Home Owners and Home Ownership

Baroness Gill Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, on securing this debate because for a generation across Britain the dream of owning a home has felt entirely out of reach. It is not because they lack ambition but because they have been trapped in an adversarial stop-start system designed to benefit speculators rather than communities.

Having led housing organisations providing both social housing and homes for sale right here in London, I know first-hand the delicate balance needed to make a city liveable. I know that a healthy city needs mixed-tenure communities where social rent, private sale and affordable home ownership co-exist seamlessly. Our mission must be to structurally rewrite the rules of British housing to enable those families and others who want to transition out of renting permanently to do so.

To understand how this Government are addressing this, look at how buyers were locked out. First, there was the deposit wall. Lenders routinely pulled high loan-to-value options during economic dips, meaning a young couple could work hard and save diligently only to find the goalposts moved overnight under the previous Government. I welcome that this Government solved this by launching the Freedom to Buy scheme, transforming a temporary set-up into a permanent government-backed guarantee. By removing the risk for high-street banks, we changed lending behaviour. Lenders now confidently offer 95% mortgages through all market cycles, meaning that if you can afford the monthly payments, a 5% deposit is permanently enough to secure your foundation.

But fixing finance does nothing if buyers are left competing for non-existent supply. For a decade, the “why” behind the lack of houses was local political paralysis. Councils routinely bowed to pressure and scrapped housebuilding targets, choking the market. We broke that logjam by immediately reinstating mandatory housing targets and aggressively streamlining the planning rulebook through the updated National Planning Policy Framework. By introducing brownfield passports and opening underused grey belt land, we have removed the bureaucratic vetoes to clear the path for 1.5 million new homes.

This Government are addressing the supply issue too. We have changed who gets new housing by establishing local priority windows. We have blocked overseas investors from buying up entire developments off-plan, ensuring that those new keys go to local families first. This is especially critical for our key workers—the nurses, teachers and first responders who keep our country running but are routinely priced out of communities they serve. For many of them, shared ownership was supposed to be the safety net but let us be honest about what has happened to it: high interest rates and volatile service charges have left many shared owners struggling.

In response to this, the Government have injected new protections through the social and affordable homes programme. We have tightened regulations around optional fees, enforcing greater transparency on costs and backing the new Shared Ownership Code to protect buyers from financial hardship. We are also reforming the model so that it serves as a sustainable staircase to 100% ownership, not a dead end.

Yet solving this crisis is not just about pouring new concrete or tweaking intermediate tenures; it is about better utilising all the homes that we already have. Right now, there are thousands of older citizens living alone in large multi-bedroom family houses who want to move closer to their children, grandchildren or wider family. They want a home that is easier to manage, but the heavy financial friction of moving stops them.

I urge the Minister to look at targeted initiatives that the Government can prepare to help older home owners to right-size. There is data—from the Radix Big Tent housing commission’s landmark Resizing Rightsizing report—that indicates that nearly half of those over the age of 65 find the current stamp duty rates an active barrier to moving. This effectively locks up an estimated 870,000 underused homes across the UK. If we want to bring family-sized properties back into the active supply chain for the next generation, without laying a single brick, I ask the Minister to consider a tailored scheme that will help them to unlock a massive hidden housing supply.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Gill Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, for years I fought on the front lines of our housing crises. That is why I support the Bill. It tackles one of the most pressing issues facing our country: the shortage of safe, secure and affordable housing.

Housing should be more than a privilege that is available to a fortunate few. It should be a foundation upon which people can build stable, productive and fulfilling lives. Good housing builds thriving societies by improving health outcomes, educational attainment, employment opportunities and community cohesion. The benefits extend beyond the housing sector itself. Investing in social housing is therefore not simply a housing policy but an investment in the social and economic future of our nation. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, emphasised this, and I commend her for it.

For too long, demand for social housing has outstripped supply. Families spend years on waiting lists. Councils face mounting costs for temporary accommodation. Young people struggle to find an affordable place to live and vulnerable individuals often lack the housing security that they need to rebuild their lives. The Bill addresses those problems directly. At its core, the legislation recognises a simple truth: we cannot solve the housing crisis if we continue losing social homes faster than we can replace them. Social housing is a finite resource. Every home sold without adequate replacement means one fewer opportunity for a family in need.

The critics lament the restrictions on right to buy, but if every social home sold is one less home available to a family on a waiting list, how exactly does their approach solve the housing crisis that this country is facing? Furthermore, why should taxpayers fund the construction of social housing if those homes are not guaranteed to remain available to future families who need them? That is why the Bill’s reforms to right to buy are so important. By extending the qualifying period before purchase and protecting new-build social homes from immediate sale, the Government are ensuring that public investment remains available to the communities it was intended to serve.

When taxpayers fund the construction of affordable housing, it is only reasonable that those homes continue providing affordable accommodation for future generations rather than disappearing from the social housing stock within a few years. So, I ask the opponents of the proposals: do you accept that the current housing shortage requires us to protect existing social housing stock? If not, what are the alternative solutions? What do they offer? These measures are not about preventing aspiration; they are about balancing individual opportunity with the wider public good. Home ownership remains an important goal, but so too is ensuring that thousands of families have access to affordable housing in the first place.

I welcome that the Bill creates the stability needed for local authorities and housing associations to plan for the future. When housing providers know that newly built homes will remain within the social housing sector, they can invest with greater confidence, develop long-term strategy and borrow to build the additional homes our communities desperately need. I would like someone to explain to me how preserving newly built social housing for future generations is less beneficial than allowing it to leave the social housing sector shortly after construction.

Beyond individual measures, the Bill represents something larger: a commitment to fairness. A fair society in which people have access to stable housing is one in which children can grow up in secure homes, where families can put down roots in their communities and where older residents can live with dignity and peace of mind. What is fairer: to preserve affordable homes for thousands of families over decades or to prioritise the sale of those homes to a smaller number of individuals? If social homes continue to be sold faster than they are replaced, how do the naysayers propose to reduce the waiting list for the thousands of families currently in need of affordable housing?

Importantly, this legislation strengthens protections for some of the most vulnerable members of society. Victims of domestic abuse should never have to choose between their safety and their housing security. By improving protections for tenants facing those circumstances, the Bill provides practical support to those who need it most and helps ensure that housing serves as a source of safety rather than uncertainty.

The Bill offers a practical and sustainable way forward: it protects existing social housing, supports the delivery of new homes, strengthens tenant protections and ensures that the public investment produces long-term benefits. The question before us is not whether we can afford to protect and expand social housing; the real question is whether we can afford not to. I believe the Bill provides a step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Gill Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy of an unimaginable scale, as many of the contributions have reminded us. The noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, in particular, described the shocking events of that day so movingly.

I am contributing today not only to debate a Bill but to honour the 72 lives that were tragically lost. We do well to remember that each one of those 72 individuals had dreams and a future. They were someone’s child, parent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, for sharing the stories of those individuals who perished. It is so important for us to remember the individuals, but there were also countless others who were injured and who will be impacted for rest of their lives. It was not just them and the local community who were left scarred by the Grenfell Tower fire but the entire country.

Like many others, I vividly recall the day I heard the news; I was in Brussels at the time. The sheer horror I felt as the news sunk in was followed rapidly by questions: how could this happen in the UK, a first-world country, not some poor, developing one with shoddy standards? This is a country that prides itself on being well regulated, with a strong ethos of values, the rule of law and standards. I recall the shame I experienced as a British representative in the EU, fielding questions from other MEPs about this, asking how this could happen—as many have said today—in one of the most prosperous capital cities in the world.

The international standing of “brand Britain” was badly damaged that day. Grenfell was not simply a fire but a national tragedy that exposed deep failures in safety, accountability and the duty that we owe each other as citizens. That includes the combustible cladding, the fire doors that failed and the evacuation procedures that were tragically inadequate, as well as the deeper systemic failures in regulation, oversight and accountability that made such a disaster possible.

Going forward, as someone who has a long history in housing development, I shudder each time I hear the word deregulation in reference to housing, because that means lax enforcement of construction standards and building regulations, which is what we need to be strengthening. Furthermore, residents must have clear and accessible channels to raise their concerns without fear. Unsafe materials must be removed from all buildings, nationwide, identified as a risk. Landlords, building managers and regulators must all face real accountability. I know many of your Lordships have already raised this point, but I ask my noble friend the Minister: when will we ensure that negligence in housing safety carries consequences strong enough to deter future failures?

Grenfell is not a chapter that we can close lightly; it is a stark reminder that safety cannot be optional, that the dignity of residents cannot be compromised and that complacency costs lives. We must act decisively, implement every recommendation in full and monitor progress rigorously to ensure that no community ever endures the pain, the fear and the loss that Grenfell brought. The lives lost and the voices of those who survived demand nothing less, and we must ask ourselves how we will honour them—through action, or will history record that we waited too long? Therefore, a memorial for the victims is wholeheartedly welcome and long overdue.

As we have heard, the Bill is not about politics; it is about remembrance, dignity and responsibility. A permanent memorial is essential, not just as a structure of stone or steel, but as a place of reflection, a space where families can grieve, where communities can gather and where the nation can remember. This will ensure that those we lost are never reduced to statistics but are forever recognised as human beings whose lives really mattered.

But I reiterate that remembrance alone is not enough. This memorial must also stand as a symbol of change, a reminder of the consequences of when safety is compromised and when voices, especially those of vulnerable residents, are ignored. It must call on all of us in this House and beyond to ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again. We owe that to the victims, the families and future generations. Passing the Bill will send a clear message that we remember, we care and we are committed to building a safer and just society. Let this memorial be a promise that Grenfell will never be forgotten and its lesson will never be ignored. I commend the Bill.