Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Jamieson; in doing so, I remind Members of my interest as vice-president of London Councils.

Most councillors will tell you the value of being able to refer planning decisions to a planning committee for consideration in public. As has just been said, it can mean that local residents can participate in the debate. They can draw issues to the attention of those making the decision as well as witness the decision-making process as it happens. It is therefore disappointing that this statutory instrument appears to reduce that opportunity by allowing an even higher number of applications to be delegated to officers. Written submissions, I am afraid, are not the same thing.

Indeed, there was a debate in the other place last week when Labour Members of Parliament were referencing the value of Article 4 directives to ensure that planning applications for houses of multiple occupation would be required. Fortunately, the Conservative council in the London Borough of Bexley, of which I have knowledge, did indeed seek an Article 4 directive to ensure that this was the case, as we believed it would ensure that the impact of those individual requests on our residents and infrastructure could be considered.

It is difficult to square seeking democracy in the planning process one week and reducing it the next. The planning process needs to be open and transparent, allowing planning applications to be referred to the democratically elected committee if members choose to do so. This can also add value, as it means that any potential issues or benefits can be aired, considered and possibly addressed. That quite often results in impacting the decision or applying conditions that might resolve some of the potential issues. It needs to be taken seriously.

This could be particularly relevant for reserve matters, as was said earlier, or the use of Section 106 money on larger developments, as the impact on the local community will be even greater. Residents are rightly interested in what is happening in their area, and while it is often difficult to explain that applications must be considered on planning grounds, referral to a committee allows that to happen. It also protects council officers. I am sure we have all heard the rumours about alleged brown envelopes over the years. What better way to ensure residents see the decision-making process in action than at a planning committee?

The suggestion is that referral could be by the gateway test, but that would be through an agreement between the head of development control or the named person and the planning committee chairman. They need to agree on the rationale and, as my noble friend Lady Eaton has just said, when that does not happen, the decision should remain with members. We live in a democratic society. We all know that the majority of applications are not contentious and are determined by officers. But when there is a reason for transparency, surely there should be a mechanism to allow for determination by committee. Planning applications can greatly impact residents’ lives, so surely they should be able to witness and participate in the process. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that this SI does not water down the system.

Edinburgh Anti-Muslim Attacks

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

There has been a statement from both the Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland, and I do not accept the characterisation that there is in any sense a lack of response to this. We understand that this problem of anti-Muslim hostility is getting worse. We take it seriously, and when incidents such as these occur, we will want to see the full force of the law used, and we will demonstrate the sort of leadership the noble Baroness is seeking. I do not quite recognise the picture she paints.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his place; I think it is his first time at the Dispatch Box, so welcome. We also associate ourselves with his comments about the Edinburgh incident.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country reject hatred and violence. However, recent years have seen increasing tensions between communities and the growth of extremist narratives from different quarters. What assessment have the Government made of these trends, and what action are they taking to strengthen social cohesion and mutual respect across society?

Jo Cox Civility Commission

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate today and thoroughly embarrassing and humbling to hear the contributions of many Members.

It is with a deep sense of duty that I rise to address the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and the broader imperative of safeguarding those who participate in public life. The murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were not merely acts of violence against individuals but profound violations of the democracy that binds our society together. They also remind us of the values that Jo Cox lived by: working together, respect for others and a belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us. Every speaker has mentioned that, so it is a really good testament. Those values must shape not only our response to rising hostility but the kind of political culture that we wish to build. However, despite the clarity of the commission’s recommendations and the urgency of the threat, the Government’s response has been insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge before us. The commission issued 28 recommendations, yet only seven have been adopted so far, and I think we all would encourage the Government to look at the others very quickly.

It is particularly troubling for people like me that none of the recommendations relating to local government has been implemented. As has been said, local councillors, who often serve without staff, without security and without the institutional protections afforded to Members of either House, remain acutely vulnerable. As the former leader of Bexley council, I know this vulnerability all too well. My colleagues and I have ourselves been subjected to sustained abuse, often anonymous, often from keyboard warriors, often deeply personal and mainly inaccurate, simply for carrying out the responsibilities of public office.

The fallout has impacted both officers and members: their health, their families and their lives. It is an experience that is shared by councillors across the country and underlines why the commission’s recommendations on local government cannot be treated as optional. The commission’s call to expand Operation Bridger to support local councillors was clear and unambiguous. The Government’s inaction leaves a significant gap in our national resilience. It is entirely proper to ask how we will ensure that local democracy is not treated as a secondary concern.

The Government frequently cite the Online Safety Act as evidence of progress, yet the lived experience of elected representatives tells a very different story. As has been mentioned, the 2025 survey of Members of Parliament revealed levels of threat and intimidation that should trouble every Member of this House. Women and Members from minority ethnic backgrounds face disproportionate levels of abuse. Candidates in the 2024 general election were twice as likely to face abuse if they were women and three times as likely if they were from minority ethnic backgrounds. The commission’s recommendation that social media companies provide enhanced support to candidates, particularly during election periods, remains unimplemented.

The dangers of social media are no longer abstract. They influence who feels able to stand for office, who feels safe to speak and who feels welcome in public life. A third of girls and young women now say that they are deterred from entering politics because of the hostility they see online. If we do not address this, we risk losing a generation of talent.

Furthermore, the commission identified the absence of a central government unit as one of the principal obstacles to progress. Without such a unit, efforts across police forces, regulators, political parties and tech companies remain fragmented and inconsistent. The renewal of the Defending Democracy Taskforce is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a dedicated, properly resourced co-ordinating body. The commission was unequivocal: this is a systemic challenge that requires a systemic response. The Government must provide one.

The commission’s call for impartial political and media literacy to be embedded in the curriculum is timely and necessary. Yet the Government’s proposed reforms will not take effect until 2027, with the teaching beginning in 2028-29, five years after the commission’s first call to action. In a digital environment where misinformation spreads in seconds, this delay has real-world consequences. We must recognise that civility is about not only how we conduct politics but how we sustain community cohesion. Loneliness and social disconnection remain significant challenges. They weaken trust, reduce civic participation and increase vulnerability to polarisation. Jo Cox understood that democracy is strengthened when communities are connected. That is why the Great Get Together, now marking its 10th year, matters. It is a reminder that respect is built locally through the simple act of bringing people together.

Within the Representation of the People Bill, we welcome the measures that protect candidates from harassment and intimidation. However, we remain vigilant against any drift towards the policing of legitimate political expression. Democracy must protect those who serve within it, but it must also preserve the right of citizens to criticise those who hold power.

At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires care, vigilance and a willingness to confront the uncomfortable realities. The Jo Cox Civility Commission has provided a thoughtful and comprehensive blueprint for strengthening the integrity of political culture. It is now for the Government to act: not with selectivity or delay but with the seriousness that this moment demands. If we fail to protect those who serve, we risk diminishing the very institutions on which our freedoms depend. If we fail to foster respect, we risk losing the trust that holds our society together. If we fail to work together, we risk forgetting the message that Jo Cox gave us: that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

57: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Social housing estates: regeneration(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a document setting out proposals to support the regeneration of existing social housing estates.(2) The document under subsection (1) must include proposals relating to—(a) funding to deliver alternative housing for existing tenants during the redevelopment of social housing estates,(b) support for increasing density as part of social housing redevelopment where appropriate,(c) the use of public land and housing assets to facilitate regeneration, and(d) grant funding for energy efficiency improvements as part of redevelopment schemes.(3) In preparing the document under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase overall housing supply within existing urban areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to bring forward proposals within 12 months to support regeneration of social housing estates, including decant funding and densification opportunities.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I add my best wishes to the England team tonight: even if we are not finished in time, we will no doubt get a nice, quiet journey home because everyone will be watching it.

I speak to Amendments 57, 58, 75, 83 and 107 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Much of the debate around housing understandably focuses on building new homes. That is undoubtedly important. However, if we are serious about tackling housing need, we must also focus on how we effectively manage, maintain and utilise the housing stock that already exists. These amendments are intended to probe whether sufficient attention is given to the condition, management and efficient use of existing social housing assets.

Amendment 57 would require the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of social housing estates. Estate regeneration is often difficult, sometimes controversial and takes many years. The noble Lord, Lord John, sitting over there, will know that from pain in Elephant and Castle; I certainly know it from the years dealing with Thamesmead, and I am sure many others in this Chamber will know it too. It takes a long time, but there are opportunities.

Amendment 75 raises the crucial issue of illegal subletting in our social housing system. I note the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act, which passed through this House in 2013 under the watch of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It provided important powers to tackle this problem, but it is reasonable to ask whether those powers are being used ineffectively and whether enforcement activity is sufficient. Given the pressure on waiting lists across the country, every property recovered through anti-fraud activity represents an opportunity to house someone who is legitimately entitled to that support. In 2024-25, there were just 476 evictions for illegal subletting. However, the Tenancy Fraud Forum’s 2023 report, Lost Homes, Lost Hope, estimated that 148,000 social homes were subject to tenancy fraud in 2023. In a separate report in 2025, it estimated that there were 50,000 tenancy frauds in London alone. This is shocking and urgently needs addressing. Rather than curtailing right to buy, this is the issue that the Government should prioritise to bring housing forward quickly.

Amendment 83 would require a national audit of social housing stock. It is difficult to manage assets effectively without a clear understanding of their condition, occupancy, utilisation and future investment requirements before making major policy decisions. Government should have the clearest possible picture of the stock already available. Similarly, Amendment 107 seeks a broader strategy for improving the management of existing social housing stock. Better stock management can often deliver benefits more quickly and at a lower cost than new construction alone.

I should also mention Amendment 117D in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. This is a probing amendment, but it raises an important question about accountability. Across England, elected mayors are being given increasing responsibility for housing, planning and regeneration. If powers are increasingly devolved, it is reasonable to ask how performance should be measured, and how local people can judge whether housing commitments are being delivered.

The country faces substantial housing pressures. There are now around 1.33 million households on local authority waiting lists—the highest figure for a decade. Against that backdrop, transparency regarding housing delivery matters. Noble Lords may have different views on the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, but the broader principle remains that where significant powers are devolved, there should be clear accountability for the outcomes, and that these are the right outcomes.

I would also be interested to hear from the Minister how long social housing properties typically remain vacant between tenancies. Every week that a property sits empty is a week in which a household remains on the waiting list. Understanding void turnaround times is therefore an important part of understanding the efficiency of the system as a whole. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that we make the best possible use of the housing stock we already have, while continuing to build for the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson. As my noble friend noted, I oversaw the passing of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 through this House. This criminalised the unauthorised subletting of social housing dwellings and gave landlords stronger powers.

Back then, the number of unlawfully sublet social housing dwellings was estimated to be approximately 98,000. The statistics my noble friend referenced are shocking and show that, while the laws are there, swift enforcement to crack down on fraud is severely lacking. Indeed, it begs the question of why the Government are pursuing what appears to be an ideological assault on the right to buy when a determined crackdown on fraud could return many thousands more homes to the social housing stock. Those 148,000 dwellings my noble friend referenced are, in effect, withheld from those on waiting lists, who are in genuine need. I urge all noble Lords to reflect on this. If the Government published a review, as proposed by Amendment 75, we would understand not only the rates of prosecution and recovery of properties but exactly what the barriers to proper enforcement are. Given the estimates, the Government should be much more proactive on this issue, which should be a much greater priority in this Bill.

I emphasise that we must consider different forms of tenancy fraud. It is not just illegal subletting; it can include providing false information as part of a tenancy application, failing to use a property as a principal home, leaving it empty or selling the keys to a third party. Between now and Report, I hope we can look into this, and I hope the Minister will give this issue the attention it certainly deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was saying that we need accountability. We are strengthening the accountability mechanisms, including local scrutiny arrangements and an updated devolution accountability framework. Taken together, these reforms will provide the certainty, flexibility and accountability needed to deliver new homes, rather than introduce a new and untested recall mechanism based on performance that might result in perverse incentives. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move the amendment.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and, of course, to the Minister for her response. I especially mention my noble friend Lord Evans, as he saw this as an important debate to make his first contribution in.

The discussions highlighted an important point. Although much attention is devoted to increasing housing supply, making best use of the homes that we already have has to be equally important. The amendments in the group have approached the challenge from a number of angles, including regeneration, supported housing, stock management, fraud prevention and the utilisation of vacant properties. Although they focus on different aspects of the system, they all ask whether existing housing assets are being used as effectively as they could be.

I remain particularly concerned that, at a time when housing waiting lists remain high, we should do everything possible in our power to ensure that social housing properties are occupied by those who are entitled to them and that homes do not remain vacant for longer than necessary. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about turnaround times and look forward to seeing that information. Effective management is not an alternative to new supply, but it is certainly an essential component and should not be forgotten.

I was interested in the discussion around regeneration. Done well, regeneration can improve housing quality, strengthen communities and increase housing supply simultaneously. It is therefore important that the Government continue to think strategically about how existing estates can contribute to meeting future housing need. The need may change. It is not easy. We all know that, at the start of a regeneration project, you have decamped people. If you have not got the empty homes, it is difficult to make that happen.

On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, concerning empty homes, I agree that long-term vacant properties can represent a missed opportunity, particularly where housing need is acute. However, I sound a note of caution. Property rights remain an important principle. We should be careful about any approach that assumes that the state should have an ever-expanding role in determining how privately owned homes are used. The challenge is to strike the right balance between encouraging properties back into use and respecting legitimate private ownership. That does not mean that we could not address the empty ones in social housing—about 92,000 homes, according to the House of Lords Library.

I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for her contribution and hope that we can work together ahead of Report to tackle fraud in the social housing system. We need to make use of the powers and encourage others to use those powers. We know that, in a lot of these cases, these are the tenants who are not going to raise their head above the parapet because they are not going to want to be seen. I heard of a case at the weekend in which a key worker thought that they were privately renting a property for £2,000 a month but had a knock on the door from the council. It was actually a council property, costing the council tenant £800 a month. Someone is making a nice amount of money while the wrong person is living in the property. We need to concentrate on this.

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points that were raised in the debate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Rather than the noble Baroness waiting for a letter from me, I can give her the answer to her question about the time spent between tenancies now. It is a median of 30 days.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, but I am also going to make a few remarks to wind up this group on behalf of our Benches. We are trying hard not to duplicate speakers, aware that everyone is desperate to see the football—all right, not everyone, but most people—and we have an awful lot to get through.

There have been a number of powerful and helpful contributions on this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has huge authority and experience in this area, and it is notable that the sector supports the amendment she has tabled, arguing that it is really needed. The heart of the Bill is around protection for victims of domestic violence, and my concern is that, without an amendment like this, we leave out one hugely important plank—an area that gives abusers the power to continue to exercise control and leave women without access to the protection we want to provide. I remind the Minister that this amendment has cross-party support, and it was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, a former Home Secretary, advocate for it. I hope the Government will take this away and consider how it might be brought forward, perhaps at a later stage. As others have said, without this measure, child maintenance could be withheld—coercive control around money is often at the heart of abusive relationships—so I urge the Government to consider this amendment.

I listened carefully to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, about Amendments 61 and 62. These amendments seem to us to make good points, particularly about access for safety checks. I was going to refer to the legal case the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to— Southern Housing v James Emmanuel in October 2025 —arguing that, without parliamentary action, it is not clear whether housing associations have the power to force access for safety reasons. In the light of so many recent issues around fire, for example, we really have to tackle this issue and make it clear to social housing providers whether they have the power to take such action. We are also supportive of Amendment 61 and urge the Government to think about how we might ensure continuity for secure tenancy in cases where, on police advice, people are forced to leave their homes because of violence.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so thoughtfully to this sensitive and highly important debate. As my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading, we welcome the Government’s efforts to empower landlords and the courts to protect all victims of domestic abuse.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments, which focus on the issues concerning tenants’ safety. His Amendment 61 asks us to consider threats to personal safety due not only to domestic abuse but to escalating disputes with neighbours or targeted youth and gang violence. It is right that we consider how tenants can be protected from those other threats, and Amendment 62 seeks to give providers greater powers to carry out legally required safety checks. I hope the Government will give those amendments their due consideration.

Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to ensure that vulnerable groups such as older tenants, veterans, care leavers, disabled people, those with mental health conditions and families with children in temporary accommodation have the necessary statutory provision. We will also touch on prioritising veterans in another amendment later today, but my noble friend is right that we should consider the specific needs of these groups too, and that we expect local authorities to do so as well.

Amendment 65, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and was responded to by many others, raises a very important issue. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this. Victims of financial abuse should be protected, not prevented from bidding for social housing. I would be interested to hear from the Government how that could be implemented by working together with local authorities, and how we can ensure that such protections are not themselves abused.

Amendment 64, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, seeks to ensure that the court system has the capacity and resources to effectively determine whether domestic abuse has taken place within a household with a social housing tenancy, an issue that a few of the speakers referred to. Court readiness was debated at length in relation to the Renters’ Rights Act, and it is important that the Government ensure that landlords and courts are ready for these changes too, so that victims are protected effectively.

Amendment 108, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, raises the issue of which local authority is responsible for safeguarding needs when a tenant is moved out of an area of one local authority to another. Our amendment suggests that, where a local housing authority secures accommodation for tenants outside its area, that authority retains responsibility for safeguarding oversight and the costs involved. We welcome the insights of other noble Lords on this issue and what scenarios must be taken into account, but I hope the Minister will look into it and how the Bill could address it. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very thoughtful debate on these amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling Amendment 61, which addresses an important issue around the safety and security of tenants facing violence. I am very sympathetic to this amendment’s aims to protect all tenants of social housing providers registered with the Regulator of Social Housing and thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue forward. I want to be clear that tenants should never fear losing their security of tenure if they need to move because of the threat of violence and abuse.

While I am supportive of the intent of the amendment, as drafted it will mean a fundamental shift in the role of the Regulator of Social Housing as currently set out in statute. The regulator’s statutory remit does not include intervening in individual tenancy decisions. The regulator focuses interventions on systemic issues, and this amendment would change this and risk cutting across established principles of regulatory best practice. Furthermore, the consumer standards set by the regulator already place on registered providers several requirements relevant to this amendment, including to work with partners to support victims of domestic abuse and to demonstrate how they deliver the outcomes of these standards.

In addition, there is already legislation in place that seeks to protect people at risk of violence in need of urgent rehousing. If a local authority grants a victim of domestic abuse a new tenancy for reasons connected with the abuse, it is required to give former or existing secure tenants another secure lifetime tenancy rather than a fixed-term tenancy. The social housing allocations framework dictates that where people are homeless or need to move on welfare grounds and apply to be rehoused through a local authority waiting list, they must be given reasonable preference—priority—for social housing. By extension, these protections can also engage private registered providers through the duty to co-operate with their local authority in housing people with priority. Homelessness legislation is also clear that, where appropriate, victims of serious violence are able to access support from homelessness services should they need to relocate, and that a vulnerable victim of domestic violence has priority need for accommodation.

Measures in the Bill to protect victims of domestic abuse also seek to achieve a similar aim to this amendment by ensuring that a joint tenant remains housed either in their original home or in suitable alternative accommodation where this is available. While it does not oblige a registered provider to act, it does empower it to do so. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, I recognise that this is an important issue and have asked my officials to consider this matter further. I or my officials or both would be happy to meet the noble Lord before Report to discuss this matter.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 62, which would introduce a new statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to meet statutory safety duties. I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that landlords are able to carry out essential safety checks, including gas and electrical inspections, and to ensure that smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are installed and functioning properly. I also recognise that access to homes is a growing concern. However, I am not persuaded that creating a new statutory access route is necessary to achieve this.

Landlords already have established routes for enabling access to homes. In addition, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Act 1998 imply a right of access to tenancies where landlords are required to meet repairing obligations. Where a tenant refuses access, landlords can seek to remedy this through an injunction from the court. I reassure the Committee that, following a joint consultation with the Ministry of Justice on housing disrepair claims, we are currently analysing the responses to deepen our understanding of how the current process works, including what does not work or is unclear, so we can make sure that that process is as effective as possible.

Extending the needs of landlords to enable them to force access must be balanced, of course, against tenants’ existing rights, including the right to respect their private and family life and their home under Article 8 of the ECHR. Where a landlord has taken appropriate steps and cannot gain access, the Government made it clear in our response to the decent homes standard consultation that guidance will set out steps providers should take, and we will work with the sector and tenants to develop this guidance.

This amendment would introduce a separate, highly prescriptive statutory process alongside the existing routes and work we already have under way to consider access to homes for emergency safety reasons. In particular, the provision to authorise the use of reasonable force raises concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home. The amendment would also impose detailed procedural requirements that could reduce flexibility and delay action where timely access is needed to meet critical safety obligations. However, I recognise that this matter needs further consideration, so I intend to convene interested stakeholders to discuss access in emergency situations and identify the next steps.

--- Later in debate ---

This is to probe the rationale behind repealing these powers.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, it appears that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, withdrew from this section at a late time so, if it is the Committee’s pleasure, I will listen to the debate and the Minister, and save my comments till the end.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Would it be in order to speak to Amendment 66?

--- Later in debate ---

Social landlords already have a wide range of tools to tackle anti-social behaviour, and the Regulator of Social Housing’s neighbour and community standard already requires registered providers to work with relevant partners to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour and hate incidents. Recent legislation has strengthened these powers even further. The Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent in April, has strengthened the powers available to the police and other agencies, including stronger measures to deal with the most persistent offenders. The Renters’ Rights Act has also shortened the notice period for the mandatory anti-social behaviour eviction ground; once implemented in the social rented sector, landlords will be able to make a claim to the court faster in cases of anti-social behaviour. In that context, much of what this amendment seeks to achieve is already available through existing powers and regulatory requirements. The amendment risks duplicating existing routes. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, especially my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I thank the Minister for the response. I hope she realises that these amendments were tabled in view of our previous amendments and in light of trying to make best use of the stock available. However, we accept what the Minister is saying. These amendments are probing ones to explain some of those options, but I accept the Government’s response.

Clause 14 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am very disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new affordable homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of homes, particularly adapted homes. We are an ageing nation, we are getting fatter and nowadays many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. As a council leader, I spend about £1.5 million a year adapting homes for this ageing and impaired population. I remember that, when devising our local plan, there was a need for 3,500 adapted homes and supported living units; it was about 10% of the total housing need. It is an important issue, but not one you would gather from this Bill. At Second Reading, I explained how councils might install an adaptation so that a resident with an impairment could live comfortably. I explained that it might be a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, in my council, we spent £75,000 on a complete extension that was required to enable that family to live decently.

In preparation for this debate, and in pursuance of that simple truth, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He tells me that about half the improvements relate to wet rooms. That is important, because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it keeps our hospital wards clean. Half the wet room adaptations are combined with wider doors so that someone in a wheelchair can shower hygienically. Together, cleaning and better access represent half the improvements for disabled facilities, grants and aids and adaptations.

Other examples might be a kitchen with low-level worktops—again, suitable for wheelchair use. Typically, it takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation: directionally two to three months for the assessment and the report by the occupational therapist, then a couple of months for the specification contracting and then the construction itself. In my experience, our district council delivered about 150 such projects a year at an average cost of about £10,000 each. I would say that one of my best interventions as a councillor was to ensure that a widow who lived in Mill Road in Seething was able to keep herself clean, by expediting the process of creating a wet room in her social home.

I feel that I have laboured the point, but I tell that story with pride because the simple truth is that we just do not have enough of these adapted homes, and that is why the state invests in them. MHCLG distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities, and some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs top up that allocation still further. I ensured that we reinvested all the profits from our trading activities to top up that money. So, in total, it adds up to about £1 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change, ensuring that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and on with, maintaining personal pride and hygiene.

Here is the problem that my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. A new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money, it reduces the pool of adapted homes, and it is bad for everyone, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice: once to put it in and once to take it out. I recall one example where we had built a brand new accessible home with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for a wheelchair-bound resident. As it happened, the first tenant was really tall, and by and by he tired of bending down to move the pots and pans around the hob, so the council was obliged by law to rip out that kitchen and put in a normal one—oh dear. That is absurd. It should have been let to a wheelchair user in the first place. So I ask the Minister directly: where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of and investments in adapted homes for the ageing population? Why can we not offer rights of first refusal to those who need help to keep themselves clean down there?

I have heard it said, “Well, this is an allocations issue and we’re not going there in this limited Bill”. I profoundly disagree with that. That is why I asked for this debate to be de-grouped so it could have the importance it deserves without being clouded by other issues. My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock. It is about protecting a £1 billion investment— a significant sum that should not be lightly discarded— and it is about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. So I do not see this as an allocations issue, in the sense that preference should be given to an individual veteran or a certain type of local person. This is about protecting the pool of adapted homes, not least because we are all getting older. It is about ensuring that the wider cohort who carry an impairment have sufficient protected stock for them to have a go at, where they get preference, to make the best of their lives and to make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that, what is it for? Casually dismissing this as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection.

We must grab this sufficiency issue now. We are in Committee. I want to probe the matter more deeply between now and Report. Unless we make some progress, I anticipate that this is an issue on which I will seek to divide the House on Report, on the grounds that the Bill aims to protect the social stock for those in need, and my amendment seeks to achieve precisely that.

I have nearly said enough but I want to give Kevin Philcox, my expert on the ground, who has been around a long time in this space, the final word. He told me that, among the dedicated housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way that I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country—it is number one on the wish list. That is quite a statement.

The opportunity to protect that £1 billion a year investment and look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society is before us here and now. If we fail to take it, there is no one else to do it in our place. As it is, there are no powers to protect those adaptations or to give those in need first refusal, but there should be. I beg to move.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the important subject of adapted social housing. As we have argued throughout this day of Committee, we must improve how we manage the existing stock of social housing by making better use of what we have and what is being built. It strikes us as entirely sensible that, where possible and appropriate, homes that have been adapted are then given to applicants who would also benefit from those adaptations. That would save social housing providers money and ensure that we made the best use of resources and housing stock. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any details that she might be able to give us on how it might be implemented.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we seem to have wandered a long way this evening from the straightforward purpose of the Bill: to adjust right to buy, to give confidence to local authorities to deliver social housing, and to protect domestic abuse victims. Anyway, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. He says he is disappointed. I have probably been disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for most of the last 15 or so years that we have known each other, so I am just carrying on in that vein, I am afraid.

We recognise how important home adaptations are in enabling disabled people to live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. Disabled facilities grant funding helps adapt over 55,000 homes annually, helping disabled people and their families live independently, reducing demand for health and social care support. It is also important that local authorities make the best use of the homes they have available, particularly any adapted properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I am going to speak very briefly—there are matters of life and death about to start in 10 minutes, and I am not going to stand in the way of that—but I am surprised by these amendments. They have been tabled by Conservative Peers going for centralisation and more regulation. We want better people running housing associations; we want good chairs, good chief executives and effective boards. I have to ask: do you want social entrepreneurial spirit, creative drive and a commitment to efficiency in customer services to be suffocated by overregulation, interference and process? We need a balance. I do not believe these probing amendments aim to provide a balance.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this group. Amendment 90, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks guidance on the social responsibilities and purposes of social housing providers. As we argued in our Amendment 108, we need to understand the other responsibilities that providers have towards tenants and the boundaries that exist. My noble friend’s amendment is very similar to our Amendment 109; it is clear that we are united in our priorities, but we can look at the drafting more closely ahead of Report.

Community engagement brings me to Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which proposes tenant board representation of at least one-fifth, as well as mandatory tenant advisory panels for the codesign of allocation policies and a requirement to publish complaints data by protected characteristic. We agree that tenant voices should be heard, with their dreams and aspirations for the places and communities in which they live. That is admirable and we welcome the intention behind the amendment.

I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Amendment 110 seeks a wider review of governance arrangements for social housing providers. This includes board composition, tenant representation and the role of elected councillors, but also their accountability to local communities, scrutiny arrangements and performance information. This is crucial. Community engagement should not be a box-ticking exercise or tokenistic; it should be rooted in existing democratic structures.

Amendment 111 would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. In my experience, I could always rely on my good relationships with local housing association representatives, but we realise this is not the case for everyone. Although we have argued for the independence of housing associations to be recognised, this should not prevent associations being held accountable to local elected representatives and having constructive conversations.

Amendment 112 would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including performance in relation to repairs, complaints, tackling anti-social behaviour, tenant satisfaction and void properties. This would be useful both for tenants and for local authorities, and for the associations themselves to help focus on areas for improvement.

Finally, Amendment 115 would empower social housing tenants to request an inspection from the Regulator of Social Housing. The Secretary of State could make regulations outlining the grounds on which this could be requested, including how many tenants would be required to support such a request and in what circumstances a request could be refused. We believe this is a balanced approach but one that is tenant-led. We hope that we can work together with noble Lords to finalise amendments to be brought forward on Report. I would be interested to hear the response of the Minister to those amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns a range of mechanisms to strengthen the tenant voice and engagement across the social housing sector. It is a bit odd, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, to be in this parallel universe where the Conservative Benches are arguing for more regulation—I find that a bit strange.

Matters relating to tenant voice and engagement are already central to the Regulator of Social Housing’s existing consumer standards. The regulator’s approach is proactive and outcomes-based, setting clear standards that providers must deliver, while allowing flexibility on how those outcomes are achieved. On that basis, my concern is that a number of these amendments would introduce new statutory requirements that would duplicate or cut across the existing regulatory framework. This would result in unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and potential confusion for the sector, without materially improving outcomes for tenants or communities.

I turn briefly to Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and Amendment 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am not persuaded that additional statutory guidance from the Secretary of State is necessary. Core elements of these amendments and any subsequent guidance are already central to the regulator’s regulatory standards.

The consumer standards require providers to deliver safe and well-managed homes, to engage with tenants and take their views into account, to work with partners to tackle anti-social behaviour, and to support the well- being of the communities in which they operate. The regulator already has the power, through Section 195 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, to issue codes of practice on matters relating to its consumer and economic standards. These can be used to amplify requirements that registered providers must deliver, and the regulator exercised this power in 2024 in relation to consumer standards.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raises the question of the balance between the development of new supply and the social responsibilities of registered providers. If he has not been notified of this, on 9 June, the regulator published a discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, which explores how the regulatory framework can be adapted to support the delivery of more and better social housing. I hope the noble Lord is reassured that the objectives behind the amendments are already central to requirements placed on registered providers by the regulatory standards and is content to withdraw.

On Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I recognise the importance of governance underpinning effective services for tenants. However, as I said, the regulator already has a proactive role in assessing how far providers perform for their tenants, including through the regulation of consumer standards and routine inspections. The areas identified in the amendment, including tenant voice, accountability, transparency and performance, are already core components of the framework.

I turn to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. While oversight of registered social housing providers is important, it would be disproportionate to require a senior officer of a registered social housing provider to attend a local authorities’ overview and scrutiny committee. However, the Government will keep this under review, as part of the conversations we are having on local scrutiny committees, given their larger geographical footprint. It is important to establish scrutiny at the appropriate level. Imposing a statutory duty at local authority level, when a similar and more flexible function is being introduced at mayoral level, would be duplicative and may be unnecessary.

On Amendment 112, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I recognise the importance of landlords being transparent and accountable to their tenants in supporting tenant voice and accountability. To that end, registered providers are already required to publish information through the tenant satisfaction measures. These measures have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have the information they need to hold their landlords to account, and to ensure consistency across the sector while balancing the burden on landlords. In addition, private registered providers already submit data to the regulator through the annual statistical data return, and local authorities provide that information through the local authority housing statistics. We do not consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate the publication of quarterly void property performance metrics. This would introduce additional reporting burdens without any clear benefits to tenants.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Similarly, Amendments 38 and 39 risk unnecessarily prolonging effective stock management by increasing the required sale notice period from four to eight weeks, or 12 weeks in a rural area. Such extensions would need to be clearly evidenced. Is four weeks insufficient for housing associations and the local authority to be notified of a disposal and explore opportunities to transfer stock? Disposals are often unviable for social landlords to manage in the long term and bring up to the standards that residents rightly deserve, although I am sure that housing associations will look very closely at the examples that have been provided in this debate to judge their own behaviour in relation to those. The vast majority of disposals are unoccupied, so a well-evidenced case must be made for a requirement to leave homes standing empty for eight to 12 weeks to prolong a sale notice requirement.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. I thank noble Lords who have taken the time to table these amendments. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her diligent work.

On Amendment 36, we need to look at where social housing is most effective, but we must also consider legitimate reasons why a sale could be beneficial. With regard to Amendment 47 in her name, and Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, we stated our position in the last group. Defining what counts as a rural area is beyond the scope of this debate and deserves much more scrutiny. That said, we recognise that local authorities and private registered providers should try to work together more closely in the interests of local communities.

Amendments 40 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and my noble friend Lady Coffey seek to give registered providers a right of first refusal to acquire social rented dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities as existing use value for social housing. Noble Lords have made an interesting case and we need to look at this proposal further. Certainly, I could add some fruity stories from Bexley: the frustration of losing nomination rights and an elderly person’s block being sold at auction and turned into a cannabis factory that was then set light to. There are some things out there that we should be aware of.

Amendment 37 seeks to extend the notification of a proposed sale to cover the regulator of social housing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the appropriateness of this. Amendment 45 adds details to what must be included in a sale notice and Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to add to this list information regarding the accessibility of a dwelling to wheelchair users and people with mobility problems. These are important considerations and it is right that these sale notices are comprehensive, to provide a full picture.

Turning to Amendment 43 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, we felt it important to draw the House’s attention to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers. We must be careful not to infringe on their independence or on property rights to ensure that relationships between private providers and local authorities are based on genuine co-operation and partnerships to deliver better outcomes.

Finally, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group. We do not want uncertainty on the statute book over which resolution procedure applies, and we are pleased that the Government have sought to fix this issue. I once again thank noble Lords for the issues they have raised, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments, which consider a range of issues relating to the operation of the disposals measures in the Bill. The Bill is about supporting the supply of new social housing and to achieve this we must ensure that we are taking steps to protect the existing housing stock. In addition to the right-to-buy reforms we have discussed, the Bill’s new disposal notification requirement will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. That will improve transparency and provide earlier visibility where homes may be lost from the social housing sector, maximising opportunities for social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.

It is important that this new requirement is balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are still free to take their own responsible decisions about how they manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. In some cases, this means selling homes, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Warwick, which we do not seek to inhibit or restrict with this measure. Rather, this measure aims to strike the right balance, maximising opportunities to keep housing in the social sector while ensuring that registered providers can determine their own responsible approach to asset management.

Amendments 37 and 40 from the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, would add the regulator of social housing to those bodies that must be notified prior to a disposal. The regulator plays a vital role in ensuring that our social landlords deliver the quality homes and services their tenants deserve. As part of the regulatory framework, private registered providers must be able to demonstrate a strategic rationale for disposals and understand the implications for their total social housing stock. I am not persuaded that requiring private registered providers to notify the regulator of a future disposal would enable them to better regulate against the standards that they set. The regulator plays no role in approving such disposals and that decision properly rests with the landlord. The regulator is already notified once a disposal has occurred, so that gives them an overview of the numbers and types of disposals that are occurring.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would increase the period between notification and when a sale can occur from four weeks to eight weeks generally, and to 12 weeks in designated rural areas. Amendment 39 from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also seeks an extension to eight weeks. I hope noble Lords will appreciate there is no right or wrong period here for the time that must elapse before sale. It is a balance that seeks to ensure that enough time is provided as a minimum for the local authority, or any interested private registered provider, to ask questions and engage in dialogue but avoids unduly delaying the many sales that will continue to proceed.

I should also emphasise that this is the minimum period that must elapse. Where there is serious and active interest from other landlords, I would expect that a private registered provider would wish to engage and be flexible beyond that four-week minimum. However, I absolutely understand the noble Baroness’s point about the short length of time if decisions have to be taken, for example, through a democratic approval process or sometimes through other processes, so I shall reflect on this further.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for Amendment 43, which seeks to ensure that, when exercising the regulation-making power in new Section 171B(6), the Secretary of State

“has regard to the operational and financial independence of private registered providers”.

I hope I can reassure, and already have reassured, the noble Baroness that the Government fully appreciate that private registered providers are just that: private bodies that should be left to make the decisions that deliver the best outcomes for them and their tenants.

Clause 11 is a light-touch measure to improve transparency and reflect good practice. The measure does not prevent disposal or restrict the means of disposal or to whom a property can be sold. It therefore does not cut across how private registered providers operate or how they legitimately manage their assets. New Section 171B sets out the type of sales that will be exempt from the notification requirement. These include sales to another registered provider and sales of shared ownership homes to the tenant. The regulation-making power that the amendment relates to enables categories of sales that are exempt from the notification provision to be extended. Imposing a constraint on the regulation-making power, as proposed by the amendment, would therefore achieve no benefit for providers. I also reassure the noble Baroness we have no imminent intention of using this regulation-making power. The power future-proofs the provision in Clause 11, allowing other categories of sale to be added in future if necessary—for example, should a new model of affordable housing be developed.

Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require that a notice included information as to whether it was a property that had been adapted to make it accessible for wheelchair users or others with mobility issues. The noble Lord may have predicted that I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment; losing properties from the social sector that have already been adapted to meet particular needs is particularly concerning. I will further consider this issue with the sector and whether that can be achieved without any unintended consequences, and I will work with the noble Lord on that.

Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, would extend further the information that must be required in all notices to include, for example, whether a property complied with the decent homes standard and its EPC rating. Amendment 48A would also require the private registered provider to inform the local authority and the regulator of the outcome of the proposed disposal. However, the particulars that must be included in the notice and contained in new Section 171C(1) are those that will be relevant and always of interest to other providers, such as the address and type of dwelling. Again, we have tried to strike a balance here about what legislation needs to identify as a statutory minimum to minimise burdens on landlords, recognising the ability of individual providers to make further inquiries on matters that might be of particular interest to them. Similarly, we do not wish to impose additional requirements on providers for further notifications post sale.

Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would add additional requirements for disposals in designated rural areas, while Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would restrict the number of areas caught by this measure by reducing the threshold to areas of 1,000 people or fewer—I think she agreed that we debated that part earlier on today. Again, I am sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment. As the noble Lord has set out, it is intended to ensure that a private registered provider and the relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to the possible disposal of affordable housing in sensitive rural communities well before a disposal has taken place. However, I am not entirely persuaded that the best way to achieve that outcome is by requiring annual reports on stock condition and statutory consultation on options for the regeneration of social housing prior to disposal. The provision in the Bill will ensure that a local authority is aware of a potential disposal, and I hope that will provide a local authority, particularly perhaps in rural areas, an opportunity to ensure that there is an effective dialogue about particular disposals and, perhaps more strategically, where it is aware of more than one. Requiring statutory consultation on the regeneration of social housing would likely place significant time and administrative costs on both local authority and registered provider and would materially impact the ability of registered providers to make the necessary commercial decisions required to manage their assets effectively and safely.

More broadly, through information published by the Regulator of Social Housing, local authorities can already access information about private registered provider-owned social housing stock within their local authority area, including information relating to whether stock meets the decent homes standard. An annual report on stock condition would be duplicative of these existing rigorous requirements and an unnecessary additional burden on providers. Therefore, while I am entirely sympathetic to what lies behind the amendment, I am not sure that legislating in this way is the best way to achieve that goal.

--- Later in debate ---

As a consequence, recognising the important role that they play, it is time we get some transparency so that, when they start to decide to sell properties that only rich people with cash available can buy, we know a bit more about that and why they have come to that decision. I hope the Minister will consider that carefully.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Coffey for their contributions and amendments. We absolutely recognise the need for legislation to keep up to date with changes to the way personal data is processed, especially where it relates to cases of domestic abuse.

My noble friend Lord Holmes is right to point out the potential role of AI in housing allocations and that human oversight is needed, with an accessible appeals mechanism. His Amendment 117B would require the Secretary of State to publish draft guidance on responsible AI procurement, deployment and oversight, and on cyber security standards. The Government should lead the way on these issues without hindering innovation. More national oversight may be required, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the mechanism my noble friend suggests in Amendment 99 is the most suitable approach.

Accountability is crucial when it comes to reliance on technology, so we agree with the intent behind my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment on applying the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to private registered providers, as well as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 117 on giving better oversight over complaints. These are thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, and I hope the Government will give them due consideration.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments on data, digital systems and technology within the social housing framework. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady O’Neill, for contributing.

Amendments 48, 49, 59, 60, 97 to 99, 114, 117 and 117B raise important questions about transparency, security and the effective use of data in delivering housing services. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Amendment 48 sets out the details that the noble Lord would like to be included in a ledger prepared by housing providers. It would require the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of disposal data, cross-referenced with housing need data, that identifies areas of net social housing stock loss.

I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that private registered providers maintain a robust record of their disposal notices. In turn, this supports the analysis he wishes government to undertake each year on disposals, housing need and the net loss of social homes. However, again, I think we must remain alive to avoiding undue requirements on registered providers, and indeed government, and also recognise the information and data already available.

The Regulator of Social Housing already collects and publishes data annually on sales by all large private registered providers. Local authorities already, as part of the plan-making process, publish their assessment of housing need. Finally, the Government already publish on GOV.UK statistics on affordable housing supply in England, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply.

Amendments 59 and 60 seek to place cyber security requirements on landlords when handling data connected to the domestic abuse protections and would require the Secretary of State to establish a pilot programme to test zero-knowledge proof techniques. I must admit, that is not a term I had heard before I got involved in this debate. It is critical that the domestic abuse protection measures work in practice. I welcome the intent of this amendment and recognise the importance of landlords working sensitively and safely with data when considering cases and making a possession claim to the courts.

Social landlords work with tenants on a range of complex issues and can make possession claims on other sensitive issues such as anti-social behaviour. They are therefore very experienced in considering these matters. As the responsible data controllers, we expect landlords to handle tenant data responsibly. Social landlords are required to handle sensitive information securely and lawfully under UK data protection law, including the UK general data protection regulation—GDPR—and the Data Protection Act 2018. These laws are regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

We will be working with landlords and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation in practice. That will include considering whether additional or further guidance or best practice is needed on data protection and confidentiality to support the safeguarding of victims as a result of these reforms. It is right that these considerations are alongside wider implementation, working with the sector. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move his amendments.

Amendments 97 to 99 and 117B, also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to put in place frameworks for data handling and sharing and the use of artificial intelligence in the social housing sector. I recognise and welcome the intent behind the amendments and support the aim of ensuring effective data protections. However, the amendments are not necessary. They would introduce prescriptive frameworks for data usage in social housing decisions, which would not be the right approach to achieving the desired aims. In gathering evidence and making decisions related to social housing, individual social landlords and multi-agency partners are best placed to identify the systems and approaches that best meet their needs. Local housing authorities, registered providers of social housing and government departments must already operate within UK data protection law, and decisions on data protection are taken within that context.

On Amendment 98, AI, if used well, has the potential to make organisations more efficient, effective and innovative. However, social landlords and other agencies should continue to be mindful of their data protection responsibilities and ensure compliance with UK law. When considering whether and how to use artificial intelligence, landlords and multi-agency partners must still consider data protection, including its lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Again, the Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on AI and data protection within this context. The amendments take a significantly prescriptive approach, requiring social landlords and partners to work within centrally set frameworks. We are of the view that the objectives of the amendments are better achieved within the current data protection legislative framework.

Amendment 117B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of artificial intelligence and cyber security governance in social housing provision. I recognise the intention behind this proposal and the importance of ensuring that new technologies are used responsibly and securely. However, I do not consider a specific statutory reporting requirement to be necessary. Social landlords already operate within established data protection and cyber security frameworks, and wider work is under way across government to consider the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in public services. This would be an additional statutory requirement and risks duplication with existing work.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to bring private registered providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We have already taken forward a targeted and proportionate approach to improving transparency for social tenants through the introduction of the social tenant access to information requirements, known as STAIRs. This will ensure that private registered providers proactively publish more information about their activities and share information with their tenants on request.

Following a direction issued to the Regulator of Social Housing in September 2025, this scheme will come into force on a phased basis over the coming year. From October 2026, private registered providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their social housing and, from April 2027, tenants and their representatives will be able to request access to information relating directly to the management of their homes. Unless it is reasonable not to, landlords will be required to fulfil their tenants’ requests for information within set timeframes. These requirements have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have access to the information that matters most to them. With this in mind, the Government’s view is that a targeted, tenant-focused approach through STAIRs is the more appropriate way to deliver meaningful transparency for tenants.

I turn to Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which would require local authorities to publish data on complaints received related to measures in this Bill. I hope that our commitment to introducing STAIRs demonstrates our commitment to transparency, which I share with him. However, we think it is important to look at complaints data in the round, looking at the whole service rather than focusing on specific measures. As such, the Housing Ombudsman publishes annual complaints reviews providing an assessment of complaints received across the whole sector. All registered providers of social housing are also required to collect and publish tenant satisfaction measures annually, including metrics on how satisfied tenants are with their landlord’s approach to complaints handling.

For all the reasons I have set out, while I recognise the important issues raised around data use, transparency and emerging technologies, the Government consider that these matters are best addressed through existing frameworks and ongoing policy development. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will stick to my words at the beginning and be as brief as possible and to the point. If the aim is to preserve existing stock, clearly this is a lever you have to pull. We would not disagree with that, even though it is so low, but let us be clear: if the average house price in my area—actually, perhaps the average is not a good way of looking at it, but if the median house price is about £450,000, you are still getting a discount of £90,000. How many of us would say no to that?

The other question we have to ask ourselves is: who pays for the discount? However much detail we want to get into about finances, the bottom line is that a sale does not build another house and that money has to be added. Those are simple reasons why we support this direction in the Bill.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her return to the Front Bench. I declare my interests as vice-president of London Councils—I will be there tomorrow morning—and as a part-owner of a rented property in Bexley. I also put on record that my parents had a right to buy. My dad was a bus conductor, and I am proud of that.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on what is ultimately a question of proportionality. The Government believe that the current level of discounts is too generous and that they need to be reduced. The question raised by these amendments is whether the reductions proposed in the Bill go further than necessary, and hence we have probed the inclusion of Clause 5. My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendments do not seek to preserve the status quo; rather, they offer an alternative approach that would reduce discounts while retaining a meaningful incentive for tenants considering home ownership, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. In that sense, they seek a compromise between the current arrangements and the considerably lower levels proposed by the Government.

Noble Lords have referred to the importance of preserving the viability of the scheme. That is a legitimate concern. If discounts are reduced to the point where the financial advantage of exercising right to buy becomes marginal, there is a risk that the policy ceases to operate as intended. The issue before the Committee is therefore not whether discounts should ever change but whether the Government have adequately justified reductions at the scale proposed in the Bill. Having listened to the debate, I am not yet persuaded that they have. For that reason, I hope the Minister will give further consideration to a more measured approach to better preserve the opportunities that the right-to-buy scheme has offered to many tenants over the years.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Thornhill and Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller. First, I will defend why Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. The right-to-buy scheme continues to provide an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. However, we must ensure that the scheme remains sustainable. This includes ensuring that discounts are set at the right level to enable long-standing tenants to buy under the scheme but without depleting levels of social housing stock.

The Government has already taken action to reduce the maximum cash discounts in November 2024 by returning them to pre-2012 levels. We committed to revising the discounts available as a percentage of the property value so that they align better with the revised cash cap amounts. Clause 5 delivers on our commitment to do this by reducing the percentage discounts so that they start at 5% of the property value after 10 years of public sector tenancy, with an increase for every extra year of tenancy up to a maximum of 15%.

As is the case now, these percentage discounts will be subject to the cash caps which set out the maximum cash discount that a tenant can receive in their local authority area. Aligning the discounts available as a percentage of the property value with the cash caps ensures that those who have been in their homes the longest benefit the most, while also avoiding disproportionately large discounts in high-value areas. The revised percentage discount levels aim to strike a balance between the responses received during the right to buy consultation, where many respondents supported setting the percentage discounts lower than is proposed by this clause.

We are also simplifying the rules by applying a single set of discount arrangements to houses and flats, making the scheme clearer and more consistent for tenants. This clause also extends the discount repayment period to 10 years after the original sale from the current five years, during which a purchaser looking to resell the property will be required to repay all or some of the discount on a sliding scale. This measure was supported by 72% of all respondents to our consultation. It will ensure that there is less of an incentive for early resale, which can undermine the purpose of the scheme, and will encourage people buying under the scheme to retain the property and discourage some of the profiteering that we have seen. With this explanation, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

I turn to Amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The intention of these amendments—to set the minimum percentage discount at 20% and the maximum at 30%—would undermine the core aims of the clause that I have just set out and would keep the percentage discounts too high. In practice, the lower maximum cash discounts would take effect over the percentage amounts, as the cash cap would often be the lesser of the two discounts and would determine the discount that the tenant would receive. This would also mean that tenants with longer tenancies would be less likely to benefit, because the cash cap would bite sooner on the actual discount received. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

34: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership(1) Within the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among former social tenants.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of this Act on—(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,in the calendar year prior to the review.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 34, I shall speak also to Amendment 74, in both my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

Too often, housing legislation is judged by the intentions rather than the results it produces. Yet, it is the outcomes that matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said earlier. Whether we are considering home ownership, social housing provision, affordability, public expenditure or the impact of the policy on different groups within society, Parliament should have access to the evidence necessary to determine whether reforms are working in practice.

To begin on Amendment 34, home ownership remains one of the most important aspirations for many people across this country. The amendment would require a review of the impact of this Act on those very ambitions. The Bill contains a number of significant reforms to a system that has aided home ownership. Thus, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should understand what effect those reforms have on people’s ability to own their own home.

I was also pleased to see Amendment 58A in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. There is a clear connection between her amendment and Amendment 34. If Parliament is to understand the impact of this legislation on home ownership, it should also understand the impact on right to buy and the opportunities available to social tenants who aspire to own their own home.

Amendment 73 would require a fiscal impact assessment of the Act. This is not an onerous request. The measures in the Bill will have implications for housing providers, local authorities, taxpayers and wider public finances. Parliament should be able to assess those impacts in a systematic and transparent manner.

These amendments are not about frustrating the implementation of the Bill. Rather, they are about ensuring that Parliament retains the ability to evaluate its effectiveness. Good policy should not just withstand detailed scrutiny but be rooted in evidence. If the Bill succeeds, the Government should be able to demonstrate that success. If it falls short, Parliament should have the evidence necessary to understand why, and to make improvements. That is the purpose of these amendments, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for the error and thank him for his kind comment.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

It is certainly one to note, is it not?

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for her response. The amendments in this group all seek to understand how we will know whether this legislation has succeeded. My noble friend Lady Lawlor rightly focused on the impact of the right-to-buy scheme and the opportunities for home ownership. I thank her for her work on this.

I was also interested in Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough—who was not a council leader. It raises important questions about the availability of homes delivered and whether the housing stock being provided actually meets the needs of families and communities. Understanding the impact of policy on the availability and affordability of larger social rented homes is certainly worth while.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, raise broader questions about transparency, accountability and how Parliament monitors the impact of housing policy across different communities. Noble Lords may have differing views on the precise mechanisms proposed, but these amendments seek to ensure that the consequences of the policy are properly understood and that disparities are identified where they exist. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points that have been made during this debate, as well as look at the equality impact assessment. However, I hope that the Government will also reflect on the broader principle that sits behind this group; namely, that Parliament should not simply legislate and move on but retain the means to assess whether its legislation is delivering the outcomes that are intended. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point, but the substantial cuts to local government funding imposed by the party opposite mean it has been very difficult for local authorities to fulfil all the functions they need to undertake. Our local authorities understand that it can be devastating for households and communities that are affected by flooding, particularly where we get sudden downpours and there is an influx of water. I know they take this very seriously. We have introduced a new fair funding formula, which has increased the funding substantially to local authorities. I am sure they take their responsibilities extremely seriously.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, our changing weather is bringing more frequent episodes of surface water flooding, and the importance of sustainable drainage systems in the new developments has been increasingly clear. While the revised National Planning Policy Framework strengthens expectations, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that local planning authorities have the expertise and resources to implement these requirements consistently?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know I did so yesterday, but I welcome the noble Baroness to her place. She has great experience in local government and I look forward to working with her. She is quite right that it is important that local authorities take the maintenance seriously. Planning practice guidance already sets out that local authorities should be satisfied that all SUDS have clear maintenance and adoption arrangements in place for the lifetime of developments. In June we published new national standards on SUDS that introduce the need to consider the multiple benefits of SUDS—reuse, run-off quantity, water quality, amenity and biodiversity—and those standards should be used by developers to provide the best possible SUDS and by local planning authorities to assess the quality of proposals, with the aim that they will be consistently provided and, importantly, consistently maintained.

New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this very helpful debate and to the Built Environment Committee for its extensive work behind this second report on new towns. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his chairmanship of the committee and the insights he has provided, and all the speakers in the debate.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course support the delivery of new homes, especially for young people, and we recognise the Government’s manifesto commitment to build new towns. In 2019, we promised to build 1 million new homes, and we did, on time and as promised by 2024, and there was a little thing called a pandemic in the middle. However, we want to ensure new homes are built in the right places and that housing delivery is, first and foremost, driven by a genuine “brownfield first” approach, as we have emphasised time and time again in your Lordships’ House.

The second and latest report highlights the need for long-term, compelling vision from central government both to inspire the design and place-making of these new towns and to manage their operational delivery, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to when he said that we needed drive, leadership and inspiration. However, “vision” is not a word that is frequently associated with the current, caretaker Prime Minister, let alone “long-term”—I think the noble Baroness should perhaps have a word with him and pass on some of her enthusiasm and energy. Indeed, the Government have already cut five of their 12 proposed new towns, with just seven remaining, and with the withdrawal of proposals for Adlington in Cheshire, all the proposed new towns are really urban extensions rather than stand-alone towns.

We cannot think about new towns in the abstract. Our islands have a long history and every corner has its own local identity, heritage and traditions that should not be steamrollered over by Whitehall. People do not want greenwashed housing estates concreting over their countryside, as my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs articulated clearly earlier.

The second report recommends that these new towns should not repeat past mistakes. We particularly welcome the recommendation for design standards to be supplemented by locally sensitive design standards for each individual new town. We must follow the evidence collected by those such as Create Streets of what ordinary passers-by and residents like to see, and to empower small and medium-sized builders.

As the Government’s former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, said during the last general election:

“We’re always hearing that people want tree-lined streets of townhouses, so that’s what we’ll build”.


I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, could give some advice there around the trees. What has changed? The previous Government started this work to overcome the design disconnect, yet the Labour Government began by deleting references to aesthetics and beauty in the National Planning Policy Framework, despite the hard work undertaken by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.

We began the work for Greater Cambridge, too, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referenced, as a potential urban extension. I remember some of the early work through Homes England. The current Conservative Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is committed to growth and to tackling long-standing infrastructure challenges, yet Greater Cambridge seems absent from the Government’s latest plans. Local planning authorities and developers benefit from certainty and long-term consistency from central government. Can the Minister update the House on what plans the Government now have for Greater Cambridge specifically?

The committee’s latest report recommends that the Government move beyond short-term metrics to measure the cost-effectiveness of individual new towns, and the second report makes clear the need for government to bring in private investors from the start. Good design with inclusive infrastructure built in from the start saves money in the long term, and this needs to be measured effectively, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson reminded us. What steps are the Government taking to cut the public costs of design and delivery phases?

Making the design and delivery more straightforward for planning authorities and developers requires leadership from the Government, rather than letting public money be used to pay for external consultants with no clear outcome or action in sight, or for endless public consultations, which, in reality, do not take people’s views on design seriously.

As the Social Housing Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House, I would be interested to hear from the Minister how social housing will form part of their seven remaining new towns. How will new social homes be allocated and how will new tenants be prioritised?

We are seeing the consequences of a Government who came to power without a plan and a party which campaigned on the promise of attractive homes only to backtrack a few weeks in, which pledged 1.5 million new homes that may take more than five and a half more years to deliver, and which promised a new generation of new towns only to cut five of the 12 proposed, with Tempsford being the only genuinely new town. The Government did not, and still do not, have a long-term vision, let alone one backed by a thought-through plan for delivery.

I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister and, looking ahead—if indeed housing delivery remains a priority for this Government—when this House can expect the Government’s full response to the committee’s latest report on creating communities.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, that I was a previous leader and councillor for the London Borough of Bexley and vice-president of London Councils, and that I have had involvement in the Local Government Association.

I must admit that when I heard the title of this Bill, I was really quite intrigued, as in my opinion there are so many avenues it could have gone down. But for a Government who say that they want to solve the housing crisis, I was so disappointed when I read that the main focus seemed to be about the right to buy. To put that into context, I grew up on a council estate in Lewisham, in the very early days of the right-to-buy scheme. I recall the aspirational conversations of my parents and their peers that this was their opportunity to own their own homes. That discussion was not about making profits; they fully intended to remain in those homes in which they were raising their families. None of them was high earning, but they were prepared for mortgages and taking responsibility for their home and improving it.

I am sure that many from that time will recall that the first thing the majority of those people did was to change the front door—and did we not all recognise that when canvassing, years later? But it was not just the front doors, as they also had a sense of pride in their surroundings and put many hours into helping with the maintenance of the area, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referenced earlier. The other thing it did was to give them independence, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referenced, so that as they got older and circumstances changed, there were options and the possibility of moving to more appropriate accommodation to ensure that they could continue to live independent lives. That probably saved a lot in social care support that we will never recognise.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I am a supporter of the right-to-buy policy. For every story you will hear of people making profits and being greedy, we should not forget the reality of the majority of people who remained in the property, and intended to continue to do so. However, given that the Bill is supposed to be about delivering on the Government’s manifesto to prioritise the building of new social rented houses and to better protect existing stock, there seem to be a number of important aspects missing, as my noble friend Lady Scott referenced earlier.

The first one, from my perspective, is about making sure that social housing is being used by those for whom it was intended. I vividly recall a conversation with a local housing association when we were embarking on a large regeneration scheme in Bexley, when I asked how it could be sure that the people living in the properties were who they thought they were. I am afraid that digital communications and electronic banking have ended the days of the rent man calling regularly and seeing the tenants, which has meant that the system is open to abuse; the “key job”, where social housing can be sublet, is a very real risk. The man from the local housing association looked at me as if I had two heads at the time, but once the work started in earnest to establish decant need, he admitted that I was right and he was amazed at what they found.

The second aspect is the council waiting list, which has been referenced here many times this afternoon. It appears that the size of waiting lists is sometimes championed in the same way as “My dad is bigger than your dad”. However, if those lists are not regularly revisited, they will not only continue to grow but become inaccurate and lead people into a false sense of security. A regularly refreshed list means that the right priorities are used when nominations are being considered. More accurate information could also ensure that the right people are getting the nominations. Probably most importantly of all, it would mean that those on the list will have a more accurate view of the possibility of housing becoming available.

The next issue is whether tenancy of social housing should be assumed to be lifelong. The Bill seeks to repeal addressing the lifetime tenancy that was introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Is it right that high-income earners remain in subsidised housing that the less fortunate cannot access due to unavailability? While the Government suggest that addressing high-income tenants could bring about disincentives, do they really believe that? The viability of increasing the supply of new social housing, whether through new build or regeneration, needs a mature conversation, and we should recognise that regeneration means decanting, which actually makes it even more costly.

Yes, right-to-buy receipts as well as Section 106 and CIL moneys can be used, but is it sufficient? If it is not viable, does there need to be a conversation about the cost of building or the cost of not building? That needs to be a grown-up conversation. If social housing is to be created, why not seek to ensure that good tenants can be rewarded and backfill with new nominations, which could often mean downsizing, thereby freeing up valuable family homes?

The cost of creating supported accommodation is not viable, either for the elderly or for others who may need support. That is short-sighted and needs addressing, again because that could free up family accommodation but also because it means pushing costs into other areas such as social care.

The proposal in the Bill that concerns me is around domestic violence. Although I agree that there is a need to address tenancy issues, the suggestion is that the perpetrator has to be convicted, which could take some time to come about, so that needs to be considered, as does whether the person who has been abused needs to move from the area. These are two things that I am sure will come out through the Bill’s passage.

Another issue is the disposal of social housing through sale. I very much agree with this proposal, as we found out that one of our local housing associations was selling ex-council properties as a consequence of seeing them pop up on auction sites. Bearing in mind that Bexley’s social housing stock is held by registered providers—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness wind up, please? She is over time.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

That means that that is actually taxpayers’ money. There are many other things that the Bill could go into. It seems a shame that the Bill presents an opportunity to address some of those issues that really impact people, but I am sure that the Minister will be open to conversations throughout its passage.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness was not here at the start of the debate, I do not think she is able to speak.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion C1, in support of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The Minister will be aware that, during the passage of the Bill, I have suggested on a few occasions that there should be a full review of the London mayoral governance process, because there is lots of learning since the original scheme was brought through that really should be revisited.

The Minister issued a letter to us this morning that, as I understand it, gave us this reason on changing to simple majority voting in London: the Assembly is actually a scrutiny function and not part of the mayoral budget process, and therefore that would not be right because it is not part of that policy-making responsibility. Indeed, in the Minister’s opening remarks she said that London is “fundamentally different” and “out of step” with others.

Does this not endorse my earlier proposal? Elsewhere in the country, in governance proposals that have been brought forward since, local council leaders are part of that policy-making process. That would give some opening for other people being involved. In London the current situation—the mayor has sole responsibility and there is a two-thirds majority for the assembly—means that it is unlikely to ever be challenged. Surely, London deserves better. Either it needs to be 50% or, as I suggested throughout consideration of this Bill, we need to relook at London.