programme. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the funding available in the early years of the social and affordable homes programme?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Chancellor committed an additional £1.5 billion for the social and affordable homes programme at the Budget, taking its total allocation to over £40 billion. In August, we announced initial funding allocations for the programme, with £9.58 billion being awarded to 33 strategic partners outside of London. Over £16 billion remains available outside of London across the lifetime of the programme. Homes England will confirm scheme-by-scheme allocations via the continuous market engagement route in the usual way.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s focus on first-time buyers, because so many young people cannot get their first step on the ladder. My concern with the properties that are being built—not on the green belt but within town-centre boundaries—is that first-time buyer properties are being manipulated out of the system, in the same way that affordable homes have been on the green belt. I know the Government have done some stuff around the green belt golden rules, but what are they doing to ensure that we have first-time buyer homes on every development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure that I quite understand what the hon. Lady means by homes being manipulated out of the system, but I am happy to sit down with her and have a conversation about it.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

14. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce the cost of renting during this Parliament.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2026 is changing the experience of private renting for millions of tenants across England, not least by empowering them to challenge unfair or above-market rent increases.

[Paula Barker]

In Liverpool Wavertree, research by Crisis and Zoopla shows just 3% of homes for private rent are affordable for people who claim local housing allowance. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the increase in tax on property income announced in the Budget could feed through into rents, making an increase in LHA more necessary than ever. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in other Departments on that issue, as well as on rent regulation linked to inflation and wages, to relieve the pressure on private renters and reduce the cost of increasing LHA?

[Matthew Pennycook]

At the Budget last year, the OBR assessed that there would be only a small impact on rental prices of 0.2% as a result of the 2 percentage point increase to property rates from April 2027, and we expect the further increase of 2 percentage points announced in the Budget last week to have a comparably small effect. Households who need additional support can apply to their local authority for help via the crisis and resilience fund. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls.

[Sam Carling]

Too often, constituents contact me about horrific behaviour from private landlords and lettings agencies. One lady told me recently that she had been left with broken heating for six months, and that, as a result, her daughter had developed pneumonia. Adding insult to injury, the lettings agency has continually refused to provide my constituent with her landlord’s contact details, in violation of the law. Will the Secretary of State set out what this Labour Government are doing to crack down on rogue landlords and lettings agencies that are totally failing in their responsibilities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am really sorry to learn that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been so badly treated by their landlord. Through our Renters’ Right Act 2025, we have strengthened the enforcement powers of local authorities in respect of relevant breaches and offences, and we are extending Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard to that sector. As the Secretary of State has just mentioned, we also intend to legislate to regulate property agents, including by requiring agents to obtain a licence to do the job and appropriate qualifications to operate.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, published alongside the Budget, says on page 77 that the consequence of the 4% hike in property income tax will be fewer rental properties and higher rents as landlords pass on those costs. Does the Minister think the OBR is wrong? If not, does he accept that rents will go up as a result of those measures?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my opening remarks. At the Budget last year, the OBR assessed that there would be a small impact of 0.2% on rental prices as a result of that increase, and we expect a similarly small impact from this increase. The obvious answer to affordability challenges in the private rented sector, as well as everywhere else, is to build more housing supply. That is why it is so disappointing that Opposition Members, despite what those on their Front Bench say, consistently complain about new housing developments coming forward in their constituencies.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The question is about reducing the cost of renting. What is the contribution of the 4% increase to a reduction in the cost of renting? Mr Speaker, my interest is recorded in the register.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), affordability is dependent on a number of factors. Ultimately, the only way we can bring greater affordability is by increasing the supply of new homes. I look forward to the full-throated support of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for new housing developments in his constituency.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

15. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding for local authorities in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T2. In Chesterfield, we have already made good progress on building council homes; we have plans for 89 new homes over the next three years. However, the council tells me that it needs access to lower-cost, longer-term borrowing. Can my right hon. Friend tell me any ways that the Government can help the council to access lower-cost, longer-term borrowing?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

In the Budget, the Chancellor extended the preferential Public Works Loan Board rates for a further year until 2027-28. We will continue to keep under review what more we can do to help councils once again build at scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T6. The Riveira hotel is an iconic building overlooking Weymouth, but its current Saudi Arabia-based owners have let it fall into woeful disrepair. What was once a thriving hotel is now turning into an eyesore. While Dorset council is doing its utmost to convene a reasonable sale, we can and must do more. Will the Minister meet with us to explore every option, including compulsory purchase as a backstop, to bring this hotel back into local hands?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities have powers to take action where a designated heritage asset has deteriorated to the extent that its preservation may be at risk. These powers include carrying out urgent works to preserve a listed building, requiring an owner to carry out work and, if appropriate, compulsory purchase. I will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those powers further.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

T3. This Government are facilitating a property grab by allowing councils to seize properties that have been left vacant for as little as six months. Rather than stealing properties, would not the Secretary of State be better using the powers of state to cut regulation, cut taxes and get more houses built?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

My constituent, Mr Welch, and his sister have been left completely trapped by the death of their mother last year. Despite slashing the price of her assisted living flat from £200,000 to £60,000, the flat remains unsellable because the market has collapsed, and the £1,300 a month service charge risks wiping out the estate. Will the Minister urgently review the guidance and support available to bereaved executors in this position, and meet me to discuss the recourse available to such families?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am really sorry to hear about the situation that Mr Welch and his sister find themselves in following the death of their mother last year. Our reforms to the leasehold system will make service charges more transparent and easier to challenge. I assure my hon. Friend that work is under way in the Department to better understand the market around poor resale values. I would be happy to meet her to discuss that.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

T5. Recently, I visited Standing Joint Command in Aldershot, which is responsible for co-ordinating military support to the civil power, working through local resilience forums and councils. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that devolution and local government reorganisation strengthen the country’s resilience rather than weaken it?

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

For decades, Liverpool has lived with the consequences of Thatcher’s sell-off of council housing and the large-scale stock transfer of properties leaving too many families without secure and genuinely affordable homes. Mayor Steve Rotheram’s North Docks mayoral development corporation set out a bold vision, with strong public backing. Will the Minister back the work of the MDC to support large-scale council house building in order to reverse the legacy of the past and tackle the housing crisis?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I know that the mayor is consulting on that mayoral development corporation, so I will not prejudice that consultation by giving my view on it. In general, however, the Government absolutely support the use of mayoral development corporations and locally led development corporations as a means to masterplan, assemble land and regenerate areas.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

T7. In Bexhill and across the country, homeowners are being fleeced out of thousands of pounds by a company called Asset Invest Ltd, which bought titles with restrictive covenants affecting thousands of homes for just £1. This exploitative practice has to stop. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a cross-party group of MPs who want to see the new leasehold Bill bring forward better protections for homeowners in that terrible situation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I recognise his concerns and am more than happy to meet him. He should have had that confirmation already, but I give it to him now on the Floor of the House.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Hundreds of people are being placed in my constituency by London councils. They are being moved away from their support networks through out-of-borough placements and without proper notification. Often these are vulnerable families with high needs, which then have to be met by overstretched services at Medway council. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can improve this system and support the authorities that are dealing with the bulk of out-of-borough placements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

For over a year, I have argued for changes to Sheffield’s local plan, with a fairer distribution of green-belt sites across the authority, greater use of brownfield sites, high streets and retail spaces, densification on transport routes, a better application of the Government’s golden rules, and strengthened powers to utilise long-term empty properties to ease the pressure on Grenoside, Chapeltown and Ecclesfield. Consequently, I am calling for a pause in the local plan process, especially in the light of new evidence demonstrating that all the green-belt parcels in my constituency are now assessed as containing our best agricultural land, including Town End farm. Will the Minister meet me and Sheffield colleagues to discuss the local plan, and to ensure that Sheffield builds more homes, especially the social and affordable homes that we need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Due to my quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I cannot comment on the detail of the emerging plan, and I am afraid I cannot meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. The plan, the sites included in it and the proposed main modifications have been subject to several rounds of consultations throughout the examination process. It is for the independent inspectors to consider the responses to the consultations and set out next steps.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Following this summer’s wildfires, we saw that the devolution of fire policy was no barrier to mutual aid co-operation between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Can the Minister tell me how any additional air firefighting capability will be allocated fairly across the nations of the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As the Housing and Planning Minister knows, a planning inspector has made some outrageous decisions regarding the national landscape in my constituency over the past few months. Will he therefore please confirm from the Dispatch Box, for the benefit of all the planning inspectors out there, that his intention is to strengthen protections for our national landscapes in the latest edition of the national planning policy framework?

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I will do for the right hon. Gentleman is go away and review whether further guidance for the Planning Inspectorate in this particular area would be helpful.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Hyndburn has incredibly high levels of houses in multiple occupation. That is driving up rents, taking family homes off the market and increasing the number of vulnerable people moving to our community. How are the Government acting to enable councils such as Hyndburn borough council to reduce HMOs in their areas?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend may have heard my answer to a previous question in which I set out how we have strengthened the national planning policy framework in this area. I am more than happy to discuss with her particular policy areas where her council may think more powers are required.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Suffolk county council is proposing significant cuts to its healthy child services. That is deeply worrying to new parents such as Chloe, who became a mother at 18 and, without the help of family, relied on the young parent pathway to develop the skills and knowledge to raise her baby boy. What assessment has the Department made of the positive impact of healthy child services, and will the Minister intervene to protect these vital services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The issue of restrictive covenants, raised so ably by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is also affecting my constituents, some of whom have been extorted out of tens of thousands of pounds. Will the Government give any comfort to the residents who are campaigning so hard on this that the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will contain provisions to stop this awful practice?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member may be aware, we are looking through that legislation to introduce caps on administration and permission fees. That may help some of her affected residents, but I would be grateful if she could write to me and set out in more detail how this issue is affecting her constituents.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

For the purposes of the new planning powers and the rates relief exemptions announced in the Budget last week, what does my hon. Friend’s Department define as a vape shop?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Swindon and Wiltshire councils are building a lot of new housing, which is excellent, but the Government have now abolished an essential safeguard for communities against inappropriate planning, which is the power of councillors to call in applications. What steps are the Government taking to review that particular measure, and will they reconsider if it turns out that it is not working?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That particular reform was commenced only on Saturday. We have already committed to review it after a two-year period, and that is what we will do.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is bringing out a short-term let registration scheme in March. Unfortunately, due to data protection rules, it cannot be more of a licensing scheme, so owners of properties will not be obliged to file liability insurance or fire safety documents. DCMS tells me that MHCLG is the Department that could set up such a licensing scheme. Is that something the Minister will consider?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Councils spend far more on enforcing against a breach of planning controls than the offender is ever fined—and even then, that money goes to the Treasury. When it is cheaper to break rules than follow them, we lose any sense of deterrence, and there is a perception that breaches have few consequences. Will the Minister look again at the amount of fines, and at whether councils could receive the proceeds of fines, so that they can recover their costs?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Would the hon. Lady write to me with some further details, to illustrate the precise problem she is trying to get at?

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Two brave Eastbourne families are fighting for improved regulation of supported accommodation, after their respective relatives were found dead in the accommodation that was meant to be supporting them. Will the Minister meet them, and me, to discuss how we can better protect vulnerable people in supported accommodation?

Draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The draft order was laid before the House on 8 September 2026. This Government promised in our manifesto to transform the experience of private renting. In addition to the greater security, rights and protections that we have given private tenants through our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, improving how tenancy deposit schemes work is a way that we can further deliver on that promise.

As things stand, when tenants provide a deposit as a security for any breach of tenancy terms, the landlord is required to protect it through a Government-approved tenancy deposit scheme. That means that renters can feel confident that their deposit is safe and secure, and that at the end of the tenancy, it is returned to the tenant and/or landlord in accordance with the appropriate outcome under the scheme. When tenants and landlords disagree over the amount due to each party, the schemes also offer free and independent dispute resolution.

Custodial tenancy deposit schemes are delivered via concessionary contracts, whereby administrators fund the service from interest earned on deposits, rather than receiving payment from Government. Custodial schemes hold more than £2.5 billion-worth of tenants’ money on which they accrue interest. The interest is retained by the scheme administrators as revenue, unless arrangements are in place for part of it to be paid to the tenant. As part of improving the tenancy deposit system, the Government want to unlock the value generated by the schemes and expand the ways in which it can benefit tenants in the private rented sector. Ultimately, that will mean better value for both tenants and the taxpayer.

The draft order will enable the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to receive part of the interest accrued on tenancy deposits protected under a custodial tenancy deposit scheme. Currently, the legislation allows interest to be retained by the scheme administrator, subject to scheme arrangements, providing for part of it to be paid to tenants and/or landlords. I want to be clear that the order does not remove those options. It adds flexibility by introducing a new power that may be used in combination with one or both of the existing options, for example where high interest rates mean that the interest generated by the scheme as a whole considerably exceeds the costs of running the scheme, after allowing reasonable returns to scheme administrators.

The draft order does not itself require any payment to be made to the Secretary of State, nor does it prescribe how such amounts must be determined. Those matters will be determined through future scheme arrangements established via procurement and contractual processes. What the measures do is to allow the Secretary of State to take account of market conditions, scheme performance, operating costs, value for money and the need to maintain an effective, free service for tenants and landlords, while avoiding disproportionately high profits being made by scheme administrators.

The draft statutory instrument is intended to provide flexibility for future arrangements with administrators of custodial schemes. The Secretary of State’s intention is that, if the new power is exercised, the Secretary of State would use any funds received towards programmes or activities that benefit tenants in the private rented sector. The Secretary of State will be transparent in publishing the amount received from the scheme, the programme or programmes funded, and any metrics demonstrating the value delivered. Any arrangement for interest to be paid directly to the Secretary of State will be subject to agreement from His Majesty’s Treasury.

Future arrangements will continue to allow scheme administrators to keep part of the accrued interest to cover the cost of the free service that they provide to tenants and landlords. That amount should be sufficient to enable the scheme to provide a safe and effective service that safeguards tenants’ deposits, to meet its key performance indicators and to make a reasonable profit if it is a private sector entity. Future arrangements may also provide for part of the accrued interest to be paid directly to tenants, where it is decided that that is appropriate. To conclude, the draft order will give the Government additional flexibility to determine how the interest accrued by custodial tenancy deposit schemes is distributed, so as to ensure a fit-for-purpose scheme that will ultimately benefit tenants in the private rented sector and the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Could he provide us with some examples of what MHCLG could use this money for to support renters? He has not listed any yet, and obviously there are none in the SI. I am a bit concerned about where this money is going to be used.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Forgive me, I think I did give an example in my opening remarks, but I do not want to stand here and speculate on the precise programmes that might be funded through those interest payments, if we make a decision to take a portion of them in future. I am being very clear that they would be directed to support private rented sector tenants; they could not be siphoned off for other Government activities. Any payments made to MHCLG would be subject to future agreement via contractual and procurement processes.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his explanation. Can he at this stage give any indication of the thresholds at which this mechanism would kick in and allow the Department to make those directions? It is perfectly right that a windfall on interest can be put to good public use, but I am interested in where the Department currently considers the threshold for that windfall to start, so that we can know when those schemes might start making a contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend helpfully brings me on to the two further points I wanted to respond to, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, rightly probed: essentially, how will the amounts due to the Secretary of State be determined, and what specifically do we intend to spend them on? I cannot confirm to my hon. Friend today what the amounts due to the Secretary of State will be. As I have said, the order allows for the distribution mechanism to vary, taking into account market conditions such as interest rates. Specific arrangements would depend on commercial negotiations with prospective scheme administrators.

I can commit that, first and foremost, the distribution mechanism will prioritise ensuring that the deposit protection and dispute resolution services offered to tenants and landlords continue to be free and effective. I assume we would all agree that that is particularly important. My Department will set key performance indicators and cost-efficiency metrics to monitor the scheme administrators’ delivery. If the interest accrued exceeds the minimum cost of meeting the key performance indicators, the additional amount of interest will be distributed between the administrator of the scheme, tenants and/or landlords, and the Secretary of State. When setting the distribution mechanism, the Secretary of State intends to allow the scheme administrator to keep a reasonable amount of profit as a reward for the service delivered. It is not the Secretary of State’s intention to exploit the tenancy deposit system and agree to arrangements that leave tenants and landlords worse off.

As for what we intend to spend any money received on, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to improve conditions for tenants in the private rented sector. Although a specific programme or programmes cannot be confirmed at this stage, it is our intention to use any receipts to fund Government programmes to benefit tenants in the sector. It is important to say that it will take time for interest to accumulate and be paid to the Secretary of State under future arrangements, if we decide to make use of the power. Those arrangements will depend on market conditions and priorities for the private rented sector, and will be subject to agreement from the Treasury.

[Mr Snowden]

Going back to the threshold point, can the Minister give any indication of what level interest rates would have to reach to trigger this, based on the Department’s calculations in crafting this statutory instrument? If it is a windfall from high interest rates generating additional revenue, what general ballpark does the Minister think interest rates would have to be at to trigger this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the attempt, but I am not going to stand here and give him a general ballpark estimate of what interest rates might be. As I said, any payments to MHCLG will be subject to future agreement via contractual and procurement processes.

I want to clear up one specific point that the shadow Minister made about insured schemes. No final decision has been made in that regard. The Department is assessing the benefits and risks of both insured and custodial models.

To conclude, the Government continue to deliver improvements for tenants in the private rented sector. This order will provide additional flexibility in how interest accrued on deposits held under custodial tenancy deposit schemes may be distributed, so that excess returns that may be generated by the schemes are used effectively. It will enable my Department to deliver an improved tenancy deposit scheme that is fit for purpose and that will, as I have said, deliver better value for money for tenants in the private rented sector and the general taxpayer. Notwithstanding the shadow Minister’s very clear intention to push for a Division, I hope the rest of the Committee will welcome this amendment to the Housing Act 2004.

Question put.

Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words; I have great respect for him too. He makes an interesting point, but it is a wider issue than that. It is about appropriate development in the right place, followed up by infrastructure.

I agree that brownfield sites are usually in the centre of towns. As I said on Second Reading, we are all fed up with driving past sites with all the hoarding up. The sites have planning permission: either they have gone through the planning committee, and the local council has said, “Yes, we will give permission based on these circumstances,” or unfortunately it has not, but permission has been won on appeal. It creates a certain feel in a town centre when someone goes down and sees all the hoarding up on the brownfield sites.

In the heart of my constituency, in Cheshunt, we have a care home waiting to be built. It is a long-overdue facility in the local community that we really want to see built, but it has been left empty for years and years, and we just see the hoarding up. It creates a real sense of loss of pride in a place when someone goes down to the town centre and sees site after site like that. We have sites in Hoddesdon that got planning permission in 2014 and have only just started moving through this process.

Lots of things affect house build-out rates, but this Government could do much more to give powers to local councils to get these brownfield sites off the ground, because there are thousands of sites across the country that have planning permission but remain unbuilt.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?

[Lewis Cocking]

I know that the Minister has a lot of expertise in this area. One example is that when standard planning permission is issued, a developer might get three years to build. As we have seen in my local area, that does not necessarily mean that something gets built; it just means that they have started on site. That could be digging a hole or building the first wall; nothing is actually produced at the end of it. I would like councils to have a “use it or lose it” power, which would mean that someone cannot necessarily finish building just because they have started digging on site.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?

[Lewis Cocking]

I think we have to explore all options. I want to protect as much of the green belt as possible. We all have brownfield sites in our constituency that we want used to meet the social housing targets and bring down waiting lists.

Unfortunately, the Bill talks about stopping the right to buy. I just want to put it on the record that if we do that, the people who bought those houses will still be in them. Those people, and the waiting lists, will not magically disappear if we get rid of the right to buy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

We would not argue against that statement one bit. I am not trying to expunge social tenants from rural England. Suffolk is not just a load of farms and tractor driving; we have a lot of working-class towns. We need social housing, but we are talking about the future of social housing, the future of our economy and the future of our dynamism. We have always moaned jealously about the French, the Germans and the Americans for having dynamic economies with engines of prosperity outside the capital city, while we are stuck with a unimodal economy that is so rooted in London—it is crazy that I am making the Prime Minister’s arguments for him from the Opposition Benches, but anyway.

Surely this is an opportunity. If we are going to build 50,000 to 100,000 or 150,000 homes, and if we are going to tackle the 1.3 million people who are stuck on the waiting list for social houses, why do we not make sure that that is aligned with our responsibility for economic growth? We are all bored with hearing from experts, friends and family members about the lack of joined-up policymaking across Government. This Bill, which is not an inconsequential Bill but is one piece of a wide patchwork of legislation, is a good example of how we can align with a wider economic agenda that we can all get behind.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today.

Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp. Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so.

I turn to new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised. We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building.

In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic. A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support.

I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.

[Gideon Amos]

We shall certainly be setting that out prior to going into government. The Minister makes an extensive argument that 150,000 is not the right target. Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that a minimum of 90,000 are needed per year. What is the Government’s target?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is always very generous with his time. Does he believe that the Regulator of Social Housing has enough powers to deal with the issues that he describes? That is just me, in a good spirit, asking a genuine question about how he thinks it is operating.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am always open to evidence that it does not have sufficient powers. My judgment is that it does, and that the consumer ratings it hands out—we are getting a steady stream of them now—really do have an impact in driving improvements in landlord behaviour.

Central to the regime is the regulator’s independent and risk-based approach. That allows the regulator to target its engagement and interventions to areas where there is the greatest risk of harm to tenants. It is worth clarifying that tenants and other members of the public can refer matters to the regulator where they believe that a registered provider may not be meeting the outcomes of the standards, and the regulator may take those concerns into account as part of its wider regulatory activity, including inspections. However, in our view, introducing tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across that approach by potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues, while undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Our view is that the existing framework already ensures that tenants’ concerns can inform regulatory action, by allowing the regulator to determine where intervention is most needed.

On new clause 53, which the shadow Minister made clear is a probing amendment, I would have particular concerns about introducing a mechanism whereby the regulator would inspect individual tenant’s dwellings. Although individual tenants can escalate issues to the regulator, as I have made clear, it considers performance against the regulatory standards at a landlord level and seeks assurance that the landlord is delivering the outcomes set out in the regulatory standards.

The regulator directly inspecting individual homes would move away from its co-regulatory approach and would require significant additional resource. In addition, tenant views already play an important role in the existing regime, and the regulator draws on a range of sources as part of its inspections, including through the landlords complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman and direct referrals. The existing framework ensures that tenants already play an important role in the system, without the need for a statutory mechanism to trigger inspections.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

[Gideon Amos]

I wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The new clause stands in my name and in the name of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. The run-up to Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day is the appropriate time to consider and take account of the needs of service personnel and veterans under the Bill. About 3% of rough sleepers are veterans, according to the No Homeless Veterans campaign. Government research found that 2,180 veteran households were assessed as at risk of experiencing homelessness. One of the most significant reasons for that is post-traumatic stress disorder, which obviously affects many veterans, and one in three veterans are also disabled.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the provision of social housing for former members of the armed services. To anticipate the point that this is simply a review, surely no group can be more important to review the performance of social housing for than our veterans and those who have put their lives at risk for our country.

I shall speak now to new clause 12, which also stands in my name and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, rather than having to sit down and stand up again—a great tradition in this House. New clause 12 is on reviewing access to social housing for rehabilitated offenders. There has been a staggering 26% year-on-year increase in the number of households requiring homelessness support due to leaving care, custody or hospital.

When it comes to rehabilitated offenders, the last thing we want are offenders whose rehabilitation is not sustained or supported due to their having nowhere to live. One in 10 of those sleeping rough were recently discharged from an institution. That is a massive number. We need to do better by those who need that support. One in six prison leavers had no fixed abode on their first night in 2025-26. About 1,000 a month were released to rough sleeping in 2024-25, up about 40% in a year. I therefore respectfully submit both new clauses to the Committee for consideration.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member set out, new clauses 5 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on access to social housing for former members of the armed forces and for former offenders, respectively.

We want to ensure that the social housing allocation system works fairly and effectively. Current and former members of the armed forces community benefit from strong protections within the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have a housing need. Where local connection or residency tests apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing, legislation exempts the armed forces community, regardless of when they last served. That ensures that they are not disadvantaged when applying for social housing due to the mobility required by service life. New clause 23, which we debated on Tuesday, will also ensure that veterans do not face local-connection barriers when seeking homelessness assistance.

Statutory guidance is in place on improving access to social housing for members of the armed forces. There are not specific protections in the system for former offenders, who will have their housing need considered in the same way as other groups. They may fall within other existing statutory reasonable preference categories—for example, where they are homeless, need to move on welfare grounds or need to move because of medical or other relevant needs. Work is already under way to update statutory guidance on social housing allocation to ensure that allocations reflect local need and effectively support vulnerable households. Our call for evidence on this issue recently closed, and we are now working with partners to prepare updated guidance. We plan to consult on that updated guidance next year.

With that comprehensive review already under way, we do not consider that there is a need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the armed forces or former offenders. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is sufficiently reassured to consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Gideon Amos]

New clause 5 is not a burdensome amendment; it is a review of access to social housing for former service personnel. I hear what the Minister says about the Government keeping these matters under review, but surely a Social Housing Bill should commit to supporting our veterans and armed service community in this way. I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause relates to the requirement for wheelchair-accessible social housing. Social tenants are worse served now than they were in terms of access to wheelchair- accessible housing. In 2022-23, a third of wheelchair users in the social sector were placed in homes that were neither accessible nor adapted, according to Age UK.

The planning system is also something of a postcode lottery. Only 170 out of 311 local plans set targets for wheelchair user homes. Nationally, one wheelchair-accessible home is planned per 538 people; the south-west plans one per 810 people; London plans one per 210 people; and the north-west plans one per 2,006 people. The NPPF does not require any M4(3), which relates to homes that are wheelchair-accessible under the building regulations. It leaves it to local plans to assess need, and we have already seen how this is something of a lottery.

London already has a 10% requirement in its local plan, which proves that 10% is achievable. The Minister may say that this is a matter for devolution, so that local communities rather than central Government can decide, and that councils are free to follow that example. However, we say that a minimum floor of 10% is reasonable, and it has been considered by a previous Government. We respectfully submit that 10% of new social housing should be wheelchair-accessible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause.

The Government recognise the importance of increasing the supply of housing for older people and those with disabilities. The hon. Gentleman is right that for many years it has been something of a postcode lottery. That is why the new national planning policy framework recognised the need to drive up, through planning policy, rates of M4(2) requirements, and we have set a minimum floor of 40%. It is also why, when it comes to M4(3), the NPPF requires plans to set out the proportion that should be delivered to that standard to meet or exceed identified need. In our view, that is a significant step forward in ensuring that more wheelchair-accessible housing is delivered. However, we recognise that M4(3) is a specialised product for wheelchair users, with levels of need differing considerably between local areas.

Our approach acknowledges that local authorities are best placed to assess accessible housing needs in their areas and to set out appropriate exemptions. A blanket 10% M4(3) requirement would risk undermining policies set at a local level. To support the locally led approach, we have committed to producing guidance to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of disabled people, to ensure that assessments of need are robust and consistent. Social and affordable homes programme funding can also be used to support the delivery of much-needed new supported housing, including new accessible homes.

In our view, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. Imposing such a requirement in legislation rather than in policy, as this new clause seeks to do, would be unduly rigid, could limit an authority’s ability to respond to local circumstances and could constrain growth. We therefore think it is right to continue addressing these matters through planning policy and guidance.

For those reasons, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw the new clause.

[Gideon Amos]

I hear what the Minister says, but we have had these expressions in guidance and policy before, and we are still a long way from having suitable provision for wheelchair-accessible homes. With the leave of the Committee, I will therefore press new clause 6 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

My intention is to press new clause 7, but not new clause 9, to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 7, which I will start with. He is absolutely right to draw attention to overheating, and I assure him that the Government recognise the scale of the challenge it presents.

Overheating in homes is already a severe public health issue, and one that will grow only more acute in the years ahead, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has rightly stated. We know there are health risks and implications for excess deaths for particularly vulnerable populations. We take it extremely seriously, and we agree that new homes should protect everyone from the risks of overheating. That is why part O of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 requires that new residential buildings in England are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. The Government continue to keep these requirements under review, and a full technical review of part O is currently under way to ensure that the framework remains effective and proportionate. These requirements already apply to newly built social housing, ensuring that residents benefit from the same standards of overheating mitigation regardless of their tenure type. The accompanying statutory guidance, approved document O, sets out how these requirements can be met.

The new clause would require active cooling, such as air conditioning, to be installed wherever an indoor temperature of 21°C cannot be maintained. Conversely, part O assesses the risk to health posed by overheating through an evidence-based methodology and does not rely on a single prescribed temperature threshold. Part O also prioritises passive measures, such as shading and natural ventilation, which help to prevent homes from becoming too hot in the first place. In many cases, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures alone, so part O helps to create homes that are resilient to hot weather while limiting energy use, carbon emissions and energy bills for residents.

[Gideon Amos]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow. To clarify, the new clause proposes active cooling only where that temperature cannot be achieved otherwise. The priority of passive measures would continue with this new clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate.

As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems. In many cases, as I have said, overheating can be effectively mitigated through passive measures. Mechanical cooling, such as air conditioning, can be used to mitigate overheating where all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to minimise it through passive means. For those reasons, we think that the new clause would likely increase the unnecessary use of mechanical cooling, with associated costs for both developers and residents. I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 9 concerns zero-carbon standards for new social housing. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that new homes, including social housing, support our legally binding net zero target. We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to deliver homes that are energy efficient, low carbon and fit for the future. That is exactly what the future homes standard will achieve. The reassurance that I was going to give him in my intervention was that that is not affected by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an effective moratorium on major new regulations, setting aside the qualifications that he set out at Dispatch Box with regard to building safety issues.

The Government legislated for the future homes standard in March, and it will come into force for non-higher-risk buildings from 24 March 2027, and for higher-risk buildings from 24 September 2027. It will apply to all new homes, including social housing. Homes built to this standard will have high levels of energy efficiency, use low-carbon heating and, in most cases, generate renewable electricity on site. These homes will also be zero-carbon ready, meaning that they will produce very little carbon and will become zero carbon once the national grid is fully decarbonised, without requiring further retrofit.

That is the really important point: we are retrofitting homes that have been built over recent years—at great cost—because of a previous Government’s decision to remove the required standards that were in place. We could go into that and the costs that that entails, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. We are ensuring that the new homes that come forward, once the standard is in place, are zero-carbon ready, so they will not require further retrofit.

The Government have also worked carefully to set a standard that delivers substantial carbon savings while remaining proportionate, technically feasible and deliverable at scale. In our view, introducing further new standards would risk creating a separate and potentially inconsistent regulatory regime for social housing, as well as additional cost and delivery pressures for the sector. Although I agree with the objective behind the new clause, I consider that the future homes standard already provides the appropriate means of achieving its aims. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 9 to a vote.

[Gideon Amos]

On new clause 7, the cool rule, I appreciate that, as the Minister points out, there is no prohibition on active cooling being used in new homes, but the fact is that we need to secure cooling. We cannot just leave it so that only the most luxury accommodation has cooling in the extremely hot summers that we are having. Just as we have habitable standards for space, daylight and heating, we need a statutory standard for cooling. If it does not come today, I believe it will come, so I wish to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clause 10 seeks to prevent local planning authorities from agreeing to any reduction in the number or proportion of social homes required through a planning obligation or condition. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we have already taken a number of steps to that end.

The new NPPF, published on 17 August, seeks to promote greater clarity on expected contributions at the plan-making stage, and to reduce cases of unnecessary site-specific viability assessment by clarifying when it may be appropriate at the decision-making stage. That certainty will help to minimise lengthy negotiations over developer contributions, including affordable housing, on specific sites. At the same time, the framework will retain flexibility for cases where negotiation is genuinely needed to enable sites to come forward.

We are also acting to minimise friction and reduce the complexity involved in the negotiation of section 106 agreements, which are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, but which in recent years have become synonymous with inefficiency and delay. The new NPPF formally introduces the category of “medium development”—sites of up to 2.5 hectares with between 10 and 49 units. It also provides the basis for the use of model obligations, as policy DM6(4) states:

“Where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different planning obligation.”

Following that, we launched a consultation on four standardised planning agreements for medium-sized sites, which will be expected to become the default for relevant applications in future. The consultation closed on 20 October 2026, and we are considering the responses received.

The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I know that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington knows this; he has great experience in this area from before he came to the House. As set out in my letter to the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year, attempts to revisit fundamental issues of viability or planning obligations through section 73 applications should be carefully scrutinised and supported by robust justification, with due weight given to the impact of any reduction in affordable housing delivery and to the wider merits of the scheme.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for engaging on all these amendments, including this one. My question is whether he and the Government recognise that, as in the example I cited, most authorities in southern England cannot meet the five-year housing supply because of the standard method, and that, as a result, social and affordable housing is being removed from planning permissions. Are the Government concerned about that? Are they doing any assessment of how much this is happening?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to be careful, because—as the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware—given the role of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the planning system, I obviously cannot comment on particular local plans or applications, and I do not know the specific circumstances of the case he cites.

I make the general point—picking up on something that I think the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned earlier—that when we arrived in office, house builders across the country were telling us that the planning system was, in the main, probably the biggest barrier to house building they faced. Following the reforms we have made to national planning policy, they no longer say that; as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly highlights, viability is the chief concern at the moment. Viability pressures are acute across the country, and in certain parts they are particularly severe—London is a good example—so they are bearing on schemes and what they can bring forward.

If I am honest, I struggle to see the direct link between the standard method, the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test concerns that I know the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past, but he and I could have a wider discussion on that outside the Committee. I am trying to remain focused on the intent behind the new clause, which concerns planning obligations and conditions.

Let me just set out the Government’s position on section 73. Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of section 73B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government intend to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations, and we will provide further details about this in due course. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on section 73B, but I am clear that our intention in reviewing this matter is not to allow developers to more easily reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing.

The Government have also acted to deal with the detrimental consequences of a declining market for section 106 affordable homes. We have already taken a number of steps to support demand for section 106 units, not least spending review measures designed to rebuild the capacity of registered providers. As a result, we are seeing tentative signs of improvement in appetite for acquiring section 106 homes.

However, despite that positive shift in sentiment post spending review, we know there are still housing schemes where developers remain unable to secure an RP buyer for the affordable homes set out in an original section 106 agreement, and where local planning authorities and developers have not discussed or reached agreement on variations to planning obligations, with the result that many of these sites are stalling.

It is for that reason that we made it clear in a written ministerial statement on 28 January that we expect all local planning authorities to take advantage of existing planning flexibilities to renegotiate section 106 agreements, and to allow the tenure of homes to be varied to secure a buyer where affordable homes secured in section 106 agreements remain uncontracted or unsolved. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will know, this can be effected by a deed of variation that makes amendments or revisions to existing section 106 agreements, either by agreement of the parties to the section 106 agreement, or by formal application under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

To pick up directly on new clause 10, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, our concern is that it could create unintended consequences that may be contrary to our shared objective to boost the supply of social and affordable housing. Notwithstanding his concerns, which I recognise, it is important that the system retains sufficient flexibility for local planning authorities to respond to significant changes in site or economic circumstances after planning permission has been granted, such as a recession or a similarly significant economic change. We are concerned that new clause 10 could unduly restrict that flexibility, which could—this is the ultimate point—cause sites to stall and subsequently reduce overall housing delivery, including overall social and affordable housing delivery.

I suspect that I will not have convinced the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I hope he agrees that, as it stands, the system carefully balances the need for that flexibility with trying to ensure that we maximise the amount of social and affordable housing supply that can be secured. We should avoid legislation that imposes, in our view, an unreasonable degree of rigidity, while obviously continuing our efforts to increase affordable housing delivery overall. On that basis, I hope he might be persuaded to withdraw the new clause on this occasion.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate the Minister’s correct analysis that there is a balance to be struck with individual sites, and I accept that. There is a direct link between the standard method and the loss of social housing. The standard method, having been introduced, means that most local plans now cannot meet their five-year housing supply, which means that most of them are no longer effective.

Therefore, if a developer presents an inspector with a site that has both social housing and private housing, the inspector will be forced to conclude, on the section 73 application to amend the plan, that there is no longer an exception that justifies social housing, because all the sites have to come forward, and they all have to be market housing. That is the effect of imposing the standard method and rendering so many local plans no longer effective.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to make an offer to him, because he will know that I am genuinely interested. He will know that we have tried to strengthen national policy on rural exception sites through the NPPF, so I am very interested in whether he thinks there are particular reasons why that strengthening will not have the desired effect, or whether there are other barriers to bringingforward those sites. We want more of those sites to be brought forward, precisely for the reasons that he has set out.

Draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. On 13 November, we published an implementation road map setting out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases.

The first phase, which entailed the introduction of the new tenancy regime, was implemented on 1 May this year. We are now progressing with the second phase of our reforms. That entails establishing a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution, settling issues between tenants and landlords without costly court proceedings, and introducing our innovative database of PRS properties to bring together key information for landlords, tenants and councils.

The regulations we are considering today concern the latter. They set out the registration framework for the database and are essential to enabling its roll-out, which will commence regionally from 15 December. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities with enforcement. The service will be known publicly as the “Register your rental property” service, but I will refer to it as the database for the purposes of the Committee.

The regulations determine how registering for the database will work in practice. They cover who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. Landlords will be required to make a landlord entry, which will include their name and contact information. Entries for organisational landlords will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will share the dwelling entry for the property, but each will need their own landlord entry.

Landlords will be required to make a dwelling entry for each property, which will contain information including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it must include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance information. Landlords will be legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance. Under regulations, they may, however, delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager to reduce administrative burden.

The regulations also allow entries to be made, updated or renewed by certain third parties in discrete circumstances—for example, where a landlord lacks capacity or where a possession restriction is in place when a mortgage provider requires a court order possession of an unregistered property. Entries will need to be kept up to date for an entry to be deemed active. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position. It must generally be updated within 28 days. Regulations give the database operator the ability to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. We will issue guidance on the operational detail, including on the verification of entries by local authorities.

The regulations require landlords to pay a fee to make or renew a dwelling entry. The instrument does not set the fee, but it does delegate that to the database operator. The operator is required to set the fee by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Renters’ Rights Act. We have separately announced the fee of £65 per property per year, pro-rated during the initial roll-out to ensure that costs remain fair and that those registering first are not paying more.

This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement the database. Following parliamentary approval of this first instrument, roll-out of the database will commence on 15 December. Each region will be rolled out in one-month intervals. When a region’s registration window goes live, landlords will have three months to register properties in the region. We have issued guidance showing the order and timings for that. All relevant entries are required to be made by the end of 14 November 2027.

A second statutory instrument will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. We will commence that as soon as possible following completion of the initial roll-out. It will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are not in the scope of these regulations.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the operational requirements needed to begin the roll-out of the PRS database. They are a critical step toward a more transparent and enforceable PRS system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think it is the first time in this Parliament that I have seen the Liberal Democrats and Conservative party in unison. [Interruption.] But if they will let me finish, given that His Majesty’s Opposition opposed the Act outright, I am not surprised by their opposition to this measure, although I am somewhat surprised by the Liberal Democrats’ opposition. I take the challenges on the various points in good faith, however, so let me try and reassure hon. Members about what we are trying to achieve here.

First, on how the data is uploaded, I will make it clear that it is not the case that each landlord needs to log on and upload the same information each year starting from scratch. They need to update the information only if the information they have already entered has changed. Once the initial information has been uploaded, they will not need to change it if it remains unchanged.

We have explored options for enabling bulk uploads—something I have pushed officials on. I started from the same position that Opposition Members did: “Can’t we just allow bulk uploads?” We have concluded, after looking into the issue in some detail, with quite a significant amount of sector engagement, that due to significant challenges with data validation and error handling, traditional solutions such as uploading Excel files—one of the options put to us—would add complexity for the user. We are designing the service to be as straightforward as possible for landlords, including those with larger portfolios. To meet their needs, we will enable organisations to add multiple employees to their accounts, enabling easier administration.

We are looking at how to make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing property management systems directly with the service and to create some efficiencies in that respect. We will look to provide a secure digital connection that landlords and their technology providers can choose to integrate with, reducing the need to enter the information manually to register their properties. We will continue to explore opportunities to improve functionality and reduce burdens as the service develops. I hope that that has answered some of the points about bulk data entry.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Not at all!

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, we are going to look to integrate the management systems of large portfolio holders. I was asked, “Does each large portfolio holder have to sit there and add in each entry every year?” That is not the case. I am trying to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been put to me.

On selective licensing, as we debated at length through the passage of the Act, selective licensing and the database have different purposes. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licensing. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement.

We will, however, continue to review how selective licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses, with a specific view to reducing duplication. I very much agree that, in terms of the information currently held when a selective licensing scheme is put in place, there are ways to reduce the amount of that required once the database is in place.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability. Responsibility for ensuring that registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through the service. Requiring landlords to initiate registration ensures that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset.

We do, however, recognise that letting and property agents play an important role in supporting landlords to meet these responsibilities. To reflect that, agents will be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Again, I come back to the importance of the initial registration in this first phase of the roll-out. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy and health and safety information to them.

A series of points were put to me about the fee. The fee is set at £65 to fund a national service. It is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. I think the shadow Minister has put to me on several occasions, as has the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, the need to properly fund local authority enforcement in the private rented sector—here we are with the means to do so. Every landlord is required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. As the fee is charged per property, landlords must pay each time they register a different property.

The fee has been set in that way to balance fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the service and tackling non-compliance in the private rented sector. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that the NRLA and other organisations support the database in principle, because it will allow us to bear down on the unscrupulous landlords in the market who do much to colour the reputation of the good landlords out there.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

In my constituency of Bridgwater in Somerset, there is a chronic shortage of rented accommodation. I am concerned that this expensive and cumbersome system will deter further private landlords from renting their properties. If the Minister does not have a system that can process bulk uploads, he should tell his officials to think again—to go out into the private market and get a system that works. He should scrap these regulations and tell his civil servants to think again.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think we need to think again, because we are already thinking about this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that we are exploring how we can make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing management systems directly with the service and integrate them.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

indicated dissent.

[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.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way, and then I am going to make some progress, because the same points continue to be raised.

[Sarah Bool]

I was formerly a commercial property lawyer, so I want to bring up a practical point about enforcement. The ambition behind the regulations—to make sure that everybody, including tenants, has the information that they need—is positive, but the practical reality is that if they cannot be enforced properly, it will cause problems and delays in the rental sector. I advocate for a pause—that is essential. If information needs to be gathered and uploaded for potentially up to 10,000 properties—an extremely large number—it will probably take a year or more to get that information up. Have we thought through the knock-on impacts? I encourage exercising caution, having seen the practical reality of being on the other side when I was a lawyer back in the day.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have thought through the timetable and the implementation, and we are confident that we can proceed as we intend to.

[Sarah Bool]

Will the Minister give way one more time?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will make some progress.

Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the reforms in the Renters’ Rights Act. The funding will support councils, ensuring that they have the staff and skills required to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. Fees will be pro-rated during the initial roll-out, ensuring that landlords in regions required to register early are treated fairly. To go back to my opening remarks, we will roll-out the measure on a regional basis from December. I think I have answered all the points put to me.

[Gideon Amos]

As always, the Minister is being very generous with his time. He has answered a number of the points raised—I will give him that—but if institutional landlords are paying millions of pounds in fees, the least they should expect is to have a database that works. I welcome the Minister saying that he is continuing to look at the issue, but could he go a smidgen further and commit, on the record, that the Government will ensure that bulk uploads can be achieved? That is the huge failure of the system.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. The Government have looked into the practicality of bulk uploads, and we do not think it is, in the terms he has put it to me, a workable solution. As I have tried to make clear at several points, we are looking at how we can integrate the management systems of larger landlords into the database in a way that does not require them to manually input each of their properties, as has been put to me in this debate. We are looking for those efficiencies—why would we not look for those efficiencies?

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about fees, to be clear, it is not the Government’s intention to use the fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector, but some of the fees will go towards local authority enforcement. As we have debated previously, it is incredibly important that local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the Act.

To conclude, the regulations set out the practical steps required to deliver the PRS database, and set the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will follow. In commencing the roll-out of the database, the regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes that they rent. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: registered providers

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), any registered provider which received a sale notice under section 171A(2) may make an offer to acquire the dwelling.

(3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the registered provider at existing use value for social housing.

(4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act.

(5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”

This amendment gives registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.

Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“171AA Right of first refusal: local affordable housing providers

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and

(b) the dwelling—

(i) is let at social rent, or

(ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority.

(2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), where a qualifying local affordable housing provider makes an offer to acquire the dwelling, a private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the qualifying local affordable housing provider at existing use value for social housing.

(3) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing.

(4) In this section, a ‘qualifying local affordable housing provider’ means—

(a) a community land trust;

(b) a housing co-operative;

(c) a community benefit society;

(d) a charity whose purposes include the provision of affordable housing; or

(e) such other locally based not-for-profit housing body as may be prescribed by regulations,

which operates, or intends to operate, affordable housing within the local housing authority area in which the dwelling is situated.

(5) Any dispute as to existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.”.

This amendment seeks to extend the right of first refusal to not-for-profit community-led housing organisations and other non-registered providers capable of retaining homes as affordable housing within the local area, and provides that the disposal must be at existing use value.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. When we finished this morning’s sitting, I was responding to a point from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, who is not in his place; I know he is a trusty reader of Hansard, so I am sure he will see my remarks.

Essentially, I was saying that it would not be appropriate for me to share any specific advice that I have received on the matter that we are debating. It is not the standard procedure for the Government to put official advice in the public domain. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the decision taken by the Office for National Statistics back in 2015 clearly identified the approval of disposals by the Regulator of Social Housing as a key control that resulted in the reclassification of the housing association sector to public.

It is the Government’s considered opinion that many of the suggestions for further controls over housing association assets, which go beyond the notification requirement in the Bill, would likely be a significant classification risk. I have committed to writing to the hon. Gentleman if there is any further detail that I can provide, but we are somewhat limited in what we can say about how the ONS makes those decisions.

[The Chair]

As we have heard, Gideon Amos is not present. Mr Dillon, do you know what his wishes are? Does he want to withdraw the amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

Government amendment 20 requires sales notices from private providers to include information about whether the rent standard applies to the dwelling and, if it does, the rent category of the dwelling. Engagement with the sector has highlighted the importance of potential purchasers knowing the rent category of a home when taking decisions about purchasing it. That is because the rent category has implications for the future rent that can be charged, and therefore the future income potential of the property.

I remain mindful of the need to ensure the disposal notification is proportionate and limited to the information that is most useful to those considering purchasing the property. We believe information relating to the dwelling rent category is a useful and reasonable addition to the information requirements. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.

Amendment 82 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers when making regulations under proposed new sections 171B or 171A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. A common theme in my responses to the amendments on the disposals measure in this Bill is that I recognise that private registered providers are private bodies that need to be allowed to make their own business decisions. In short, for that reason, I do not think the amendment is required. If making regulations, the Secretary of State would necessarily be aware that housing associations are private bodies. I reassure the shadow Minister that we have no current intentions to use these powers.

I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury spoke only to amendment 100. Am I wrong?

[Mr Dillon]

And amendment 7.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have set out, the Government are committed to protecting our much-needed social housing stock. As it stands, there is no requirement for advance notification of disposals of social homes, meaning that opportunities to retain them within the social housing sector can be missed. Although private registered providers may choose to dispose of homes for valid reasons, including to support investment in new supply and the effective management of their stock, we understand that that can have a particularly acute impact in areas where the supply of social housing is already constrained.

It is therefore important that opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector are not missed, particularly in areas with significant demand or where replacement is particularly difficult. Clause 12 will achieve that by requiring providers to notify the relevant local authority and other registered providers in the area before a sale can be completed. It creates a short window during which completion of a disposal cannot take place, while still allowing providers to market the property and continue with their disposal plans as usual. The window was set at four weeks upon introduction of the Bill, and the Government are seeking to extend that window to eight weeks, in response to concerns raised by both Houses and by stakeholders that it was too short.

The new window of time allows local authorities and other providers to consider whether they wish to acquire the property, helping to retain homes within the social housing sector. To help them in that initial assessment, the notice is required to provide certain basic information such as the address, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and its estimated value. Earlier, I spoke to an amendment to include the category of rent in the sale notice, which we think is a reasonable and fair addition.

The clause is targeted and proportionate. It includes sensible exceptions such as sales to another registered provider, sales to the tenant and certain low-cost home ownership transactions. It is important to be clear that this is not a consent regime. The clause does not prevent disposals, does not restrict who a property may be sold to, and does not interfere with providers’ ability to make legitimate stock management decisions. It is a light touch and proportionate measure to improve transparency, embed consistent good practice across the sector—I have detailed some of the non-legislative means where we intend to work with the sector to go further— and support the Bill’s broader objective of safeguarding and sustaining social housing stock.

Amendment 4, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would introduce additional requirements for disposals in designated rural areas. I support the intention behind it: to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to possible disposals of social housing in rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. I am not convinced, however, that the best way to achieve that outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and a statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal.

The provisions in the Bill will ensure that a local authority is aware of a potential disposal. I hope that that gives local authorities, particularly in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue before the disposal takes place. Requiring statutory consultations on the regeneration of social housing would likely place significant time and administrative costs on both local authorities and private registered providers, and materially impact the ability of private registered providers to make the necessary commercial decisions required to manage their assets effectively and safely.

More broadly, through information published by the Regulator of Social Housing, local authorities can already access information about PRP-owned social housing stock within their local authority area, including information relating to whether stock meets the decent homes standard. An annual report on stock condition would be duplicative of the existing rigorous requirements. I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, but I am not convinced that we need to legislate in this way to achieve our shared aim.

[Mr Dillon]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that local authorities and housing providers are listening to this debate, and understand that the Government expect them to work in a collaborative manner for the best outcome for social tenants. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Review of shared ownership and staircasing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 41—Shared ownership strategy—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme.

(2) The strategy under this section must include proposals relating to—

(a) first-time buyers,

(b) key workers,

(c) housing association provision, and

(d) staircasing arrangements.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘staircasing’ means the practice of buying additional shares in a Shared Ownership home in order to increase overall equity.”

This new clause would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.

New clause 45—Model shared ownership agreement—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a model shared ownership agreement.

(2) The model shared ownership agreement must include standard provisions relating to—

(a) rent reviews,

(b) staircasing,

(c) service charges,

(d) administrative fees,

(e) sales and resales, and

(f) capital improvements undertaken by shared owners.

(3) Registered providers must have regard to the model agreement when granting shared ownership leases.”

This probing new clause would require the publication of a standardised model shared ownership agreement.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I have lived in a shared ownership home, so I thought it only right to support this part of the Bill. Usually on Bill Committees, I speak against and ask the Government to take something out of a Bill, rather than keep it in.

This is important. The Minister, on opening, summed up the issues that lots of constituents with shared ownership face right across the country. If the Government are already doing part of the review anyway, and if they are committed to that review, I do not see why it cannot stay part of the Bill. The cynic in me thinks that the only reason why the Government want to remove it from the Bill is so that they can change their mind and not actually do that review of shared ownership, which has been a long-standing feature of the housing market for a number of years. It is high time that we do a review.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip spoke eloquently about the issues that his constituents face in some of the developments in his constituency. That is not too dissimilar from developments in my constituency. Staircasing has major issues, particularly if ownership is shared with a large social housing provider, such as one of those that operate all across the south-east and London. Residents who buy those shared-ownership homes feel that the social housing provider is unaccountable. They lack transparency on their fees, and I have heard some horrific stories about people buying into shared ownership and wanting to use that as a stepping stone to buy a house on the open market, but having to buy selling packs off the social housing provider at extortionate costs, or the provider not getting back to them and the sale of their property falling through.

New clauses 41 and 45 are trying to solve a number of issues in the Bill. If the Government are doing some of the work already and think that this review is needed, I urge them to keep it in the Bill. As I said, the cynic in me thinks that the Government want to leave it out so that a few months down the line they can say, “We’ve changed our mind. We’re not doing a review.” Do the Government really want a review of shared ownership and to listen to shared owners? The Minister outlined quite eloquently some of the issues that affect shared owners, such as leasehold and commonhold—we look forward to that Bill coming forward—but shared ownership does tend to fall through the cracks.

We have not spent enough time speaking about the issues that shared ownership tenants face, so I really urge the Government to change their mind. I was left with the impression on Second Reading that clause 13 would remain part of the Bill and that the Government would accept the amendments tabled in the other place. I hope that the Government can reflect and keep this clause as part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I said this in my opening remarks, but let me reinforce it: we absolutely appreciate that shared owners across the country face issues, but I do think that there is a regional element to this. From the feedback I receive, it seems to me that the experience of shared owners in London and other parts of the south are far more problematic than shared ownership in parts of the north, where it is quite a successful product and does not have the issues that are often confronted. Serious affordability, transparency, management, staircasing, and resale challenges are being experienced. I know that from my own postbag; I have lots of shared owners in my constituency.

I speak as someone who grew up with a single parent myself, but lots of shared owners are often single women who got a mortgage on the basis of an affordability calculation and have seen, within two or three years, service charges and other costs increase to the point that their home is no longer affordable and would not be counted as such on that affordability check. They are under real pressure. We recognise those pressures and I understand that any shared owners watching will see this clause as a sort of lifeline.

Notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about the frequency with which Ministers in previous Conservative Administrations were cycled through, I think I am right in saying that if I make it to Thursday I will be the longest serving Housing Minister since 2010.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Edward Argar]

Don’t tempt fate!

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have better form on permanence of our policy and our ministerial certainty and stability. Notwithstanding the right hon. Member’s attempts to beguile and flatter me, I cannot accept the new clauses, for two reasons. I will take them in turn, but essentially I do not think that either is proportionate or necessary.

New clause 45 would require the Secretary of State to publish a model shared ownership agreement, but model shared ownership leases are already available, and they contain the fundamental clauses governing how shared ownership operates—including many of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Providers delivering grant-funded shared ownership are required to use leases containing these clauses and comply with wider grant funding requirements.

To give Members a sense that we are thinking about these things, part of the reason that I made the written ministerial statement on Monday was because we have done a huge amount of work in this area, but we have never brought it together into one place in the context of a wider improvement programme. The fault for that is on me and I throw my hands up, but a lot of work has already been done, and a lot of work is to come.

Tackling specific issues, we know that shared owners who want to staircase can face barriers such as transaction costs, a lack of information, rising property values and wider affordability pressures. HomeOwners Alliance estimates typical transaction costs of around £2,000—that was two years ago, in 2024. In the WMS, we have committed to considering measures to reduce existing barriers to staircasing, such as those up-front and ongoing transaction costs.

The issue of buy-backs arose in the context of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, again from Lord Young pressing the case for shared owners. I am absolutely and acutely aware that buy-backs can be a lifeline for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable either to afford to remain in their home or to sell it, whether due to building safety defects, high service charges or lease-related restrictions. Again, we have committed and made clear in the WMS that we are intent on undertaking a comprehensive review of the functioning of buy-backs, to better understand practical barriers and solutions, and to look at specific issues such as the current use of recycled capital funding grants. That work is under way.

It is also worth saying that lots of the problems that affect shared owners go beyond them to affect other leaseholders. The actions we are taking in several areas will benefit shared owners along with other long residential leaseholders.

A good case is the standardisation and transparency measures that we are introducing in respect of service charges using powers in the previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We will lay those statutory instruments in the very near future, so hon. Members can look forward to that. Shared owners who are experiencing those high and rising service charges will benefit from those provisions.

The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston got to the point of the substantive matter at hand, which he framed as an “extra opportunity”. If he can put his ministerial hat on from when he stood here for many years, I gently ask him whether it is reasonable and proportionate to require, through a Social Housing Bill, a statutory review of shared ownership, given all that the Government are doing. Is it really proportionate to require a statutory review just to give that extra opportunity?

We already consult the Shared Owners’ Network and other representative groups. If hon. Members are telling me that we can do more, I am happy to work with them to get shared owners and their experiences into the Government’s thinking so that they are better reflected. If there is more that we can do to improve the improvement programme that is already under way, I am more than happy to hear about that, but it is a little stretching to say that it is absolutely essential just for, to quote the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, that “little extra opportunity” to cover those issues. We are looking at issues in the round. We are considering the comprehensive set of challenges that shared owners face.

[Edward Argar]

On that basis, is the Minister prepared to commit—whether explicitly in the Bill or not—to the Government’s launching a formal review of this?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In some ways, it is pure semantics. We have a comprehensive improvement programme under way. If the right hon. Member looks at my written ministerial statement from yesterday, he will see the work that we have already undertaken: material changes, including to the social and affordable homes programme, where we are setting firmer expectations for providers that receive grant funding. A lot of work is already under way. Whether the right hon. Member calls it a review or an improvement programme, shared owners across the country will rightly focus not on what we term the work that is under way, but on the benefits they see coming out of that work. They can already see some of those in the expectations that we have set, but there will be more to follow.

[Lewis Cocking]

To draw out the point a little further, will the Minister commit to making an oral statement on the Floor of the House in the near future so that Members from across the House can ask questions and he can update us on what he is doing about shared ownership and improvements to shared ownership?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My Whip whispers in my ear that that is a matter for Mr Speaker. The hon. Member and any other Member of the Opposition can secure a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate on this subject. I am more than willing to debate shared ownership or any other housing matter.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister make a statement?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have made a written ministerial statement that sets out the Government’s work in this area.

Taken together, the existing framework of model leases and guidance, alongside the substantive programme of improvements that is already under way, address the issues at the heart of both new clauses. We continue to have constructive engagement with Lord Young and others in the other place who have concerns about this issue, but we do not believe that a further statutory model agreement or a separate statutory strategy is necessary. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to press new clauses 41 and 45.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 22 to 25, 46, 47, 26, 29, 27, 28, 30, 31, 48 to 57, 32, 58, 33, 59, 34, 60, 35, 61, 36 to 42, 62 to 65, 43, 44, 66 to 72, 45 and 73.

Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

“3A In section 160ZA of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation only to eligible and qualifying persons: England), after subsection (11) insert—

‘(12) In deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons under subsection (7), a local housing authority must disregard housing-related debt or any other priority debt that was accrued, either by an applicant for housing accommodation or by a member of their household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.

(13) For the purposes of subsection (12), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’

3B In section 166A of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme: England), after subsection (14) insert—

‘(15) A local housing authority in England must, in preparing or modifying their allocation scheme, disregard housing-related debt or any other priority debt that was accrued, either by an applicant for housing accommodation, or by a member of their household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.

(16) For the purposes of subsection (15), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This amendment is intended to ensure that people in England who have incurred housing-related or other priority debt, for example rent arrears, as the result of domestic financial abuse are not prevented from bidding for social housing.

Schedule 1.

New clause 30—Domestic abuse protections: implementation review—

“(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 14 and Schedule 1 (Protection for victims of domestic abuse) come into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of those provisions at protecting victims of domestic abuse who hold social housing tenancies.

(2) The review under this section must include an assessment of—

(a) the effectiveness of the courts and relevant agencies at identifying when incidents of domestic abuse have occurred within social housing dwellings; and

(b) the ability of local authorities and other relevant agencies to identify previous victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse when allocating social housing tenancies.”

This new clause would require the Government to assess the effectiveness of the provisions on protecting domestic abuse victims.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 14 and its associated schedule 1 will address a clear legal gap in respect of social housing tenancies, namely that existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that, all too often, victims are forced to choose between staying in danger and losing their home. As I argued on Second Reading, that is an utterly unacceptable state of affairs; taken together, the clause and schedule will end it.

Schedule 1 will introduce stronger powers for landlords to enable them to take possession of a property where domestic abuse has taken place without the requirement for the victim to leave. It also strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports, rather than frustrates, a victim’s route to safety and recovery. The new mandatory grounds in the schedule seek to provide a clear framework by which courts must grant possession if the threshold has been met. Crucially, under the discretionary grounds in the schedule, the court must take into account the opinion of the victim before making the decision, helping to ensure that victims remain at the centre of the process.

A key focus of the measures is providing certainty in cases of joint tenancies. The schedule ensures that, if conditions are met for joint tenancies, the court will transfer the perpetrator’s interest in the joint tenancy so that the victim becomes the sole tenant. Where it is not appropriate for a victim to remain in their current home, the Bill allows a court to order suitable alternative social housing where the landlord has such accommodation available. The court must, as far as possible, take into account the victim’s views when considering the suitability of alternative accommodation. If a landlord cannot satisfy the court that a suitable home will be available, the victim will not be forced to move under these provisions.

Clause 14 and schedule 1 provide that the new measures will apply where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the victim currently lives in the property or has left due to domestic abuse. The measures critically remove the requirement for the victim to have fled the property before possession action can be taken. They also protect victims of modern slavery where the victim and perpetrator are personally connected and the other conditions in the Bill are met.

We will continue to work with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the Home Office and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation. It would be remiss of me not to say that our work with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has been, in my view, an exemplar of cross-departmental working to resolve a pressing issue. In aligning with the definition of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the measures also cover a broader range of conduct. They protect those most at risk who currently live, or previously lived, in a property with a perpetrator, while remaining clear and workable in practice.

Government amendments 22 to 73 address concerns raised in the other place about the evidence needed to use the discretionary grounds in domestic abuse cases. We have listened carefully to those concerns and we have acted. The amendments strengthen the discretionary domestic abuse grounds by ensuring that the existence of a relevant protective order is sufficient to satisfy the first stage of the ground ahead of the court’s determining whether it is reasonable to grant possession.

Where either a non-molestation order or a domestic abuse protection order is in force against a perpetrator, landlords may rely on it as evidence for the courts to then progress to consider whether it is reasonable to grant possession. That removes the need to separately establish whether domestic abuse has taken place where an order is in place, making it easier for social landlords to take possession action where a court has already made an order protecting the victim. An order will be disregarded if an appeal remains unresolved or results in the order being overturned.

The amendments do not make possession automatic. The courts will still need to consider whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, retaining judicial oversight through the existing reasonableness test. The amendments will simplify the process and give greater confidence to landlords and victims when seeking possession.

The amendments also make technical and consequential changes to the domestic abuse provisions in schedule 1. They align the terminology used in the Bill with the definition of domestic abuse in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, make consequential changes and align wording across equivalent provisions in the Bill and, finally, clarify how the tenancy transfer and possession provisions operate.

The amendments will ensure that, where the conditions for making a possession order on the basis of suitable alternative accommodation apply, the transfer of tenancy provision will also operate. The effect is that the perpetrator tenant’s interest is severed in all cases where the ground for possession is met and the court is satisfied that an order should be made. That will help deliver more consistent outcomes for victims in joint tenancy cases.

Taken together, the amendments improve the clarity and consistency of schedule 1 and ensure that the domestic abuse provisions operate as intended. I commend clause 14, schedule 1 and the Government amendments to the Committee.

[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?

[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]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury, the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I never know whether I am pronouncing that entirely correctly—

[Edward Argar]

The Minister pronounces it immaculately.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome the cross-party support for the intent behind these provisions and their effect. In some ways, I would go so far as to say that they are groundbreaking in what we have tried to achieve. As I said, there has also been very effective cross-departmental working.

On the specific point that the hon. Member for Newbury raised, there are mandatory grounds for possession in the Bill, but they apply only when a breach of a relevant order has taken place. The changes we have made to the discretionary possession grounds are to allow for the existence of an order to be relevant grounds for the court, rather than a breach having to take place. However, there are mandatory grounds in place. I am happy to set that out in more detail for the hon. Member, in writing, if he is interested. I know that he takes a keen interest in these matters.

I will turn to the two non-Government amendments that have been tabled, starting with amendment 12. This issue, and a version of the amendment, was raised in the other place by Baroness Neate. I would like to give the Committee the same reassurances that we gave the noble Baroness, and that she accepted, in debates in the other place.

First, the Government agree, as I think we all would, with the principle that survivors of domestic abuse should not face unfair barriers to social housing because of debt arising from that abuse. That is why, in the national plan to end homelessness, we committed to addressing the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing through our update to the statutory guidance on social housing allocations.

We continue to believe that primary legislation is not the right approach in this area. There are sensitive and inherently complex cases at play here, and the amendment would introduce a rigid rule that would not allow local authorities to take proper account of individual circumstances. Updated statutory guidance will allow us to set clear national expectations while preserving the flexibility needed to reach fair and sustainable decisions in individual cases. Work is already under way to review the guidance, and we will consult on the updated guidance early next year.

We continue to believe that guidance is the best route to resolving this issue, as I made clear on Second Reading—I think my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed me on that. I am happy to reiterate that if guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the relevant legislation. The Government’s position has not changed. We support the objective of removing unfair barriers for survivors, but believe that updated statutory guidance, backed by existing regulation-making powers, if necessary, is the more proportionate and effective route.

[Danny Beales]

I thank the Minister for referencing our previous debate on this topic. I welcome the Government’s action in developing guidance. I have seen worrying cases in my constituency of rent arrears being a barrier to victims of domestic violence getting a tenancy. There is concern that, even though rules have already been changed about local connection tests, they may not always be applied effectively, and local connection tests may still be used as a route to block victims of domestic violence. I welcome the development of guidance, but will the Minister commit to collecting evidence about the effectiveness of the guidance and whether further measures might be needed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We will absolutely keep the effectiveness of that guidance under review. I reiterate the commitment I have made, which I have tried to put as plainly as possible: if that guidance is not effective, we will introduce regulations to ensure that we resolve the issue. However, we believe that there is a high chance that the guidance will be successful in achieving the outcomes we want. That is our preferred route in the near term, but I am determined to ensure that the issue is addressed. The Baroness accepted the commitments we made in the other place, and those regulations are available if we require them.

Turning to new clause 30, the Department already collects data through CORE— continuous recording of lettings and sales in social housing—on how many new tenancies were given to victims who left their previous tenancy because of domestic abuse, which provides an important baseline for monitoring outcomes as the reforms are implemented. The Ministry of Justice also publishes quarterly statistics on landlord possession proceedings in the county courts of England and Wales. Those cover claims, possession orders, warrants and repossessions, including for social landlords. We will work with the Ministry of Justice, social landlords and the domestic abuse sector on implementation—the hon. Member for Orpington would expect nothing less. That includes developing clear guidance so that landlords know how and when to use the measures and how to support victims.

The new clause would also require an assessment of how courts and other organisations identify domestic abuse. On 5 October, the Government launched the judicial finding of domestic abuse, a significant step forward in improving the identification and management of domestic abuse offenders across the criminal justice system. As part of sentencing, judges will be required to make a judicial finding of domestic abuse in open court where the evidence supports such a finding as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That will provide a formal record where an offence involves domestic abuse. Those findings will be recorded in court records and shared with police and probation. The judicial finding will enable police, courts, prisons and probation services to recognise domestic abuse offenders and respond to the risks they pose more effectively.

Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause extends beyond the purpose of these measures. The Bill does not alter the way local authorities identify previous victims or perpetrators when allocating new social housing tenancies. That is a matter for local authorities to determine when assessing need and priority for an allocation of social housing.

The measures that the Government have put forward in this part of the Bill will help ensure that our reforms can operate effectively. The Government amendments provide the necessary technical changes to support the operation of the provisions and ensure that the legislation works as intended. I welcome the cross-party support for the measures and ask the Committee to support Government amendments 22 to 73.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Protection for victims of domestic abuse

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 74.

Schedule 2.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 15 introduces schedule 2, which gives the Secretary of State the power to create one new general consent and removes the need to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent for certain transactions altogether. There are a range of circumstances in which local authorities must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to undertake certain actions relating to their social homes, including how they account for them and when and how they can dispose of them. Some of the consents also apply to private individuals who own property that was once owned as social housing by a council or a new town corporation.

The first measure gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a general consent to non-housing assets—for example, shops or recreation grounds—that are being accounted for in the housing revenue account in accordance with part II of the Housing Act 1985. That will enable the Secretary of State to permit all such accounting practices when they meet certain criteria. That will remove one obstacle from the process of planning new council developments. It will also make it easier for councils to include these additional premises in their developments, supporting the creation of thriving, liveable communities.

The second measure streamlines the process by which local authorities can serve demolition notices, when homes are due to be demolished, that suspend or end tenants’ right to buy. Under schedules 5 and 5A to the 1985 Act, initial demolition notices can be issued for up to seven years, and final demolition notices, which can be issued once the local authority has acquired all the relevant properties for demolition or entered into binding agreements to acquire them, for up to two years. The provision removes the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent when local authorities need to serve further interim or final demolition notices if demolition cannot be completed during the time of the original notice, and it sets out requirements that local authorities must follow when serving further interim or final demolition notices. Those changes will help local authorities to manage redevelopment schemes more efficiently while still requiring them to follow clear statutory conditions.

Finally, the measure amends or repeals provisions in a number of Acts that require the Secretary of State’s consent for the onward sale of homes that have previously been owned by a local housing authority or new town corporation, even if those homes are already in the private market. The changes do not have effect in Wales, where the previous regime will continue. The changes will take away a completely unnecessary brake on these housing transactions in the private market. There is no longer any rationale for these now private homes to be subject to the Secretary of State’s consent, and consent is never in practice denied. All the changes are part of a suite of measures planned by the Government to simplify and streamline the council housing consent system in England and to empower local authorities who know their communities best.

Government amendment 74 makes minor and consequential amendments to schedule 2. Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule omits section 171D(2) of the Housing Act 1985. That subsection currently requires the Secretary of State’s consent for certain onward disposal of homes already sold under the right to buy. As a consequence of that omission, references elsewhere in the Housing Act 1985 to consent under section 171D(2) are no longer required. Amendment 74 removes those redundant references, ensuring that the legislation will operate coherently once the requirement for consent is removed. The amendment does not make any further substantive change to policy; it simply makes necessary consequential amendments to give full effect to paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2.

I commend clause 15 and schedule 2 to the Committee, and ask the Committee to support Government amendment 74.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Social housing: consent requirements

Amendment made: 74, in schedule 2, page 37, line 22, at end insert—

“1A ‘(1) Schedule 9A (land registration and related matters where right to buy preserved) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 4 (entries on register protecting preserved right to buy), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ preceding it.

(3) In paragraph 5 (change of qualifying dwelling-house), in sub-paragraph (2), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ preceding it.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Section 171D(2) of the Housing Act 1985 is omitted by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill. This contains amendments that are consequential on that omission.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 

Vacant higher value local authority housing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is essential that local housing authorities have the flexibility to manage their stock in the way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 16 therefore removes provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have forced councils to sell their highest-value council homes whenever they became vacant. I say, “would have forced” because these provisions were never implemented by previous Governments. Even so, the presence of the provision on the statute book has a negative effect on local authorities’ spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties, which typically earn higher than average rents and are cheaper to maintain.

The policy was intended—I recall this because, as a relatively new Member, I sat on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the 2016 Act—to raise capital to supply new social homes, but it would ultimately have led to a net loss of social homes. Furthermore, when the 2016 Act was passed, a major aim of the policy was to help to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. This Government have made it clear that they do not intend to take that extension forward. The last Conservative Government chose never to implement the measures due to the negative impact that they would have had on local authorities, and we are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 75 to 77.

Schedule 3.

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.”

This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.

New clause 58—Review of lifetime secure tenancies—

“(1) A local housing authority must review each lifetime secure tenancy at intervals of no more than five years.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the tenant continues to require the accommodation having regard to their housing needs,

(b) whether the accommodation remains suitable having regard to the size and composition of the tenant’s household,

(c) whether the tenant has developed a local connection with another local housing authority area,

(d) whether the tenant requires support to move to more suitable accommodation, and

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) Following a review under this section, the local housing authority may—

(a) confirm the continuation of the tenancy,

(b) offer alternative suitable accommodation, or

(c) take such other action as may be provided for by regulations.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local housing authorities on the conduct of reviews under this section.

(5) Local housing authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five years to ensure that social housing continues to meet tenants’ needs and that existing stock is being used effectively.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am losing track of the narrative in this debate. The Government do not want to sell the unit to the tenant, but that means they will forgo all the long-term health, economic, social and community benefits of home ownership. At the same time, you want to lock them into lifelong tenancies, which would take their house out of action and reduce its availability to other households that are more in need. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill, but that is the narrative that I understand the Government are setting out. Can the Minister confirm that for me?

[Patrick Spencer]

I apologise, Mr Western.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman does misunderstand the Bill in a number of respects. First, we are not abolishing or phasing out the right to buy. As I have persistently made clear, we want to ensure that the right to buy is available for long-standing tenants who have lived in—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can intervene once I have answered his first question. I refer to those tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years.

I have already made it clear in a previous debate that landlords can already consider the changing needs of tenants through a variety of methods, ranging from tenant surveys to direct engagement. They can already support tenants to downsize, to transfer or to mutually exchange their home if their circumstances change. The new clause would mandate, through primary legislation, a review of every secure tenancy once every five years. I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman—this picks up on the precise reason why the previous Conservative Government did not bring into force the provisions in their own 2016 Act—that that would entail huge administrative burdens for local authorities. We think, because we believe in the principle of secure tenancies in social housing—in terms of the benefits for tenants and for communities more widely—that we should not impose such a statutory review every five years. I am struggling to see how that is incompatible with trying to place the right-to-buy scheme on a fairer and more sustainable footing.

The Government are reviewing how effectively social housing providers are using their stock. That work is considering issues such as under-occupation, overcrowding and how landlords are supporting tenant movement. We will set out findings from that review and the next steps in due course. We think social landlords can, in some instances, make better and more effective use of their stock. That does not necessarily require, as a means to support them to do so, a statutory requirement to review every secure tenancy every five years.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Regarding social landlords reassessing the use of their stock, does the Minister agree that there needs to be more focus on the needs of disabled members of our community? My constituent Keeley Callan came to see me on Friday. She is disabled, and I would argue she is actually disabled by the social housing system because she has been waiting for at least five years to move into her own accommodation. That is totally unacceptable, given her equal rights to housing in law. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that as he sums up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am sorry to hear about that case; if my hon. Friend wants to write to me with further details, I am more than happy to look into it. I would make two points: local authorities are best placed to decide the types of social homes their communities need and to plan for them appropriately. Local authorities also have a statutory duty to promote adaptations for disabled people in all housing tenures, subject to a needs assessment, and the Government provide the disabled facilities grant to support them. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about the support that should be in place and the expectations that the Government have in respect of local authorities. If he wants to write to me, I am more than happy to come back to him on the particular points that might arise from the case he has mentioned.

We cannot accept new clause 58 and I have already spoken to new clause 40, tabled by the shadow Minister. I ask the Committee to support Government amendments 75 to 77 and I commend clause 17 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Secure, introductory and demoted tenancies: uncommenced legislation etc

Amendments made: 75, in schedule 3, page 41, line 1, after “143H” insert

“of the Housing Act 1996”.

This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 76, in schedule 3, page 42, line 5, after “143J” insert

“of the Housing Act 1996”.

This would clarify that this sub-paragraph amends the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 42, line 23, leave out “to (10)” and insert

“, (9) and (10)(c) and (d)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would clarify that only sub-paragraph 10(c) and (d) are relevant to sub-paragraph (13). Sub-paragraph 10(a) and (b) concern introductory, rather than demoted, tenancies.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18

Rents for high income social tenants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 42—Review of income eligibility for social housing—

“(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act and every five years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review income eligibility thresholds for social housing.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include consideration of the following trends over the previous five years—

(a) household earnings,

(b) regional housing costs,

(c) housing affordability, and

(d) levels of demand for social housing.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of each review and lay them before Parliament.”

This new clause would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds for social housing.

[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.

[Rachel Blake]

The Minister has been incredibly generous. I wonder whether he will reflect in his closing remarks on the clause—which repeals what were, in my view, ideological attacks on something that is a very practical solution to a range of market needs and the affordability options open to people—that the previous Government did not enact these measures because they were found to be impractical, and because their implementation would actually cost the taxpayer money due to the risks of an additional administrative burden on local authorities and increasing homelessness; or will he remain as gracious and generous as he has been in our discussions so far?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation to become ungracious in respect of Opposition Members. I remember the debates in that 2016 Bill Committee. Those were deeply ideological measures, but I think it says everything that Conservative Ministers decided they were impractical, unworkable, could not be implemented, and made it clear—[Interruption.] They did. I encourage Opposition Members to go and read the 2018 social housing Green Paper, in which Conservative Ministers made it very clear that huge administrative burdens would come from some of these measures, in addition to their detrimental impact on tenants and communities. What we are doing is going a step further, as I have said, and removing these measures, and the uncertainty they create, from the statute book.

On the new clause, it is important to be clear that only a very small minority of social housing lettings are to high-income households. This is based on household income, not individual income, and in many cases could reflect two people each earning a modest salary, rather than a single person on what anyone would reasonably describe as a high income. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains, as I have said, the only viable or appropriate option for them. That can be the case even when their income may be somewhat higher than that of others on the waiting list.

Income should be considered alongside a household’s wider housing needs and circumstances, but we do not believe that this duty is necessary, or that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of these independently set thresholds. In repealing the pay-to-stay provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, councils and registered providers will still be able to operate voluntary pay-to-stay schemes for households earning over £60,000 if they wish to do so. That discretion is important and it remains, but there will be no mandatory national requirement. That approach will, as I have said, avoid disincentives for people to work or increase their earnings, and will support a more sensible system overall. I therefore ask that the new clause not be pressed, and I commend clause 18 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 19 will make a minor technical amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, section 320 of which sets out the parliamentary procedure that applies to regulations made under its provisions. Regulations made under sections 70, 72 and 126A are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that a draft of the regulations must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament before they can be made.

However, the provision governing the negative procedure currently excludes only regulations made under sections 70 and 72; it does not also refer to section 126A. Clause 19 corrects that inconsistency and ensures that all regulations that section 320 specifies as being subject to the affirmative procedure are properly excluded from the negative procedure. The clause does not confer any new powers or reduce the level of parliamentary scrutiny; it simply ensures that the existing statutory provisions operate clearly and consistently. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 21

Management of local authority housing by TMOs

“Schedule (Management of local authority housing by TMOs) makes provision about the management of local authority housing accommodation by tenant management organisations.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would introduce NS1 which provides for a revised and expanded legislative regime about the management of council housing by tenant management organisations.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 1—Management of local authority housing by TMOs.

Government amendment 79.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right to manage can be a powerful tool through which social housing residents can take greater control of the housing services that they receive, but it must operate within a clear, robust framework that protects residents and clarifies respective responsibilities. Taken together, these changes will update and strengthen the right to manage, making it easier for social housing tenants to exercise that right with confidence, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place.

These reforms have been informed by the findings of the review of the right to manage that was undertaken by the Government. Through the review, we heard clearly from stakeholders that the current right to manage framework has not kept pace with wider regulatory change. They highlighted the need for governance that is more proportionate and for greater clarity on roles, responsibilities and information sharing.

We also heard from landlords and residents that the current routes for intervention if things go wrong can be slow and cumbersome. Within schedule 1, proposed new sections 27AD to 27AF of the Housing Act 1985 will enable a more proportionate approach to governance requirements. They will put in place lighter-touch requirements where residents take on more limited services, and stronger requirements where tenant management organisations assume more complex functions, including building safety responsibilities.

Those provisions will also provide broader powers to strengthen the framework governing right to manage arrangements, helping to ensure that it keeps pace with wider regulatory requirements, including on the safety and decency of social homes and quality of services to tenants. These are enabling powers that will allow us to update the right to manage regulations and guidance to govern management agreements, ballots of residents, regular reviews and information sharing. The powers will come into effect on Royal Assent, but we will consult on the detail before introducing the new regulations and guidance.

Proposed new sections 27AG to 27AL will also require regular reviews of the management agreements, strengthen the requirements for residents to be balloted on continuation of TMO arrangements, and require better information sharing between TMOs and their landlords. They will also strengthen requirements on landlords to consult TMOs on policy changes affecting functions exercised under management agreements.

Proposed new sections 27AM to 27AQ will create a targeted court-backed route for intervention in exceptional cases, including removal of board members where there is serious mismanagement of a TMO or a risk to residents’ safety. That route will be subject to judicial oversight, with the court required to be satisfied that urgent intervention is appropriate. That will help to address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the ability of councils to act swiftly where serious failings are putting residents at risk.

We know that many TMOs work hard to deliver good-quality housing services that respond to local priorities and are supported by tenants who give up their own time to serve on committees. These reforms will make the right to manage easier to exercise, clearer to operate and safer for residents. They will support resident empowerment while ensuring that landlords have the tools they need to meet their regulatory requirements and safeguard residents.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Duty of private registered provider to offer accommodation after local authority request

“(1) After section 193C of the Housing Act 1996 insert—

‘193D Duty of private registered provider to offer accommodation after local authority request

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a local housing authority in England has a duty under section 193 to secure accommodation for an applicant, and

(b) the authority has made a written request to a private registered provider of social housing to provide low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district for the applicant.

(2) The provider must make an offer of low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district to the applicant within a reasonable period, unless the provider has a good reason not to.

(3) If the provider considers that there is a good reason not to make an offer of low cost rental accommodation in the authority’s district, the provider must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give written notice of the reason to the local housing authority.

(4) In deciding whether to make a request under subsection (1)(b), the local housing authority must have regard to—

(a) the type and amount of low cost rental accommodation that the provider in question owns or manages in the authority’s district, and

(b) the extent to which the provider is already providing accommodation in the authority’s district to persons who are homeless.

(5) The local housing authority may by written notice require the provider to provide the information described in subsection (4)(a) or (b), unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

(6) A notice under subsection (5) may require the information to be provided—

(a) within a specified period;

(b) in a specified manner or form.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of subsection (2) as to what constitutes—

(a) a reasonable period;

(b) a good reason.

save-line2(8) “Low cost rental accommodation” has the same meaning as in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (see section 69)

(9) An offer made under this section is not an offer of accommodation under Part 6 (allocation of housing).’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Many councils and housing associations already work closely together to secure settled homes for people facing homelessness. We are committed to building on the many examples of good practice and collaboration that exist, but informal agreements between councils and other providers do not always work. Private registered providers are less likely than councils to offer accommodation to homeless households. New clause 22 will give local housing authorities an additional tool to help them to discharge the main homelessness duty.

Where a council owes a household the main homelessness duty, it will be able to ask a private registered provider with social housing in its area to offer social housing to that household. The provider must respond and offer suitable accommodation within a reasonable period unless it has good reason not to do so. We will consult councils, housing providers and other relevant providers before setting out in regulations what constitutes a reasonable period and a good reason, but, to give an example, a private registered provider would not be expected to offer accommodation if they do not have anything suitable available in a reasonable timeframe.

The power includes important safeguards. Before making a referral, the council must take account of the type and amount of accommodation that the provider has locally, and the extent to which it is already housing homeless households. That will ensure that referrals are fair and proportionate and that they reflect local circumstances. The approach builds on established practice in Scotland and delivers a commitment in our national plan to end homelessness. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 22 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Referral of homelessness cases to other local housing authorities

“(1) Section 198 of the Housing Act 1996 (referral of case) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4ZA) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify circumstances in which—

(a) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2),

(b) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2ZA), or

(c) the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (4),

are not met for the purposes of referral of a case by a local housing authority in England.’

(3) In subsection (7) after ‘order’, in the first two places it occurs, insert ‘or regulations’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying circumstances where a local housing authority in England cannot refer a person who is homeless to another local housing authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Duties of specified bodies to collaborate and act on homelessness.

[Matthew Pennycook]

New clauses 23 and 24 will strengthen homelessness prevention and ensure that support reaches those who need it most, as quickly as possible.

We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in our armed forces. They have given so much of their life in service to their country, and it is right that we support them to have a safe home on leaving active service. The number of former armed service personnel seeking homelessness support is thankfully relatively small, but the Government recognise that those who do so can face challenges, particularly if they seek to establish themselves in an area where they may have no existing local connections. The existing legislation permits a local housing authority to refer someone who is seeking housing support, but does not have any connections to their local area, to the area of another local housing authority where they do.

New clause 23 provides a power for the Secretary of State to define in regulations where that should not apply. We propose to use that power to exempt our armed forces veterans from local connection referrals. That means that there will be no barriers or delays to veterans receiving homelessness assistance. They will be able to seek support from anywhere in the country, and the local authority will be required to provide assistance. This builds on the action that we took last year to exempt veterans from any local connection test that councils might apply to determine who qualifies for an allocation of social housing.

[Rachel Blake]

I strongly welcome the move to remove the local connection test for armed forces veterans. It indicates this Government’s recognition that the local connection sometimes creates barriers for people to making their way off the streets, particularly when they are vulnerable. I welcome the Bill’s acknowledgment of the issue. I hope that there can be an ongoing conversation about the role of local connection tests, particularly regarding rough sleeping and how we support people to stop sleeping rough.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s support for this measure. I am more than happy to have an ongoing dialogue about the issue with her, as I do with so many others. It is absolutely right that we look to do everything possible to support our veterans.

I turn to new clause 24. We know that homelessness rarely occurs without warning. Yet too often, people come to the attention of local housing authorities only when they have already reached crisis point. Many of them will have been in contact with different public services long before, but opportunities to identify risk, co-ordinate support and intervene early are often missed. People often face homelessness despite engaging with services that are well placed to help prevent it. The new clause addresses this challenge by introducing new duties on specified bodies to identify and act on a person’s homelessness or risk of homelessness. This supports the Government’s commitment to prevent and relieve homelessness at the earliest possible stage.

The specified bodies will also be required to take meaningful action as part of the existing functions to address or relieve homelessness. The duty will replace and extend the existing duty to refer. It will mandate earlier engagement with local housing authorities, alongside notifying them if someone requires support. It also mandates continued engagement with the local authority to enable it to support an individual as effectively as possible, and will require specified bodies to consider other sources of support for the individual.

Preventing homelessness should not be the responsibility of a single organisation. People at risk of homelessness often have multiple and overlapping needs, including poor health, unemployment, financial hardship or involvement with the justice system. No single service can address these issues effectively alone.

[Danny Beales]

On the point about specific bodies, can the Minister clarify whether this provision would extend to hospital trusts and prisons within the criminal justice system? I am sure he knows that one of the most significant routes on to the street is from both of those public sector institutions. Unfortunately, hospitals rarely if ever count those who are likely to sleep rough on discharge or are currently doing so. Positively, the Government’s rough sleeping strategy is committed to ending discharge to street from hospitals, but getting that engagement from the NHS and trusts as well as the asylum system and prisons will be crucial to making that happen. Will this new clause be a step forward in that regard?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s points. We will set out the specified bodies in due course. I hear what he says about hospital trusts in particular. I think engagement is to take place on the precise scope of the specified bodies that we want to be caught by the new duty. On the point of principle—these are broad enabling powers—effective prevention depends on earlier identification, co-ordinated action and shared responsibility across services.

Importantly, this is not about creating an entirely new system. Many services already undertake these activities to support homelessness prevention, whether by identifying vulnerabilities, signposting support, making referrals or working with partners to resolve housing issues. These new duties build on existing good practice and should drive a consistent national framework to support those who are most vulnerable.

The Government intend to define in secondary legislation the bodies within scope and the actions required to comply with the duty, but my officials and I have heard the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip makes.

[Mr Dillon]

The new clause refers to identifying the local housing authority to which the notification could be made. In additional legislation, is it possible that H could notify more than one local housing authority— if they had a local connection, say, in Liverpool and in Berkshire—to get them off the streets as soon as possible?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Member will allow me, I will write to him on that specific point; I do not have an answer to hand. I am more than happy to set out how these provisions might work where multiple local authorities are involved. I take his point on that.

As I say, we intend to define in secondary legislation the bodies within scope and the actions required to comply with the duty. This will allow us to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that implementation is proportionate and effective and that it reflects the differing functions of individual services. Ultimately, the new clause is about ensuring that services work together to identify risks earlier and intervene before people reach crisis point. By creating a more joined-up approach to homelessness prevention, we can help more people to remain in their homes, shift the system away from crisis response and deliver our ambition on homelessness and rough sleeping, as the Prime Minister has rightly outlined. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Duties of specified bodies to collaborate and act on homelessness

“(1) This section amends the Housing Act 1996.

(2) After section 213AA insert—

‘213AB Specified bodies must identify actual or possible homelessness

(1) A specified body must take reasonable steps to identify persons in England in relation to whom it exercises functions who it considers are or may be—

(a) homeless,

(b) threatened with homelessness, or

(c) otherwise at risk of becoming homeless.

(2) When a specified body becomes subject to that duty in relation to a particular person (taking into account any effect of regulations made under section 213AG(1)), the body must comply with the duty promptly.

213AC Specified bodies must act on actual or possible homelessness

(1) A specified body must comply with the duty to notify the local housing authority (see section 213AD) in relation to a person (H) if the body identifies H as a person who the body considers is or may be—

(a) homeless, or

(b) threatened with homelessness.

(2) But the specified body does not need to comply with the duty to notify if it is satisfied that—

(a) H has already made an application for assistance, and

(b) the application has not been disposed of.

(3) A specified body must comply with the general duty to act (see section 213AE) in relation to a person (H) if the body identifies H as a person who the body considers is or may be—

(a) homeless,

(b) threatened with homelessness, or

(c) otherwise at risk of becoming homeless.

(4) A “relevant step”, in relation to H, means a step to—

(a) prevent H becoming homeless,

(b) reduce the risk of H becoming homeless,

(c) relieve H’s homelessness, or

(d) alleviate the effects of H’s homelessness.

213AD The duty to notify the local housing authority

(1) The “duty to notify the local housing authority” in relation to H consists of the duties set out in this section.

(2) The specified body must ask H—

(a) whether H has made an application for assistance under this Part, and

(b) if so, to which local housing authority the application was made.

(3) If H has not made an application for assistance, the specified body must ask whether H agrees to the body notifying a local housing authority in England—

(a) that the body considers that H is or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, and

(b) how H may be contacted by the local housing authority.

(4) If H agrees to the specified body making the notification, the body must ask H—

(a) whether H consents to the body sharing with the authority such information as is necessary to make the notification (including information provided by H and information already held by the body), and

(b) to identify a local housing authority in England to which H would like the notification to be made.

(5) If H agrees to the specified body making the notification and consents to the body sharing the information that is necessary to make the notification, the body must notify the local housing authority in England to which H would like the notification to be made.

213AE The general duty to act

(1) The “general duty to act” in relation to H consists of the duties set out in this section.

(2) The specified body must—

(a) consider the question of what relevant steps could be taken by it or other persons, and

(b) raise that question with such persons as the body considers appropriate, who must include any other persons that could take relevant steps.

(3) After complying with subsection (2) the specified body—

(a) must take any relevant steps which it concludes it can take, and

(b) must provide to the persons with which it has raised that question reasonable assistance to assist or enable them to take relevant steps.

(4) This section does not affect any right of the specified body, whether by virtue of a contract, enactment or other law, to seek to obtain vacant possession of any accommodation.

(5) If a specified body must also comply with the duty to notify in relation to H, making the notification under section 213AD(5) does not satisfy the general duty to act in relation to H.

(6) A reference in this section to a relevant step—

(a) includes a relevant step that can be taken with the assistance of another person;

(b) in relation to a specified body, only includes a relevant step that the body can reasonably take in the exercise of its functions;

(c) in relation to a person who is not a specified body, only includes a relevant step that the person can reasonably take in the exercise of their functions or in carrying out their activities.

213AF Duty to engage with local housing authorities

(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England considers—

(a) that a person is or may be homeless, threatened with homelessness or otherwise at risk of becoming homeless, and

(b) that a specified body exercises functions in relation to that person.

(2) The local housing authority may ask the specified body to engage with them for the purpose of assisting the authority with the discharge of their functions under this Part in relation to that person.

(3) The specified body must engage with the local housing authority in such manner and to such extent as the body considers reasonable in the circumstances.

213AG Regulations and guidance

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how specified bodies can or must comply with—

(a) the duty to identify homelessness,

(b) the duty to notify the local housing authority,

(c) the general duty to act, or

(d) the duty to engage.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about the following matters—

(a) factors to be considered by a specified body when identifying whether a person is homeless, threatened by homelessness or otherwise at risk of becoming homeless;

(b) what information is necessary to make a notification to a local housing authority in England;

(c) what relevant steps by a specified body in the exercise of its functions are reasonable;

(d) the process to be followed by a specified body when identifying which persons it is appropriate to raise the question in section 213AE(2)(b) with.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to specified bodies in relation to any of the following duties—

(a) the duty to identify homelessness;

(b) the duty to notify the local housing authority;

(c) the general duty to act;

(d) the duty to engage.

(5) Specified bodies must have regard to guidance issued to them under subsection (4).

213AH “Specified bodies” and other interpretation

(1) In sections 213AB to 213AG and this section—

“duty to engage” means the duty imposed by section 213AF for specified bodies to engage with local housing authorities;

“duty to identify homelessness” means the duty imposed by section 213AB;

“duty to notify the local housing authority” has the meaning given in section 213AD;

“general duty to act” has the meaning given in section 213AE;

“H” has the meaning given in section 213AC;

“relevant step” has the meaning given in section 213AC;

“specified body” means a body or other person that is—

(a) specified in regulations, or

(b) of a description specified in regulations.

(2) Regulations made under this section may provide that a person is a specified body only in relation to a particular function exercised by that person.

(3) If a provision under subsection (2) specifies a particular function of a specified body, any reference in sections 213AB to 213AG to the functions of a specified body has effect in relation that body only as a reference to that particular function.

(4) In this section, “regulations’ means regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’

(3) Omit section 213B (duty of public authority to refer cases in England to local housing authority).

(4) In section 218 (index of defined expression Part 7) insert in the table at the appropriate places—

Social Housing Bill (First sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 55—Strategy relating to Right to Buy: 16 to 25 year olds.

“Within 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for promoting awareness of the Right to Buy scheme to people aged 16 to 25.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a strategy for promoting the Right to Buy scheme among young people.

New clause 57—Transitional arrangements relating to qualifying period for right to buy.

“(1) Section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 (qualifying period for right to buy) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (A1) insert –

‘(A2) Subsection (A1) does not apply in relation to a secure tenancy entered into before the coming into force of section 1 of the Social Housing Act 2026.

(A3) In relation to a tenancy within subsection (A2), the right to buy does not arise unless the period which, in accordance with Schedule 4, is to be taken into account for the purposes of this section is at least three years.’”

This new clause seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in Clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies

Amendment 84, in clause 22, page 16, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would prevent section 1 of this Bill coming into effect on the day on which the Act is passed. Together with amendment 85, section 1 would come into force at the period of three years beginning on the day on which the Act is passed.

Amendment 85, in clause 22, page 17, line 16, at end insert—

“(3A) Section 1 (right to buy: qualifying period) comes into force at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment together with amendment 84 would prevent section 1 of this Bill coming into effect on the day on which the Act is passed, instead making the commencement of section 1 to be three years following the day on which the Act is passed.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. Before I speak to clause 1, I would like to put on the record once again my sincere thanks to my ministerial colleague Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for ably shepherding the Bill through its House of Lords stages. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill in the other place. It goes without saying that we did not agree with all the arguments made—we cannot accept the incorporation into the Bill of clause 13, for reasons that I will detail in due course—but overall the expert scrutiny and challenge provided by peers have helped to improve the Bill. A number of Government amendments that we have tabled arise directly from the issues raised and the points made during the debates in the Lords.

The Bill has three core objectives. The first is to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby to incentivise the building of more social rented homes. The second is to create a fairer tenancy system with greater protection for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. The third is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and give providers greater regulatory certainty so that they can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.

At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme that are designed to put it on a fair and sustainable footing for the future. They are informed by the feedback that we received in the public consultation, which ran from November 2024 to 2025, and are set out in clauses 1 to 10.

More than 2 million tenants have exercised the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980. However, as we all know, many of the homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced, which has depleted social housing stock. There is now an insufficient supply of good-quality social housing to meet demand. More than 1.3 million households are on the social housing waiting list, and almost 180,000 children are living homeless in temporary accommodation. The right-to-buy scheme has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, since new homes can be sold before the council can recover its investment.

Although we respect those who believe that right to buy should be abolished outright, the Government’s position remains that social housing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years should retain the opportunity to purchase them at a reasonable discount. However, as I argued on Second Reading, there is a pressing need to radically reform the right to buy to reduce the significant outflow of stock that has taken place since discounts were drastically increased by the coalition Government in 2012, to incentivise councils to once again build at scale, and to attract broader investment in council housing.

As things stand, to qualify for the right to buy an individual must be a secure tenant and must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant—in other words, their landlord must be a public body, usually a council or a housing association. The three years do not have to have been continuous, and an individual can add together any time they spent as a public sector tenant. They are also able to count any period when their husband, wife or civil partner was a public sector tenant.

Until 2014, the minimum eligibility requirement was five, not three, years. The main rationale given at the time for reducing the qualifying period by two years was explicitly to drive an increase in the take-up of right to buy. The decision was taken in the full knowledge that a tenant occupying a property for three years is extremely unlikely to have paid rent that equates to the available discount.

The Government believe that a more sustainable balance must be struck to support councils to rebuild their stock of homes. Clause 1 therefore amends section 119 of the Housing Act 1985 to increase the minimum eligibility requirement from three to 10 years. As under the existing law, a combination of present and previous tenancies will continue to count towards the qualifying period.

Increasing the minimum eligibility period in that way has received strong support from stakeholders. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of respondents, including 62% of tenants who responded, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.

The Government believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing long-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting much-needed social housing stock. Incidentally, 10 years is also the average length of tenancy for someone buying under the scheme currently. This targeted change will maintain access to the right to buy for long-standing tenants, but in a way that provides for a fairer and more sustainable scheme and better supports the long-term supply of social housing.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[Danny Beales]

Having been a cabinet member responsible for council house building in Camden for seven years, and building 1,000 homes, I can say that it is a challenge when council homes can quickly leave our stock through right to buy. Having built them at great public expense, and having borrowed on a 30-year basis to deliver them, the possibility of losing that asset at a discount without recouping the investment is a material consideration. Does the Minister agree that authorities that do not build council homes but rely on housing associations might not see this as a problem, as housing associations are not included in right to buy in the same way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his very considerable experience. There is a difference in experience between local authorities that have housing revenue accounts and those that do not, and those that build at scale and those that do not. However, it is certainly the case that councils knowing they can lose stock three years after building it without recuperating that investment is a disincentive to build.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but then, in the interests of getting to the Opposition new clauses, which I am told they want to speak to, I will make some progress.

[Patrick Spencer]

I appreciate the Minister’s point about recouping councils’ investment, which is why there are elements of the Bill that change that deal for councils. What my residents and I do not understand—and what people across this country do not understand—is why the Government are restricting access to right to buy for a whole group of people, including young people, young parents and people at the beginning of their professional lives, who might want to get on to the housing ladder. It seems they are tackling one problem by focusing on the completely wrong element of the issue.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I respectfully disagree. It is a problem that local authorities up and down the country build new social homes but then, after three years, they can be purchased. That is leading to an unsustainable outflow of social housing stock from the system. We are not net positive on social homes—we have not been for many years—but the Bill will ensure that we are. It gives an incentive to councils to build, as they will know that they are building more than they are losing, and therefore the 1.3 million people on waiting lists will not increase but decrease over time.

I must turn to the amendments and new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. New clause 57 would exempt existing secure tenants from the new 10-year minimum qualifying period introduced by the Bill. As I have said, a core aim of the Bill is to protect social housing stock better and to ensure that more social homes are built than lost. If existing tenancies were excluded from the changes to eligibility rules, the vast majority of tenants would be unaffected by our qualifying period reforms. I have no doubt that that is the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but the result would be homes continuing to be sold as little as three years after a tenancy was secured, and the continued loss of significant amounts of social housing stock. That is not the Government’s aim or the aim of the Bill. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the shadow Minister will not press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 2 and 3 further tighten the eligibility criteria for right to buy, to ensure that the scheme is fair and well targeted. Clause 2 prevents existing residential property owners from exercising the right to buy, which we believe is a reasonable and rational approach. We have set out what we think is an appropriate definition of a residential property owner in the clause. The clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured, with exceptions for short-term leases of less than 21 years, as will properties in joint ownership or owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad.

Exemptions will be made for victims of domestic abuse who have moved from the accommodation that they were occupying for reasons connected to the abuse. As part of the application process, tenants will be required to declare to the landlord whether they own another property, and landlords will be able to check the information that the tenant provides. If tenants are seeking exceptionally to buy under the right-to-buy scheme where they already own a residential property because they have been the victim of domestic abuse, they will also be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord.

Clause 3 prevents those who have previously exercised the right to buy from doing so again, with exceptions in place for cases of domestic abuse and irretrievable relationship breakdown. I hope hon. Members will agree that repeat purchases would undermine the objectives of the right-to-buy scheme. It would lead to more social housing stock being lost to those who have already benefited from a publicly funded discount to buy their own home.

During our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 91% of respondents stated that they would support preventing someone who has either previously benefited from the right to buy or owns another property from being able to access the scheme. The terms of the referenced exceptions are set out in the clause and will be reinforced by updated guidance when the Act comes into force. It will be for social landlords to be satisfied that the exceptions apply, for which they will be able to ask for evidence from the applicant as part of the application process. Obviously, councils are already well practised at doing this as, under the current rules, those who have previously exercised the right to buy have their discount reduced if they seek to exercise the right to buy again.

We think clauses 2 and 3 are fair and proportionate. They are designed to appropriately restrict access to the right-to-buy scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Timescales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to debate clause 5 stand part.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 4 concerns the statutory periods in which local authorities have to consider applications under the right to buy. The clause amends sections 124 and 125 of the Housing Act 1985 by extending the periods within which landlords must serve notices either admitting or denying a tenant’s eligibility for the right to buy, which relates to section 124, and setting out the purchase price and other required information, which is section 125. The period under section 124 will be extended from four to eight weeks where the tenant has been a tenant of the same landlord for the qualifying period and from eight to 12 weeks in any other case. The period under section 125 will be extended from eight to 12 weeks for freehold properties and from 12 to 16 weeks for leasehold properties.

The revised statutory periods are intended to provide additional flexibility where applications are complex, for example where there are valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Importantly, they will give landlords more time to verify eligibility based on the new criteria and support them in carrying out preliminary counter-fraud and money laundering checks. Although we are extending the time period that landlords have to respond to right-to-buy applications, I stress that these timescales are an upper limit, not an expectation. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as they can.

Clause 5 inserts proposed new section 124A into the Housing Act 1985, enabling a landlord to suspend a right-to-buy application where there is reason to suspect that the claim may be fraudulent. A suspension under section 124A does not cancel the application; it temporarily pauses the statutory process while an investigation is carried out and must end no later than six months after the date of the suspension, or sooner if the investigation is concluded.

In response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy, we committed to carry out more effective fraud prevention, including mitigating vulnerable tenants being pressured into buying and cracking down on third-party backed applications. We are clear—I hope the Committee will support us in this principle—that fraudulent applications backed by unscrupulous lenders have no place under right to buy. They undermine the scheme. By ensuring that social landlords have more time to investigate suspected fraud when managing applications, the clause will help to prevent fraudulent applications from slipping through the cracks and maintain the integrity of the scheme.

During the period of suspension, the procedural requirements of the Act, including statutory time limits, will not apply. The tenant will, therefore, not be able to issue delay notices during this period. Guidance will make it clear that timelines for processing applications can be extended only where fraud is suspected and are not to be used by landlords as a way to delay the processing of more routine applications.

We will also strengthen guidance for landlords and tenants on fraud prevention, including third-party companies lending money for purchases. Any such companies will need to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will support both the FCA and landlords with enforcement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Discount

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Report on the impact of changes to right to buy discounts—

“Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which section 6 (discount) comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact of the changes made by that section on—

(a) overall rates of home ownership,

(b) the number of social housing tenants exercising the right to buy,

(c) social housing supply, and

(d) the provision of replacement social housing.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the Bill’s changes to right to buy discounts on home ownership, right to buy uptake and housing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have already set out, the Bill’s reforms aim to ensure that the right-to-buy scheme is sustainable, including by ensuring that discounts are set at the right level to enable long-standing tenants to buy under the scheme but without depleting levels of social housing stock.

This Government already took action in November 2024 to reduce the maximum cash discounts, returning those to pre-2012 levels. We subsequently committed to revise the discounts available as a percentage of the property value, so that they align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause 6 delivers on that commitment by reducing percentage discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value after 10 years of public sector tenancy, and increase for every extra year of a tenancy up to a maximum of 15%. As is the case now, the percentage discounts will be subject to cash caps that set out the maximum cash discount that a tenant can receive in their area. Aligning the discounts available as a percentage of the property value with the cash caps ensures that those who have been in their homes the longest benefit the most, while avoiding disproportionately large discounts in high-value areas.

The revised percentage discount aims to strike a balance between the responses received during the right-to-buy consultation, in which many respondents supported setting the percentage discounts lower than those proposed by the clause. We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to both houses and flats to make the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants.

[Patrick Spencer]

Would it be possible for the Government to present some kind of analysis on the impact that this policy will have on the number of sales made available to tenants? That would be important to establishing the long-term economic impact on properties across the country.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the impact assessment. If he has further, detailed questions about it, I am more than happy to answer, but we have set out our analysis of the impact of the Bill and in particular that of the ambition to go net positive on new social housing as a result of the changes we are making.

The clause also extends the discount repayment period from the current five years to 10 years after the original sale, during which time a repurchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. That measure was supported by 72% of respondents to our consultation and it will ensure that there is less incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme. It will encourage people buying to retain the property and discourage profiteering.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We come next to clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 7 extends the existing right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes that were previously sold under the right to buy when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently 10 years after the original sale, and councils have eight weeks to decide whether to buy back the home when informed by the owner that they plan to sell; following that period, the property can be sold on the open market. Under the clause, the period in which councils must be given the right of first refusal will increase, so that it applies in perpetuity, meaning that councils will have the opportunity to buy back a property every time it is resold.

This proposal received strong support from respondents to the Government’s consultation. The change will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measures come into force. Homes already sold under the right to buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold under the scheme.

Giving social landlords greater opportunity to buy back properties sold under the scheme increases their ability to acquire social housing that may otherwise be lost to the open market. That directly supports the Government’s ambition to grow the volume of council housing. Clause 7 is an important safeguard that supports the effective operation of the right-to-buy scheme. It will help to ensure that public subsidy is protected, discourage short-term purchases for financial gain and support the Bill’s wider objective to protect social housing stock. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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 will speak to clause 8 and amendments 13 to 18, tabled in my name, and then I will turn to various amendments that have been tabled and spoken to.

Clause 8 amends schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 to introduce new and updated exceptions to the right to buy. Under the scheme, exceptions already include homes suitable for occupation by the elderly, sheltered housing and homes due to be demolished. Of respondents to our consultation, 76% agree that the existing exceptions should be retained, and we are doing so. The clause does, however, make a small change to amend outdated terminology in the current exemption for dwellings for persons of pensionable age, to update the reference to resident or non-resident wardens to resident or non-resident managers.

The clause introduces three new exceptions. First, it exempts newly built social homes from the scheme for 35 years, giving councils the confidence to invest in new supply. At present, councils are disincentivised from building because homes can be sold before costs are recovered through rent, undermining housing revenue accounts. A 35-year exemption period reflects the typical pay-back period and ensures that councils are not losing new homes prematurely. Despite what the shadow Minister continues to assert, that is a significant supply-side reform that helps to deliver the Government’s commitment to back councils to build at a scale not seen in decades.

Councils have been clear to the Government that the risk of early sale deters investment. Removing that risk provides greater certainty over stock and income and supports new development. We recognise the frustration of seeing newly built homes sold so quickly before they can meet local need. The Government’s manifesto committed to better protecting newly built social housing from the right to buy, and the introducing the exemption was supported by the vast majority of respondents to our consultation on the basis that it will give councils, as I have said, greater confidence to build new homes and provide greater protection than the existing cost floor rules.

Secondly, the clause exempts homes in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and designated rural areas from the right to buy. That recognises the particular pressures on rural housing where land and planning constraints mean that homes are significantly harder to replace once lost from the social sector. In many cases, replacement is not feasible at all, exacerbating already acute shortages in those areas. There was clear recognition of these challenges in the other place, where the difficulty of replacing rural homes and the importance of protecting stock in these areas was highlighted. This measure responds directly to those concerns and will help safeguard rural social housing.

Existing rural designations will continue to have effect for the purpose of this exemption until we implement the new framework for local authorities to self-designate as rural, as set out in Government amendments 13 to 18, which I will come to shortly, as well as clause 8. The covenants attached to homes that have been sold under the right to buy in rural areas, which restricts sale to a local person or a social landlord, will also continue to apply.

Thirdly and finally, council-owned market rent homes will also be excluded, supporting councils to use mixed tenure and cross-subsidy models to deliver more housing. That recognises the important role that market rent homes can play in enabling councils to generate additional income to reinvest in social and affordable homes. These changes are part of the wider package of reforms to ensure that more homes are built than lost.

Government amendments 13 to 18 deliver on commitments made during the Bill’s passage in the other place to put the criteria for rural designation into regulations. That was a call that came from noble peers on the Opposition Benches. The regulations will use the long-established criteria of a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer. That criteria will be applied using census-derived population data, and local authorities will be expected to ensure that the criteria will continue to be met in relevant areas every 10 years, as new census data becomes available.

It was also agreed in the other place that the Government would explore whether the existing process under which local authorities need to apply to the Government for designation could be replaced with a new system under which local authorities will be able to self-designate rural areas where they meet the criteria. I can confirm that we do intend to implement that change, and these amendments will enable that. These changes will provide transparency on the criteria for rural designation. They will also empower local areas and reduce bureaucracy for both local authorities and the Government compared with the current process, which, as I have said, requires local authorities seeking designation to apply to the Secretary of State, and secondary legislation to be made for each individual designation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The very simple fact that there would be no vote on it by Members of this House, regardless of whether that was in a Committee, which is of course a subset of the House where we can debate and raise issues. I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady. I spent almost 10 years sitting on her local council before I was elected to this place, and I still closely follow Westminster politics. Consequently, I know that she is a hard-working and diligent Member who engages with all these issues particularly closely. However, the simple answer to her question is that Members would not have a vote on the Secretary of State’s determination.

With that, I will conclude by again reiterating my support for the intent behind the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has tabled.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me say to hon. Members that I have never found the process in Delegated Legislation Committees particularly fast in any instance, but I recognise the reasonable concerns that have been put. I think they are unfounded, and for the reasons I will set out, I hope to reassure hon. Members.

Clause 10 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Its intent is to improve administrative efficiency and to provide flexibility. To understand our purpose behind the clause, it is important to have an accurate view of the current arrangements. As things stand, every stock-holding authority has an agreement with the Secretary of State, allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided that it spends those receipts on replacement social housing.

In practice, this is hugely administratively burdensome. There are over 160 stock-holding local authorities, all of which must be issued with identical section 11(6) retention agreements whenever the rules change. That requires issuing, tracking and chasing agreements for signature across every one of those authorities, creating unnecessary bureaucracy for both councils and central Government.

Clause 10 replaces that with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to disapply or modify the requirements on the use of receipts set out in regulations by determination, which will then apply consistently across all local authorities. That removes the need to replicate the same agreement process many times over.

Concerns were raised in the other place that we may be seeking to use the clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. Let me reassure the Committee that that is absolutely not the case. We fought hard to ensure that local authorities could retain 100% of their receipts. Hon. Members may recall that the previous Government temporarily made that change, but reversed it before the last election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 11 concerns the right-to-acquire scheme for housing association tenants, which is broadly modelled on the right-to-buy scheme, with most of the same rules applying. The right to acquire applies to housing association homes built or acquired with social housing grant after 1997. The Committee has already discussed the effect of and rationale for clauses 1 to 10, which amend the Housing Act 1985 to alter rules regarding the right to buy. Under section 184 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, those changes also apply to the right-to-acquire scheme for housing association tenants. The Committee will understand that it is only right for the same eligibility criteria and exemptions to apply to both schemes, to ensure consistency and fairness for social housing tenants, regardless of whether they live in a council home or a housing association home. My officials have engaged with relevant stakeholders, such as the National Housing Federation, which is supportive of our consistent approach.

Clause 11 also supports the broader policy objective of protecting social housing stock. That is a core objective of this Bill, and the Committee has debated it at length. As the discounts for the right to acquire are set out separately from those for the right to buy, they remain unaffected and will continue to be £9,000 to £16,000, depending on the location. Increasing them to align with the right-to-buy discounts would contradict our objective of better protecting social housing stock.

The clause is consequential on previous clauses, and reflects the changes made to the rural area provisions, which is currently an area of divergence between the two schemes. Under the right to acquire, homes in designated rural areas are already exempt from sale, in recognition of the challenges of replacing stock in such areas. The clause helps to ensure that the new rural exemptions in the Bill apply consistently across both schemes. The clause will provide fairness for social housing tenants, support our objective of protecting social housing stock and ensure that the new rural exemptions operate coherently across both schemes. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[Gideon Amos]

If we are after transparency, I have difficulty with the Minister’s basing his argument on the massive cost of putting something on a website. I understand that it is a tradition of this place that the Government resist all amendments that come from all quarters other than their own, but this seems to be taking things to an illogical conclusion.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I will be brief. Amendment 2 would give local housing authorities right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing. The acquisition of those properties at existing use value for social housing, rather than at market value or existing use value, is significant, because obviously the existing use value for social housing is lower. It is important that local authorities have the ability to acquire homes that are being disposed of, so that the net reduction in social housing is not increased. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a right of first refusal for the local authority and other registered providers notified via a sale notice during the notice period. That right would be on the condition that the home would remain as social housing and would require the private registered provider to sell the home at the existing use value for social housing. The corresponding amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives, would extend the right of first refusal to specific types of bodies that provide affordable housing. Some of those bodies would be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing, and therefore would already be included within amendment 3, but amendment 10 would also extend the right of first refusal to unregistered housing providers.

I have heard clearly, both on Second Reading and today, the desire of hon. Members to protect social homes. I very much share that desire, but that must be balanced with the ability of private providers to operate efficiently and manage their housing assets, including by investing in more new homes or their existing stock. Sometimes that can mean selling a social home out of the sector. I can assure the Committee that I have fought long and hard, and challenged officials—they can verify that with nods—to ensure that we look in a lot of detail at what requirements can be put in place, and what levers we can try to pull, to keep as many social homes in the regulated sector as possible.

A key consideration when thinking through possible interventions is the reality that interfering with private registered providers’ freedom to use and sell their assets as they wish would present a significant risk of reclassifying the sector. Not only would that bring £110 billion of debt on to the public books, but it would bring with it risk and uncertainty that could impact on the investment in the sector that is so needed.

As I have said, I hope the disposals measure in the Bill will ensure greater transparency around disposals and support better dialogue between private registered providers and local authorities. I hope it will also focus minds to ensure that we minimise any negative impact resulting from disposals. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a private registered provider from choosing to sell to another provider at a lower price on the understanding that it remains social housing. I hope that the notification requirement introduced by the Bill will support such discussions. I am very open to ideas about what more can be done to support that dialogue, and I have tasked my officials to work with the sector to identify and promote good practice, as well as to explore what more the Government might do to reinforce it.

Given the issues that I have highlighted, I believe we will get the best results by working together with private registered providers and local authorities to explore what more they can do and where we can support them to keep homes in the regulated sector. For the reasons that I have set out, primarily around reclassification risk, we cannot accept the amendments, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment 2.

[Gideon Amos]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. The amendments are genuinely intended to provide councils with the ability to acquire stock rather than see it lost from the social housing sector. This is a particularly important area and, I believe, an important amendment. I understand the risks of reclassification on to the public sector balance sheet. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to publish the advice he has received on that, because the sector will want to understand why first refusal cannot be given to local authorities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate the attempt, let us say, to have confidential advice to Ministers published in the round. That is not the usual practice—

[The Chair]

Order.