Social Housing Bill [HL]
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 20 Jul 2026 · 192 speeches · Official Report
Report
Clause 1: Qualifying period for right to buy
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after second “years” insert “subject to subsection (A2)” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies.
My Lords, we begin with the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we discussed in Committee, the right to buy has brought transformational benefits for 2 million families across the country. I do not wish to focus on the benefits to those who access right to buy, as I believe that case is inarguable, but rather I wish to debunk the argument against right to buy, which has focused on the loss of social housing. Let me first be clear that we believe in one-for-one replacement or better, which was why I was pleased that the last Conservative Government introduced 100% retention of right-to-buy proceeds, which enabled councils, including my own, Central Bedfordshire, to deliver more council housing than was lost through right to buy. If this could spread across the country, there would be no loss of social housing. This should be the focus of the Government: delivering one-for-one replacement, not seeking to deny the opportunity to some of our most disadvantaged families to own their own home, which has proven to be one of the greatest mechanisms for social mobility in this country. I turn to why right to buy can increase access to social housing. Some might find this counterintuitive, so forgive me if I get a little into the weeds. I refer to the Government’s impact statement, in particular to table four on page 24, which shows that, in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales supporting some 5,450...
My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and must once again refer to my interests as a retired member of a Somerset farming family which lets some houses on the farm. During the passage of this Bill, I have explained how the shortage of affordable housing to rent in rural areas has had and continues to have long-term social and economic consequences for our communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services-quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional family and social networks have collapsed, and all this has been caused by a lack of affordable housing to rent in our countryside. We must protect this stock, both where it remains and where, hopefully, it is soon to be added to. I will not say any more about all this because your Lordships have heard it all before and I have had support from noble Lords on all sides of the House. I thank the Minister and her team for meeting to discuss our concerns about how the strict interpretation in how Section 157 of the 1985 Housing Act was implemented resulted in over 60% of rural parishes being excluded from the exemption to the right to buy. Thus 60% of all rural parishes remained exposed to the near certainty of losing their council houses-and they did. We must not let this happen again. The problem was, and remains, that in the 1985 Act, Section 157 regulations require that local authorities apply to the Secretary of State for rural area...
My Lords, my Amendment 9 asks for information that is necessary to understand the full situation. I had better declare that I rent a flat in a social housing block, which was presumably bought under right to buy. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bennett argued that the most effective way to protect our social housing stock is to abolish the right to buy. I also support that. Scotland abolished the policy in 2016 and Wales followed in 2019; neither has chosen to bring it back. Both Governments concluded that, in the middle of a housing crisis, preserving social housing for the future was more important than continuing a policy that reduced its supply. I appreciate that the Government are not prepared to take that step in this Bill but, if that is the case, the very least Parliament should expect is a clear picture of how the policy is operating and what impact the changes it will make are having. The amendment would require the Secretary of State-whoever it is-to lay an annual report before Parliament setting out how many homes have been sold under right to buy, the receipts received by local authorities, how those receipts have been used and an assessment of the impact on the availability of social housing in each local authority. The reality is that, for decades, we have been selling social homes more quickly than we have been replacing them. Every home lost is one fewer home available for the next family on the waiting list. Social housing should be seen as a long-term...
My Lords, I co-signed Amendment 9 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I thought it was very sensible. If it is not taken up by the Government today, bearing in mind that we do not yet have a Secretary of State for the department sponsoring this Bill, I would have thought that this would be right up the new Prime Minister’s street-being open and transparent and showing a duty of candour. I hope that, if the Government reject the amendment today, he will consider it in the Commons. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for accepting the amendments to include the other scheme, because this is just about trying to get an understanding of the picture. For what it is worth, I do not agree with what she just said about ending right to buy. I am a strong supporter of it, as are many current and former Cabinet Ministers of this Labour Government, who have taken advantage of it personally-or their families have. I do not criticise them for that; it was a very wise thing to do. However, this would just show that it has not had quite the impact that everybody thinks. In fact, it ties up or reduces the amount of capital available to build more social housing. If the noble Baroness were minded to put her amendment to the vote, I would support her, but I appreciate that she has not indicated that in advance. Nevertheless, if the Government do not accept her amendment today, I hope that the Office for National Statistics takes it up as a...
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on Amendment 7. It is important that rural social housing stands apart from the generality of the pool of this valuable resource. My Amendment 24 is a repeat of an amendment I tabled in Committee. Quite simply, it seeks to ensure that, when a social home is sold, the proceeds are recycled locally within the same strategic housing market area. When I was the leader of a council for nearly 20 years, every single home lost to right to buy was replaced and more. It can be done if you are organised about it. We recycled all the proceeds of right to buy into new homes by adding extra money alongside. Social housing is not the finite resource that some people would tell you it is. One of its features is that it permits a mechanism to renew over time the stock of social homes. As one house is acquired and replaced, it modernises the pool and provides affordable homes for new families. It keeps the system up to date. I welcome the principle set out in the Bill that the receipts received by a council can be recycled by that council in pursuance of that replacement principle, but I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one even if they are in the same housing market assessment area. In Committee, the Minister explained that it would be very difficult to define such areas, but I disagree. We have both been council leaders. When local...
My Lords, in winding for these Benches on these amendments, I start by saying that I do not intend to give long speeches opposing amendments we do not agree with; I believe that is the Minister’s job. I intend to be concise when setting out where we stand on each group, partly because, as noble Lords can hear, I have a little bit of a throat. In the view of these Benches, these amendments largely seek to turn back the clock on reforms to right to buy. At a time when thousands of families are waiting for a secure, affordable home, the answer is not to make it easier to lose social housing stock faster. That sums up our view. We believe that Amendments 1 to 6 would dilute or remove these important reforms. On Amendment 7, I have some sympathy with the perseverance the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has shown throughout on rural issues. I believe his intentions with regard to social housing are genuine, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. But these amendments could weaken protections for newly built social homes by reducing the period during which they remain protected from sale, and that risks repeating one of the great mistakes of past housing policy: selling homes without replacing them. Two noble Lords have made much of how wonderful they were at replacing one for one and more, but we all know that that was not the reality and we do not want to repeat that. On Amendments 9 to 12, of course we welcome transparency, but reports and reviews do not build houses. Our...
I do not deny that we talk about it neighbour to neighbour, but the example I gave showed that in order to give effect to the desirable outcome I think we both seek, we had to have special dispensation. That was a waste of time, it added cost, it imposed delay and it increased risk. My amendment would sweep away all those impediments and let us get on with building the social homes we need more quickly without interference from the Government, who, if they are in their right minds, would say yes anyway.
I am not sure that it is quite as big, difficult and dramatic as that-we just did it. We believe that the priority must be more social housing. We believe in better protections for existing stock and a housing system that works for those who need it most. We do not believe that these amendments help us to achieve that. I completely respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and his team on this. I believe this is a legitimate political difference and we are just not going to agree on it, hence my short but sweet contribution. I hope to continue in that vein throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening-but not too late into the evening, I hope.
My Lords, it is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for thanking our Secretary of State, Steve Reed, for his service to housing, local government and communities. He has worked tirelessly in his time to ensure that our places and the people in them can achieve their full potential. I wish him well for the future. I know he will continue to serve from the Back Benches, or wherever else he ends up in government. Thank you very much, Steve. It is a great pleasure to bring the Report stage of the Social Housing Bill before the House today. My town was built to house people from war-torn London in 1946, and my passionate belief that good homes are the foundation for people and places achieving their potential comes from that. Our Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. In July 2025 we set out a plan for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing, including a reinvigoration of council house building, and we have since launched a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, with a focus on maximising delivery and increasing the supply of social rent homes. The Bill supports councils to build more homes, alongside funding through the Council Housebuilding Support Fund, allowing councils to combine right to buy receipts with a...
On Amendment 5, I refer again to the arguments I set out in Committee to resist this amendment. Clause 6 ensures that discounts available as a percentage of the property value align with the changes already implemented to cash discounts. A discount starting at 35% of the property value, as is in place now, will practically never apply in many areas of the country, given the revised cash caps. By amending the discounts available as a percentage of the property value, we are ensuring that those who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for the longest continue to receive the greatest benefit. Importantly, Clause 6 extends the period during which landlords may require repayment of the right-to-buy discount if the property is resold, which is necessary to reduce the incentive for early resale and profiteering.
The Government oppose Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as we did in Committee. Extending the right of first refusal so it applies in perpetuity will give councils more opportunity to buy back homes sold through the scheme. I believe we all share a desire for more social rented homes, and this amendment would directly oppose that. Clause 7 will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measure comes into force. Homes already sold will remain subject to the terms of the covenants attached to them. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on the implementation of the measure and keep its impact under review, noting the concerns in relation to subsequent sales.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, for Amendment 7, on which both have engaged constructively with me since Committee. I recognise the importance of ensuring that affordable housing in rural communities continues to receive appropriate protection. The thresholds referred to in Amendment 7 are long-established criteria which underpin the current rural designation framework. I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord and, while I continue to believe it unnecessary to place the criteria in the Bill, as the noble Lord has already recognised, the Government will commit to introducing a power to enable the criteria to be set out in regulations. We are willing to explore allowing local authorities to self-designate where they meet the criteria. If self-designation is not granted, there will be the opportunity for new areas to come forward and apply for designation where they meet the rural criteria. I hope this commitment provides the noble Lords with sufficient reassurance. My officials are happy to continue to discuss the issue with them, as am I.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 8. This would reduce the period for which newly built social housing is exempt from the right to buy from 35 years to 10 years. The duration of the exemption for new builds should cover the period in which rental income pays back the costs of delivery of a new home, otherwise councils will continue to face a strong disincentive to build. The payback period is generally between 30 and 50 years, depending on site viability. Therefore, 35 years is a proportionate period that gives councils meaningful assurance while preserving the reformed right to buy for long-standing tenants. A 10-year exemption would not provide the same certainty and incentive for councils to build, which is the objective we all share.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Coffey, for Amendments 9 to 12. As I set out during Committee when responding to similar amendments, the Government already publish extensive information on the operation of the right-to-buy scheme. I am happy to write to noble Lords-indeed, they should have received something today that provides more information on where this data and the annual releases can be found and what they contain. This data provides Parliament and the public with a clear and transparent picture of how the scheme is operating and its impact on housing supply. We also publish annual data on the number of right-to-acquire sales by private registered providers. The data can be broken down by each local authority, so I maintain that there is no need for a new statutory reporting requirement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for returning to the issue of the local recycling of right-to-buy receipts in Amendment 24. This is, however, again a matter that the House considered in Committee and the Government’s position has not changed. The existing right-to-buy receipts framework already provides significant assurance for receipts to support housing delivery within the areas in which they were generated. Local authorities can work with other councils and housing providers, and, where receipts are returned, Homes England and the Greater London Authority already seek to reinvest funding, where possible, in the areas from which receipts originated.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I did not experience any problems in transferring receipts, but I am happy to continue to discuss that with the noble Lord if he can give us examples of where it has been an issue. The Government have extended the period for spending receipts to 10 years for receipts generated from 2027-28 onwards. That gives councils a greater opportunity to retain and deploy funding locally. The noble Lord’s Amendment 24 is therefore unnecessary.
On the basis of the reasons that I have set out and the reassurances I have given, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
My Lords, I should have declared at the outset that I am still a council member in Central Bedfordshire. This debate has highlighted a number of important issues concerning the future of right to buy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for raising the issue of access to rural housing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for raising the issue of transparency, which is important, and my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the issue of retention of local receipts. However, I return to my main theme, which I discussed earlier. Right to buy and recycling the receipts from it gives an opportunity for people to own their own home. It enables the building of more social housing and reduces the housing list, because a new home is 100% available: you do not have to wait, on average, 30 years for that house to become available. It also increases the housing stock of this country. That is win-win-win. Stopping right to buy is lose-lose-lose. It stops aspiration. It will mean longer council housing waiting lists and fewer homes being built. It is particularly egregious that those who are already secure tenants will be denied the opportunity to buy their own home after three years, something that they could reasonably expect to do. I am therefore still minded to press my Amendment 1 and its consequential Amendment 2, because this is about fairness and opportunity. On these Benches, we think this is an important issue and we wish to protect it. I...
Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.
Clause 4: Timescales
Amendment 4 not moved.
Clause 6: Discount
Amendment 5 not moved.
Clause 7: Right of first refusal
Amendment 6 not moved.
Clause 8: Exceptions to the Right to Buy
Amendments 7 and 8 not moved
Amendment 9 not moved.
As Amendment 9 has not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 10 to 12. Clause 12: Restriction on certain sales of social housing by private registered providers Amendment 13
Moved by
13: Clause 12, page 11, line 24, leave out “C” and insert “D”
My Lords, I am grateful for the advice of the Local Councils Network on a number of amendments that I have tabled in this group, and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and, on one amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Bill’s objective is to provide more social housing and protect our existing stock from ongoing dilution. The previous Government built roughly 130,000 new affordable homes in their five-year period. However, during that period, 28,000 social houses were disposed of. In the first year of this Government, 28,000 affordable homes are being built, but 5,806 have been lost from the social housing stock through disposal. The first group that we looked at this afternoon dealt with the right to buy. These amendments concentrate on three things. First, they address other leaks in the bucket where social rent homes are being disposed of through sale. The exact figures are not known, but we estimate that there are 5,000 a year. Secondly, they would strengthen the provision where social houses are disposed of, so that proceeds are used to provide replacement social rent housing. Thirdly, they try to improve information on what exactly is going on here by requiring the collection of relevant data so that affordable housing is distinguished from social rent housing-we do not do that currently. In Committee, the Minister was concerned about my amendment compromising the categorisation of private registered housing providers with government debt....
My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and shall speak to my own Amendments 14 and 16 in this group. I declare my housing interests as on the register, not least as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, to which I am grateful for its help with this amendment. The sale of social housing properties that have become expensive to repair and maintain, or are simply situated in an inconvenient location, has become a contentious issue for the housing association sector. The LGA has calculated that in 2024-25 alone, 5,250 social housing homes were sold to private buyers, often at auction and no doubt often to private landlords who will be less scrupulous about letting them in poor condition. These homes are lost to the social housing stock even where the properties may be among the only remaining social rented accommodation for less affluent people in the area. The financial case for these disposals may be clear, but disposals of hard-to-replace social housing are seldom in the public interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, noted, the Government recognise this issue, to the extent that the Bill introduces a requirement for a social landlord to notify the relevant council of their intentions to sell four weeks in advance. This provides at least a fleeting opportunity for intervention that could save the property from leaving the social housing sector. A local authority keen to preserve the accommodation as social housing...
Following meetings with the Minister, I understand that the Government accept the need for some extension of the timescale for notice to be given of a proposed sale. I look forward to hearing further detail, and I am grateful for the Minister’s attention to this matter.
Other amendments in this group take the notification issue a step further. Amendment 15 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, would add a right of first refusal when a disposal is proposed, but not a right for local authorities. Expert advice suggests a problem: if this right of first refusal took the form of a legal right for the council to intervene to buy the property, this might risk housing associations being reclassified as public bodies and, therefore, their substantial debts being added to the national debt. But a right of first refusal, as in Amendment 15, could be given to another housing association; for example, one managing and maintaining stock nearby.
My Amendment 16 would add a requirement for information about the properties that will be subject to the requirement for notification of impending plans to sell. The amendment would require the social landlord to say whether the property has been adapted to make it more accessible to wheelchair users or those with mobility problems. Adapted properties at social rents are real gold dust, and not to be discarded lightly. The property is likely to have used a disabled facilities grant, and it would be entirely wasteful for this investment to be scrapped simply because there was no understanding of the property’s adaptation. I hope that the Minister agrees that the information should be part of the notification duty.
Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would oblige the vendor housing association to provide lots more information about the property; this should speed up the decision-making about its future.
The amendments in this group invite the Minister to beef up the Bill’s rather gentle nudge to encourage social landlords to behave responsibly in selling their existing properties. I know that the Minister has been taking another look at this clause, and I understand that she is persuaded that we need to extend the statutory minimum currently in the Bill beyond four weeks, not least because she is familiar with the constraints on timing for local authorities to take action. I look forward to hearing her positive response.
My Lords, as heralded, I support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. As he said, I am particularly interested in the 12-week delay proposed here for rural properties. I will not explain again the vital importance of affordable housing to virtually every rural community or how vital it is that we retain each and every house, wherever and whenever we can-I have already been through all that. But once sold, it is difficult to replace those houses, as land and opportunities for new, affordable development are often scarce in the affected rural community, particularly where the landscape might be protected or where the adequacy of the local infrastructure, such as power, water and drains, is a restricting factor. The problem is that, very often, such rural stock is old and in need of expensive modernising, particularly with the need to achieve energy efficiency and EPC targets. To make matters worse, virtually all rural homes have high market values, which, if they are sold, could pay for larger housing projects elsewhere. Incidentally, these higher market values are why we desperately need more affordable homes to rent in rural communities. The point is that the registered provider’s business case for these disposal decisions is quite hard to argue against; as a result, the evidence shows, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, that there has been a significant increase in rural disposals over the last five years, particularly by larger registered providers....
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 in my name and add my voice to the amendments I co-signed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford. He has already set out very clearly why we want this further information. Although we debated Amendment 24 in the last group, it is the same process-as has just been set out to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington-that, once these houses go out of the social housing market to whoever, then we have a problem. That is why I am concerned about how the disposal is done. In Committee, I suggested that we should not have any cash purchase at all. This time, in Amendment 18, I have suggested that, where there is an auction, it should be possible for someone to be able to buy it who is not a cash buyer. It genuinely astonished me in Committee that the Labour Government did not want to do that; they wanted only cash buyers and did not care that people who are unable to apply for a mortgage might not have a quarter of a million or more to spend when they try to buy a home in the village they live in. I hope the Government have reflected on trying to make sure that local housing is open to local people. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, discussed the situation with big plots, and that is exactly what happened in Orford. Somehow, the housing association did not notice when its tenant had started rebuilding-or rather, destroying-parts of the house. There was a big garden; if it had been a commercial...
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22, which again is about transparency. I am sure the Minister is going to say again that all the information is out there, but this is actually about collating it, so that we do not have to hunt for it, and it is easy to read. I am grateful to the Local Councils Network for highlighting this issue and the gap in current reporting arrangements. This amendment would require post-disposal reporting to distinguish between homes let at social rent and those let at affordable rent. It would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish annual data in a form that allows useful analysis over time. This is important as, although both tenures fall within the broad category of affordable housing, they are not the same. Social rent remains the only tenure that is genuinely affordable for many households on the lowest income, while affordable rent can be set at up to 80% of market rent. If social rent homes are being sold and replaced by homes at affordable rent, it represents a significant change in the nature of our social housing stock. At present, Parliament has no way of assessing whether that is actually happening. The Regulator of Social Housing has confirmed that it has collected disposal data since 2017 but has never published any analysis of it. As a result, although we know that more than 28,000 homes have been permanently sold out of the social housing sector since 2018-19 through disposals, we cannot establish just how many of those...
My Lords, I will continue with the brevity. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate. Given it is my first time speaking this afternoon, I remind your Lordships of my interest as a part-owner of a rental property in Bexley and as a vice-president of London Councils. We have heard a range of important contributions on how the disposal of social housing should be managed, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey and to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward these amendments for consideration. First, there is the importance of transparency. Whether through the provision of additional information on sales notices, the establishment of a national register or post-disposal reporting requirements, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the need for greater visibility of what is being sold, to whom, and with what consequences for local housing provision. Secondly, there has been a strong focus on ensuring that social housing assets remain within the sector, wherever reasonably practicable. Amendments concerning notification periods, opportunities for other registered providers to purchase properties and the development of a code of responsible disposal practice all seek to address that objective. Thirdly, several amendments have recognised that not all social housing is the same. Homes adapted for people...
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. I will now address those amendments relating to the operation of the disposals measure in the Bill. This measure is simple: it will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. In doing so, we hope it will do what we all want it to do, which is to maximise opportunities for other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes. The new requirement must of course be balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are free to make their own responsible decisions about how to manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. I am pleased that noble Lords are largely supportive of the measure, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues raised in Committee with noble Lords ahead of this debate.
I turn first to Amendment 14, from the noble Lord, Lord Best. I know that several noble Lords are sympathetic to extending the minimum period following a notice and before sale beyond the current four weeks. I have also heard clearly the concerns about the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. There is no right or wrong period for the time that must elapse before sale; this is just the minimum. I would expect that a private registered provider would wish to engage and be flexible beyond whatever the statutory minimum period is. However, I have also heard clearly the view that the current four-week period is insufficient. In particular, I know that many local authorities are concerned that this would not align well with possible internal timing constraints, such as consideration by cabinets or committees that may normally meet only on a monthly basis. I am therefore persuaded of the case to extend the statutory minimum currently in the Bill. I would like to consider further what that period should be, but I will commit that the Government will return with a future amendment to extend the current four-week minimum.
However, I am not persuaded of the case for a different and longer period for rural areas. I am also inclined to think that a statutory minimum of 12 weeks may unnecessarily delay sales progressing and require providers to deal with the additional burden and cost associated with having homes left unoccupied for extended periods. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Local authorities have funding available in order to consider these sales. They are more than able to consider whether the market value at which the property is being offered represents good value for them, and they can do that fairly speedily. They are able to carry out survey work of their own, if they wish to do so.
Amendments 13 and 15, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a pause to the disposal process where another registered provider in the local area expresses a wish to purchase a property. I should say that, where there is a serious active interest from another registered provider, I would expect the landlord disposing of the property to take that interest seriously, given that it is in their interest to find a purchaser for their property. Nothing compels a landlord to dispose of a property as soon as the notification period has ended and it is their decision as to how quickly they proceed. However, the Government cannot support this amendment, because a requirement that would put on hold any sale where there is interest from another local registered provider risks introducing unnecessary delay and uncertainty into the disposals process.
The further Amendment 16, from the noble Lord, Lord Best, returns to the question of whether the notice should contain information about how a property has been adapted. As I indicated in Committee, I am sympathetic to what lies behind this amendment. Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would extend further the information that must be required in all notices to include, for example, whether a property complies with the decent homes standard and its EPC rating. My primary concern with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, is whether it successfully identifies the right information or at a level of detail that would deliver the outcomes his amendment seeks to achieve.
Currently, new Section 171C(1) outlines the information that should be included in a notice. It is focused on information that all providers should have about their properties, and that will be relevant to all other providers receiving the notification. This includes the address and the type of dwelling. Adding more information requirements would risk mandating information that is not relevant or useful to providers seeking to purchase homes, and that is not readily held by providers seeking to dispose of their homes. We certainly would not wish to see information requirements introduced that would require additional reports to be produced or surveys carried out. Adding too many requirements to the notification process risks imposing additional unnecessary burdens on providers, both those receiving information and those providing it.
Similarly, I have concerns with the length of the list of matters that are considered essential to include in a sales notice, as suggested by Amendment 17. Individual providers will always be able to make further inquiries on matters that might be of particular interest to them beyond the statutory minimum. However, I have asked my officials to continue to engage with representative bodies across the sector to gather their views on how we might deliver the right outcomes without imposing unnecessary burdens. I hope that reassures noble Lords.
I now turn to Amendments 18 to 20, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I was grateful for the explanation of the difference between a “modern method of auction” and an “unconditional” auction approach, the latter of which can favour the cash buyer. I understand the aim of these amendments: namely that, by preventing sales at auctions being restricted just to cash purchasers, homes end up in the hands of “traditional” purchasers, such as first-time buyers, rather than professional landlords and developers. However, it is important that private registered providers take their own responsible decisions about managing their assets, including on the means of sale. I therefore cannot support an approach that would require all sales by auction to be on the basis set out in these amendments.
Amendment 21, from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, sets out requirements about the collection and publication of disposals information. The same amendment on post-disposal reporting has also been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in Amendment 22. The Regulator of Social Housing already requires certain information from private registered providers after a disposal, including information on the type of dwelling disposed of, whether the home was occupied and the recipient. The regulator publishes information annually on disposals. I am therefore not convinced that further legislation is required to achieve the aim of this amendment. Where there are specific further ideas about how data collection might be improved and published, these can be taken up directly with the Regulator of Social Housing. Now would be an opportune time to do so, as the regulator considers its economic regulatory regime. I will ask my officials to follow up and to facilitate the relevant conversations with the regulator to discuss this. I do not see what place another guide or code would have in addition to these regulatory standards. I therefore ask that noble Lords do not press this amendment.
Amendment 27, from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce restrictions relating to how capital grant recycled from social housing can be reinvested into the provision of further social housing. In previous debates, noble Lords have reflected the challenges that arise when a home is lost from a local community and where proceeds are reinvested in the provision of social housing elsewhere. I am of course sympathetic to the challenges and would expect that, wherever possible, registered providers are considering how they can reinvest recycled grant into the communities from which it has originated.
Homes England already sets a series of conditions on how recycled capital grant may be used. These include the expectation that providers deploy recycled grant in support of identified housing need and in line with investment priorities set out in local plans. These conditions seek to strike a balance between ensuring the provision of much-needed homes and not unduly restricting the use of grant in a way that may compromise the delivery of new social homes altogether. The varied circumstances that registered providers operate within-for example, some may be directly developing new homes whereas others may invest in the social housing sector through other means-supports a more flexible approach to the use of recycled grant. With this in mind, I am not persuaded by the value of introducing further restrictions on the use of recycled grant and kindly ask the noble Lord and noble Baroness not to press their amendment.
My Lords, I do not see a particular need to wind up on these amendments. The concession that the Minister has made on Amendment 14 is pretty acceptable, given what is being asked. I was disappointed by her not moving on rural housing, but those are not really my amendments. Generally, I can see why the Minister is worried about delay and overbureaucratisation, but I am disappointed that she has not been prepared to go further, particularly on the provision of information. Although the information is there, certain aspects are not being collected and it is not being publicised. The Government should have an interest in knowing exactly what is going on here and following through on it. However, having heard the Minister’s response, certainly to my amendments, I do not propose to press them.
The point I was trying to make was that the Regulator of Social Housing is undergoing a complete review of that subject at the moment. I think it is appropriate for us to feed all that into the regulator’s review and let it work out with the sector what information is appropriate.
I am very grateful to the Minister for suggesting that, certainly on Amendment 21. In other respects, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 13 withdrawn.
Amendments 14 to 22 not moved.
Amendment 23
Moved by
23: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause- “Shared ownership homes: buybacks, affordability and stock retention(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place under the Social and Affordable Homes Programme, or any successor programme, to support the acquisition or buyback of shared ownership homes which are unsellable or unmortgageable, to prevent the loss of affordable housing stock through open market sale.(2) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of those arrangements within six months of the passing of this Act.(3) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data on shared ownership homes which leave the affordable housing sector through open market sale. (4) The data published under subsection (3) must be disaggregated by the primary reason for sale, where known, including-(a) financial hardship or affordability pressures experienced by the shared owner;(b) repossession;(c) mortgageability issues as a result of building safety defects, remediation liabilities or associated costs;(d) lease length, lease terms or other lease-related restrictions;(e) simultaneous staircasing to 100% and resale;(f) such other categories as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must publish annually a summary analysis of the data collected under subsections (3) and (4), including an assessment of the extent to which sales are attributable to affordability pressures, mortgageability issues,...
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 25 in this group, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, which calls for a review of shared ownership, before I move back to the more specific but related Amendment 23, which focuses on the need for buybacks. We had an extensive debate in Committee about the problems facing shared owners. I will not repeat them but I can briefly summarise the main themes, which have since been reinforced by organisations representing shared owners, in particular Shared Ownership Resources and the Shared Owners’ Network. I am grateful to Sue Phillips and Carine Marzin for their help. The problems facing shared owners are basically ongoing affordability, service charges, fees, problems with staircasing and lease extension and, finally, barriers to sale and, crucially, the absence of buyback when misfortune strikes. Concerns about shared ownership have been raised not simply by the media, individual owners or campaigners. They have also been identified by two separate Select Committee inquiries, questioning the degree to which shared ownership, as currently constituted, remains affordable for households once they have entered the scheme. Following our debate in Committee, the Minister kindly held a meeting with me and colleagues-she has always been very generous with her time. She agreed to reflect on what we said. True to her word, she then wrote to us on 13 July. It is a detailed letter, seven pages long, for which I am...
The Minister argues that the current model is constraining neither supply nor demand, but that looks just at the beginning. Down stream, shared owner satisfaction is low, and it decreases the longer the shared owner remains in the property. A survey of more than 1,700 prospective and current shared owners by the Shared Ownership Council in 2024 found that average shared owner satisfaction with their landlord’s service dropped from around 59% in the first year to 28% after five to nine years. The Regulator of Social Housing’s recently introduced tenant satisfaction measures similarly finds low satisfaction.
The reality is that the Government do not know whether the current model is actually working. They have no national data on ongoing affordability or transition to full ownership. They do not know how many shared owners suffer equity loss when they sell, or how many homes become effectively unmortgageable because service charges become too high or leases become too short. Nor do they know-this is particularly important-what proportion of shared ownership homes are successfully sold to another shared owner during the nomination period. Taken together, these are fundamental indicators of whether the current model remains financially sustainable for the households it was designed to help. Proposed new subsection (4) in Amendment 23 puts that right with a call for data.
But it is the second factor, the absence of buyback, that is the most important area of disagreement. There are a number of barriers to sale that can result in shared ownership homes becoming unsellable and unmortgageable. The building safety crisis, of course, not foreseen when the shared ownership model was devised, is the principal factor, but there are also inherent aspects of the model, including short 99-year leases, obsolete 80% staircasing caps, high service charges under complex ownership structures and the older person’s shared ownership extra care business model.
By definition, shared owners are not well off. If they were, they would not be eligible for shared ownership. Those affected by the building safety crisis are simply unable to cope with the waking watches, the increased insurance and service charges post Grenfell. Others may find that the purchase is financially unsustainable or have other valid reasons to vacate the property, but they find that intractable barriers to sale mean that they are trapped in unmortgageable flats with no viable exit route.
The Minister will not move on buyback. She says she is taking forward wider work on remediation and reform, but that is going to take years. The End Our Cladding Scandal campaign has said that the remediation Bill is silent on shared ownership concerns. Noble Lords will have received many emails over the weekend from Justine, Keran, Eddie, Ross, Holly, Suzan and many others who have written to me, and they cannot wait. Nor can James, whose moving letter the Minister has. These are mainly young people whose dreams have been shattered and whose lives have been upturned, trapped in unsellable properties, who can see no way out.
The Minister says that shared ownership landlords can already buy back shared ownership homes. But they do not. In the past three years, Homes England has funded 41 requests, a fraction of those caught up in the post-Grenfell scandal or whose shared ownership properties are otherwise unsellable, largely due to the characteristics of shared ownership lease terms. The Minister’s letter says she has the utmost sympathy for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to sell their homes, but she offers no practical solution.
Amendment 23 does that. It would give the Secretary of State six months to put in place a buyback scheme for homes that are unsellable and unmortgageable. As I previously argued during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, a dedicated allocation to support the buyback of unmortgageable shared ownership properties within the current social and affordable homes programme is the solution. Access to that funding should be governed by transparent national criteria so that all requests are considered consistently rather than depending, as now, on the policies of any individual registered provider.
Two years after a Select Committee recommended that buyback should be considered as part of the solution, it is time for the Government to act decisively to protect existing shared owners from financial harm and to restore confidence in the model. Shared owners have been failed by a scheme that was intended to help them. This was not Parliament’s intention when shared ownership was promoted as a stepping stone into home ownership. I beg to move and reserve the right to test the opinion of the House on either or both amendments.
My Lords, I strongly support the shared ownership review proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, who have added their names. In Committee, I drew attention to the asymmetry of powers and the imbalance in negotiating strength between the landlord and tenant in the case of shared ownership. I trod carefully when I characterised those who entered into these arrangements as financially unsophisticated, but the truth is that, in their natural desire to own at least part of their home, they have signed up to a situation with the certainty of all the costs but only the possibility of some of the uplifts if they happen. The terms of trade are stacked against them. My noble friend Lord Young has raised several issues specific to shared ownership, which I will not repeat. Each is important in its own way. The Government feel that they are all independent of each other. The Government want to deal with them one at a time rather than all together, which is wrong. My noble friend concludes that the issues are harming, possibly irreparably, the case of shared ownership. I agree. I am speaking in this debate because, after Committee, I was contacted by a shared ownership tenant, Lucy Hassall, who had heard what I had to say. She is sitting below the Bar of the House today. I want to use her case to prove the need for a fundamental review to reinvigorate the case for a fair and reasonable shared ownership...
My Lords, the joys of following the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller; I will be less hyperbolic but sincere and completely agree with what has been said. The Minister will not be surprised that we on these Benches strongly support these amendments. She has been very generous with her time and commitment to this issue. However, we have reached a crunch point, which is why we will support these amendments and why we were pleased that they have been brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has outlined everything clearly. I would go so far as to say that I do not really want another review; the facts are already known. Much work has already been done and some of the things that are wrong need urgent remediation, not waiting and waiting for a review, an outcome and the rest of it, but we are where we are. Buyback and staircasing are the two main issue. Just imagine the horror. It is Kafkaesque to be unsellable and unmortgaged. Just think about that. I am certain that this would prey on anybody’s mental health. We need urgent action. Shared ownership is supposed to provide a route into homeownership. We on these Benches believe that it is a legitimate route for those who cannot afford to buy outright, especially in areas with high housing costs. We have all been contacted by very real people in very real circumstances; you do not want to be there. There does not seem to be a way out. I found the Minister’s letter very clear and compassionate, but...
Unfortunately, it is not a limited problem. There are now around 252,000 shared ownership households in England. Official and parliamentary reports have highlighted ongoing concerns about affordability complaints and barriers: we know the problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, recent satisfaction surveys showed that fewer than half were satisfied with the service. I emphasise that: fewer than half.
I put slightly it more bluntly in my notes: scrap it or rescue those who are trapped; or reform it and still rescue those who are trapped. These amendments are about fairness. When people are trapped by building safety defects, negative equity or other circumstances beyond their control, there must be a meaningful route out. That route should be made clear, as quickly as possible. Shared ownership should offer security and opportunity, not years of financial hardship and personal limbo. That is the real essence for me: it feels as if we are all in limbo on this, including the Government.
For that reason, I truly hope that the Minister can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others that she and the Government are “on it”, and that there will be very real actions to come to the aid of those hundreds of thousands of households living in this nightmare scenario.
My Lords, it a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made such comprehensive cases for Amendments 23 and 25. I have added my name to Amendment 25. I declare my interests as a former non-executive on both Southern and Aster housing association boards and as the current chair of Look Ahead, which does not own any shared ownership homes but, I am pleased to tell your Lordships, works with rough sleepers-so I welcome the new Prime Minister’s remarks today. Shared Ownership Resources is a charity that has sent information to me and other noble Lords regarding the urgent need to undertake a programme of improvements, exit mechanisms and buyback options to improve the situation of some shared owners, who appear to be trapped with spiralling service charges and the need for essential maintenance and upgrades to the buildings in which they live. These problems are in part a result of recommendations for fire cladding standards associated with the Grenfell fire. I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in trying to improve the lot of shared owners, which will make the situation much better for many in the future. Problems, however, are of long standing, particularly for shared owners of flats in modern blocks who purchased prior to the Grenfell tragedy. I stand here as the mother of a teacher who was in a shared ownership property in Brixon-a converted Victorian flat-that was highly successful for her. She...
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 25 in this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill. This amendment calls for a review of shared ownership. I emphasise that this proposed review should cover the special circumstances of shared ownership for older people. Fortunately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I have the honour to chair, produced an excellent analysis of the key issues back in 2023 from our inquiry into shared ownership for an ageing population. A large section of our ageing population cannot afford to downsize to more manageable, accessible homes but will never be eligible for social housing. This squeezed middle can benefit in later life from the opportunity to move from family-sized accommodation to somewhere more compact, starting a chain of sales that help young and old alike. Savings accrue to the NHS and social care, alongside the direct benefits to the older person, but it has been a struggle to find a form of shared ownership that can be provided on an affordable basis for the less affluent home owner. The right shared ownership model could achieve this. Homes England has devised its own older people’s shared ownership model-OPSO. The trouble is that this product currently involves an anomalous form of grant aid, which needs fixing. The OPSO grant means that, if potential occupiers can afford a 75%...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. They have brought forward these amendments and highlighted the very real challenges faced by many shared owners. I thank Lucy and the many others who have shared their examples with us that have brought this to light. This has been a valuable debate on an area of housing policy which was intended to provide a bridge to home ownership but which, for some households, has been increasingly difficult to navigate. We have heard concerns about affordability, rising service charges, the costs associated with staircasing and the difficulties faced by leaseholders whose homes may be difficult to sell or mortgage. We have also heard concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock, where shared ownership properties leave the sector altogether. The amendments before us seek above all to shine a light on these issues. Amendment 23 focuses on gathering better evidence about unsaleable and unmortgageable homes and on understanding the extent to which affordable housing stock is being lost. Amendment 25 asks the Government to undertake a broader review of whether the shared ownership model is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve. From these Benches, we continue to support the principle of shared ownership as a route into home ownership...
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling Amendments 23 and 25, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill, for their support. I recognise the constructive and persistent way in which the noble Lord has raised issues relating to shared ownership throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, in previous Bills. In my responses, I in no way want to undermine the difficulties of shared owners, which I understand have caused great anxiety and for which I am deeply sympathetic. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the department is doing to provide support for some of the issues the noble Lord raised. I turn first to Amendment 23. Shared ownership landlords are independent bodies and decisions about the repurchase of individual homes sit with them. However, landlords already have the option to buy back homes, including where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues. Landlords can already use their recycled capital grant funding to cover up to 100% of the cost of that. Furthermore, allocating social and affordable homes programme grant funding for use on shared ownership buybacks would not be conducive to the core strategic objective of that new programme, which is to maximise supply, particularly of social rent homes. We expect landlords to set out any buyback policies, or confirm if they do not have one, on their websites. Ultimately, the solution for those struggling to sell their...
In summer 2025, we published a Remediation Acceleration Plan Update , which went even further to remove barriers, strengthen accountability and expedite remediation, including over £1 billion in new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing, giving social landlords equal access to government funding schemes with immediate effect.
I remind Members opposite that a remediation Bill will soon be before the House-the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill-which will compel responsible entities to remediate their buildings or risk criminal prosecution. We are bringing forward that Bill just two years after taking office, whereas little had happened when we took over, seven years after Grenfell. I look forward to discussing that Bill with Members of the House.
Separately, provisions within the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, once implemented, will give shared owners a statutory right to a lease extension and therefore aid shared owners struggling to sell or remortgage their home due to the diminishing length of their lease. For those reasons, we do not think additional social and affordable housing programme funding for use on buybacks of shared ownership homes is necessary.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, on data, we have already made improvements to shared ownership data collection via the continuous reporting of social housing sales log. It is a condition of receiving grant funding that landlords complete this log for shared ownership sales. These changes will help us better understand when shared ownership homes are lost to open market sale. We continue to keep data requirements under review while balancing the value of additional information against the reporting burden placed on landlords and the practicalities of collecting information about what are often individuals’ very personal circumstances.
On Amendment 25, shared ownership is a long-standing product that has been continually reviewed and improved upon. The Government want to ensure that shared ownership continues to work effectively for customers. As such, we have a programme of improvements in place, not tackling the issues in a piecemeal or fragmented way but a programme of activity aimed at making shared ownership more transparent, easier to understand and navigate, and more affordable to customers in the long run. This programme of work will also consider the staircasing process with the aim of removing barriers and lowering costs.
On the comments about older people’s housing by the noble Lord, Lord Best, I have already commenced discussions with the Associated Retirement Community Operators, following its annual conference three weeks ago. I have only recently taken over the portfolio for older people’s housing, but I am exploring the models ARCO has advocated, so that we can look into developments in this area, such as housing in New Zealand that is working particularly well. I want to explore such models so that we can see whether we need to amend the drafting of the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill to facilitate those types of approaches. We expect to make good progress on this whole programme within the next year, and I will update the House within that timeframe with a view to implementing changes by the end of this Parliament, and sooner where we possibly can.
In addition, targeted measures have already been introduced through the launch of the social and affordable homes programme. They include measures to improve the fairness and transparency of costs and reduce service charges through the design and management of new buildings. Measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will, once implemented, drive up service charge transparency for all leaseholders, including shared owners.
Finally, the Government have taken care to create an environment in which social and affordable housing can be delivered with confidence. Therefore, we wish to ensure that any further changes to shared ownership do not undermine that. For those reasons, we are resisting this amendment. However, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their continued engagement on shared ownership matters. I look forward to working with them further on the practical steps that the Government can take to improve shared ownership. In the meantime, I hope that they will not press their amendments.
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate-my noble friend Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady O’Neill on the Front Bench. There is agreement that shared ownership is a useful stepping stone to home ownership. The trouble is that, at the moment, for far too many people, the stepping stones do not reach the other bank. I listened to what the Minister said, but she basically repeated what was in her letter and did not go as far as I would have liked. For example, she said that social landlords could buy and could implement buyback, but we have had email after email over the weekend explaining that the social landlords are not buying back. She went on to say that the answer is remediation, but remediation will not be complete until 2031 at the earliest. These people simply cannot wait. The Minister also made it clear that she is not prepared to review the model of shared ownership, for the reasons she gave. I had hoped that she would produce a rabbit out of a hat. She produced a hat, but sadly there was no rabbit in it. It would be greedy of me to test the patience of the House by voting on both Amendment 23 and Amendment 25. My view is that Amendment 25 picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and that paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (2) cover the key point about buyback. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23 and, when the time comes, I will...
Amendment 23 withdrawn.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Amendment 25
Moved by
25: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause- “Review of shared ownership and staircasing(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the operation and effectiveness of the shared ownership scheme in England.(2) The review must consider in particular-(a) the affordability of shared ownership for leaseholders;(b) the extent to which shared ownership provides a viable route to full home ownership; (c) the operation of staircasing arrangements, including the costs, fees and valuation requirements associated with the purchase of additional shares;(d) barriers faced by shared ownership leaseholders in staircasing to higher levels of ownership or to full ownership;(e) the impact of service charges, repairs obligations and other housing costs on shared ownership leaseholders;(f) whether legislative or regulatory changes are required to improve transparency, affordability and access to full ownership.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”
I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Amendments 26 and 27 not moved.
Amendment 28
Moved by
28: After Clause 13, 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 registered provider must grant 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 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 member of the tenant’s household.(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the registered provider concerned must...
My Lords, this group of amendments begins with Amendment 28, in my name, and covers a range of different but vital issues. The concluding Amendment 76 in the group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, addresses the treatment of abuse victims who get into debt while living in temporary accommodation and lose their entitlement to a secure home. As I am sure the noble Baroness will explain, that is a vital amendment. I greatly welcome the wider definition of domestic abuse announced by the Minister in her letter to Peers of 14 July and encapsulated in the 46 government amendments in this group. Amendment 28 picks up on a separate but related issue. It would ensure that social housing providers offered a new secure tenancy to a tenant who had been forced out of their social housing by threats of targeted youth or gang violence following police advice. This change was first proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. A constituent of hers, as instructed by the police, left her social rent home but thereby lost access to secure accommodation and was trapped in miserable temporary accommodation, with no right of return. She was penalised because one of her children had been threatened with serious violence by gang members, not because she or any member of her family had done anything wrong. Frighteningly, these cases of gang violence are not rare in some of our inner-city areas. The family of Helen Hayes’s constituent...
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, and I am delighted to see that it is grouped with the Government’s amendments extending protections for victims of domestic abuse, which I certainly support. I was grateful for the Minister’s constructive response to this amendment in Committee, especially her recognition that the matter needs further consideration and her commitment to convene interested stakeholders to explore a way forward. I know that representative bodies from across the social housing sector have been working with officials on the best way to solve the issue of access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspection repairs and safety works. In Committee, the Minister raised important concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home, and I agree that that is extremely important in safeguarding a tenant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. However, the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ask simply: are existing routes for access clear, consistent and fast enough when tenants and residents do not engage and clear safety risks are posed? I am convinced that the answer to this is no. We know that housing associations and councils increasingly report difficulties in gaining access to residents’ homes to carry out statutory safety inspections. Recent HQN research found that 60% of surveyed social landlords had growing or considerable concerns about access issues. The primary concern...
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 76 standing in my name, and I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This amendment would mean that landlords could not prevent domestic abuse survivors accessing social housing on the basis of debt incurred under coercive control or economic abuse. Research by Katherine Brickell of King’s College London and Mel Nowicki of Oxford Brookes University found that the allocations policies of only one in five local authorities in England currently exempt domestic abuse survivors from debt-related rules on social housing. During my periods as CEO of Shelter and before that Women’s Aid, I saw the desperate impact of these rules on women and children who ended up homeless in temporary accommodation. Let us be clear what this means. Temporary accommodation is often just one room in a B&B, a converted office block or a hotel. Laying the table for tea often means laying the bed for tea. I have seen a GCSE student with nowhere to work but sitting on the toilet. I have seen a baby who could not be put down to crawl because there was no space between the beds. I have seen families having to live on unhealthy and expensive takeaways because they have no cooking facilities. Add all these challenges to the unimaginable trauma of domestic abuse followed by homelessness and you can easily see why many women literally risk their lives by staying with the perpetrator to spare their children from...
Domestic abuse is one of the leading causes of homelessness among women, and women’s homelessness is increasing. The number of women sleeping rough in England increased by 8% between 2024 and 2025. Lone-mother households make up 57% of families homeless in temporary accommodation provided by councils, despite making up only 20% of families in the general population. In my experience at both Women’s Aid and Shelter-yes, this is personal experience-I found that it is rare to meet one of these women who is not a domestic abuse survivor. Domestic abuse is the second-most common reason for a household being owed a relief duty to accommodate them because of homelessness or the risk of homelessness. This is all households, both men and women; for women, the proportion would be much higher.
I know from the conversations we have had, and am really grateful to have had, that the Minister is as profoundly committed to protecting survivors of domestic abuse from homelessness as I am. Like me, she is acutely aware of the impact that coercive control and economic abuse have on the ability of survivors and their children to find the safe, secure home that is essential for their recovery and safety. I have clearly heard that the noble Baroness is personally committed to finding a solution to the problem I have outlined through guidance and secondary legislation.
New research has found that in December 2025 up to one in six households disqualified from a social home on the grounds of debt were those who were homeless and in temporary accommodation because of domestic abuse. These debts can be as little as £250, while public spending on temporary accommodation is set to reach £4 billion a year by the end of this decade. In this context where local authorities are shouldering this cost, it is no surprise that the Local Government Association is backing the amendment I have proposed. The amendment also has the support of the Chartered Institute of Housing, Women’s Aid and Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse.
I appreciate the work that the Minister is leading to ensure that new statutory guidance is sufficiently robust to achieve the results we are all looking for. I would also welcome a commitment to secondary legislation in the form of regulations if, as I strongly fear based on experience, even statutory guidance is not enough to ensure domestic abuse survivors can access their rights. Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that the guidance is clearly and comprehensively communicated to all social landlords and to introducing it as soon as possible so it achieves the ends we seek more quickly than my amendment would do? That would be an outcome to this debate that would transform the lives of domestic abuse survivors and their children.
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has made a very powerful case indeed, and I will not repeat what she has said. She emphasised that my noble friend the Minister is extremely sympathetic-she made that clear in Committee. She also said that she thought statutory guidance was the answer but that if it proved not to be sufficient, then, in effect, we have the necessary primary powers to take action. I simply want to ask my noble friend whether she could give an assurance that, in the event that the guidance proves insufficient as the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has warned it might do, the Government will use those powers. Can she say what steps will be taken to monitor compliance with the guidance? What does she consider a reasonable period to assess the effectiveness of the guidance? Can she also say-and this echoes the noble Baroness-what steps will be taken to ensure local authorities are aware of the guidance and what is expected of them under it?
My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is. I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse. Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing...
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims. It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition. During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle. We have also heard valuable...
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Neate, Lady Lister, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill. I will be moving government Amendments 30 to 75; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will move them en bloc and not one at a time. This Bill introduces important changes to give greater security and stability to social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse while giving landlords stronger powers to take action against perpetrators. While these protections have been warmly welcomed, we have listened closely to the legitimate concerns raised that the Bill’s protections, which focused on abuse involving a resident partner or that partner’s resident family member, are too narrow. They risk excluding victims of familial abuse in non-partner relationships, such as abuse between adult parents and adult children, siblings or other relatives. The government amendments close that gap. I especially thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for her engagement on this issue. The amendments align the Bill’s provisions more closely with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. by focusing on the victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and who occupies the home or has had to leave because of the abuse. They additionally make a number of consequential changes to who the court should consider when examining reasonableness under the discretionary ground or approving suitable...
Equally, this amendment would impact on core tenant rights of quiet enjoyment and engage ECHR Article 8 rights, among others. Tenant safety should be foundational for social landlords, but any new power must not replace the need for constructive engagement between landlords and tenants to solve issues. I think we all agree that that would always be the preferred route.
Therefore, it is important to fully consider the best ways to address the risks presented by refusal of access cases, and the operation and implications of any new power for the courts to grant the landlord authority to enter a tenant’s home. As such, the Government are giving careful consideration to this matter in advance of the Bill moving to the other place, and we will work with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and all the stakeholders that have been engaged in promoting this amendment to assess what options are available. In preparation, MHCLG officers-I mean officials; I am sorry, I am back in my council days-are already working constructively with providers, tenants and other groups to examine the case for and operation of a statutory right of access in these cases.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling Amendment 76. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s speech in Committee and have since had the opportunity to discuss the issue with her further. I have greatly benefited from the noble Baroness’s extensive experience in these discussions, as does your Lordships’ House.
The amendment reflects a view that I think we all share: that victims of domestic abuse should not be denied access to social housing due to the circumstances they find themselves in because of that abuse, including any housing-related debt they have incurred because of it. I hope the noble Baroness accepts the sincerity of our desire to address the issue. Where she has pressed, rightly, is on the detail of how we will do so.
In A National Plan to End Homelessness we committed to
“address the barriers faced by survivors of domestic abuse with debt when applying for social housing”
as part of our update to statutory guidance on social housing allocations. We continue to believe that guidance is the right route, rather than a rigid rule in primary legislation for an area that is inherently complex and case-specific, which could give rise to unintended consequences.
I recognise the noble Baroness’s concern about the pace of this work. I reassure her that we are already working with stakeholders on the guidance review and intend to consult on draft updated guidance in the early part of next year. I am happy to agree to her request that we commit to the communication of the guidance once we publish it. If guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the legislation-we have the powers to do that-as we did to exempt domestic abuse survivors from local connection tests. I am happy to commit to the House today that we will pursue changes to regulations, should the review of statutory guidance show that to be necessary. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and my noble friend Lady Lister.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for highlighting this important issue, and I hope she accepts our commitment to tackle it. In the meantime, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Best, will withdraw his amendment.
My Lords, it was a good debate, with approval from all sides for all the amendments in the group. It was good to hear the details of the 46 government amendments that will widen the definition of domestic abuse. Once again, it has been invaluable to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Teather, and to understand the Government’s sincere efforts to remedy the inherent injustices in the current arrangements for domestic abuse survivors through enhanced guidance. I thank the Minister for her very full and helpful response and for her firm commitment to take further action if guidance proves insufficient to protect victims of domestic abuse. On dangers from crimes of violence where the police have strongly advised a move, it is important to note the Minister’s commitment to strengthening the guidance to social landlords, now in preparation. This will, I hope, make a significant difference. When it comes to the no-access problem, we must await further action by government on the need for a change in the law for a statutory right of access, but I am greatly heartened by the willingness of the Minister to find a lasting solution. With these comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 28 withdrawn.
Amendment 29 not moved.
Schedule 1: Protection for victims of domestic abuse
Amendments 30 to 75
Moved by
30: Schedule 1, page 18, line 26, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
31: Schedule 1, page 18, line 30, leave out “before “partner who” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” in both places substitute “victim”” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
32: Schedule 1, page 18, line 33, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
33: Schedule 1, page 18, line 37, leave out “before “partner who” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” in both places substitute “victim”” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
34: Schedule 1, page 18, line 38, leave out “before “partner” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” substitute “victim”” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
35: Schedule 1, page 19, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert- “(c) the victim, or a victim, of the offence-(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.” Member’s explanatory statement This expands the scope of the absolute ground for possession in new section 84B. The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
36: Schedule 1, page 19, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert- “(b) the victim, or a victim, of the breach-(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement This expands the scope of the ground for possession in new section 84B. The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
37: Schedule 1, page 21, leave out lines 13 to 28 and insert- ““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who-(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to-(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour of the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement This defines terms used in other amendments of new section 84B in my name.
38: Schedule 1, page 22, line 6, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 7 and insert “- (i) the victim mentioned in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
39: Schedule 1, page 22, line 17, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 18 and insert “- (i) the victim mentioned in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
40: Schedule 1, page 22, line 39, leave out from first “the” to “about” in line 40 and insert “victim mentioned in that ground” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
41: Schedule 1, page 23, line 10, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 11 and insert “- (i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
42: Schedule 1, page 23, line 18, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 19 and insert “- (i) the victim mentioned in that section, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
43: Schedule 1, page 23, line 24, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
44: Schedule 1, page 23, line 31, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or any of the recipient tenants” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
45: Schedule 1, page 23, line 35, leave out “resident partner in question” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
46: Schedule 1, page 24, line 3, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 85B in my name.
47: Schedule 1, page 25, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert- “The following conditions are met in relation to a dwelling-house.Condition 1 is that there has been abusive behaviour by a person who is a tenant of the dwelling-house (“A”) towards a person (the “victim”) who-.(a) is personally connected to A, and(b) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.Condition 2 is that-”Member’s explanatory statement This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 2A). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
48: Schedule 1, page 25, line 25, leave out “the resident partner” and insert “- (i) the victim, or(ii) a member of the victim’s family,”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
49: Schedule 1, page 25, line 27, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
50: Schedule 1, page 25, line 29, leave out “the resident partner is not” and insert “neither the victim, nor any member of the victim’s family, is” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
51: Schedule 1, page 25, leave out lines 33 to 43 and insert- ““abusive” has the meaning given in section 1(3) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who-(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to-(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour of the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement This defines terms used in other amendments of new Ground 2A in my name.
52: Schedule 1, page 26, line 40, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
53: Schedule 1, page 26, line 42, leave out “before “partner who” insert “resident”” and insert “for “partner” in both places substitute “victim”” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
54: Schedule 1, page 27, line 3, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
55: Schedule 1, page 27, line 5, leave out ““the partner” substitute “the resident partner”” and insert ““partner” in both places substitute “victim”” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
56: Schedule 1, page 27, line 19, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 20 and insert “- (i) the victim who is referred to in the relevant ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
57: Schedule 1, page 27, line 29, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 30 and insert “- (i) the victim who is referred to in the relevant ground, or (ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against notices to quit served by the abusive tenant, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
58: Schedule 1, page 28, line 7, leave out from first “the” to “about” in line 8 and insert “victim mentioned in that ground” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.
59: Schedule 1, page 28, line 22, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 23 and insert “- (i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
60: Schedule 1, page 28, line 30, leave out from “and” to “are” in line 31 and insert “- (i) the victim mentioned in that ground, or(ii) a member of that victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse. It also expands the protections for victims against orders for possession, so that they are also available where a member of the family of a victim of abuse is a joint tenant with the abusive tenant.
61: Schedule 1, page 28, line 36, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
62: Schedule 1, page 28, line 43, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or any of the recipient tenants” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
63: Schedule 1, page 29, line 4, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
64: Schedule 1, page 29, line 17, leave out “resident partner” and insert “recipient tenant or recipient tenants” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the other amendments of new section 10B in my name.
65: Schedule 1, page 30, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert- “(d) the victim, or a victim, of the offence-(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.” Member’s explanatory statement This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 7AA). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
66: Schedule 1, page 30, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert- “(c) the victim, or a victim, of the breach-(i) is personally connected to the tenant, and(ii) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 7AA). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
67: Schedule 1, page 32, line 14, at end insert- ““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who-(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to-(i) the offence or breach in question, or(ii) other abusive behaviour towards them by the tenant;“personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement This defines terms used in other amendments of new Ground 7AA in my name.
68: Schedule 1, page 32, leave out lines 17 to 31 Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 7AA in my name.
69: Schedule 1, page 33, line 8, leave out from “towards” to end of line 10 and insert “a person (the “victim”) who- (a) is personally connected to the tenant, and(b) is a current or former occupant of the dwelling-house.”Member’s explanatory statement This expands the scope of this new ground for possession (Ground 14A). The ground will be available where anyone who is in occupation and “personally connected to” the abusive tenant is a victim of the abuse. At present, it is available only if the victim is a resident partner of the abusive tenant or a family member of the resident partner.
70: Schedule 1, page 33, line 14, leave out “the resident partner” and insert “- (i) the victim, or(ii) a member of the victim’s family (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996),”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
71: Schedule 1, page 33, line 16, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim, or member of the victim’s family,” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
72: Schedule 1, page 33, line 18, leave out “the resident partner is not” and insert “neither the victim, nor any member of the victim’s family, is” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
73: Schedule 1, page 33, line 22, at end insert- ““current or former occupant of the dwelling-house” means a person who-(a) occupies the dwelling-house, or(b) was occupying the dwelling-house but left for reasons relating to the domestic abuse;”Member’s explanatory statement This defines a term used in another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
74: Schedule 1, page 33, line 24, at end insert- ““personally connected” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 2 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement This defines a term used in another amendment of new Ground 14A in my name.
75: Schedule 1, page 33, leave out lines 27 to 37 Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on other amendments of Ground 14A in my name.
Amendments 30 to 75 agreed.
Amendment 76 not moved.
Amendment 77
Moved by
77: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause- “Review of lifetime secure tenancies(1) A local housing authority must review each lifetime secure tenancy at intervals of no more than five years.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider-(a) whether the tenant continues to require the accommodation having regard to their housing needs,(b) whether the accommodation remains suitable having regard to the size and composition of the tenant’s household,(c) whether the tenant has developed a local connection with another local housing authority area,(d) whether the tenant requires support to move to more suitable accommodation, and(e) such other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Following a review under this section, the local housing authority may-(a) confirm the continuation of the tenancy,(b) offer alternative suitable accommodation, or(c) take such other action as may be provided for by regulations.(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local housing authorities on the conduct of reviews under this section.(5) Local housing authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies every five...
My Lords, Amendment 77, in my name, is similar to Amendment 66, which we debated in Committee. It would require local authorities to review secure tenancies every five years to see whether there are other options available to the tenant which might free up social housing for others in desperate need. After inflicting the first defeat on the new Burnham Administration with my Amendment 25, I do not propose to try again. The case for this amendment was actually made by the Minister in the letter she sent to all of us on 14 May when she introduced the Bill. She said: “Yet too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists”. She was right. At the end of last year, there were more than 175,000 children living in temporary accommodation, with the figure going up for each of the last three years. Some 20% have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years. This is no way to spend one’s childhood. Building more social rented homes is part of the answer, but that programme is behind target. Last year, just over 12,000 new social rent homes were built, but-and this goes to the heart of my amendment-there were a quarter of a million social housing re-lets. On those figures, those on the waiting list are 20 times more likely to get a social home through a re-let rather than through a new build-hence the imperative to see what might be done through generating more re-lets, at a fraction of the time and cost of new builds. I...
My Lords, I am very disappointed to say that we oppose Amendments 77 and 78, but those who heard my comments in Committee will not be surprised. I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concerns and analysis, but I disagree with his solution. We believe that these amendments send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration. Social housing should be a foundation for opportunity, not a ceiling on ambition. Families should not have to think twice about taking on extra hours, accepting a promotion or starting a small business because they fear it could jeopardise the security of their home. Many social housing tenants are in receipt of some sort of benefit, which indicates that they would not be able to leap forward into other forms of housing. Let us not ignore the sheer bureaucracy of these proposals. Frankly, they would be quite unworkable. Who is going to monitor the incomes, carry out the reviews, process the appeals and reassess thousands of tenancies? Housing officers are already stretched to breaking point; in the middle of a housing crisis, should they be helping people into homes or policing pay rises? It is obvious which we would prefer. Let us also be clear that the housing crisis is not caused by social tenants doing a bit better...
My Lords, for once I rise to oppose-at least in part-an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: Amendment 77. I want to defend the concept of providing secure social housing tenancies for life. The review proposed in Amendment 77 envisages five-yearly reviews of whether a tenancy should continue, with the possibility of a consequent requirement for a tenant to move elsewhere if their circumstances have changed sufficiently. This would engender a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity for every social housing tenant. Apart from the administrative overload, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has drawn attention, I suggest there are some powerful reasons why denying social housing tenants a secure lifetime tenancy is likely to have undesirable consequences. First, the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that has not been introduced to date, and which the Bill intends to repeal, would have required social housing tenants to pay a higher rent if their income improves. In theory, this would pressurise tenants to move on into the private rented sector or, less probably, to buy their own home elsewhere. I maintain that no regime should penalise tenants in social housing who improve their position in life by working hard and earning more. They should not be expected to pay for their success by facing higher rents. A system of rising rents for rising incomes brings disincentives to work longer hours, or even to work at all. Secondly, if...
My Lords, I will not seek to elaborate on the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case that, where we have an asset with a finite supply and excessive demand, we need to look at how we can use it effectively. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke about the impact on the tenant: what about that person who is not able to access social housing because it is occupied by somebody who could comfortably afford their own private rented home or could afford a higher rent? I am not suggesting that everyone can but, where we have a finite resource, we need to use it efficiently. Ultimately, that is about fairness, not just to the existing tenant but to families, often in difficult circumstances, for whom the opportunity of a social home could turn their lives around-as it has turned around the life of somebody who has moved on and been successful. It is also about fairness to taxpayers. Why should someone who is struggling to pay their private rent see their taxes fund a subsidised home for someone earning more than they are? Again, I am not saying that they all are. This is about moving on. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of incentives and carrots, so I was surprised that, earlier on, he did not support the incentive of the ability to buy your own home under the right to buy. Surely that is a tremendous incentive for anyone who could afford to do it, thereby...
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 77. I recognise that the intention is to ensure that social housing stock is being used as effectively as possible by requiring local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies at least every five years. But the Government’s position is clear: we support secure tenancies because they provide stability and certainty for social housing tenants in the long term, and for the communities in which they live. This is especially important for families, older people, disabled people and other vulnerable households, who need a stable and secure home and the ability to put down roots in their communities that comes with the certainty that lifetime secure tenancies offer. Local housing authorities already have tools to manage their housing stock and to support tenants who wish to move to accommodation that better meets their needs. Local authorities can carry out checks to assure themselves that tenants are meeting the terms of their tenancies. I agree that social homes should be used as effectively as possible to support housing need and that we should support landlords to ensure that this is the case. That is why the Government have launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are using their properties. This work is considering how landlords understand tenants’ changing needs and support tenant movement, including where changes result in tenants underoccupying homes. I wrote to all...
I feel it is important to comment on that. That programme was announced over a year ago-I am pleased that the Minister has told me now that the allocations are available-and it will be interesting to see when the cash is out of the door. It will not deliver housing for at least another 18 months to two years. That is not making the step change that we need now.
But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings. Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they...
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this relatively short debate. I recognise that my proposition on Amendment 77 has not commanded the breadth of support needed to convince your Lordships to change the law. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the bedroom tax. I remember the hostility from the Labour Party when the coalition Government introduced what Steven Webb called the “spare room subsidy”. I note, however, that there are no plans to change it at all from the incoming Labour Government. I will say a word in defence of Amendment 77, which did not propose that somebody’s rent should go up if their income went up-that is Amendment 78. It would also not be my proposition that, if somebody is on benefits, they should be made to forgo their tenancy. The gap between my proposition and what the Minister has just said is relatively small. I wanted a dialogue, with no compulsion, outlining the options available to somebody whose circumstances had improved, perhaps offering some help with a deposit or, as I said, with shared ownership. In response, the Minister said that social landlords can already do this. You can give lifetime tenancies, but there are consequences: people in real need will not get access to a secure tenancy as fast as they might if there were more mobility through the social housing sector. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 77 withdrawn.
Clause 17: Rents for high income social tenants
Amendment 78 not moved.
Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.29 pm.