Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neate (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 65 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, who have supported it. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This is my first time speaking in Committee, so I apologise to noble Lords for having to be prompted to rise to my feet.

This amendment would ensure that domestic abuse survivors were not made ineligible for a social home as a result of debt incurred in the context of abuse. This speech will be short because I do not have criticisms to make of the Bill. I merely hope to strengthen further the very welcome changes that it proposes for survivors of domestic abuse.

As I know noble Lords are aware, and as I saw time and time again as chief executive both of Women’s Aid and Shelter, domestic abuse survivors who manage to leave their abuser are often systematically robbed of their financial independence. The fact that they might become homeless is a threat frequently wielded by perpetrators to maintain control: “If you leave me, you’ll have nowhere to live”. Or even worse: “If you leave me, the children will be homeless”. All too often, the housing system makes these threats come true, preventing victims gaining safety and not allowing survivors and their children the safe space they desperately need to rebuild their lives together.

The Bill as it stands is already life-changing for survivors. It takes important steps towards shifting the system so that it is on the side of the survivor, not the perpetrator. My amendment is one more step in the same direction, which I believe would strengthen the Bill still further.

In just one month in 2023, research found that 1,500 children were trapped living in temporary accommodation as a result of housing-related debt, which according to local authority rules meant their mother could not get a social home. The housing crisis has grown only worse since then and so has the dangerous shortage of refuge accommodation for women fleeing abuse. This is exacerbated when women cannot move on from refuge into a social home and are therefore occupying a space that could literally save another woman’s life.

At Shelter, colleagues working in front-line services and on the helpline saw daily that a gatekeeping culture exists in many local authorities. For a start, survivors are not believed. Then, rules governing housing allocations are used to make the gateway to a social home as narrow as it can possibly be. Yes, there is guidance, and I am aware that the Government believe that statutory guidance can be used to achieve the ends that this amendment would achieve. I am sure that in the best local authorities that is true, but I have seen guidance disregarded many times and colleagues at both Shelter and Women’s Aid having to intervene to get a survivor’s rights upheld. The problem is that a minority of survivors have a powerful advocate on their side; most are struggling on their own. For them, all too often, guidance is not enough.

It is also not urgent enough, nor is it guaranteed. The time and uncertainty of consultation is time and uncertainty that survivors and their children cannot afford. This is especially true in the context of a desperate shortage of funds in local government, an even worse shortage of social homes, the imminent local government reorganisation, and the disruption and local shifts of emphasis following the local elections, not to mention the current political instability, which means timetables can vary. In this context, it is appropriate that priority matters are dealt with urgently by legislation. We are in the middle of a housing emergency, a funding crisis in women’s refuges and major upheaval in local government. Domestic abuse survivors are caught in the eye of this storm.

The truth is that no family should be in temporary accommodation, but that is not the reality we are in. No local authority should be gatekeeping social homes in a way that denies people their rights as enshrined in guidance, but that is not the reality we are in. This Bill, which places domestic abuse survivors at the centre of the social housing system, can be an even bigger opportunity for this House to demonstrate that we believe that domestic abuse survivors and their children, who have been systematically deprived of their financial independence, simply must have every chance to recover and that a safe and secure home is the foundation of that.

I am grateful for the hard work done by the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Shared Health Foundation and researchers from King’s College London and Oxford Brookes University on this amendment, which is supported by Women’s Aid, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse and other expert organisations.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has brought to this amendment her considerable experience in dealing with domestic abuse and homelessness.

It is not that long ago that the expectation was that, when somebody was the victim of domestic abuse, they had to leave their home and the perpetrator could be left in possession of the home. Thankfully, we have, in a number of ways, changed that thinking. Domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices in the Domestic Abuse Act have given powers to ensure that it is the perpetrator who leaves. I welcome Schedule 1 to the Bill and the efforts that the Government are making to provide greater stability and security to the victims of domestic abuse.

It is also not that long ago that we thought that domestic abuse was purely domestic violence and always had a physical violence element. As we know now, there is complexity to domestic abuse, which can include coercive control and economic control. It is in that sense that Amendment 65 is so important. It recognises that there are victims of domestic abuse who may be victims of economic coercive control and find that debt has been racked up by their perpetrator, unbeknown to them. When they are trying to leave, and trying to secure social housing for themselves, they find that that debt is against their name as well, perhaps as having been joint tenants, and find themselves in an impossible situation that has been created because they were a victim of the actions of the perpetrator.

I hope that the Government are going to look favourably on the amendment. An effort is being made by the Government through this Bill to change the scenario for those who are the victims of domestic abuse, but there is this loophole. The Government need to look at this element, given the knowledge we now have of the forms that domestic abuse can take and the greater understanding we have of the circumstances in which people can be left that are nothing to do with their behaviour, but purely because they have been the victim of a perpetrator.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I apologise that I was unable to contribute at Second Reading, but I am pleased to speak now in support of Amendment 65 and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May, who made such a strong case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling the amendment. Given her experience at Shelter and Women’s Aid, I can think of no better person to take up this important issue.

The relationship between homelessness and debt resulting from economic coercion and abuse, which we have just heard about, was brought to my attention last year in a briefing on a book by Professor Katherine Brickell and Dr Mel Nowicki, Debt Trap Nation. This provided evidence on the general problem of domestic abuse survivors unable to qualify for housing because of restrictive housing allocation policies. They found that fewer than one in five local authorities specifically exempts survivors from housing-related debt rules. Indeed, significant housing-related debt is sometimes bracketed with being a perpetrator of domestic abuse under the rubric of unacceptable behaviour that provides grounds for exclusion from housing. Some debt is what the researchers called coerced debt, generated through financial transactions that the victim is told to make or is aware of the abuser making in their name. They cite the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse, which discovered that victims of economic violence were at high risk of having rent arrears. As Brickell and Nowicki note, debt chips away at women’s autonomy to make decisions in their own interests.

Moreover, as the Chartered Institute of Housing points out, children suffer as a result of these exclusionary policies. The researchers observe that adult and child domestic abuse survivors subject to them are, in effect, left in limbo in temporary accommodation until they can reduce or clear rent arrears. The effect on children can be traumatic. Reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation is one of the main aims of the child poverty strategy as well as of the homelessness strategy, so the amendment would contribute to both. The institute explains why it believes action should be taken in this legislation, rather than await the statutory guidance promised in the announced allocations review, as legislation would be more appropriate and there is a strong case for not delaying the matter. This very much accords with the strong argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. A few local authorities already pursue this policy; for example, Bedford Borough Council states:

“A blanket policy will not be operated in relation to housing debt and each case will be considered on its own merits ...Where a housing related debt has arisen as a direct result of a person being a victim of domestic abuse the debt will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the application”.


This is to be applauded, but survivors should not have to rely on the discretion of individual local authorities.

The Bill is so positive when it comes to the position of domestic abuse survivors that it would be a real shame not to include this amendment, or one that achieved the same aim. At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made it clear that this Bill should not be viewed as a Christmas tree Bill. That is understandable, but I believe that this amendment is no bauble to add to the tree but rather that it would strengthen the very roots of the Bill. It is totally consistent with the existing welcome provisions, as the noble Baroness made clear. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will be able to look upon it favourably before Report.