Social Housing Bill [HL]
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 17 Jun 2026 · 205 speeches · Official Report
Committee (2nd Day)
Amendment 53
Moved by
53: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause- “Local authority registers of social housing stock change(1) Each local housing authority must maintain a register recording-(a) the number of dwellings sold by the authority under the right to buy in each financial year,(b) the number of new social housing dwellings provided by or on behalf of the authority in each financial year, and(c) the net change in the authority's social housing stock resulting from the figures in paragraphs (a) and (b).(2) A local housing authority must publish its register under this section annually and make it available to the public in such manner as the authority considers appropriate.(3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of the information contained in registers under this section across all local housing authorities in England.(4) The summary under subsection (3) must identify authorities where the number of dwellings sold under the right to buy exceeds the number of new social housing dwellings provided in the same period.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires local housing authorities to maintain and publish annual registers recording dwellings sold under the right to buy against new social housing provided, enabling public scrutiny of whether authorities are failing to replenish lost stock.
My Lords, I open this group-which is a considerably better position than we were in on Monday, when I thought I would be closing it-by proposing Amendment 53. This group goes to the heart of the Bill’s central test: whether we are serious about ensuring that right to buy does not continue to deplete our social housing stock faster than we can replace it. Amendment 53 is about the transparency and accountability of that process. It requires annual local authority reporting of homes sold under the right to buy against homes newly provided. We need to look particularly at net loss and net gain. This way both the public-and the public are important-and the Government can see a trend within a local authority over time. I decided to table this amendment because I was recently asked to speak at a housing conference, and I tried to ascertain information about social homes in Hertfordshire. It was more difficult than it should have been. Data is not easy to obtain, nor is it cumulative, so we cannot see trends. Of course, there is also the dilemma of affordable versus social, which we discussed at length on Monday. If we do not have the quality data that tells us on an authority-by-authority basis what is going on, we cannot know whether a policy is working and, more importantly, the Government cannot determine when it is appropriate to intervene. It is worth saying that it is very clear that all housing providers are now having to deal with those with far more complex needs,...
My Lords, I was going to say I was grateful to all noble Lords who had spoken in the debate, but I am certainly most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for doing so. She identifies a couple of critical issues: the need for more housing and the need for clarity and information. That is important. It is important that we keep a sense of perspective here about right to buy. It does not mean that that home disappears, or that the family living in it disappear; they are still in that home, and in many cases they will remain in it for many years, irrespective of whether it is a social home or they actually acquire it. The issue is therefore not about the loss of physical dwellings but about the change in tenure and the availability of social housing for other tenants. That is precisely why the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the amendments that we have tabled address the serious discussion about replacement. We need reliable, current information and data. Equally, if there is a case for one-for-one replacement which we believe, that should be examined openly and supported by evidence rather than assumptions. We have now had the opportunity to look at the impact assessment for this Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issue of how we can reduce housing lists by increasing supply. If you look at table 4, what is the impact of removing right to buy? After five years or so, when it settles down, it means that over...
My Lords, before I speak about the Social Housing Bill, may I just wish our team England-well, it is “our team England” for some of us-all success this evening, and I hope we will be finished in time for some of us to see some of it. I thank everyone for the lively and constructive debate we had on this Bill on Monday; it is a pleasure to be back to continue discussing it. Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require the Secretary of State to reconsider our one-for-one replacement policy. Relatedly, Amendments 55 and 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a report assessing the viability of this requirement. Amendment 53, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would insert a clause requiring reports to the Secretary of State on sales and replacements. Separately, Amendment 58B from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require a report to Parliament within a year on the impact of Clause 5 specifically. We announced in our response to the consultation on right-to-buy reforms that we are removing the formal one-for-one right-to-buy replacement target. However, and I say this very specifically, this does not mean we are complacent about replacing homes sold. Far from it: we call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the Government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The one-for-one target...
The Government will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery to ensure that-to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson-we are consistently delivering more social rent homes than we are losing. On this, I refer noble Lords to the annual right-to-buy sales and replacements statistics, and the statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply, which are published on GOV.UK. I agree with both the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord that data is key to ensuring that we meet our ambition. I would want to see that, as I know all the Committee would.
In these statistics, noble Lords will be able to find the number of right-to-buy applications and of completed right-to-buy purchases and replacements, broken down by local authority, as well as the discount and bedroom number for properties sold. They will also be able to find the number of new social and affordable homes delivered each year, by tenure and by provider. The continued publication of these statistics will provide a sufficient overview of the impact of the Act, when it comes into force, and robust monitoring of right-to-buy sales and replacements.
On right-to-buy discounts, it is difficult to assess the impact of discount changes in isolation. We will, however, keep discount levels under review and ensure that the right balance is being struck between protecting social housing stock and enabling tenants to access home ownership. On these grounds, and on the basis that we do not want a replacement target that limits ambition, we are going to resist these amendments, but we will continue to work in partnership with councils to reinvigorate council housebuilding and ensure we are consistently replacing more homes than are lost through right to buy. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
May I ask for some clarification from the Minister? Clearly, table 4 in the impact assessment shows that under the pre-November 2024 baseline, if we take the 2034-35 figures, 4,750 homes would be built from the right-to-buy receipts and, under the new baseline, 1,550 would be built. That is 3,200 fewer homes. The assumption that we are going to have more homes available for social tenants relies on the fact that those tenants who might have bought their home will leave that home anyway. If they stay there, we will have fewer homes for new social tenants.
I think the figures stated relate to what happens once we have enacted the Bill. As I have said many times, the ambition to deliver more social homes is not just about the replacement of right-to-buy homes. Right-to-buy sales may go down, but we still anticipate that the measures being taken in the Bill will result in a net increase of 18,000 homes over the period; whereas, because the sales were going up, we would have lost 26,000 homes. With the social and affordable homes programme adding to the overall total and the net increase in homes that we are seeing through the right-to-buy programme, which is 18,000 as opposed to a 26,000 loss, we will see an increase in social housebuilding.
I thank the Minister for her response, which was very much as I would have predicted. My main point to make to her was that it was not easy to find that data-on GOV.UK you have to look for a bit here and a bit there. Where is all this information on what is such a major plank for the Government, which we totally agree with? Where is it easy to see who is doing what? Where is the analysis and where is it drawn together? Who are the shirkers and who are the leaders? It is a challenging thing. Without meaningful, accurate and localised reporting, councils cannot be properly scrutinised, which is important, and policy failure is harder to challenge. For example, we actually had net losses last year. Again, you can google that and it will tell you, but it is not easy to see it within the mountain of data. In the meantime, I have to say the magic words: I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 53 withdrawn.
Amendments 54 to 56 not moved.
Amendment 57
Moved by
57: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause- “Social housing estates: regeneration(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a document setting out proposals to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates.(2) The document under subsection (1) must include proposals relating to-(a) funding to deliver alternative housing for existing tenants during the redevelopment of social housing estates,(b) support for increasing density as part of social housing redevelopment where appropriate,(c) the use of public land and housing assets to facilitate regeneration, and(d) grant funding for energy efficiency improvements as part of redevelopment schemes.(3) In preparing the document under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase overall housing supply within existing urban areas.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would require the Government to bring forward proposals within 12 months to support regeneration of social housing estates, including decant funding and densification opportunities.
My Lords, I add my best wishes to the England team tonight: even if we are not finished in time, we will no doubt get a nice, quiet journey home because everyone will be watching it. I speak to Amendments 57, 58, 75, 83 and 107 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Much of the debate around housing understandably focuses on building new homes. That is undoubtedly important. However, if we are serious about tackling housing need, we must also focus on how we effectively manage, maintain and utilise the housing stock that already exists. These amendments are intended to probe whether sufficient attention is given to the condition, management and efficient use of existing social housing assets. Amendment 57 would require the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of social housing estates. Estate regeneration is often difficult, sometimes controversial and takes many years. The noble Lord, Lord John, sitting over there, will know that from pain in Elephant and Castle; I certainly know it from the years dealing with Thamesmead, and I am sure many others in this Chamber will know it too. It takes a long time, but there are opportunities. Amendment 75 raises the crucial issue of illegal subletting in our social housing system. I note the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, which passed through this House in 2013 under the watch of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It provided important powers to tackle this problem, but it is reasonable to...
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers. Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill. I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false...
My Lords, very briefly, I will speak to Amendment 57, moved by my noble friend. My noble friend started by making a very valid point: if the Government have a firm commitment to build, say, 1.5 million new homes and a certain number of new social houses, there is a real risk that, when looking at the capital programme within the department, that commitment trumps funding for existing estates and the regeneration of existing housing stock. That is why Amendment 57 is important: it would make sure that we do not ignore the needs of the existing housing stock. I draw attention to housing action trusts-an initiative under the Housing Act 1988 that focused very sharply on the most difficult-to-let estates in the country. This was an initiative from my noble friend Lord Heseltine, and, as one might expect, it was highly interventionist. A housing action trust was a time-limited body that took over the management and redevelopment of a local authority estate. However, before that could happen, there was a vote of the local authority tenants to seek their agreement to that time-limited transfer. Speaking from memory, I think there were seven housing action trusts, including one in Stonebridge, in Brent; one in Tower Hamlets; one in Castle Vale, in Birmingham; one in Liverpool; and one in Hull. They were highly successful, and they transformed those estates. It was interesting that, at the end, the tenants were given a vote: they could either go back to the local authority or...
I will speak to my Amendment 116. The Government are charging us all with getting behind the idea that there will be 1.5 million new houses by the end of the Parliament. I suggest that one way you could achieve that is by being serious about the number of empty homes in the United Kingdom, particularly England. There are 250,000 empty homes in England and, at the same time, 164,000 children and 124,000 families are caught in temporary accommodation. I am not saying it would be easy, but you could be wise and do nationally what Manchester, Plymouth and Wales are trying to do: incorporate empty homes into the fabric of their housing strategies. If that could be done, it would be a real plus. I was born in Notting Hill, which was full of empty homes in the post-war period, along with Bayswater and that area. The middle classes did not go off to the colonies any more; they went to Bayswater and to Notting Hill, and they started to convert these voids into precious homes. Environmentally and socially, it was wonderful. It got too wonderful: the house that I was born into, which was a slum, would now cost about £20 million-if they have not pulled it down because it was such a slum. Overall, it would be a good idea for the Government to say that they are going to empty our temporary accommodation and look at new ways of doing that that incorporate buildings that are left empty for over six months. Some 250,000 houses are screaming out, in my opinion, for us to intervene. There...
My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that the regeneration of some of our social estates is a high priority. The last Labour Government spent a lot of money regenerating city centres. I hope that, if they have long enough, this Labour Government will give a similar high priority to the regeneration of some of our social estates. It has not been easy, and more difficult in some respects, given the right to buy. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, regeneration takes a long time- 10 or 20 years-so it is difficult to see easy or quick returns, and resources are a huge problem. To achieve the regeneration of these estates, often you need partnerships, not just the local authority but housing associations and private developers. There is obviously an important role for mayors in this as well as we progress. The main experience that I have had is of the Rowner estate, in Gosport, which was a Royal Naval estate. It was in huge dereliction after the Navy left its responsibilities. The regeneration of that estate has taken 30 years, with a genuine partnership that involved quite difficult decisions, such as the decision that to regenerate it would require it to be turned into an estate that was one-third owner-occupied, one-third private rented and one-third social housing. The transformation has been remarkable. There are many estates up and down our land that are neglected and need an initiative from the Government. In the rush to get high numbers of new houses, we must not...
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 117D, which I have tabled. This is the first time that I have tabled an amendment in Committee, so it is a momentous occasion, for me at least. I apologise for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate as I was unavailable. Clearly, I missed something because the debate so far on the Bill has been extremely well informed and knowledgeable. It is a privilege to contribute, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has done so much to help homeless people in London. As a former Deputy Mayor of London, I can say that we are very grateful for the work that he has done over the years. I am not sure whether I support his amendment, but I certainly support his efforts. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Young, who reminded us of the housing action trusts, not least because one of those first trusts was in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. I can well remember the Chingford Hall estate, because it was in my ward, and the trust started its work in my first year as a newly elected councillor in 1990. I stayed in that ward for 12 years, so I was able to see the work continue and conclude. That estate has been transformed. There is clearly a lesson here for all of us. I move to my amendment. As a former deputy mayor, I understand that housing is a challenging and complex issue for us to deal with, and many factors affect whether a mayor can achieve their targets. My noble friend Lady O’Neill reminded us that there are now 1.3 million...
My Lords, I support Amendment 117D, tabled by my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough, which is about a simple principle: if elected mayors are given strategic housing powers, receive billions in public funding and repeatedly fail to deliver, there must be proper accountability. This is an amendment that challenges the rhetoric. If you take the basket case which is London, the Mayor of London endlessly talks about housing figures and about delivery, has the cheek to use the word “record” quite regularly, yet has failed to deliver on a spectacular scale, to the point where the Government had to step in and ask him to change his figures on the amount of social housing he would ask for on any given development. That was a good idea by the Government, which is why I support this probing amendment. The housing need in London is around 88,000 units a year, as determined by the Government, yet in our best year recently we delivered only 31,000 units. The mayor’s own affordable housing target was 52,000 a year and he failed to hit that by a wide mark, getting to only 32,000. The affordable housing target under the current programme was originally 35,000 starts-just starts. Londoners cannot live in a start; a human being cannot live in a start. I think we need to start looking at completions: that is when a house actually becomes a home. The target was 35,000 originally, and that has been lowered to between 17,800 and 19,000, but in 2024-25, there were only 3,991 affordable housing...
This is not an attack on devolution; it is a defence of it. Devolution cannot mean power without responsibility. It cannot mean taking credit when things go well, which our current Mayor of London is very good at, but blaming others when it goes wrong, which he is also very good at. He never takes responsibility for what is going on. A Government with this power could force him to do so. London councils need help, not rhetoric. London workers need homes, not fancy words. I commend this amendment and will personally be supporting it.
My Lords, I acknowledge the cogent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Evans. It was his first contribution, but I hope it will be the first of many, and I mean that sincerely. In principle, we welcome the intent behind this group of amendments because they speak to something that is all too often overlooked in housing debates: not just how many homes we have to build and targets but the condition and use of the homes that we already have. I will do my best to stick to the amendments in front of us, but I hope Conservative noble Lords will forgive me if I suggest there is a pattern running through this group and others today, and from Monday, which is pushing towards more centralisation and, ultimately, more regulation, which we would be instinctively against. Take Amendment 57 on regeneration, which makes an important point. It asks the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of estates. There is no doubt that this is vital, but local authorities are already leading regeneration in so many areas, often very successfully. The best examples of those are councils that are not only working with their communities -which is absolutely essential; try doing it without it-but also attracting private sector investment to get a top-notch scheme. I know that it needs both government and local government to undertake such major work, not what is proposed in these amendments. The regeneration of an older estate is a significant investment and a major project....
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of regenerating existing social housing estates and the potential this can have to improve housing quality, energy efficiency and the overall supply of housing. Following Second Reading, I sent a letter to noble Lords outlining the Government’s intentions in this area; I hope noble Lords have had a chance to look at that. I will respond first to Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. While I appreciate the intention behind her amendment, we do not consider it appropriate to place a requirement of this nature in the Bill. As she will know only too well, estate regeneration is complex and highly place-specific. Decisions about funding, density and redevelopment are best taken through existing programmes and planning frameworks that can respond flexibly to local circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, it is very important that this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis at local level. The amendment would also cut across existing policy development and spending decisions, including those taken through the spending review process, by mandating the production of proposals within a fixed timeframe, regardless of wider fiscal or delivery considerations. Therefore, while we share the objective of supporting effective and sensitive estate regeneration, we believe it is better taken forward through existing policy levers and funding mechanisms than through a new legislative duty. I will make two...
We also have a great citizen army out there-I do not know whether it exists everywhere. Certainly, when I was a councillor, when any home was empty for longer than a couple of weeks, I would get phone calls about it, asking me why it had not been let. Sometimes it is justified, because there are structural issues that involve the need to leave properties empty, but it is very important that councils follow up on that as quickly as possible. We are clear that this should be done through local flexibility. For those reasons, although I respect the intention behind the amendment, I ask that it not be moved.
On Amendment 117D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, while I understand his intention, there is currently no recall mechanism for mayors. Introducing one on this basis would be a significant and complex change. Existing recall arrangements, for example for MPs, are limited to serious circumstances, such as criminal conviction, not to policy performance. The approach could also risk creating perverse incentives, with mayors driven towards short-term decisions, and would raise practical and cost issues, given the scale of mayoral electorates.
The Government recognise the issues of housing delivery in London, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Bailey. Indeed, in my letter following Second Reading, I set out some of the action that we are taking to address the issues in London and to help accelerate London housebuilding, implement planning reform and unlock large-scale housing developments. This includes working collaboratively with the mayor on housing.
Up to 30% of the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme will be delivered by the Greater London Authority to use in London. That follows on from a £4.16 billion grant in funding for the GLA to deliver the 2021-26 affordable homes programme in London. The Secretary of State and the Mayor of London announced a new package in October last year to support housebuilding in London. There is progress on this. We announced an initial allocation of £324 million of grant investment to establish a City Hall developer investment fund to unlock and accelerate housing delivery. We are doing our best to make progress on that.
Mayors already have significant powers and a growing role in driving housing delivery, including working with Homes England to shape development priorities, identify sites and support investment in their areas. Over time, we are moving towards a fuller devolution of housing funding and delivery for our mayors.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was saying that we need accountability. We are strengthening the accountability mechanisms, including local scrutiny arrangements and an updated devolution accountability framework. Taken together, these reforms will provide the certainty, flexibility and accountability needed to deliver new homes, rather than introduce a new and untested recall mechanism based on performance that might result in perverse incentives. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move the amendment.
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and, of course, to the Minister for her response. I especially mention my noble friend Lord Evans, as he saw this as an important debate to make his first contribution in. The discussions highlighted an important point. Although much attention is devoted to increasing housing supply, making best use of the homes that we already have has to be equally important. The amendments in the group have approached the challenge from a number of angles, including regeneration, supported housing, stock management, fraud prevention and the utilisation of vacant properties. Although they focus on different aspects of the system, they all ask whether existing housing assets are being used as effectively as they could be. I remain particularly concerned that, at a time when housing waiting lists remain high, we should do everything possible in our power to ensure that social housing properties are occupied by those who are entitled to them and that homes do not remain vacant for longer than necessary. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about turnaround times and look forward to seeing that information. Effective management is not an alternative to new supply, but it is certainly an essential component and should not be forgotten. I was interested in the discussion around regeneration. Done well, regeneration can improve housing quality, strengthen communities and increase housing supply simultaneously. It is...
Rather than the noble Baroness waiting for a letter from me, I can give her the answer to her question about the time spent between tenancies now. It is a median of 30 days.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 57 withdrawn.
Amendments 58 to 58B not moved.
Clause 12: Protection for victims of domestic abuse
Amendments 59 and 60 not moved.
Clause 12 agreed.
Amendment 61
Moved by
61: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause- “Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safetyAfter section 86 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) insert-“86ZA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety(1) This section applies where-(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure and assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is- (a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy, and(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of-(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to-(a) the registered provider,(b) the tenant, or(c) any...
My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 are in my name. Amendment 61 would ensure that social housing providers-councils and housing associations-offer a new secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, including domestic abuse and gang violence, in accordance with police advice. The amendment has its origins in the debates on the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. It was proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. Helen Hayes’s constituent, known as Georgia, was forced out of her housing association home of nine years when her eldest son was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that her son’s life was at risk and that she should move immediately for his safety. If anyone thinks that the risks in such a case may be exaggerated, they should note that later the younger brother in this case was brutally murdered in a separate unrelated incident. Having moved swiftly to temporary accommodation, as advised by the police, when the moment came to return to a secure tenancy, Georgia found herself at the bottom of the housing waiting list once again, despite paying rent on both her original home and the temporary placement. Georgia spent a year in dreadful temporary accommodation but then found she had no right of return to a secure home until the housing association finally relented. Amendment 61 seeks to rectify this deficiency in the protection afforded to social housing tenants, giving...
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63 in my name. I apologise to the noble Lord: I was just coming through the doors as he rose to his feet. It took me longer to get down the stairs than I was intending. It would have been easier if I had been swimming. Amendment 63 simply extends the statutory provision to include a wider group of potential beneficiaries. In no sense does it seek to dilute the critical importance of the primary purpose of the intention around those suffering domestic abuse, but it seeks to include other groups who would benefit and whom it seems appropriate to fit within this statutory provision, not least disabled people, those coming out of care situations and those coming out of custodial situations. It seems a logical extension of the statutory provision that does not in any sense dilute the primary purpose but is very much in the spirit, intention and purpose of the Bill.
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...
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...
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...
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, Clause 12 and Schedule 1 introduce important new protections for social housing tenants experiencing domestic abuse. I welcome these measures, which will help ensure that victims can leave unsafe accommodation or remain in their homes safely without losing their tenancy rights. I also support Amendment 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Best, which seeks to guarantee continuity of secure tenancy where a tenant’s safety is at risk. No one should be forced to forfeit their secure tenancy as a result of violence or intimidation. It is the case that the availability of adequate social housing is often a critical determining factor in cases where a victim of abuse or intimidation is unable to access a new secure tenancy. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and can therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Improving partnership working and best practice between housing associations and local authorities, as well as clear guidance for social housing staff, will be vital for these important new protections to work effectively. I am also speaking in support of Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Best, relating to access for safety, to which I have added my name. I welcome the broad support for this amendment from the housing sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs. Housing associations are spending more...
Concerns about the sustainability of the current position are shared right across the sector. The Association of Safety Compliance Professionals, for example, launched a national campaign in May highlighting the risks to resident safety. In cases where social landlords make repeated and comprehensive attempts to secure entry for statutory checks but are still unable to do so, the court remains the only route of last resort. However, court backlogs and delays, as has been said, can significantly hinder this process and the legal position itself remains unclear, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Recent case law, including Southern Housing v James Emmanuel in October 2025, has underlined this ambiguity, confirming that courts cannot grant access unless Parliament has clearly conferred such a power.
Without action, ongoing access challenges risk undermining both resident safety and the quality of homes, placing continued strain on housing association resources and, most importantly, exposing residents to avoidable harm. My view is that the access for safety amendment represents a proportionate and effective solution. It is modelled on an analogous power in Section 97 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which allows for access to premises to be ordered in certain prescribed circumstances. It established a structured three-stage request process for limited but important cases where access is required to ensure safety, applying only a narrow set of statutory checks, and over a period of three months. I hope the Government will consider whether this approach strikes the right balance between enabling social landlords to keep homes safe and respecting tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
Regardless of the mechanism by which such changes are enacted, it is clear that Parliament must provide a proportionate and lawful access framework that supports safety-driven access where needed, while protecting residents’ rights through clear safeguards and the ability to challenge decisions. I know that representative bodies across the housing sector stand ready to work in partnership with the Government to develop an appropriate and effective solution.
My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, but I am also going to make a few remarks to wind up this group on behalf of our Benches. We are trying hard not to duplicate speakers, aware that everyone is desperate to see the football-all right, not everyone, but most people-and we have an awful lot to get through. There have been a number of powerful and helpful contributions on this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has huge authority and experience in this area, and it is notable that the sector supports the amendment she has tabled, arguing that it is really needed. The heart of the Bill is around protection for victims of domestic violence, and my concern is that, without an amendment like this, we leave out one hugely important plank-an area that gives abusers the power to continue to exercise control and leave women without access to the protection we want to provide. I remind the Minister that this amendment has cross-party support, and it was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, a former Home Secretary, advocate for it. I hope the Government will take this away and consider how it might be brought forward, perhaps at a later stage. As others have said, without this measure, child maintenance could be withheld-coercive control around money is often at the heart of abusive relationships-so I urge the Government to consider this amendment. I listened carefully to the contributions of the noble...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so thoughtfully to this sensitive and highly important debate. As my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading, we welcome the Government’s efforts to empower landlords and the courts to protect all victims of domestic abuse. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments, which focus on the issues concerning tenants’ safety. His Amendment 61 asks us to consider threats to personal safety due not only to domestic abuse but to escalating disputes with neighbours or targeted youth and gang violence. It is right that we consider how tenants can be protected from those other threats, and Amendment 62 seeks to give providers greater powers to carry out legally required safety checks. I hope the Government will give those amendments their due consideration. Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to ensure that vulnerable groups such as older tenants, veterans, care leavers, disabled people, those with mental health conditions and families with children in temporary accommodation have the necessary statutory provision. We will also touch on prioritising veterans in another amendment later today, but my noble friend is right that we should consider the specific needs of these groups too, and that we expect local authorities to do so as well. Amendment 65, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and was responded to by many others, raises a very important issue. I...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very thoughtful debate on these amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling Amendment 61, which addresses an important issue around the safety and security of tenants facing violence. I am very sympathetic to this amendment’s aims to protect all tenants of social housing providers registered with the Regulator of Social Housing and thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue forward. I want to be clear that tenants should never fear losing their security of tenure if they need to move because of the threat of violence and abuse. While I am supportive of the intent of the amendment, as drafted it will mean a fundamental shift in the role of the Regulator of Social Housing as currently set out in statute. The regulator’s statutory remit does not include intervening in individual tenancy decisions. The regulator focuses interventions on systemic issues, and this amendment would change this and risk cutting across established principles of regulatory best practice. Furthermore, the consumer standards set by the regulator already place on registered providers several requirements relevant to this amendment, including to work with partners to support victims of domestic abuse and to demonstrate how they deliver the outcomes of these standards. In addition, there is already legislation in place that seeks to protect people at risk of violence in need of urgent rehousing. If a local...
Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to require priority social housing allocations to be given to vulnerable households. However, as I have just set out, the allocations framework already requires that local authorities give reasonable preference or priority to homeless households and people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability. An additional preference is for former members of the Armed Forces with urgent housing needs. These categories cover the groups most in need highlighted by the noble Lord, so we do not think it is needed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 64. The Bill will strengthen protections for victims of domestic abuse who are social housing tenants. We are putting victims first by closing a long-standing gap in housing law that has left victims of domestic abuse with no safe way to keep their social housing, which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, mentioned, as did the noble Baroness, Lady May. This will give victims certainty and stability. We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of the reforms on the courts, and will make sure that the justice system is ready for the changes and any new processes and procedures which will be required.
More broadly, the Government are investing up to £50 million to modernise our civil courts to ensure justice for both renters and landlords with a case to be heard. In respect of this Bill, we are committed to monitoring and evaluating the reforms, so it is not necessary to commit to undertake any further review. We recognise the importance of making sure that these measures work effectively for all victims and will continue to engage with other government departments, the courts and the sector to make sure that that is the case.
I turn to Amendment 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and thank her for raising this very important matter, and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady May, Lady Lister and Lady Warwick, for reminding us of the dreadful impact of financial abuse and coercive control. I have a great deal of sympathy with the intent behind this amendment and take this opportunity to praise the work of Katherine Brickell and Mel Nowicki, which first brought this issue to our attention. I dealt with an example myself where the abuser had forged a signature on a second mortgage of over £80,000. When the relationship broke down, that debt, in effect, rendered the victim bankrupt and her and her four children homeless. It was a really shocking case, so I understand, in a very front-line way, the importance of this amendment.
Government regulations last year mean that victims of domestic abuse moving as a result of that abuse no longer need to meet a local connection or residency test in order to access social housing. We also have statutory guidance in place for local housing authorities to improve access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse. This guidance has not been substantially updated in nearly a decade so I am sorry to say that it does not cover the treatment of debt incurred as a result of domestic abuse. We want to put that right. In the national plan to end homelessness we committed to address the barriers, such as debt, faced by survivors of domestic abuse, as part of our update to statutory guidance on social housing allocations. These can be very sensitive cases and this amendment, as tabled, would introduce a rigid statutory rule in an area that is inherently complex and case-specific. We also need to be mindful of unintended consequences that the blunt tool of primary legislation may cause.
Updating statutory guidance allows us to set clearer expectations nationally, while ensuring that authorities can take account of individual circumstances. Should this approach prove not to be sufficient then, in effect, we already have the necessary primary powers to take action. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for highlighting this important issue. I hope that she will accept our commitment to tackle it and not press her amendment for now. I am very happy to discuss this further with her before we get to Report.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, requiring local authorities to retain safeguarding responsibilities when they place households outside their area. Our starting point and focus must always be how to best protect the most vulnerable people, with practical arrangements and responsibilities designed to ensure continuity in safe- guarding. Wherever possible, local authorities should avoid placing households subject to safeguarding arrangements outside the local area, but where such placements are necessary then social care services must work together across boundaries to ensure that the individuals continue to be protected, by whichever local authority is best placed to deliver effective safeguarding.
Housing legislation should support rather than interfere with safeguarding legislation and practice; it does so through existing requirements on notification. It is therefore not necessary to accept this amendment, as our legislative framework and guidance on what should happen when households are placed out of area is clear. However, I share the noble Baroness’s concern about reports of authorities placing households out of area without notifying the receiving authorities, and the safeguarding concerns this can create. Ministers have already written to local authorities about this issue, to remind them both of their responsibilities under the legislation and of the importance of safeguarding what are often very vulnerable households in a very challenging situation.
To deliver long-term improvement, this Government have committed in A National Plan to End Homelessness to tackling out-of-area placements and driving out those unsuitable practices. This includes poor practice when it comes to safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
My Lords, this has been an incredibly rich group of amendments. I think we have all appreciated the contributions of all noble Lords on these six amendments. Perhaps I could confine my closing remarks to Amendments 61, 62 and 65, on all of which the Minister has expressed not just sympathy but a willingness to do something further. I know that Amendment 61, on where people have to forfeit the right to a secure tenancy when they have been advised by the police to move out to temporary accommodation, has struck a nerve. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their support for this amendment. All of them also supported Amendment 62, where we are seeking clarification of the law on gaining access for safety checks that are for the benefit of the occupiers, but where access is being denied. The Minister said that further consideration will be given to both these amendments. It is clear that existing provisions are not working, even if they exist. She has generously agreed not just to meet in relation to the forfeiting of rights to secure tenancies when moved on by the police, where a meeting will be held with myself and colleagues, but to convene a session, on the guidance that is evolving, with the Ministry of Justice on the opportunities to gain access where that is, at the moment, being denied. These are helpful concessions from the Minister, and I am very grateful. This brings me to Amendment 65 and the...
Amendment 61 withdrawn.
Amendments 62 to 64 not moved.
Schedule 1: Protection for victims of domestic abuse
Amendment 65 not moved.
Schedule 1 agreed.
Clause 13 agreed.
Schedule 2 agreed.
Clause 14: Vacant higher value local authority housing
Debate on whether Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe the rationale behind repealing these powers.
My Lords, it appears that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, withdrew from this section at a late time so, if it is the Committee’s pleasure, I will listen to the debate and the Minister, and save my comments till the end.
Would it be in order to speak to Amendment 66?
For clarification, the question before the Committee is that Clause 14 stand part.
Amendment 66 in my name is a probing amendment relating to the paragraph which abolishes the provision in earlier legislation to phase out tenancies for life. It has much in common with Amendments 77 and 78, which are in the names of my noble friends. There were two speeches at Second Reading which made me think the time had come to review the assumption that life tenancies are the best way to allocate a scarce resource. Neither speech, as it happens, was from these Benches. One was from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and this is what he said: “Why is it that social housing is now nothing like what it was? Having been brought up in the slums of Notting Hill, I was stuck in a Catholic orphanage for a few years and then moved to Fulham ... there we had our own beautiful piece of social housing. In that block of flats were trainee police officers, trainee teachers, drivers and all sorts of people, including disabled people and those who were old. It was sociable and socially mixed”. He went on to say: “Unfortunately, what has happened to social housing is that it is under threat. It is under threat because the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class ”.-[ Official Report , 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.] The other speech was from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, and this is what he said: “There are some...
Council housing was to be part of the welfare state-a universal service. In hospital you would be in a mixed community; likewise on a local authority estate. I can remember the time when a young couple would put their name down on the waiting list and within a reasonable time they would get a council house. Not so today. Even in 2015, when I was an MP for a rural constituency, you had to be in real difficulty to get a council tenancy. A young married couple sharing with their in-laws would not get the points required to be anywhere near the head of the queue. It has now become a safety net. Just look at the guidance issued by this Government on 10 July 2025:
“The government has made clear that we expect social homes to go to people who genuinely need and deserve them. That is why the Localism Act has maintained the protection provided by the statutory reasonable preference criteria which ensure that priority for social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need”.
The doctor and the grocer, therefore, are unlikely to qualify.
Today, the greatest need probably means the statutory duty to rehouse a family in emergency accommodation, for instance in a bed and breakfast, or a family granted asylum now living in a hotel. It could be, as we have just heard, a mother and her children fleeing domestic violence, a family whose illegal HMO’s licence has just been cancelled by the local authority and closed, or someone whose health is seriously prejudiced by their poor housing conditions. There is not even enough housing for them, and that is before you get to the groups that might previously have expected to go to our social housing.
You get social housing today because you are in greatest need, to quote the government circular. The question then arises about what happens if you are allocated a tenancy because you were in the greatest need and then, with the help of that tenancy and perhaps wider support from a local authority, you have put your life together. Let us say you have a good job and the ability to move on-should you then make way for someone who is now in the same desperate position as you were and give them the opportunity to rebuild their life in the same way? That is the question behind my amendment and others. It should be seriously considered by any party that claims to look after the most vulnerable.
There are arguments the other way, of course. Why should local authority tenants not have the same security as owner-occupiers? At a time when private tenants are being given more security through the Renters’ Rights Act, should we reduce the security of social tenants? Registered social landlords, or RSLs, want very much to manage stable communities rather than a series of families who need a lot of support.
There may be a third way, which leaves security where it is but encourages a dialogue between the tenant and the landlord, outlining the options once it is clear that the family can afford to move. It may be shared ownership, it may be help with a deposit, it may be help with the cost of moving. The legitimate point is that there are other people who desperately need that home.
I will make one final point to support the case-one which has not been made before. If you are on the housing waiting list, the number of new social homes is relevant, and the more the better. But someone in housing need is eight times more likely to be rehoused through a re-let than through a new build. Increasing the number of re-lets is a key ingredient for helping those in need, and a new re-let can be secured at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time of a new build. Focusing our social housing on those in greatest need, to use the Government’s own words, means a good, hard look at how social housing is used at the moment and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, asking whether life tenancies are the answer to a question from a different era.
My Lords, I was busy trying to think of counterarguments; the noble Lord, Lord Young, has caught me there. We feel that what unites these amendments is an attempt to drag social housing policy backwards, and to revive a model of insecurity that simply did not work. We have heard this argument before-that fixed-term tenancies somehow make the system fairer or more efficient-but in reality they created uncertainty for tenants, instability for families and churning communities, without coming anywhere close to solving the real problem, which, as we all acknowledge, is a chronic shortage of social housing. With the exception of Amendment 70, which we have not heard about yet, and while my brain is still thinking about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, these proposals feel less like a serious answer to today’s housing challenges and more like a re-run of policies that were already tested and found wanting. Take Clause 16, the power to give housing providers the right to raise rents as tenants get higher wages. I can imagine the dinner table conversation: “Great news: I’ve been promoted! I’m getting some extra money. We’ll get above ‘just about managing’. It might give us the cushion we need. But wait: won’t they put our rent up if they find out we’re earning more? Perhaps I won’t take that promotion”. We could not support a measure that would dampen self-improvement and aspiration, let alone the logistics of administering it. With regard to the comments of the...
My Lords, I will respond first to the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to oppose Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. I understand that this is a probing amendment seeking more detail on the Government’s rationale for repealing the powers. It is essential that local housing authorities have flexibility to manage their stock in a way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 14 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. Even so, the presence of the provisions on the statute book had a very negative effect on local authorities’ spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties. The policy was intended to raise capital to supply new social homes but would ultimately have led to a net loss in social housing. The last Government chose never to implement these measures due to the negative impact they would have had on local authorities. We are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether. That time is now, and Clause 14 fulfils that commitment, so I commend it to the Committee. I turn to Clause 15 and Amendments 66, 77 and 78. All these relate to the Government’s intention to repeal uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have...
Social landlords already have a wide range of tools to tackle anti-social behaviour, and the Regulator of Social Housing’s neighbour and community standard already requires registered providers to work with relevant partners to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour and hate incidents. Recent legislation has strengthened these powers even further. The Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent in April, has strengthened the powers available to the police and other agencies, including stronger measures to deal with the most persistent offenders. The Renters’ Rights Act has also shortened the notice period for the mandatory anti-social behaviour eviction ground; once implemented in the social rented sector, landlords will be able to make a claim to the court faster in cases of anti-social behaviour. In that context, much of what this amendment seeks to achieve is already available through existing powers and regulatory requirements. The amendment risks duplicating existing routes. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, especially my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I thank the Minister for the response. I hope she realises that these amendments were tabled in view of our previous amendments and in light of trying to make best use of the stock available. However, we accept what the Minister is saying. These amendments are probing ones to explain some of those options, but I accept the Government’s response.
Clause 14 agreed.
Clause 15 agreed.
Schedule 3: Secure, introductory and demoted tenancies: uncommenced legislation etc
Amendment 66 not moved.
Schedule 3 agreed.
Clause 16 agreed.
Amendment 67
Moved by
67: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedureIn section 320 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (orders and regulations), in subsection (7)(d), for “sections 70 and 72” substitute “those sections referred to in subsection (3)(d)”.” Member’s explanatory statement Section 320(3)(d) HRA 2008 applies affirmative procedure to regulations under section 126A of that Act. Section 126A is not expressly excepted from section 320(7)(d) (which applies negative procedure), and so there could be uncertainty about which resolution procedure applies. This amendment would prevent any such doubt.
Amendment 67 agreed.
Amendment 68
Moved by
68: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Local connection requirements(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 166A(7) and 167(3) of the Housing Act 1996, require that local housing authorities ensure that reasonable preference in allocations policies takes account of local connection.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), local connection includes-(a) residence,(b) employment,(c) family association, or(d) service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on the implementation of subsections (1) and (2).(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would strengthen local connection considerations in social housing allocations.
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84 and 113 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle: social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. As we have heard in previous debates, demand exceeds supply in many parts of the country. It is therefore essential that allocation policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords Library shows that each new social rent home requires a grant of between £80,000 and £100,000 in order to be built. Those figures are for outside of London; I do not have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher. Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. If we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us. As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. In many cases, that is not the case, but it is the concern. The Minister has related stories of the difficulties she faced from the locals when Stevenage was originated as a new town. Communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to the area are given appropriate consideration. Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring...
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 91 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a modest amendment, asking simply that the Secretary of State conduct review of veterans’ access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes or impose new burdens on local authorities; it asks the Government to look and just tell us what they find. I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it is difficult for us to make reasonable judgments about what is working and what is not without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice. I turn to the case for this amendment. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1,820 to 2,270, according to MHCLG’s homelessness data. The most recent figures, for 2024-25, record over 2,000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help. The ONS veterans survey suggests that the true number may be closer to 7,500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count. The Government have made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really acknowledge that. The December 2024 regulations removed the five-year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away...
Without a comprehensive review, we are left with fragmented data, inconsistent local practice and no reliable national picture. This amendment would change that. A report of this kind, laid before Parliament, would give us for the first time a clear and authoritative account of the level of social housing provision for veterans across England. We would be able to see how the system is working, where it is falling short and what still needs to be done to change things for the better. That is the foundation for informed policy, and it is the least we owe to those who have served this country.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93 in my name and in support of my noble friend Lady Teather on her Amendment 91. My noble friend has made a compelling case for considering access to social housing for former service personnel who have served their country, often in foreign areas, moving from one posting to another. Their personal and home life will have been disrupted and sometimes their relationships have broken down, leaving them without a home to return to at the end of their term of service. Many service personnel will have suffered mental health breakdowns due to the level of stress they experienced in their postings. It is right that those who have served their country with bravery should be able to access a decent home on their discharge. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment. I turn now to the support required by ex-offenders. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, also has an amendment down to support ex-offenders, and I look forward to his contribution. My amendment is a probing one. On being sentenced and imprisoned, many offenders find that their immediate family and relatives abandon them, sometimes because it is simply too far for them to travel to visit. The expense of a long rail journey and taxi fares at either end are too much for those on limited incomes. Sometimes the length of the sentence can mean that the offender loses all contact with the area they were originally living in. Their rented accommodation is lost, and they have no home to...
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I will be following along with her arguments but will speak to my Amendment 94. I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful meeting I had yesterday with her officials. Amendment 94 does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities working better together to prevent post-release homelessness. This is the point of the amendment. About 10 years ago, I started working with the Ministry of Justice on prison reform, specifically conducting two reviews on how prisoners could maintain family and other key relational ties to prevent their reoffending. I am still involved in the implementation of the recommendations of those reviews, but I am beginning to feel a little like an IPP prisoner with no set date for release. My amendment would contribute to a collective refocus on offender rehabilitation, which is much needed if we are to have any hope of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs this country £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, and especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any rehabilitation activity they have ever undertaken. Their proven reoffending rate, 76%, is more than twice that for those released from custody into settled accommodation, at 36.4%. I have been told that existing legislation to prevent homelessness...
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to these amendments, and it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Farmer: he is one of the most indefatigable and persistent champions of the family and of the education and rehabilitation of prisoners, and I commend the work he has done over many years. As a constituency MP, I had a prison in my constituency. I was once critical of what I thought was the cushy lifestyle of the women’s wing of the prison-it was a coterminous prison, men and women-because it provided aromatherapy in the gym. I criticised this, as the local MP, and of course the Sun put it on the front page, with the immortal headline, “In for a stretch”, which was quite amusing. The serious point is that we can spend very significant amounts of money to make sure that prisoners can read and write, understand civic engagement and have meaningful work, but that is all completely wasted if, when they leave prison, they go back into the clutches of the nefarious and criminal classes, particularly drug dealers. I commend both noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, will not remember, but we worked together, many moons ago when she was Children’s Minister in the other place, on the rather niche subject of children with Tourette’s syndrome-she did a great job in that role in the coalition Government. Both noble Baronesses are absolutely right that we need to focus. These are permissive amendments to...
I will be a little more controversial about the first two amendments, which are about collecting data on a local link and on British citizenship. I was rather disappointed, I confess, at Second Reading that we had some pearl clutching from the Liberal Democrat Benches, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Scott, about the number of people in social housing in Greater London who were born overseas. I have to ask the fundamental question, in supporting my noble friend on the Front Bench: in what other country in the world would we nonchalantly accept that people who have not paid taxes, who were born abroad, who are not British citizens, should have very valuable social housing?
I accept that the figure of 47.6% in London is extremely high. I accept that, of the 377,000 people in that group who are lead tenants, there are a significant number who have obtained British citizenship. That is fine: they should have access, if there is a housing need, to local authority and registered provider housing. I accept that completely. The beauty of Amendment 69, though, is that it is colour-blind. It is about fairness and equity. It is not about religion, ethnicity or background; it is about citizenship, and I think it is important to focus on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said she found it disconcerting that that was brought up by my noble friend, but she might also recognise that in her own local borough of Kirklees in West Yorkshire, there are 19,000 households on the waiting list. The latest figures for Watford, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will be aware of, is 1,322 households waiting for housing from the local housing association; Watford does not provide direct housing support in terms of council housing. Some 16% of the entire housing stock across the whole UK is rented by people who were not born in the UK.
Bear in mind that these are very scarce properties that are heavily subsidised by mainstream taxation in the first place, so I do think it is fair for us to look at that as an issue that at least needs to be reviewed, because we all accept that there has been a shortage of council house building over the years. My noble friend Lord Fuller would contest that that is not the case in south Norfolk, where he was leader of the council, but in most local authorities that has been the case. If we are focusing through the prism of fairness and equity, we have to accept that we have a duty to our own citizens, to working families, working people, and not to warehouse welfare dependency. That does not presuppose that we lock out everyone born abroad; this is not what that amendment is about.
As for Amendment 68, on local connection, in the name of my noble friends, it must be right that we support local people, local residents, local family connections, local employment, family associations and service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces. There was a time when this would have been a policy adopted by any Labour politician at a local level. When I was a councillor in a London borough, it would not have been an alien idea to have a local connection. In fact, when I was on the housing committee in the London Borough of Ealing, we had a very high score for those who had a local connection.
These are sensible amendments. Of course, it would be naive to assume that Amendment 69 is not controversial, because it is. There is a big political debate about citizenship, identity, culture and the provision of public services, and I accept all that. However, the Government certainly need to look at the two amendments. On that basis, can the Minister provide a reason why Amendment 68 would not be adopted, and why Amendment 69, in the name of my noble friend, would also not be looked upon favourably by the Labour Government?
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and I support all the amendments in this group, particularly those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lord Jackson, and those on the Front Bench, which support a review of policy and better information for making policy on politically sensitive matters such as immigration and narrowing the eligibility clause. In seeking information on accessing social housing and the demand for it, such as that arising from net migration and temporary asylum, we should not forget the context in which these demands are made. It is a question at the centre of our national debate, one which has too often eroded trust in politics and democracies. That is not limited to the UK. Right across stable western systems such as France, Germany and Italy, this question is at the heart of the erosion of trust and the changing shape of democratic stability, which many are worried about. That is the wider context for the immigration amendments. We should not brush this issue, and the pressure it puts on the demand for social housing, under the carpet. In considering immigration and asylum, we are looking at particularly significant demands, which might, in time, come to outweigh current pressures, if the figures we see today are to lead in any way to a demand for social housing. In the year ending September 2025, 58,148 people were granted protection and leave to remain...
My noble friends have outlined their cases themselves, so I will just clutch my pearls and resist having a ding-dong with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson-which I could, for reasons that will become apparent in my speech. I will speak carefully on this group, because I have real concerns. I am not going to go into the detail of the individual amendments, but my concerns are the direction and tone that they take when looked at together. Looked at as a whole, they approach access to social housing primarily through restriction and exclusion, with a strong emphasis on immigration status and migration pressures. I understand the political context in which these amendments are being brought forward, but I do not believe this is a helpful or responsible way to address the housing crisis or solve immigration matters. The fundamental driver of pressure on social housing is not who is applying for it; it is the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable homes. Framing access as a competition between groups risks obscuring that reality and diverting attention away from the real task of increasing supply.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on vulnerable groups. Measures that tighten eligibility or add further barriers inevitably fall hardest on people already facing disadvantage: those fleeing domestic abuse, people in insecure work, care leavers, refugees with recognised status, and others whose lives are already marked by instability. Restricting access does not remove need; it simply makes that need more precarious.
Local authorities already operate carefully balanced allocation systems. We already do that and have done it for years-I remember I really had to think hard about local connection and extending it to five years. This is already done. Local authorities do this in complex circumstances and with limited resources. Adding further nationally driven restrictions risks making those systems more rigid and less humane, without solving the underlying problem.
I am also uneasy about the extent to which housing policy is being drawn into a wider political narrative around migration. We are seeing this not only in this country but across Europe, where housing and public services are increasingly politicised as proxies for much broader debates, sometimes with devastating consequences. Housing policy should be about meeting need and providing stability, not about signalling or blame.
Social housing did not create migration pressures and it cannot resolve them. What it can do, if properly supported, is provide secure homes to people, based on clear, fair and locally determined criteria. The Liberal Democrats believe in fairness, compassion and evidence-based policy. We believe that housing should bring communities together and should not be used to divide them. We also believe that politicians have a duty to show leadership in this regard and not abrogate responsibility for the consequences these issues provoke. It will be no surprise that we oppose these amendments.
My Lords, this group of amendments is about access to and eligibility for social housing. I want to make two opening points. First, it is important that debate on these issues is conducted carefully and respectfully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. Language that stigmatises or mischaracterises people living in or applying for social housing is simply not acceptable. Secondly, I remind noble Lords that there is an extensive review of social housing allocations statutory guidance currently being undertaken, which will consider many of the issues raised as part of this group. I will address specifically Amendments 69, 74, 82 and 84, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. In 2024-25, 89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals, 4% were European nationals and 8% were from outside the European Economic Area-broadly the same as the previous year. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa prevents access to state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for social housing. Only eligible people can join waiting lists and receive a tenancy. Where foreign nationals are eligible, they will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocation scheme. On 20 November, the Government announced the biggest reforms to the legal migration system in 50 years. These reforms will build a fairer immigration...
I would like to go back to one point that the Minister raised on the review of housing waiting lists. She made the perfectly valid point that someone may have registered on the housing waiting list with a certain series of circumstances and that those will be tested at the allocation point. I accept that. However, the point we were trying to make is that the housing waiting list includes data that is used in making a variety of decisions on the prioritisation of what should be built and so on. Our view is that that data needs to be accurate. What can the Minister say on that point?
In my experience, most local authorities do exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting: they very carefully take account of the information submitted by applicants for the waiting register when they apply for it. I think that those processes are already in place.
I am sorry; I must be talking at cross-purposes. My point is that, given the length of time that people will be on the housing register, circumstances will change, and therefore what was put on one or two years ago may no longer be accurate. This is about having up-to-date, accurate data on the housing register, so that the council can make good decisions on policy, not on a particular allocation.
Again, I place great trust in our local housing authorities; they regularly assess their applicants. That has been even more the case as the availability of social housing has become more and more scarce. Local authorities take these responsibilities very seriously. If there were a change to a circumstance that had not been recorded, that would certainly appear at the time of the allocation.
Can the Minister say whether there is official evidence of when an application is made, and whether the authorities assess official documents supporting a request for housing? Just as a clarification, I certainly did not seek to stigmatise people who were seeking social housing. I asked for further evidence so that we could review the whole question in the round, but not stigmatise anyone.
Local authorities take a great deal of care when people apply for the social housing register, because they need to make sure that they meet their local provisions. That includes local connections, whether they have income eligibility and so on. They take great care in that respect. Most local authorities conduct regular reviews of the information they have-I will not say “all local authorities”, because I do not have the evidence in front of me to suggest that, but I think that nearly all of them do so.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There have been a variety of views, so I will begin on the bits on which I think we generally agree. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for his eloquent contribution, as well as to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. They looked at how we can better support former offenders and those leaving prison. We support the intentions behind both of their amendments, and we believe that local housing authorities should at least be given more information about prison leavers in need of housing. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her strong case on behalf of veterans. We too agree that those who have served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces should be prioritised in social housing allocation processes. She is right to highlight the needs of those with potential disabilities arising from their time serving in uniform. When I first became a councillor, one of the first cases I dealt with was a military family that fell between the cracks of the regulation and the allocation. That was before the Armed Forces covenant, so I was very pleased that we were able to change council policy to have much greater flexibility. That family was then housed to great benefit. I raise the issue of disabilities. I am very conscious that we do not have enough good-quality social housing for people with high and complex disability needs. One of the points that I made earlier in the debate about right to...
Amendment 68 withdrawn.
Amendments 69 to 75 not moved.
Amendment 76
Moved by
76: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Standards relating to maintenance of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to standards for maintenance of social housing, in line with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include provision relating to-(a) damp and mould,(b) electrical safety,(c) response times for repairs, and(d) tenant complaints procedures.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would require guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we seek to increase housing supply, how do we ensure that social housing is not only available but safe, well maintained, accessible and capable of supporting thriving communities? The debate about housing often focuses on numbers, and understandably so, when we face such a shortfall. However, quality matters just as much as quantity. People deserve homes that are safe, healthy and fit for modern living. Equally, they deserve neighbourhoods that are well designed and capable of supporting long-term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe whether the existing guidance is sufficient and whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector. The importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences when basic maintenance problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Awaab’s law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and that expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is not simply about the condition of a property when it is first built; it is also about how the property is maintained over the many...
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100 and the other amendments in my name. We have the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty, but it is clear that in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations. In Amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusion by design standard set out in the Bill. Though it appears duplicative at first instance because of the previous legislation I referred to, it would be additive, clarifying, enabling and empowering, not just for disabled people but-by nature of being inclusive by design-for all people. Through that clarity, it would enable and empower the local authority and the landlords, who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country. An inclusion by design standard would be something to rally around and a gleaming light that could focus attention and deliver for disabled people and all people, far more than what the current legislation specific to equalities achieves. In Amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting accessibility and adaptive housing standards. There are standards that exist in this area currently, but to have something that brings...
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 85 in my name and respond to the other amendments in this group on behalf of these Benches. These amendments collectively address the design and accessibility of social housing. I am grateful to other noble Lords for their amendments in this important and interesting group. I turn first to my Amendment 85. At Second Reading, I said that I was concerned not so much by what was in the Bill but by what was conspicuously absent. Our climate is changing faster than our policies. The Climate Change Committee’s recent report, A Well-Adapted UK , warns that 92% of existing homes are likely to over- heat by 2050. That is not a fringe projection but the central estimate of the best advice that is available to Parliament. Social housing tenants are disproportionately elderly, often disabled and often living with chronic illness. They are more likely to live in urban flats that heat quickly and they cannot, in the main, afford air conditioning or to escape the urban heat island effect. In short, we are debating the homes of those most at risk of dying or suffering from extreme heat under a warming planet. The UKHSA estimated that there were 2,803 excess deaths among people aged 65 and over in England during the summer of 2022 alone. Without action, heat-related deaths could increase sixfold, from around 1,600 a year today to some 10,000 a year by the 2050s. My amendment seeks to create a power requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations...
My Lords, I start by responding to Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the Government have already published guidance for social landlords on timeframes for repairs in the social rented sector, covering the first phase of Awaab’s law that came into force on 27 October 2025. This guidance includes information in relation to damp and mould hazards. This will be updated to include other hazards ahead of further phases of Awaab’s law coming into force. Guidance on implementing the revised decent homes standard will be published shortly; this will include further information about meeting a new damp and mould standard. Guidance on electrical safety was published in November 2025 and we have produced guidance that covers the operation and enforcement of the housing health and safety rating system. That guidance will be published this summer. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out best practice that landlords are expected to follow to handle resident complaints effectively. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are reassured that work is under way to address each of the issues in their amendment and are content to withdraw it. Amendment 85 was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and he knew that I would mention Part O. Part O of Schedule 1 to the building regulations requires that new residential buildings...
The regulator’s consumer standards require registered providers to ensure that communication with and information for tenants is clear, accessible and appropriate to their diverse needs, and that landlord services are accessible. This includes supporting tenants to use online landlord services if required. Mandating new requirements in primary legislation risks duplicating or cutting across these existing standards and practices. In sum, the Government’s view is that these types of issues are better addressed through guidance, regulation and continuous improvement, rather than through a fixed statutory framework.
On Amendment 119B, the Government cannot support linking the commencement of the Act to the introduction of these regulations. While accessibility is a critical consideration, it should not act as a precondition that delays implementation of the wider reforms in the Bill. For those reasons, while I share the noble Lord’s commitment to accessible and inclusive services, the Government are unable to support these amendments and I respectfully ask him not to press them.
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this group. This debate has focused on the fundamental point that housing policy is not simply about providing a roof over someone’s head; it is about ensuring that people live in homes that are safe, healthy, accessible and capable of supporting a good quality of life. The debate has also highlighted broader questions about design, accessibility and the environments in which people live. As we consider these issues, it is important to continue to focus on the creation of mixed, sustainable communities. Good design should not be reserved for one tenure or another. The aim should be to create places where people want to live, regardless of whether they are tenants, shared owners or owner-occupiers. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points raised during the debate. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 76 withdrawn.
Amendments 77 and 78 not moved.
Amendment 79
Moved by
79: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Shared ownership strategy(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for increasing opportunities for shared ownership.(2) The strategy must include proposals relating to-(a) first-time buyers,(b) key workers,(c) housing association provision, and(d) staircasing arrangements.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder. While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership-including management fees, lease fees and so forth-tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity. In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs....
My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities. The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three. I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership. The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved...
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young-of Cookham, and also the sense behind Amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in shared ownership-all the costs but only half the uplift, if there is one. The risks include very large unexpected costs, which my noble friend raised and I do not intend to repeat. There is 100% of the costs, but only half the capital. This has been sold to people who one might say, without patronising, are less financially sophisticated, as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs on the whole would be less than the rent they are paying on the half. It is not necessarily low cost at all; one might go far as to suggest that there has been a degree of mis-selling here. So, I support Amendment 105, which calls for a review. We cannot carry on as we are. My experience in my own council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down. There is now very low take-up. It is possibly a tenure whose time has passed. But the review could reinvigorate it. There is a case for low-cost housing for people to establish and build capital in their society. With this review, which I support entirely, there is the opportunity to try to get it back on track.
My Lords, because the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young of Cookham, have done such a brilliant job of talking about shared ownership, I will scrap most of my speech. We on these Benches have brought up the vexed subject of shared ownership many times, and I know that the Minister understands and absolutely appreciates that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has been a stalwart campaigner for reform. That deserves to be recognised. If shared ownership is a pathway to home ownership, it is a very rocky one. It is definitely a home owner’s dream that turned into their worst nightmare. I could wax lyrical about automated 1% staircasing, proportional maintenance and a 15% valuation cushion, but I will not. But I am interested in what the Minister has to say, because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I do not believe that this is something that has passed; in high-cost areas, it is essential. Therefore, we would really like to hear something about reform or at least a vision of how it might be reformed.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for her amendments on shared ownership and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving them. Shared ownership has an important role to play in supporting households into home ownership who would otherwise struggle to purchase a suitable property. We had extensive debates on this during the Renters’ Rights Bill and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work on this. That is why we have committed to continue supporting the delivery of shared ownership via the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Through the launch of the programme, we have introduced new measures to support the delivery of shared ownership and to set clear expectations for providers to improve the customer experience that we have heard about this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned staircasing. Importantly, full ownership is not the only measure of success. Many shared owners benefit from the stability, security and control of owning a stake in their home, even if they do not eventually staircase to 100%. We recognise that staircasing can be complex and costly, which is why the shared ownership model was reformed to introduce greater flexibility, including smaller staircasing increments. We continue to consider what more can be done to improve the staircasing process and the customer experience. As with the whole scheme, we keep it under review. While a shared ownership strategy or a formal review may appear complementary, we do not consider either necessary. Both would risk duplicating work already under way, and a formal review could disrupt a well-established and widely understood scheme.
Amendment 106 seeks to introduce a model shared ownership agreement. I do not believe this amendment is necessary simply because shared ownership model leases are already available. The model leases contain fundamental clauses that govern how shared ownership operates, including in respect of the provisions outlined by the noble Lord. Shared ownership providers offering grant-funded properties must use a lease containing these fundamental clauses, and it is expected that properties delivered via Section 106 agreements also do so. In addition, shared ownership providers are required to adhere to guidance regarding the provisions raised as a condition of receiving grant funding. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s vast knowledge and the amount of work that he has done on this. I also appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has also raised this issue many times. I think there is universal acceptance on this side of the Committee that something needs to be done. It is a little bit more fundamental than looking at the “customer experience”, which, if I may say so, feels like a glib marketing throwaway, although I know the Minister does not mean it as that. The purpose of these amendments has been to explore whether the current arrangements are delivering. Quite clearly, we have the National Audit Office and so forth saying that they are not delivering. I do not think that we can be satisfied with, “We are looking at it”; I think this needs a fundamental review. The Minister said that it is a widely understood scheme. I think conceptually it is widely understood, but I do not think that the consequences of being a shared owner, particularly of a flat, are widely understood. The potential financial ramifications, where the risk lies and the risk-sharing between the equity owner and the landlord are not appreciated. I think many of the complaints that we have seen out of this are because people did not understand what they were letting themselves in for, particularly for flats. I press the Minister to think again between now and Report and to look at how we can...
Amendment 79 withdrawn.
Amendments 80 to 88 not moved.
Amendment 89
Moved by
89: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Protections for adapted social housing(1) This section applies where-(a) a dwelling owned by the local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing has been substantially adapted for occupation by a person with a disability or support need, or(b) a Disabled Facilities Grant has been used to fund substantial adaptations to that dwelling.(2) Before such a dwelling is allocated through the general housing allocation process, the landlord must take reasonable steps to offer the dwelling to a person whose needs would substantially benefit from those adaptations.(3) In this section, “substantially adapted” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instruments.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would require social landlords to protect the pool of adapted housing by giving preference to applicants who could benefit from existing adaptations before allocating adapted homes through the general housing allocation process.
My Lords, I am very disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new affordable homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of homes, particularly adapted homes. We are an ageing nation, we are getting fatter and nowadays many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. As a council leader, I spend about £1.5 million a year adapting homes for this ageing and impaired population. I remember that, when devising our local plan, there was a need for 3,500 adapted homes and supported living units; it was about 10% of the total housing need. It is an important issue, but not one you would gather from this Bill. At Second Reading, I explained how councils might install an adaptation so that a resident with an impairment could live comfortably. I explained that it might be a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, in my council, we spent £75,000 on a complete extension that was required to enable that family to live decently. In preparation for this debate, and in pursuance of that simple truth, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He tells me that about half the improvements relate to wet rooms. That is important, because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it keeps our hospital wards clean. Half the wet room adaptations are combined...
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the important subject of adapted social housing. As we have argued throughout this day of Committee, we must improve how we manage the existing stock of social housing by making better use of what we have and what is being built. It strikes us as entirely sensible that, where possible and appropriate, homes that have been adapted are then given to applicants who would also benefit from those adaptations. That would save social housing providers money and ensure that we made the best use of resources and housing stock. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any details that she might be able to give us on how it might be implemented.
My Lords, we seem to have wandered a long way this evening from the straightforward purpose of the Bill: to adjust right to buy, to give confidence to local authorities to deliver social housing, and to protect domestic abuse victims. Anyway, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. He says he is disappointed. I have probably been disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for most of the last 15 or so years that we have known each other, so I am just carrying on in that vein, I am afraid. We recognise how important home adaptations are in enabling disabled people to live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. Disabled facilities grant funding helps adapt over 55,000 homes annually, helping disabled people and their families live independently, reducing demand for health and social care support. It is also important that local authorities make the best use of the homes they have available, particularly any adapted properties.
Local housing authorities are already free to set their own social housing allocation schemes in accordance with the legislation and statutory guidance, and they will take different approaches to making the best use of accessible accommodation. For some, this may be done by maintaining a separate register of those who need adapted housing, while others may choose to do this by integrating this information into their main housing register, but they already have the choice to do that.
The Government fund an organisation to act as the national body for disabled facilities grants and the national body provides support and guidance to local authorities on the efficient delivery of the grant. That includes guidance on working with housing associations to make the best use of already-adapted stock through adapted housing registers. We agree with the importance of local authorities seeking to make best use of those properties and will explore and address this through our update to statutory guidance on allocations. This amendment also seeks to subject all subsequent regulations under this Act to additional parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. We consider this disproportionate and an unnecessary use of parliamentary time.
I hope I have explained what local authorities are already doing, and I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments-I will consider them carefully. Perhaps we could have a meeting between now and Report. All I would say is that I do not think things are quite as clear or clear-cut as she makes them out to be, not least because the problem can arise when someone has been allocated housing and has not necessarily made a full disclosure of their needs, and then, once they are in, they can move things out. I think there is a requirement. I accept the point about statutory guidance, and I will, I hope, talk to the Minister or officials between now and Report, and consider my position. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 89 withdrawn.
Amendment 90
Moved by
90: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Social purpose of registered providers of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the social purpose of registered providers of social housing.(2) The guidance must include-(a) promoting tenant wellbeing;(b) effective state management; (c) the prevention and reduction of antisocial behaviour;(d) community engagement;(e) the provision and maintenance of safe and sustainable neighbourhoods;(f) the balance between development activity and social responsibilities of registered providers.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the guidance before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the social purpose of registered providers of social housing and the wider responsibilities expected of them beyond housing development.
As part of my ward work last month, I was surprised that a home in Brooke, in my ward where I live, under the Victory Housing banner, is actually owned by part of a much larger RSL headquartered in Gloucestershire. I mentioned it at Second Reading, and since then it has reached out to me to explain that it actually has a local team to manage these properties. That is reassuring, but the truth remains that the shots are called from miles away. It is a close-to-home example of the way in which the RSL landscape has consolidated, as small RSLs have bought up others and then in turn been taken over still further in the name of economies of scale. I can understand why this has happened, but scale has not been good for tenants. Tenant reps have been excised from the landscape. There is a lack of local accountability, with national RSLs populating their boards with the great and good from out of town, the consequences being that a focus on local matters such as anti-social behaviour has been relegated to the subs’ bench-and I am conscious that the football starts in a minute. At Second Reading, I suggested that the Bill could be stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of law-abiding residents, but it is not. That is one of the reasons that have prompted me to introduce Amendment 90 to mandate that and other desirable traits so that the social purpose of social providers is enshrined in law. I explained how there has been a consolidation...
I am going to speak very briefly-there are matters of life and death about to start in 10 minutes, and I am not going to stand in the way of that-but I am surprised by these amendments. They have been tabled by Conservative Peers going for centralisation and more regulation. We want better people running housing associations; we want good chairs, good chief executives and effective boards. I have to ask: do you want social entrepreneurial spirit, creative drive and a commitment to efficiency in customer services to be suffocated by overregulation, interference and process? We need a balance. I do not believe these probing amendments aim to provide a balance.
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this group. Amendment 90, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks guidance on the social responsibilities and purposes of social housing providers. As we argued in our Amendment 108, we need to understand the other responsibilities that providers have towards tenants and the boundaries that exist. My noble friend’s amendment is very similar to our Amendment 109; it is clear that we are united in our priorities, but we can look at the drafting more closely ahead of Report. Community engagement brings me to Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which proposes tenant board representation of at least one-fifth, as well as mandatory tenant advisory panels for the codesign of allocation policies and a requirement to publish complaints data by protected characteristic. We agree that tenant voices should be heard, with their dreams and aspirations for the places and communities in which they live. That is admirable and we welcome the intention behind the amendment. I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Amendment 110 seeks a wider review of governance arrangements for social housing providers. This includes board composition, tenant representation and the role of elected councillors, but also their accountability to local communities, scrutiny arrangements and performance information. This is crucial. Community engagement should not be a...
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns a range of mechanisms to strengthen the tenant voice and engagement across the social housing sector. It is a bit odd, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, to be in this parallel universe where the Conservative Benches are arguing for more regulation-I find that a bit strange. Matters relating to tenant voice and engagement are already central to the Regulator of Social Housing’s existing consumer standards. The regulator’s approach is proactive and outcomes-based, setting clear standards that providers must deliver, while allowing flexibility on how those outcomes are achieved. On that basis, my concern is that a number of these amendments would introduce new statutory requirements that would duplicate or cut across the existing regulatory framework. This would result in unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and potential confusion for the sector, without materially improving outcomes for tenants or communities. I turn briefly to Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and Amendment 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am not persuaded that additional statutory guidance from the Secretary of State is necessary. Core elements of these amendments and any subsequent guidance are already central to the regulator’s regulatory standards. The consumer standards require providers to deliver safe and well-managed homes, to engage with tenants and take their views into...
Finally, I turn to Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I am not persuaded that this approach is necessary. Since 2024, the regulator has implemented a proactive consumer regulation regime, including routine inspections of large landlords and the introduction of consumer gradings. Mandating tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across this approach, potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues and undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Tenants have clear and established routes to escalate concerns, from the internal complaints procedure to the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman can then refer a complaint to the regulator where they suspect an issue at the level of the landlord. Given these reasons, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to the guidance published on 9 June. I was not aware of it, and I will look at it closely. However, the title was all about how you deliver more houses. My amendment is not about the number of houses; it is about the social behaviours, because they are not working at the moment. By following the money, we see that, without strings, too many RSLs are focusing too much on development and not enough on doing the right thing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, enumerated a number of things. I could not write them down fast enough, but customer focus, innovation and other things were all there. However, left alone, these things are not happening. I want a light touch, but, ultimately, I want to establish the principle of the deal: if the RSLs want cheap government money to expand their estates, there need to be strings attached, and those strings go with a rededication of RSLs to the social purpose, rather than focusing on financial engineering, because that is not in tenants’ best interests. On the ground, we are seeing that, when tenants do have genuine concerns, they are not being addressed promptly. The well-being of the estates is not at the forefront of the mind, and that is not good for anybody. So, if you want the money, you can have the hair on the deal; otherwise, go to Barclays. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 90 withdrawn.
Amendments 91 to 117D not moved.
Clause 17: Power to make consequential provision
Amendment 118
Moved by
118: Clause 17, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2) Member’s explanatory statement This amendment removes the consequential power to amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same session as, this Act by regulations.
My Lords, I will speak to this final group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Clause 17(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to “amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”. Amendment 118 would remove this power. Amendment 119 would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for any regulations made under Clause 17. This would give Parliament stronger oversight of secondary legislation. The theme of both amendments is to give Parliament stronger oversight of the Secretary of State’s powers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why these powers were included in the first place and how the Government intend to use them in the future if this Bill is passed as currently drafted. The House deserves to know to properly consider these provisions, so I look forward to an answer from the Minister. I beg to move.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for the amendments on powers in Clause 17. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded: “There is nothing in this Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”. That conclusion gives important context for these amendments. On Amendment 118, this is a standard consequential power that is found in many Bills and is limited to making a provision that is consequential on the Act. It cannot be used to introduce new policy; its purpose is to ensure that the legislation operates coherently once enacted, including by making any necessary technical changes to existing legislation. The Bill already provides an important safeguard where regulations under Clause 17 amend or repeal primary legislation. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses must actively approve them. Removing the power entirely could leave technical inconsistencies or gaps on the statute book and make implementation less effective. It would mean that even minor consequential amendments to primary legislation would require further primary legislation. For those reasons, we consider the power necessary, proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. On Amendment 119, the Bill already ensures enhanced scrutiny where regulations amend primary legislation. Applying the affirmative procedure to all consequential regulations would be disproportionate. Additionally, the...
I thank the Minister for her reply and her brevity, such that we can go and say, “Come on, England”. We still have concern about giving the Secretary of State powers without, in our view, proper parliamentary scrutiny, so we will continue to scrutinise the Bill in relation to secondary legislation and making provision for the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This is to protect the balance of power and to ensure that noble Lords continue to have oversight of changes made after this Bill becomes law. We will review Hansard , and I thank the Minister again for her answers throughout Committee. We have had an insightful and worthwhile debate about this Bill’s provisions, and I look forward to working together with noble Lords ahead of Report. As we close Committee, I would like to reflect on our key concerns. Our focus should be on building more homes, not restricting opportunity. We believe that right to buy not only provides an opportunity for families to own their homes but provides the resources to build more homes. This Bill not only denies the opportunity for families to move on in life but risks tens of thousands more families languishing on council housing waiting lists. We have also sought amendments to make housing allocations fairer and more transparent, to address issues with shared ownership, and to ensure better performance of registered providers. I beg to leave to withdraw our amendment.
Amendment 118 withdrawn.
Amendment 119 not moved.
Clause 17 agreed.
Clause 18 agreed.
Clause 19: Commencement
Amendments 119A to 121 not moved.
Amendment 122
Moved by
122: Clause 19, page 14, line 6, at end insert- “(za) section (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners) (right to buy: residential property owners);”Member’s explanatory statement This would provide for the new Clause (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners) in my name to commence two months after Royal Assent.
Amendment 122 agreed.
Amendment 123 not moved.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed.
Clause 20 agreed.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at 9.11 pm.