Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Exercising the right to buy will not be right for everyone—but is it right or fair to deny the opportunity for those who can, simply for ideological reasons? As has been said earlier, it will mean fewer homes. It will mean longer council waiting lists. That is why I say, with respect, that while there may be many constructive debates in this Committee about the operation of the scheme and the future of social housing, it is fundamentally not right to abolish the right to buy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address the amendment, perhaps I may declare an interest, and in doing so apologise that I neglected to declare it at Second Reading. One of my daughters works for a housing association. I should have said that at Second Reading; it is in the register of interests. I also add my congratulations to those offered to my noble friend Lady Curran, who is appearing on the Front Bench for the first time today. I have already had a chance to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her new role, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She is not in her place today, but we have worked together for all the time I have been in the House on some very long and complicated Bills, and I am very grateful to her. I would like to put that on the record too.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Before I respond on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, let me say that I am pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Social Housing Bill. As I set out at Second Reading, this is critical legislation that goes right to the heart of our current housing crisis. More than 1.3 million families in need of a home languish on local authority housing waiting lists and the number of children growing up in temporary accommodation continues to climb, so we must act now to turn around decades of losing more social homes than we are building.

This legislation brings forward measures to protect much-needed social housing and incentivise new building, as well as groundbreaking reforms to create a safer and fairer system for those experiencing domestic abuse. At Second Reading, I was clear that this Social Housing Bill sits within a much wider programme of social housing action which clearly demonstrates our Government’s ambition and commitment to deliver the hope for the future that decent affordable social housing represents. Together with the Government’s wider package of reforms and the £39 billion of investment, this Bill will ensure that we can provide decent, safe, secure and affordable housing for generations to come. I look forward to getting into the detail of the Bill’s provisions over the course of Committee, and to engaging with noble Lords on these important measures.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, intends to abolish right to buy. The noble Baroness has also given notice of her intention to oppose all the right to buy clauses, with the exception of Clause 6, standing part of the Bill, making it clear that this amendment accompanies that intention. The Government have no plans to abolish the right to buy. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership, to own their own homes, boosting social mobility and opportunity, and supporting aspiration for families across the country.

Following the commitment in our manifesto, we are reforming right to buy through this Bill. This will deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme, where long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years can buy their own homes—but, crucially, where councils can replace them and contribute to the urgent and rising need for social and affordable homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the long called-for ability for councils to retain 100% of receipts, and this Government have facilitated that. By reforming the right-to-buy scheme, we will protect much-needed housing stock and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, more homes will be available to house those on waiting lists and those who are homeless.

We have committed to the biggest funding boost for social and affordable housing for a generation. I remind the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Jamieson, that many of the homes sold have never been replaced. Between April 2012 and March 2025, there were around 133,000 council right-to-buy sales, with only around 51,000 homes replaced over the same period. Not only has this depleted much-needed homes for households in need but it has reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, and it has restricted broader investment in council housing. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that through the Renters’ Rights Act this Government have significantly strengthened renters’ rights, including with regard to rent increases.

We think we have the balance right here, making sure that we address some of the issues around right to buy but also continuing to give that opportunity and aspiration for those who want to purchase their own homes. We therefore oppose this amendment, and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who contributed to this short but passionate Committee debate. I join others in welcoming the noble Baronesses, Lady Curran and Lady O’Neill, to the Front Benches.

I think the Minister agreed with me that right to buy and the way it has been implemented up to now have done enormous damage. We are in agreement about the loss without replacement of so much social housing. I also acknowledge her points about the Renters’ Rights Act, which is a step in the right direction, although the Green Party would like to see this going much further, with rent caps.

In saying that, I respond a little to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have the greatest respect. He compared the percentage of social renters in the UK with other parts of Europe. Of course, the conditions and the arrangements for private renting in many parts of Europe give people far greater security of tenure and far greater security of life than our arrangements do, even with the Renters’ Rights Act.

A couple of other points from the noble Lord, Lord Young, really need to be referred to. On the idea that housing will be sold and then ploughed back, later we will come to Amendment 16 about buyback. If we see an extension of buyback, it is possible to imagine a home being sold under right to buy and, very quickly, the council buying a house so that another one is available immediately. But the more typical situation will probably be that a house is sold under right to buy and maybe 10 years later a new social housing unit appears as a result of that money. That is a very long gap, and of course there is still disruption to the community. It will not often be an immediate response.

In picking up a couple of points from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not start a whole debate about where the rise in house prices comes from, but a study from King’s College London in 2018 estimated that, without foreign investment money coming in, prices would have been 19% lower then. Of course, we saw a great financial liberalisation—part of the whole right-to-buy scenario, where we have turned what had been secure and affordable places for people to live into something regarded primarily as a financial asset.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who suggested that social housing should be only a short-term replacement until you move on with your life. We want people to have a secure and affordable place to live for life, if that is what they want. That should be the foundation of our communities. We are not stressing enough the impact on communities of right to buy; we are focused very much on the impacts on individuals. The turmoil that right to buy has brought communities should not be ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Committee. I apologise to noble Lords that I was not able to be in your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I declare my relevant technology interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of Avalanche (BVI), Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.

In my set of Committee amendments, I want to assist the Bill by bringing the strands of inclusion and innovation and talent and technology through every possible supportive clause of the Bill. In this group, I speak to Amendments 3, 10 and 13 in my name.

Amendment 3 sets out provisions to establish a digital life-cycle service for right to buy. In doing so, it would provide greater empowerment, knowledge, connection and communication to those who may wish to avail themselves of the right-to-buy service. This would be an effective and important use of digital technology and, through that, could play a positive part in enabling digital inclusion. Critically, the amendment does not seek to rely just on digital; it sets out provisions for alternative means of connection to ensure this life-cycle service could be achieved through systems such as text messaging. Amendment 10 would develop this in the context of fraud requirements, clearly supporting the measures in new Section 124A inserted by Clause 4.

Amendment 13 further seeks to use the benefits of technology to provide an immutable record—an audit trail—which is tamper-proof for all Section 122 applications. In 2017, I wrote a report on blockchain called Distributed Ledger Technologies for Public Good. At that stage, I wanted to set out not just the potential public use cases but the public value cases in which the distributed ledger and other technologies could assist across the state. My fear was that, if these potential use cases and value cases were not set out, the debate would get stuck and, whenever blockchain was mentioned, it would naturally be assumed that it meant just Bitcoin, which had nothing to say on beneficial provision for operations of the state across potentially all government departments and local authorities. Amendment 13 is therefore one such potential use case or value case, where there could be a clear audit trail, available for all, of use to the department, and indeed the regulator, with the safety, security and knowledge that it is a clear, accurate, immutable record of applications and any potential fraud hearings and investigations that have happened around right to buy.

These three amendments look to deploy the benefits of such potential technologies. I believe they would greatly support the provisions set out in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 4, 6 and 122 in my name now and then come back to close at the end, if that is all right with noble Lords.

The Government clearly set out in our response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy that we would prevent existing property owners or those who have previously benefited from the scheme exercising right to buy unless there are exceptional circumstances. This was supported by 91% of respondents to the consultation, including 86% of social tenants who responded. We have already drawn up the latter part of this commitment through Clause 2 of the Bill and intend to add to this by including a provision in new Clause 2 to prevent existing residential property owners exercising the right to buy. The Committee will appreciate that defining residential property ownership is complex, given the many forms that property ownership can take. Capturing this complexity in legal drafting required additional time, meaning that this clause was not present at introduction. Given that the intent behind the right to buy is to enable tenants of social housing to become home owners, preventing existing property owners using the scheme is a fair and rational approach.

We have set out in this amendment what we think is a reasonable definition of a residential property owner. The new clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured, with exceptions for short-term leases under 21 years, as will joint ownership and any properties owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad. As in Clause 2, exemptions will be made for victims of domestic abuse who have moved from the accommodation that they were occupying for reasons connected to the abuse.

As part of the application process, tenants will be required to declare to the landlord whether they own another property and landlords will be able to check the information that the tenant provides. If tenants are seeking exceptionally to buy under a right-to-buy scheme, where they already own a residential property, because they have been a victim of domestic abuse, they will be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord. Amendment 4 thus follows through on our commitment to exclude existing property owners from using right to buy and is accompanied by Amendments 6 and 122, which are consequential and enable the new clause to operate as intended. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I want to hear from the Minister about government Amendment 4, to try to understand a bit more about cohabitees. There are other legal rulings which have been made and I am led to believe that the Lord Chancellor will be bringing forward legislation about cohabitees, but the definition is not particularly strong. I want to understand how, in practice, the Government intend to put this in place. The new clause is suggesting that it is somebody who lives with somebody else as if they are married, but there are other benefits rulings where that entitlement was brought in only because of children involved. I want to get a better understanding because, in that particular case, the ruling is that you have to have lived with somebody for only a single day. I hear that the Lord Chancellor may be talking about something like three years. I would be grateful if the Minister, in her final wind-up, would elaborate further on how they will determine accurately whether somebody is a cohabitee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, it is very convenient that my noble friend Lady Scott is in the Chamber, so I can say many thanks for all that she has done and how she helped me come into the House. It is great following someone who is so good, because there is so much to learn and, fortunately, I am still able to access that learning, so I thank her very much.

My noble friend Lady Eaton rightly raises concerns regarding changes to the qualifying period, removing opportunity for many. What is the Government’s evidence that this will work and why is the change being made from three to 10 years? In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made either a compliment or a back-handed compliment—I am not sure which—it fundamentally comes down to our view that retaining a house with a family in it and not giving them the opportunity to buy it and stay in it, with the proceeds being used to build more social housing, does not remove anyone from the waiting list. Using that resource to build more housing, which could be temporary accommodation, social housing or specialist housing, is an opportunity to reduce the housing waiting list. It is about more homes for more people, and more opportunity.

I will use, if I may, the same pleading as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I do not fully understand what my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is proposing. But, certainly, his expertise is far greater than mine and using things such as digital lifecycle services, better technology and encryption technology to support tenants to provide information and to reduce levels of fraud is, surely, a good idea. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those matters.

We have the same concerns about Clause 1, and we are opposed to it until the Government have outlined sufficient evidence on what impact extending the qualifying period will have, not only on housing stock but on tenants who want to own their own home. To many, this, along with other measures proposed in the Bill, would appear to be a deliberate government strategy to undermine right to buy: death by a thousand cuts, so to speak.

Amendment 5 proposes a mechanism to protect existing tenants, and as a result these changes would not affect those who have entered a secure tenancy before this clause comes into force. There is precedent for retrospective protection in legislation, as was done in the Housing Act 2004 passed by the previous Labour Government. There are tenants currently under the impression that they will have the opportunity to own their own home after three years and we should realise the impact that this will have. Alternatively, Amendments 120, 121 and 123 would delay the commencement of Section 1 by three years, thereby giving tenants who are just now entering secure tenancy the opportunity to exercise their current right to buy should they so wish, rather than suddenly snatching it away.

Amendments 7 and 8 reflect our concerns about Clause 2. These probe whether right to buy should be restricted on the basis that a spouse or civil partner, living or deceased, has exercised it in the past.

Amendment 9 also questions the ability of a landlord to be satisfied that persons not married or in civil partnership were none the less living together in that way. These provisions raise key questions about how the state treats two people living together and whether that should affect their property rights. How do the Government plan to communicate these changes so that tenants are aware how their relationships could affect their right to buy? This is particularly pertinent in relation to the Cohabitation Rights Bill, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the Government’s consultation on reforming inheritance for unmarried couples.

Furthermore, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 6 and 122 to introduce a new clause to prevent the right to buy being exercised if a person, their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee already owns other residential property. There are various scenarios I ask the Government to consider. First, as my noble friend Lady Coffey raised, how are the Government defining a relationship in this instance?

As we have seen recently in Scotland, a wife claimed to be completely unaware of a £125,000 motorhome owned by her husband for three years and parked on her mother-in-law’s drive. In all seriousness, it is an optimistic assumption that all those entering relationships are aware of their partner’s current finances and assets. So, how will the Government be able to justify taking away the right to buy from someone who is unaware of a separate asset that they have no stake in? Do the Government accept that there may be additional and unexpected complexities to this proposal?

It also seems to be a contradictory rationale to ban right to buy for tenants in this situation while simultaneously permitting a lifetime tenancy at below-market rates. That seems slightly puzzling. We are not willing to accept these amendments at this stage, and not until further scrutiny of these proposals has taken place on Report.

Finally, Amendment 35 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance promoting the right-to-buy scheme and financial literacy among young people. People need to be aware of their options and rights, and young people especially need to be given roots to stand on their own two feet. As the Minister herself has previously said, young people need to be more aware of opportunities that are out there for home ownership. Of course, it is not just the case that young people are unaware; they need to be given the financial skills to help navigate the housing market.

I therefore hope the Government will consider our amendments on how we can better support young people to own their own home and look at delaying Clause 4 until such time as this House has had a greater opportunity to scrutinise it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first refer to Opposition comments about government amendments, as that will probably be the most helpful. Tenants who own another property are, by definition, already homeowners, and the right-to-buy scheme was introduced to support tenants who otherwise would be unlikely to access home ownership. Therefore, they should not be given a discount to buy a second home when so many others have not been given the opportunity to purchase a first home. Existing homeowners can generally not join the housing register for the allocation of social housing, including those who own property outside their local authority or abroad, meaning that the measure to exclude such property ownership aligns with existing allocations guidance.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, there is a very detailed explanation of the exclusion in the amendment itself. I will not read it out, because everyone can look at it in the amendment, but the cohabitee part of the amendment refers to

“the co-habitee of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs; and, for that purpose, one person is the co-habitee of another person if they live together as if they were a married couple or civil partners”.

However, I will reflect on the noble Baroness’s comments if it is not as clear as we hope it is. But, from looking at it again, though, it seems very clear to me in the amendment we have tabled.

I will now tackle the question of whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 increases the minimum tenancy length required for tenants to be eligible for the right-to-buy scheme from three to 10 years. The core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to prevent social homes from being sold off without being replaced. Maintaining the eligibility period at three years would contribute to council homes continuing to be sold off at an unsustainable rate and would reduce the ability of our councils to replace those homes.

Furthermore, increasing the minimum eligibility period has received strong support from stakeholders. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked me about evidence. In our consultation on reforming the right to buy, 81% of all respondents, of which 62% were tenants, supported increasing the minimum period of tenancy required to at least 10 years. In fact, the majority of respondents, 54%, supported someone having to be a public sector tenant for longer than 10 years before becoming eligible for the right to buy.

This takes me neatly on to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, which seeks to extend the eligibility period under the scheme to five years, instead of the proposed 10. The Government firmly believe that 10 years strikes the right balance between allowing longer-standing tenants the opportunity to own their own home and protecting our much-needed social housing stock. Increasing the eligibility requirement to 10 years will better support councils to rebuild the stock of council homes and will ensure that it is tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their social homes for many years who are able to own their own home through the scheme. Ten years is also the average length of tenancy of someone buying under the scheme currently, meaning that this will not substantially change the average eligibility period of those buying under the scheme.

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to amend Clause 1 of the Bill so that the provision only applies to secure tenancies entered into after the measure comes into force, which would mean that existing secure tenancies would still be eligible for the right to buy after only three years of tenancy. Excluding existing tenancies from the eligibility change would mean that the existing three years’ eligibility would continue to apply to the vast majority of council housing tenants and that we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy is secured. As set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on these measures, we have been clear that the intention is that this change would apply to both existing and new tenants to protect existing social housing stock. For these reasons, we cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments 120, 121 and 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seek to delay commencement of Clause 1 by three years. It is imperative that we increase the eligibility requirement for right to buy as soon as practicable to ensure we support long-standing tenants in retaining the right to buy, while ensuring that our councils are not losing homes at an unsustainable rate. As such, we intend to bring Clause 1 into force on Royal Assent. This ensures that we act quickly to protect council housing stock and that we prevent a potential spike in sales as a result of these changes. Allowing a three-year lead-in time for Clause 1 would only increase the loss of social homes to the right to buy. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the reasons I have set out and withdraw her amendment, and I commend this clause to the Committee.

I turn now to Clause 2, which has been opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Repeat purchases through the right to buy go against the core aim of the scheme, which is to support tenants into long-term home ownership. It also undermines the objectives of maintaining and expanding social and affordable housing stock. The vast majority of respondents to the government consultation stated they would support preventing someone who has previously benefited from the right to buy from being able to exercise the right to buy again. Clause 2 delivers on this, with exceptions for victims of domestic abuse and in cases of irretrievable relationship breakdown. The terms of these exceptions are set out in the clause and will be reinforced by updated guidance when the Act comes into force. It will be for social landlords to be satisfied that the exceptions apply, for which they will be able to ask for evidence from the applicant as part of the application process. This is something councils are well practised at doing, as under the current rules those who have previously exercised the right to buy have their discount reduced if they seek to exercise the right to buy again.

I now turn to Amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which intend to probe whether the right to buy should be restricted if a spouse or civil partner of tenants have exercised the right to buy before. The Government have carefully considered these restrictions and feel it is appropriate that this policy should include where spouses and civil partners exercised the right to buy in the past, as the household in question can therefore be assessed as having already benefited from the scheme. Allowing repeated purchases within married couples or civil partnerships could lead to the gaming of the system and would undermine the objective of preserving and expanding social housing stock.

Amendment 9 seeks to probe how social landlords could be satisfied that, where a tenant is seeking an exemption to be able exercise the right to buy again due to relationship breakdown, the tenant was not married or in a civil partnership but were living as such—that is, that they were cohabiting. As part of the application process, applicants seeking an exemption will be required to provide evidence of their previous situation. If the landlord is satisfied with that evidence, the right to buy could then be exercised. To reiterate and reassure, we will be providing additional guidance to landlords on Clause 2 and how it will operate. With this explanation, I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments and commend Clause 2 to the Committee.

Amendment 35, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, intends to create a separate piece of guidance for the right to buy specifically aimed at promoting the scheme and financial literacy among young people. I point noble Lords to the existing guide Your Right to Buy Your Home, which is accessible on GOV.UK to all tenants regardless of age. This provides comprehensive guidance on the right-to-buy scheme, including on the costs of home ownership. The guidance will be fully updated in light of the reforms to the scheme. The guidance also includes information on how to access the Money and Pensions Service, which provides free, impartial advice to help people make informed choices about managing their money. This service is accessible to young people. As we do not wish to duplicate any existing guidance, the Government cannot accept this amendment. As I have already alluded to, we will continue to update and promote guidance to tenants on the right to buy through usual channels, notably GOV.UK. We will also share relevant information about the scheme and changes to it with local authorities so that they can disseminate it to their tenants.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 3, 10 and 13. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for these amendments, and for his technical knowledge which enabled him to bring them before the Committee today. They seek to introduce a centralised digital lifecycle service for the right to buy, alongside new requirements for audit and fraud tracking. I recognise the intention behind these proposals—improving transparency, supporting tenants through the process and strengthening safeguards against fraud are all important objectives. However, the Government do not consider that a centrally mandated digital service is the right approach to achieve these aims. The right to buy is fundamentally a landlord-led process. Individual social landlords hold the relevant tenancy information, determine eligibility and manage applications directly with tenants. This reflects the fact that eligibility depends on detailed, case-specific information—such as tenancy history, property type and previous use of the right to buy—which sits with the landlord, not with central government.

These amendments would require a significant shift away from that established model, creating a national service to replicate functions that are already carried out locally. To operate effectively, such a service would depend on the continuous input and standardisation of very large volumes of data from social landlords across the country. That would not be a simple enhancement. It would require the design and delivery of complex digital infrastructure, the resolution of significant data-sharing and governance issues and the ongoing maintenance of accurate, real-time information across a highly diverse sector. In practice, this creates a substantial delivery risk. There is a real danger that such a system could become burdensome, duplicative and inflexible, placing new administrative burdens on landlords while not improving the core experience for tenants.

Similarly, mandating specific technologies, such as a blockchain-based audit trail, risks imposing disproportionate cost and complexity without clear evidence of additional benefit over existing systems. Landlords are already required to maintain accurate records and have processes in place to identify and investigate potential fraud. For these reasons, while I understand the objectives behind these amendments the Government consider that they would introduce unnecessary complexity, cost, and risk into a system that is best administered at the local level. We therefore cannot support these amendments and I kindly ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I would like some clarification about government Amendment 4. This is an issue of principle, to some extent. This is an amendment of more than two pages; it is not a small technical correction. As the Minister will have heard from me and my noble friend Lady Coffey, we have some concerns about understanding issues such as what is a cohabitee and when is it defined, and so forth. We genuinely believe that there is a principle here that this House should have the opportunity to properly scrutinise government amendments, and this government amendment has come just after the Bill was published. Why was it not in the original Bill, and why should we not be given the opportunity, given that it is quite a large amendment, to take it to Report, which would give the Government and us the opportunity to clarify some of these issues that have been raised here today?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I set out in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, a clear definition is set out in the new clause. I accept what the noble Lord says. Perhaps, if he would rather reflect on this between now and Report, I will have further discussions with him on that. Is he suggesting that I should not move the amendment at this stage?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Yes; we would be very happy if the noble Baroness did not move the amendment. We would prefer that that amendment is moved on Report after we have had the opportunity for clarification and conversations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Forgive me, but it was my understanding that it had been agreed through the usual channels that we could move this amendment today.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That was not my understanding.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Exercise of the right to buy by residential property ownersBefore section 121A of the Housing Act 1985 insert—“121ZC Exercise of the right to buy by residential property ownersProhibition on exercise of right to buy(1) The right to buy may not be exercised if any of the following persons owns other residential property—(a) the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs;(b) the spouse or civil partner of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs (if they are living together at the relevant time in relation to the right to buy);(c) the co-habitee of the person, or any of the persons, to whom the right to buy belongs;and, for that purpose, one person is the co-habitee of another person if they live together as if they were a married couple or civil partners.(2) But that prohibition does not apply if—(a) the landlord is satisfied that—(i) the person or any of the persons to whom the right to buy belongs (“A”) has at any time within the relevant period been a victim of domestic abuse within the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and(ii) within that period A has for reasons connected to the abuse moved from the accommodation that they were occupying (whether or not more than once), and(b) the right to buy is being exercised by A (whether alone or with other persons).Residential property(3) In this section—(a) “other residential property” means residential property other than the dwelling-house to which the right to buy relates;(b) “residential property” means a building or a part of a building (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) that consists of, or includes, property that—(i) is being used wholly or partly as a dwelling, or(ii) is constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling, but is not being used wholly or partly as a dwelling.Ownership: England, Wales and Northern Ireland(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply for the purpose of determining whether a person owns other residential property that is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.(5) The person owns the other residential property if the person is the beneficial owner, or one of the beneficial owners, of a qualifying interest in the other residential property.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), any of the following is a “qualifying interest”— (a) the freehold;(b) a lease that was originally granted for a term of 21 years or longer.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person (P) is a beneficial owner of a qualifying interest if—(a) the qualifying interest is not held on trust and P holds, or is one of the persons who hold, the qualifying interest, or(b) the qualifying interest is held on trust and P has, or is one of the persons who have, a beneficial interest under the trust;(and accordingly if P holds, or is one of the persons who hold, the qualifying interest on trust, P is not a beneficial owner unless P also has a beneficial interest under the trust).Ownership: Scotland(8) Subsections (9) and (10) apply for the purpose of determining whether a person owns other residential property that is in Scotland.(9) The person owns the other residential property if the person is the owner, or one of the owners, of the other residential property.(10) But where a person (“T”) holds other residential property in trust under the law of Scotland on terms such that, if the trust had effect under the law of England and Wales, one or more persons would be regarded as having an equitable interest in the trust property (the “notional beneficiary or beneficiaries”)—(a) the notional beneficiary or beneficiaries are to be treated as being the owner or owners of the residential property despite no such interest being recognised under the law of Scotland, and(b) T is the owner only if T is a notional beneficiary.Ownership: outside the United Kingdom(11) In determining whether a person owns other residential property outside the United Kingdom, regard must be had to the desirability of producing an effect that is as consistent with the effect produced by subsections (5) to (7) as is practicable (taking into account, in particular, any ways in which the law relating to the other residential property differs from the laws of the United Kingdom).Trusts and trustees: other provision(12) For the purposes of this section—(a) a qualifying interest (in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland), or ownership (in relation to Scotland), is not to be regarded as held on a trust created by a will unless and until the qualifying interest or ownership has been vested in the trustees;(b) a person is not to be regarded as holding a qualifying interest (in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland), or ownership (in relation to Scotland), if they hold it as a trustee in bankruptcy or otherwise in accordance with any legislation of any part of the United Kingdom relating to insolvency.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent the right to buy from being exercised if any person to whom the right belongs, or their spouse, civil partner or co-habitee, already owns other residential property.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I move the amendment formally but I am happy to discuss it further with noble Lords if they have concerns about the definition.

Amendment 4 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

6: Clause 2, page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to “Exercise” in line 9 and insert—
“(1) After section 121ZC of the Housing Act 1985 (inserted by section (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners)) insert—Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the new Clause (Exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners) in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I do not think we can base every decision or amendment on exactly where one lives—recognising that there are parts of the country where there are significantly lower costs and low market prices to be had. I also go back partly to what I said at Second Reading; there is a risk that, as people retire, they will start to claim benefits to continue to live in the places where they are currently social housing tenants. I think it would be worth looking at the maths again, but with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said about the issues around housing in rural areas. I might send her some of the Focus leaflets that I have seen objecting to rural developments.

I begin by focusing on Clause 6 regarding the right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes sold under right to buy. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate on the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a fairly sweeping statement about there being little ambition for increasing supply. I hope that she will have noted both the letter I sent in response to Second Reading and the annexe that was attached to that, which set out in great detail—I mentioned it at the start of Committee today—some of the action that the Government are taking to increase supply.

The first is the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts by councils. That was a big step forward—I campaigned for it for probably 15 years. There is the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation, rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest; a road map for Section 106 delivery, which has been a constant theme of discussions in this House and elsewhere; a complete renewal of the planning framework; £16 billion of National Housing Bank funding; and an ambitious package of support for London. London has been mentioned a couple of times in this debate, and the Government have put in £11.7 billion of funding to support the building of housing in London. I do not consider that a lack of ambition for housing delivery. Of course, we are constrained by the finances available.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister has provoked me now. All those are positive moves, but how much do they add up to? That is the question. The enormous sum of money that the Government have made available for affordable—I hate that word—and social housing adds up to 180,000 new homes over 10 years, whereas Shelter advocates that 90,000 new social homes to rent are essential every year. That is the scale of the problem, which is why I used the word that I did to criticise the Government for a lack of ambition. We are desperate for increased numbers of social homes. I appreciate what the Government are doing, but I am pretty sure that it does not add up to anywhere near enough.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I accept to a certain extent what the noble Baroness is saying. No one would be more ambitious than me to deliver more social housing. We are in government and we have to deal with the financial circumstances that we inherited, which included an enormous financial black hole. In that context, the amount of funding that we have allocated for social housing is significant—it is the biggest amount of funding for a generation—as are the other steps that we have taken to move the housing market along, not just in social housing but in other areas as well.

When the economy starts to grow again—we have already seen green shoots—we will be able to put more in, but, for the moment, we have indicated the ambition for increasing supply through what we have done already. We continue to be ambitious, and we will continue to support the growth of affordable and social housing alongside growth right across the housing market, which is really important. I was delighted to see the wraparound on the Metro this morning from Lloyds Bank, talking about how, for the first time since 1996, it has produced a £5,000 starter mortgage for young people. That is brilliant. All the steps that we are taking to increase housing supply across the board show a great deal of ambition, so I wanted to challenge the noble Baroness’s sweeping statement about little ambition for increasing supply.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, proposes to remove Clause 6 entirely from the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendment 16 regarding the resourcing and monitoring of the right of first refusal. Let me start by setting out that the right of first refusal offers an opportunity for social landlords to buy back homes that have been sold under right to buy, at full market value, when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently 10 years after the original sale. Councils have 8 weeks to decide whether to purchase the home when informed by the owner that they are planning to sell, following which the property can be sold on the open market. Under Clause 6, the period will be increased to in perpetuity, so that councils will have the opportunity to buy back the property every time it is resold. This will give councils much more opportunity to buy back future properties sold under the scheme.

The change will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measure comes into force. Homes already sold under right to buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold under the scheme. Where the right of refusal is for 10 years, as it is currently, that will continue to apply. I hope that that clarifies the point. It is for local authorities to decide whether to exercise the right of first refusal, taking into account their local priorities and financial position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, we are moving to single-tier councils across the country, but he is quite correct in his assumption.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification; it certainly would make it easier that somebody does not have to chase 15 different housing associations that have merged or demerged.

This has been an insightful debate, and I thank noble Lords for the points they have raised. There are evidently some concerns about the Bill’s implications across the Committee, not just about the practicalities but about fairness and things such as definitions of rurality. I am grateful to the Minister for her response to our concerns. However, we still have concerns about extending the right of first refusal in perpetuity and about how this will affect families in the future and former landlords. The clarification addresses some of the complexities, but it is still a basic principle that if you own a house for some period of time, it should truly become yours. I ask the Government to look again.

Clause 7 is certainly controversial, and a number of noble Lords have spoken about the definition of rurality. We have not heard many noble Lords in this Committee saying that they want to give the opportunity to the Secretary of State to define rurality without sufficient parliamentary oversight or without a proposed definition accompanying the Bill. We appreciate that defining rurality is not straightforward—I am pleased with my noble friend Lord Fuller’s definition, “Can you get an Uber?”, and on that basis I am definitely in a rural area. This requires further debate, and I am sure that we will come back to this at a later stage. The point is that, while we recognise the challenges of delivering homes in rural areas, we do not believe that removing the right to buy is fair on those tenants.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that we need to find ways of building new homes in rural areas because the demand is there, and without ensuring that we have a thriving community, the schools, pubs and shops will shut. As an example, in one of my villages, 100 new homes had been built on a new housing estate and when I was knocking on doors—as I do quite regularly—people were saying that the school cannot cope. I had to inform them that the school was half full and that, without that housing estate, it would shut. We are having fewer children per household, and we need to think about having a thriving community, which in some cases needs more houses. We need to think about that more.

On the question of the 35-year restriction for newly built social housing, there is a genuine lack of clarity. I appreciate that the Minister said that 30 to 35 years is often the period over which you recover the full cost of the house. But you are selling the house, and in doing so with the appropriate floor price, you would recover the funding anyway. So it is not clear to me why that is necessary.

Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, raises some interesting questions. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and as a councillor I am all in favour of councils receiving more resources for the good work that they do, but I want to understand the implications of this amendment financially. How many homes would this apply to? What level of resource would it involve? Is it a few million pounds, or could it be billions of pounds a year? There are times when it will be right to buy an existing home. However, at a time when we have a housing shortage and desperately need to build more homes, should we really be focusing limited resources on buying existing homes rather than building new social homes? We need to do more than just think about how we move around the ownership. We need to look at how we increase the number of homes. That is one of the reasons that we are in favour of right to buy: it provides more resources rather than calling on the Government’s limited resources.

I hope that the Government will reflect further on the points raised across the Committee and ensure that these various amendments are duly considered before Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I was not planning to speak in this group, but, after listening to my noble friend and other noble Lords, and after reading Clause 9, it is clear that the Government are intending to take a power to reduce the amount that is payable to the Secretary of State under the regulations. I am not clear why that power is being taken and for what purposes? Under what circumstances would that payment be reduced? Clearly, there is going to be a method for making a determination, but I do not think we know what it is. It would be jolly helpful if we were told what it is.

In particular, it would be helpful to know why the Localism Act insertion into what is currently Section 11(6), which allows the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement with the local authority about this, has been taken out. An agreement of that kind is exactly the sort of way in which the Secretary of State might want to enter into a means of supporting particular use of capital receipts in particular local authorities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

I would like to reassure the House on our intentions behind Clause 9 of the Bill, which relates to the use of receipts from the sale of homes under the right-to-buy scheme. Clause 9 simplifies and modernises how the rules on right-to-buy receipts are managed. Every stock-holding authority currently has an agreement with the Secretary of State allowing it to retain all its net right-to-buy receipts, provided it spends those receipts on replacement social housing. In practice, this is administratively burdensome for both councils and central government. Currently, whenever the rules on receipts change—for example, permitting councils to combine their receipts with grant funding—the department must reissue all the retention agreements to every stock-holding authority, which is around 160 individual agreements.

Clause 9 replaces this with a simpler approach. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to modify these requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements many times over while maintaining oversight. This clause therefore reduces administrative burden, improves responsiveness and supports councils to deliver more homes. The rules on pooling of right-to-buy receipts will continue to be governed by the regulations and any significant changes to those rules will continue to need to be made through a statutory instrument, subject to the negative procedure.

I know it has been a concern of some noble Lords that we may be seeking to use this clause to require councils to start repaying a portion of their receipts to the Treasury. I reassure noble Lords that this is absolutely not the case. We have committed to allow councils to retain all their right-to-buy receipts indefinitely, and Clause 9 makes it clear that the power of determination cannot be used to increase the amount that local authorities are required to return to the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for Amendments 26 to 32, which would replace the power Clause 9 introduces for the Secretary of State to make determinations on right-to-buy receipts with a requirement to use regulations in all cases. In July 2024, we were able to act quickly to give local authorities greater flexibility to spend their right-to-buy receipts to accelerate the delivery of new social and affordable homes. Importantly, this included permitting receipts to be combined with Section 106 contributions and removing the cap on the proportion of a new home that can be funded by right-to-buy receipts.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would remove that flexibility and require all changes on right-to-buy receipts to be made through regulations. In practice, this would mean that the existing process would remain in place, with the administrative burden it entails for councils and central government. It would also result in delay and complexity in the system and make it harder to respond to the operational needs or make technical adjustments in a timely way. For these reasons, the Government cannot support these amendments. The current approach strikes the right balance between flexibility and oversight.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require the Secretary of State to consult local housing authorities before making any determination on the use of capital receipts. I reassure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the importance of engaging with local authorities on these matters. Where changes to rules governing the spending of right-to-buy receipts are proposed, it is standard practice to engage with the sector to ensure those changes are informed by local experience and delivery considerations. Placing a blanket statutory duty to consult in all circumstances would introduce unnecessary rigidity and could delay the implementation of technical or operational changes. It is important that we retain the ability to act flexibly and responsively while continuing to engage with our local authorities in a proportionate and meaningful way.

Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, proposes a new clause be added to the Bill to recycle right-to-buy receipts within the same housing market area before these are returned to the Secretary of State. Under the existing right-to-buy receipts framework, where local authorities are unable to spend the receipts on new affordable housing within the five-year period, the unused receipts must be returned to the Secretary of State. They are then given out as grant to other social housing providers by Homes England, or for receipts in London by the GLA.

Homes England seeks to redistribute those receipts where possible to the same geographical area in which they were generated, and all receipts generated in London are spent in London. Under the framework, local authorities are also able to work with other local authorities on the spending of right-to-buy receipts on new affordable housing and with other local housing providers. The Government are also extending the period in which receipts must be spent to 10 years for receipts generated from 2027-28 onwards, ensuring receipts are retained in the same housing market areas for longer. This is intended to support councils to plan and deliver longer-term and larger projects.

We therefore reject this amendment on the grounds that there is already flexibility with the right-to-buy receipts framework for local authorities to work with other local housing authorities and providers on delivering new affordable homes using those receipts, and that the system for the recycling of receipts already looks to prioritise the spending of the receipts in the area where they were generated.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Much of the discussion has centred on the proper balance between flexibility and accountability. No one disputes that government requires a degree of flexibility in managing housing finance, and for minor technical changes there is reasonable ground for a determination or something similar. There is also no disagreement that local circumstances differ across the country.

However, while I appreciate this is a complex area and some of these things may require a degree of complexity, the basic principle that right-to-buy receipts should be recycled and reused in the area in which they arise is something we feel is important, and it should not be subject to a Secretary of State determination without consultation or some affirmative procedure in the House. That is the key question here. If the Minister is going to bring forward suggestions at a later stage that differentiate between a minor technical change and the principle we are talking about, that would be a much better solution than those we have seen here, which potentially give the Secretary of State much greater powers than many of us would like. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as this group of amendments focuses on the outcomes and impacts of the measures in the Bill, I start by drawing the attention of noble Lords to the economic impact assessment for the Bill, published today on GOV.UK. I know this will be greatly welcomed by many in the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me during Second Reading when it was going to be published, so I am pleased to say that it is now on the Government’s website.

England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through this package of right-to-buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all receipts from sales and reducing cash discounts, alongside the provisions in the Bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period, instead of a loss. That is a 44,000-home turnaround, marking a clear shift towards rebuilding social housing and replenishing depleted stock at scale. This demonstrates the significant impact our Bill will have, in combination with the Government’s wider package of right-to-buy reforms, in turning around decades of social homes being lost and not replaced.

Amendments 34, 58, 58A and 73, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Lawlor, are well intentioned and reflect a shared desire to ensure that the financial and wider impacts of the Bill are properly understood. As I have already set out, the Government have now published our economic impact assessment alongside the Bill’s parliamentary passage. We have established arrangements to monitor the effects of the Bill on the social housing sector and on those affected by it. These three amendments would require additional statutory reporting shortly after commencement and as soon as six months following Royal Assent. However, we know that many of the measures in the Bill will take time to emerge in practice and cannot be meaningfully assessed within that timeframe. A further statutory review would risk duplicating existing analysis, while providing only a partial and potentially misleading picture of the Bill’s true impact.

I point the noble Baronesses to the comprehensive suite of published statistics already available, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, right-to-buy sales and replacements data, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply, all of which are published on GOV.UK. These datasets provide detailed information at local authority level, including applications, completed sales, replacements, discounts and property characteristics, and will continue to offer a clear and transparent overview of the impact of the Bill, including on home ownership, as it comes into force.

We are aligned in wanting a clear understanding of the Bill’s effects, but we differ on whether additional statutory reporting requirements are the best way to achieve that aim. Given the recently published assessment and our ongoing commitment to monitoring and reporting on the impact of the package of right-to-buy reforms and the wider Bill, I hope the noble Baronesses will reflect on these points and agree not to press their amendments.

Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to require local authorities and registered providers to publish annual social housing outcomes broken down by protected characteristics. Although the Government strongly support transparency and the importance of monitoring equalities outcomes, we do not consider the amendment necessary or proportionate. There are already existing statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty, which require local authorities and registered providers to have due regard to equalities impacts in exercising their functions.

In addition, providers are already subject to regulatory oversight and data collection requirements, and we are mindful of the need to avoid imposing duplicative reporting burdens that would divert resources from front-line delivery. The amendment would introduce a prescriptive and potentially rigid framework, including requirements around statistical thresholds and impact assessments, which may not be proportionate in all cases. We therefore consider that the objectives of the amendment are better achieved through existing duties and ongoing work with the regulator, rather than through additional primary legislation, and we ask that the amendment not be pressed.

On Amendment 104, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, while we support the ambition to improve energy efficiency and ensure better outcomes for tenants, we do not consider a statutory ESG framework to be the right approach. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to a warm and safe home, which is why we are introducing new minimum energy-efficiency standards for social housing. As part of the decent homes standard, this will require all social housing landlords to bring new and existing social homes up to reformed standards that will keep homes warmer and help to make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants.

The amendment would introduce a broad and undefined set of obligations under a single framework, which, given that we have already confirmed our new minimum energy-efficiency standards for social housing, risks creating uncertainty for providers about how these requirements would operate in practice and how they would interact with existing standards and investment programmes. The amendment also seeks to combine environmental requirements with equalities reporting in a single legislative framework, which may not be the most effective way to drive progress in either area. These issues are best addressed through targeted policy levers and sector-specific regulation, where expectations can be updated over time to reflect changing evidence and priorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to issues around rural housing. I cannot remember whether he was in the Chamber earlier when we had a short debate about rural housing. At Second Reading I was not able to respond to all the points that were made so I wrote to all Members who were present at that debate on 8 June, including a whole paragraph on rural housing. Therefore, I hope that he feels I have not ignored the points that were raised during the debate. We will continue to discuss rural housing in your Lordships’ House.

To return to the amendment on the ESG framework, we do not consider it appropriate to legislate for a new framework in this form.

On Amendments 117A and 119A, the Government are fully committed to considering equalities impacts throughout the development and delivery of policy. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to place a requirement of this breadth in the Bill or to link it directly to commencement. Equalities considerations are already embedded through the public sector equality duty, which requires ongoing, proportionate and responsive assessment rather than a single static exercise covering every provision in detail. This ensures that analysis can evolve in the light of new evidence and real-world implementation, rather than relying on a single static assessment of the entire Act.

By contrast, Amendment 117A would require a full retrospective assessment of the entire Act in a highly prescriptive form. This risks creating a resource-intensive process that may add limited practical value, particularly where impacts are already understood or mitigated through existing safeguards, and could reduce the ability to refine analysis over time. For those reasons, we believe that the equalities impacts are addressed most effectively through the existing framework, which supports continuous, responsive decision-making, rather than through a one-off statutory requirement linked to commencement.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his Amendment 95. This seeks to introduce a requirement for social housing providers to assess and report on the impact of changes in planning policy, funding and standards on the availability and affordability of family-sized social rent homes. I agree with the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient availability of social rent homes for young families. However, this amendment is not the right way forward. It risks creating a burdensome new requirement for providers and many of its aims are already achieved through other means. The National Planning Policy Framework already requires local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including families with children and those who require social and affordable housing.

This assessment should be informed by estimates of the current and projected number of households which lack their own housing or cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market, taking into account the number of households in overcrowded housing and those householders currently housed in unsuitable dwellings. I am sure that from his time as a council leader the noble Lord will remember this process very well. Local plans should reflect this assessment in their planning policies, including by specifying the type and mix of affordable housing that should be delivered on new developments to meet identified local needs. The Government already publish statistics on new affordable housing supply in England, showing the gross annual supply of affordable homes. Information on the number of affordable homes delivered under the Homes England affordable housing programmes is also published twice a year.

Social housing providers would cover both private registered providers and local authority registered providers. There are more than 1,300 of the former and more than 200 of the latter. It would be a significant ask to require registered providers to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of planning policy in the way proposed in the amendment. I would therefore have significant concern about the potential burden imposed by such a requirement. The Government are rightly demanding more than ever from our social landlords; in particular, that they deliver the quality homes and services that their tenants deserve and build the social homes that we need so much. Providers need to be able to focus on those priorities and we need to be cautious about imposing additional duties on them that might be better delivered through other means.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred a number of times to the publication of the impact assessment. I am not aware that the Minister wrote to Members of this House who spoke at Second Reading or who might be tabling amendments this evening to draw attention to this being published. It is not to be found among the Lords papers on the table outside, so we were not aware of it coming into the House for this purpose. It is not to be found on the parliamentary website. I understand that it is to be found on GOV.UK, but that is not satisfactory. My expectation is that if a Minister at the Dispatch Box refers to a paper, that paper should have been provided to Parliament.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments. I will check why that has not happened, but it is certainly on the GOV.UK website.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I feel duty bound to correct the Minister. She promoted me to being a former leader of a council. I had the honour to be a borough councillor for eight years and a constituency Member of Parliament but never a leader of the council.

Also, the very helpful and comprehensive letter that the Minister sent to noble Lords in the wake of Second Reading was helpful and the best letter that I have received from a Minister. I thank her for that.

[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.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for her response. My only comment is on the Minister’s statement that landlords and those in social housing should observe UK law. The difficulty is that, when it comes to so many elements of AI, there is no UK law. If tenants find themselves on the wrong end of an algorithmic decision, for example, there is no current UK law. There are some provisions, as rightly identified, when it comes to data, but not in many of the specific contexts as set out. So, currently, we have a largely analogue Bill in an increasingly digital environment, where much of that digital could be so assistive, not only to landlords and those involved in social housing but, most importantly, to those who are all too often at the sharpest end of some horrific situations where digital and AI could help. Currently, this Bill does not bring forth any of that potential help, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

50: Clause 11, page 11, line 39, leave out paragraph (b)
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on new Clause (Health and safety lead: Parliamentary procedure). That would insert a generally-worded exclusion into section 320(7)(d) HRA 2008, and therefore remove the need for the specific exclusion inserted by clause 11(3)(b).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but I believe important debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. Although these amendments address different aspects, there is a key theme to all of them, which is the theme that we believe is the key to addressing the housing crisis that we face: how do we increase the supply of homes, particularly social and affordable homes, in a system that too often struggles to deliver them at the scale required?

Amendment 71 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley raises the importance of prioritising brownfield land, which I know the Minister agrees with. However, as we have discussed before, this needs to be more than words: it needs action. Our amendment seeks to put that aim into action.

Amendment 72 is in a similar vein. It asks the Government to review regulatory blockers to regeneration of existing housing estates. We all know of older housing estates that are somewhat tired and built for a different time, and in many cases they provide the opportunity for additional housing through gentle densification. We have all seen those estates. My friend in the other place, James Cleverly, has highlighted the excellent Kidbrooke Village regeneration in Greenwich, where build quality has improved, and the area, the environment and flood resistance were improved, while adding nearly 3,000 homes.

The debate has rightly touched on a number of barriers to delivery. My noble friend Lord Lansley drew attention to the role that large-scale stock transfers could play in unlocking investment and renewal. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, raised the equally important issue of accountability. If mayors are to be entrusted with significant powers for housing delivery, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should consider how their performance is measured and assessed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also raised the issue that I think we all face: what is social, what is social rent, what is affordable, and so forth? There is confusion, but we have to live with the definitions that we have today.

I believe this is a constructive debate, but the key is: how do we deliver more housing? My noble friend Lord Lansley raised the issue of the impact assessment. I have had the opportunity for a quick scan, but I think we should come back to this on Wednesday when we debate this further, because I think there are some rather interesting figures in it.

With that, I hope the Minister will fret on the issues raised, because each amendment seeks in its own way to address the central challenge that lies at the heart of the Bill: how do we deliver more homes?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a good place for the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to finish and a good place for me to start, because a central mission of the Government is to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and a core objective of this Bill is to incentivise the building of more social housing.

I thank all noble Lords who have participated and submitted amendments in this group. We have already taken a significant wider step with the significant long-term investment—which I have spoken about many times—of £39 billion to build over 300,000 social homes over the next 10 years. I thank all noble Lords for the range of amendments on how we could further enable new supply and for the constructive debate on these important issues.

To respond to the amendments in turn, I will start with Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which introduces a power for the Regulator of Social Housing to issue guidance relating to the large-scale transfer of stock. In addition to the power for the regulator to issue guidance, the amendment would require providers to have regard to any guidance issued, and the regulator’s guidance would relate to its fundamental economic objective, which includes supporting the supply of new homes and promoting private investment in social housing. The regulator already has a power in Section 195 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to issue codes of practice on matters relating to both its consumer and economic standards. Given that, I do not believe it is necessary to pursue this amendment.

However, I am aware that the aim of the amendment is to place a particular focus on the potential opportunities of large-scale transfers of homes to bolster the capacity of the sector to deliver more new homes. The noble Lord spoke enthusiastically at Second Reading about the need to explore new ways to increase the sector’s capacity to invest. In particular, he said we should be looking at how providers can, using the considerable assets that they own, partner with private investors to address the financial capacity constraints that many often face.

I assure the noble Lord that the Government are open to innovative ideas that meet our core principles, delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality sustainable places for the long term. I understand that the noble Lord had a fruitful meeting last week in relation to the ideas that he has. From those discussions, I hope he is reassured that my department is considering the many ideas that are being generated in this space.

In addition, the Regulator of Social Housing published last week, on 9 June, a discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, focusing on how its model of economic regulation could be updated to respond to a changing social housing sector. I met the Regulator of Social Housing last week to discuss this subject. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is reassured that the Government are alive to the new ideas to bolster supply. Similarly, the regulator has just started an important discussion with the sector about how regulations should adapt to continue to be open to further innovation and change while effectively managing risk.

Turning to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach, including for the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We have expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework and have recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land, including encouraging higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites, and introducing a presumption that development inside settlement should be approved unless any adverse effects would be substantial enough to outweigh the benefits of doing so. In April, the Government committed to making regulations to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. All this demonstrates our strong commitment and continued support for brownfield development. As such, a requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy is unnecessary and duplicative, as the existing policy and relevant development plans already sufficiently achieve this aim.

Amendment 72, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would introduce a new clause for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of regulatory burdens on social housing providers. We are committed to the regulatory system ensuring that landlords deliver quality homes and services while ensuring that providers can simultaneously drive up supply. Our decade of renewal plan, published in July last year, gave the sector much-needed clarity on the regulatory requirements they will need to meet in the coming years and confirmed a number of capacity-boosting measures to support them to do this.

We also engage closely with the sector in developing regulatory measures, with close consideration of the impact on it. We have published impact assessments for new measures that impact landlords. We continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that regulatory requirements are clear and deliverable. In the light of this and the impact assessments that we have already published regarding regulatory requirements, we believe that this amendment would be duplicative and therefore unnecessary.

Amendments 86 to 88 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, would introduce three new clauses for the Secretary of State to conduct reviews into accountability mechanisms and incentives for mayors and to establish a statutory framework to link their pay to performance. I am glad the noble Baroness is considering the role of elected mayors in our mission to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For example, increased provision represents one way in which mayors can demonstrate progress against their integrated settlement objectives for housing and strategic planning, as well as supporting outcomes to reduce homelessness. Mayoral performance against these objectives and outcomes is monitored, with mitigations in place to deal with underperformance. That includes the possibility of direct government intervention, with the reintroduction of delegated funding limits, settlement suspension or funding clawback all options in the most serious cases.

Antisemitism

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, antisemitism is a crisis for all of us and the Government are absolutely clear that it is unacceptable and has no place in our communities. It manifests across society—in schools, synagogues, workplaces and beyond—and that is why it requires a whole-of-society response. We are acting across education, communities and institutions, tackling antisemitism in schools, strengthening guidance for public bodies and supporting local responses as set out in Protecting What Matters. We are strengthening policing and investing in record protective security funding to keep our Jewish communities safe.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the positive steps the Government are taking, because many of us are utterly depressed by the antisemitism we have seen, particularly in recent months. However, could I ask the Minister to acknowledge something on the positive side of this? I have talked on behalf of refugees in many synagogues and to Jewish organisations, and it is characteristic of them to support child refugees, most of whom are Muslim. Is that not a positive story that we should talk about?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for making that important point. All communities need to feel safe in our country, and some of the recent incidents have meant that many communities do not feel safe now. My noble friend referred to the welcoming Jewish culture, and I was delighted to see that Jewish Culture Month has been supported so strongly, recognising the contribution of Jewish heritage and culture to our country.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to detail a Jewish plot for global domination. It was published in imperial Russia in 1903 and exposed as black propaganda, but it is still widely available and quoted as if it is true. Does the Minister agree that modern social media is the current version of this infamous propaganda? I heard what the Minister said, but what moves are the Government making to stop this dissemination of antisemitic lies?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is a huge responsibility on online platforms to tackle this dreadful spread of misinformation. It is way past the time for them to take their responsibility more seriously. We are all in favour of free speech, but when it creeps into misinformation, inciting violence and spreading the kind of long-held misinformation to which the noble Lord referred, they need to tackle that. We are using the full strength of the powers under the Online Safety Act to tackle illegal and antisemitic content online. That places duties on platforms and other services in scope to address illegal hate content and content that is harmful to all. It is not only very concerning for our Jewish community but extremely harmful to our young people.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, have the Government taken the advice of global Jewish scholars, who have concluded that Holocaust education and memorialisation have no effect and can be positively damaging? This is supported in reviews by University College London. Youth education should instead be about Jewish life and history, and specifically about antisemitism—about life, not death. We do not need another Holocaust memorial; we need a Jewish museum in London. We can use that £200 million to celebrate a thousand years of Jewish contributions to this country.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government are firmly committed to supporting Holocaust education, but I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that, this week, I met with Andy Pearce from UCL to talk about the programme of education that that institution is undertaking. He told me about the evidence-based approach it takes to that education and how it is going to tackle some of the gaps it is finding in young people’s knowledge. Jewish Culture Month, which I referred to earlier, is a clear way that we can celebrate and inform the wider community about the wonderful heritage of our Jewish community.

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, while I welcome the Minister’s assurances about what needs to be done, I fear that the “how” is missing, particularly on education at school and university level. What is being done to ensure that our children are educated in knowing that the scourge of antisemitism must be stopped and that it is bad for the country as a whole? Over the last year or so, we have heard so often that action will be taken, but this action has to be effective. The sooner that happens, the better.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, and the Government are committing £7 million of funding to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. We launched the tackling antisemitism in education innovation fund to help identify and tackle misinformation, improve media literacy and promote tolerant debate among our young people. We will also respond to the findings of the review led by Sir David Bell into antisemitism in schools and colleges. The review looks at whether the policies, processes and support are available to help our schools and colleges across England to identify and tackle antisemitism when it arises.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, last autumn, Sheffield City Council entered into a faith and belief charter with local faith leaders, setting out our expectations of one another for mutual respect and kindness. Yesterday, I spoke to a rabbi who observed that antisemitism inevitably increases in seasons when society is more divided and polarised, and decreases when the culture of our common life is kind. Does the Minister agree with me that faith charters, such as the one in Sheffield, play a vital role in fostering precisely the virtues of kindness and mutual respect that counter the evil of antisemitism, among other things?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I commend the work being done in Sheffield to promote tolerance between faiths. It is important that we do that. The problems do not lie in people in our communities getting together; they lie with those who want to cause division and hatred between communities. If we work more to bring faiths together in communities, so that we properly understand that we all have more in common than divides us, when people get together they will support each other and we will see a wonderful synergy between them. I hope there will be more of the type of charter to which the right reverend Prelate referred.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in 2025, including 1,500 online incidents and 984 involving Holocaust denial, Nazi glorification or Holocaust distortion. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that social media platforms are no longer passive hosts of hatred but active accelerants of radicalisation, conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish incitement? What further steps are being taken to ensure that rising antisemitism and racism is challenged online?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have set out some steps already, but DSIT Ministers are also closely engaged with the Jewish leadership community, social media platforms and Ofcom to identify where we can go further to tackle antisemitic content online. It is important that we do this and that we make sure that Ofcom, the independent regulator, is also using its information gathering against services that fail to comply.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, is not one of the dangers of discussing antisemitism today that we still think about the problem coming from the far right? Increasingly, however, virulent antisemitism in our society comes from an unholy combination of the far left and Islamist fundamentalism. Does the Minister share my concern that too many individuals who were rightly thrown out the Labour Party for antisemitism have been recycled into a new political home in the Green Party? Does she agree that no responsible political party should provide a home for antisemites, yet alone give them a green light?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Wherever hate speech and division come from, they should not be tolerated and must be tackled. Whatever institutions we are thinking about, including our public bodies and those in our political environment, we must not tolerate antisemitism, any form of hate speech or any speech that wants to divide our communities. That is not the right way to go and we have seen the terrible consequences of that in recent days. We must all work to make sure that our communities are cohesive and stick together.

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of progress by local planning authorities in implementing the National Planning Policy Framework changes regarding the mandatory use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework requires all new development that could affect drainage to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We recently consulted on changes to the NPPF, including on sustainable drainage systems, and we will respond in due course. We had more than 20,000 responses, so we are still analysing them. By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with a development plan, with each application judged on its own merit. Any weight given to individual considerations is a matter for the local authority. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that in 2024-25, 96% of planning applications and 99% of new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that flooding continues to blight thousands of families and businesses and that the threat is growing? Can she explain why the standards on drainage set out in my Question are still not mandatory for every new development? Only this month, experts in water management have warned that without this legal duty, communities are left exposed to avoidable flood risk. Surely acting now is the thing to do, rather than placing our trust in voluntary compliance by the developers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are proposing a requirement that SUDS are designed in accordance with new national standards, as well as a new policy to discourage the creation of new river culverts and to encourage the removal of existing ones to help drive river renaturalisation and improve water management. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear:

“Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that a recent court case set aside these informal and non-mandatory provisions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wants to implement the statutory basis of the 2010 Act to make these mandatory. Will she please agree to do so at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is referring to Schedule 3, which has been under consideration since 2010. It is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing the objectives of that. Although a final decision has still not been made, we believe this can be better achieved through continued improvements to national planning policy and the adoption of maintenance approaches, rather than commencing Schedule 3. That is why we have strengthened the national planning policy on that important issue.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at the micro level, small areas of open ground such as gardens, and particularly front gardens, are an important part of a natural drainage system, particularly in urban areas? Can she tell the House whether there is any active discouragement coming from local authorities, or indeed from government, to stop people or in any way discourage them from paving over important areas of open ground that are under their control?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The discouragement from doing that comes through the planning process. When this kind of paving over is done subsequent to that, it is very difficult to monitor it, but I am sure our local authorities take a very serious attitude. Indeed, when I was a county councillor I had areas in my own county division that were subject to flooding, and we went out, inspected and gave advice to householders about how they might take these things forward. It remains the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that there is proper drainage for local areas and to make sure that a small area of paving will not overwhelm the systems that are put in place to take the water away.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, when I was young, some time ago, it was more commonplace that councils cleared out the storm drains on a cyclical maintenance basis. Many councils on discretionary cost-cutting no longer do that; some exemplary councils do. Can the Minister ensure that her good office tells local councils that this should be done on a regular basis? When we get downpours, this is the reason we often get local flooding—there is no other reason.

[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.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, large storage tanks can be used to store water at a time of flooding and then can be used in a dry period to pump off into the system. Are there any plans to extend the use of those tanks so that we can both deal with the flooding and provide water when we need it?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give my noble friend an answer to the specific question he asks, but the storage of water when it is available is critical. It was shocking to realise that we had not built a reservoir in the country for 30 years; we are now planning new reservoirs to store water. Also, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act we talked about on-farm storage, for example; it is perfectly possible for farmers to develop storage on their own land so that they can keep water when it is plentiful for the times when it is not.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, to continue from the previous question, large underground attenuation tanks are often used in residential developments as their answer to sustainable drainage. Can the Minister tell us what consideration has been given for the water that is stored in these tanks to be used as grey water for local people to use during times of drought?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know that my colleagues in Defra are giving a great deal of thought to the provision of water—both clean water and water for other purposes—and they have established the Water Delivery Taskforce to make sure that water companies deliver on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into the water sector over the next five years so that we can upgrade ageing pipes, sewage treatment works and so on, and in partnership with water companies, investors and communities we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system. The issues that the noble Baroness raises are really important. We need to be using all the water that we have access to, particularly in dry areas of the country—I live in the east of England, one of the driest areas in our country—and we need to make sure that we are making the best use of any rainfall we have. The Government are working closely with the industry to make sure we do just that.

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

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her place and congratulate her on her elevation to the Front Bench. I very much look forward to working with her.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this important debate and for the Built Environment Committee’s extensive work. With 88 witnesses, and overseas visits to make sure that they were looking at what was happening overseas, it went above and beyond—well done. Its inquiry looked at the opportunities and challenges of delivering a whole new generation of new towns.

The Government are absolutely committed to building the next generation of new towns, using all the powers at their disposal, to make sure that we hand the keys of not just home ownership but new communities to thousands of families. The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. Starting with the first designated new town of Stevenage in 1946—a place very close to my own heart, as all noble Lords know—it transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned surroundings. I take this opportunity, as it is probably the only discussion we will have about new towns before its birthday, to wish my town a very happy 80th birthday, which falls in November.

The 32 communities that the post-war new towns programme created are now home to millions of people, including some of the Members who have spoken in today’s debate. The Government will continue to invest in the regeneration of the existing new towns and to learn from them. My clear view is that we need to inspire a new generation with the excitement and energy that the previous generation of new town pioneers, such as my parents, had when they came to live in those places. The words from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about young people’s engagement very much hit home with me—they are music to my ears, as we have to inspire young people.

Let us not forget about the nimbys that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, spoke about. When my town was proposed, a meeting was held at the town hall. It was then a town of 6,000 people, and it was proposed to grow to 60,000 people. When Lord Silkin turned up to talk to Stevenage people about it, they took the name off the station and put “Silkingrad” there instead—so distressed were they at the thought of this expansion.

It is important to learn the lessons from previous large-scale expansions as we embark on the newest chapter. The Government are committed to building on that legacy. The Government agree with the committee that it is important that new towns are grounded in a clear and ambitious vision. As emphasised in the Government’s recently published consultation, new towns represent a bold and nationally significant response to address the range of challenges caused by housing constraints and the need to power up our economy and to build the foundations of strong communities: health, education and family formation. We want to make sure that we are building not only new homes but new communities that can support people throughout their lives.

Building at scale is central to this strategy. Each new town will deliver at least 10,000 homes, with many expected to exceed this number, including all seven priority areas being assessed. This scale enables efficient land use, supports supply chain growth and innovation, and creates the conditions for integrated infrastructure and high-quality place-making. It provides the opportunity to deliver affordable housing and social infrastructure in a way that smaller sites cannot, ensuring that new towns provide homes for everyone to live in.

As emphasised by both the committee and the New Towns Taskforce, success will ultimately depend on strong and co-ordinated government intervention. The Government have been clear that delivery must be infrastructure-first and design-led—including through master planning—and enabled by effective delivery vehicles such as development corporations where appropriate. Clear expectations and support will be set to achieve high quality place-making with long-term stewardship, to ensure that new towns are built to last.

The Government recently carried out a public consultation on the proposed new towns programme, which built on the findings of the taskforce report in September 2025. It invited views on how the new towns programme will operate, how new towns could be delivered and planned, and the proposed approach to design and planning policy. I really appreciated the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about design.

Of course, new towns present a great opportunity to have innovative design both in town planning and housing design. The consultation sought views on the Government’s offer to locations, including a strategic environmental assessment which assesses the impacts of the programme in proposed broad locations, the cumulative effects of the development of new towns and practical methods of mitigation and monitoring. As part of that consultation, we set out our plan to take seven locations forward through the proposed programme. These represent the strongest proposals, which are capable of collectively unlocking hundreds of thousands of new homes and improving people’s quality of life in communities across the country. This includes Tempsford, Leeds South Bank, Chase Park and Crews Hill in Enfield, Thamesmead, Manchester Victoria North, Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc in south Gloucestershire, and Milton Keynes. These proposals are at different stages of maturity and require different types of intervention and support, including blends of public and private capital, to achieve their potential.

The Government therefore intend to tailor their approach to each new town, with a view to making as much progress as possible, as fast as possible. They identified a number of locations that were also found to meet the objectives and are propositions that represent credible development opportunities. However, we have decided to prioritise places initially where a new town’s intervention can have the most transformative impact.

None the less, there is strong potential to deliver housing in places that have not been included in the proposed programme. I will come to Cambridge in a minute, but this is particularly true of Plymouth, which presents a unique opportunity to bolster the UK’s defence and security sector. Plymouth will require special consideration and its own bespoke financial support package to unlock its potential as a centre of excellence in naval technology. Plymouth council is already making huge strides in the regeneration of the town centre, and its MPs have worked with Government to secure defence spending for British technology. So, we must ensure that housing does not act as a barrier to growth. The Government have pledged to do whatever it takes to get spades in the ground in at least three of the new towns by the end of this Parliament and to progress many more, if possible.

As part of our offer to new towns locations, we will ensure that we work across government to deliver this vision, including through the industrial strategy; invest millions of pounds of public and private sector funding into excellent local facilities, including GP surgeries, schools, libraries, transport and the environment; work with world-class architects, planners and urban designers to plan each town with its own character and distinct, unique identity; and ensure that the state’s full planning powers are available to rapidly build new homes and all the necessary supporting infrastructure, including clean energy and digital infrastructure. I very much agree with the strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on infrastructure and housing being developed together.

New towns are just part of a wider effort from government to get Britain building again. Over the last two years, the Government have delivered fundamental reform to the planning system. Last December, we saw the culmination of this, with the Planning and Infrastructure Act and a definitive overhaul of the National Planning Policy Framework, which will boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These strong foundations will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of housebuilding in the years ahead.

Let me be clear: we must get Britain building again. To respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing is the most that has ever been invested. Our new towns programme will benefit through that as well. We want a huge percentage of that to be social housing, so we will support social housing in our new towns as well. We must crack on with this, and our new towns programme will be a step change in the delivery of the new homes our country so desperately needs.

I turn to some of the very specific points that were made during the debate. As he was the chair of the committee, I will pick up the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, first. He asked me about a firm date for the delivery of the government response. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the recent consultation. It is very important that we fully understand the range of views on the programme, including its environmental impacts. We will publish a full response to the recommendations later this year, once the necessary environmental assessments are completed and final decisions have been made on locations, which are still to come.

The noble Lord asked me about leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority, and that was a point echoed by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Doyle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning are key sponsors of the programme and have the power of Cabinet committee structures behind them to co-ordinate requirements for new towns across Whitehall. Delivering the next generation will be a cross-government effort and central to the Government’s agenda not just in terms of building homes but to drive economic growth and spread economic opportunity across the country. We will work closely with other departments and regulators to ensure that new towns are factored into their future spending plans, ensuring that they have the utilities, transport and social infrastructure needed for those communities to survive.

The third question from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, was about a small government ownership stake in each development corporation, and our ambition is that the new towns model will transform the way that large settlements are delivered, providing long-term certainty to attract sustained investment. We are assessing delivery vehicle models for each place, and the proposed government offer in the consultation sets out that, subject to the needs of each location, locations taken forward as new towns will benefit from resource and capital funding. That could include a mixture of grant and financial instruments, including equity investment, loans and guarantees to develop town-wide master plans, comprehensive infrastructure, and the establishment and maintenance of governance structures. I will make some further points about funding, but that is key to where we are.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked me about level 7 apprenticeship funding, and I absolutely take the point. We recognise that level 7 apprenticeships have been a valuable route into professions, but we are reforming funding to prioritise young people entering the labour market and targeting support where it has the greatest long-term impact. We are investing £48 million to strengthen planning capacity and expand alternative routes into planning through pathways to planning, public practice and the new planning careers hub. That will all be valuable in terms of the issues that the noble Lord raised.

I think place-making was raised by almost all noble Lords who spoke but particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lady Andrews, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Redwood, and Lord Jamieson. We have been very clear: we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns have to be well-connected, well-designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset.

Subject to the outcomes of the consultation, we intend to incorporate the proposed place-making principles in the draft new towns planning policy, and the place-making principles should be reflected in town-wide master plans and design codes. As part of the government offer, we are proposing to establish a new town place review panel, which will provide impartial advice to delivery bodies and planning authorities, as well as practical design and place-making guidance for new town delivery.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned community engagement, and this is a very important part of the work that we have been undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, in particular, mentioned it, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, both referred to consultation with young people. They are going to be the people living in these towns, so that is vital. We are very clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development and effective community engagement is key to creating connections between existing and new residents and helping to build successful places. That does not avoid all the nimby-type approaches, but it will help to engage people in making sure that they have a say in how these places are designed.

The Government will continue to engage with communities, local authorities, delivery bodies and investors to make sure that the new towns are planned and delivered to the highest standards. The recent consultation was the first of many opportunities for people to shape the design and creation of this new generation of new towns.

The points that were made around development corporations are really important, because the governance of how these new developments are taken forward is critical. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised issues around this. We are assessing delivery vehicle options for each proposed location to make sure that they are best placed to drive forward each of those places. That includes development corporations where appropriate, but our consultation was clear that different propositions will require different types of intervention. Delivery vehicles beyond development corporations could include, for example, legal partnerships that pool land and delivery expertise between public and private bodies.

The points about mayoral development corporations are well made. The visionary devolution framework we are delivering now will, I hope, deliver at the pace that I know noble Lords are keen to see. I was grateful for the support for mayoral development corporations when we took the devolution Bill through.

On wider issues around funding for new towns, the funding required in this spending review period will vary according to the needs of the locations chosen. The precise funding offer will be confirmed once final decisions on the programme have been taken. That will be when the new towns draft programme consultation is closed and all strategic environmental assessments are complete.

Delivery will be backed by funding across the landmark housing programmes, such as the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme, hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of grant from the national housing delivery fund, and additional capital funding managed by the National Housing Bank. We will continue to consider the ways in which private finance can support delivery, alongside government funding and intervention. We will be working with other departments and regulators to ensure that they are factoring new towns into their spending plans for the future to make sure that that comes forward from all departments across government.

We have heard much about the lessons to be learned from previous generations of new towns from the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and others. In establishing this programme, we are inspired by the proud legacy of the 1945 Labour Government, who kick-started the ambitious programme for building new towns in the years and decades following the Second World War, as well as subsequent waves of new towns. However, we recognise that we must learn the lessons.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as he went through his committee meetings on this, was keen to make sure that we understand the lessons from previous generations. These often emphasised car-based commuting and did not always embed long-term stewardship, which is vital, into their development. We have seen huge success in places such as Milton Keynes, which has demonstrated the potential of well-planned developments to create thriving communities and act as a catalyst for economic growth, which is certainly what we want to see. A long-term stewardship model for new towns must be in place from the outset, including clear governance and funding structures to manage and maintain communal assets over the long term.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised Cambridge. I was grateful to him when I carried out a visit, on which we went to Waterbeach, Cambourne and Northstowe. It was great to visit that area and see how lessons have been learned. The Government published a response to the consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation on 3 June. Cambridge is not part of the new towns programme and the development corporation will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, including for the new towns programme. Unlocking barriers to growth in Greater Cambridge was an immediate priority of this Government. The Housing Minister wrote to local leaders in August 2024, setting out the Government’s early approach to working with local partners to support the sustainable growth of Cambridge. I look forward to working further on this. I know that the noble Lord will be keeping a careful eye on what we are doing in Cambridge.

My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about housing targets. The Government consider that the delivery of housing in new town proposals should contribute towards meeting the identified housing need of relevant strategic and local planning authorities in all instances. We are clear that that is the way we are approaching the housing that will be included in new town developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about land value capture. The lessons we learned from previous new towns suggest that the long-term increase in the value of land can be successfully captured and reinvested as the town continues to grow. We will be taking that into account as we work through the governance and funding structures for our new towns.

Before I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on Forest City. We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, but this is not part of our new towns programme or proposal.

In closing, I say that our vision is certainly to create the towns of the future with place-making at their heart, shaped by what worked in the past, informed by what did not work in the past, and inspired by a bright future for those who will live in, work in and visit this new generation of new towns for a new age. I am grateful for the thoughtful scrutiny and contributions in this debate. I assure all those who have participated that the concerns they have raised will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to progress our work on new towns, turning the taskforce vision into delivery on the ground.

The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, not just for forwarding my mail when we get sent each other’s mail but for securing such an important debate and for what my noble friend Lady Warwick described as a comprehensive and forensic introduction. I am also grateful to the members of the Industry and Regulators Committee. This is a detailed and thoughtful report on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Roe, to Charlie Pugsley and the team at the Building Safety Regulator and to Mark Reynolds and the Construction Leadership Council. All have played a fundamental part in moving this issue forward significantly, partly as the committee was doing its work but also since the report was published.

I recognise much of what has been said today. I thank all noble Lords for their constructive contributions, as well as their recognition that progress is being made now. Of course, the 72 victims of Grenfell and the survivors sit at the heart of this issue. My noble friend Lord John rightly reminded us of the fire at Lakanal House in Southwark, where six people were killed and 20 were injured. We must always keep the lessons learned from those dreadful incidents, as well as how to take this issue forward in future, right at the heart of the issue.

The committee’s inquiry forms an important part of Parliament’s wider scrutiny of regulators. Its report is a timely and valuable assessment of whether the Building Safety Regulator has the capacity, the capability and the right approach needed to deliver the statutory functions effectively; as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, they were set out in the Building Safety Act. It has rightly examined how the regulator is operating in practice, how it is responding to early challenges and how it can continue to build confidence as the new regime matures. Since its establishment under the Building Safety Act, the BSR has been central to delivering post-Grenfell reforms and to restoring confidence in the safety of our built environment. There cannot be anything more distressing than not feeling that you are safe in your own home. At the heart of this work are the residents themselves, who rightly expect a regulatory regime that is rigorous in its standards but also clear, proportionate and effective in how it operates in practice. As my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, reminded us, this has also been a handbrake on the development that we need in this country.

Taken together, these points underline the scale of the task that the regulator was asked to take on and the importance of ensuring that it is properly supported to mature, adapt and improve over time. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roe for giving such a valuable insight into the role of the regulator, the situation as it was and the data emerging as improvement is made. This is vital in order to build public confidence and that of the industry.

The regulator now operates as a stand-alone organisation sponsored by the department, marking an important step towards reducing the fragmentation that was identified in the system in both the Hackitt review and the Grenfell reports. That has given the BSR, as a new organisation, greater operational flexibility and clearer accountability, while allowing it to focus on its core regulatory functions.

My noble friend Lady Taylor reminds us that public trust in the regime depends not just on its intent but on how clearly, consistently and efficiently it operates on the ground. That is why the department and the Building Safety Regulator have worked closely together to implement a substantial programme of operational reforms. I accept that the reforms took longer than anticipated to get going, but they are beginning now to deliver tangible improvements. Over the past 12 weeks, close to 10,000 homes have been approved, including more than 2,000 in London. Performance has improved markedly, with new-build approval rates rising to 90%, up from 33% in February. In April, the BSR also introduced an external remediation improvement plan, supported by updated guidance for existing higher-risk buildings, to accelerate the pace of remediation. Approval rates for remediation cases—I think my noble friend Lord Roe quoted this—rose to 79% in May, exceeding the 65% target.

It is also important to consider how improvements in regulatory performance sit alongside our wider objectives on housing delivery. Building safety and growth are not competing objectives; they are two sides of the same coin. Proportionate and effective regulation is essential both to ensuring that homes are built and remediated safely and to supporting housing delivery by reducing the risk of people remaining in unsafe ageing buildings or in temporary accommodation.

Against that backdrop, the Government welcome the committee’s recommendation and the challenge that it has provided in this area. We published our formal response in February this year, and we remain committed to continuing to improve the operation of the Building Safety Regulator. That includes listening carefully to feedback from residents, industry stakeholders, developers and Members of this House to ensure that the regime continues to evolve in a way that delivers safety, confidence and homes that people can trust.

I turn to some of the specific issues raised today, and I will set out how the Government are responding to some of those issues. My noble friend Lady Taylor and other noble Lords raised issues around the gateway 2 delays that we saw back in the day. As the committee highlighted, timely decision-making is critical, which is why we have focused on improving throughput at gateway 2. My noble friend is quite right: clarity of expectation for the industry is vital. The legacy gateway 2 new-build backlog has now been cleared, down from 103 cases in September 2025. New-build applications are being approved within 22 weeks on average by the innovation unit, compared with 37 weeks in July 2025. As set out by my noble friend Lord Roe, that balance is being achieved by working with developers.

Early expectations on BSR approval timelines were set before operational capacity and system maturity were fully established. It is key to say that things have moved on since then, and the BSR strategic plan now sets a clear and deliverable trajectory towards 18-week determinations. The focus now is on embedding these improvements so that stronger performance at gateway 2 is sustained. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned risk in development. He is right that we must try to get through the process of assessing and dealing with risk as quickly as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also mentioned gateway 3 approvals. Gateway 3 is still relatively new and only a small number of projects have reached that stage, but it is a critical final check before the occupation of higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator is ensuring that regulatory scrutiny is front-loaded at gateway 2, but the learning is helping developers and the Building Safety Regulator refine the gateway 3 process, improving consistency and efficiency while maintaining a firm focus on resident safety. The peril here is that I am looking at the chair of the Building Safety Regulator to make sure of what I am saying. He is nodding.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the review of the higher-risk regime, including the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord John. We have acted on the committee’s recommendation to review the higher risk building control regime to make sure that it is proportionate for lower risk and routine works. We consulted on how building work to existing buildings should be categorised under the higher-risk regime, ensuring that the information submitted to the regulator is proportionate to the scale and nature of the work while maintaining safety standards. That included proposals to reduce documentation requirements for building work within individual flats and for small-scale works in communal areas of existing higher-risk buildings. The consultation has now closed and we are carefully considering its responses. I hope it will enable a more proportionate response.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the building professions, trades and occupations. Having the skills to do this work is vital. To support this, on 26 March the Government announced a £70 million investment to address shortages in building inspectors and fire engineers—the largest investment in these vital safety professions for generations. This sits alongside the wider construction skills package, to which the Government committed £625 million to improve training quality and to recruit an additional 60,000 skilled construction workers by 2028. We are committed to working with the sector to publish a new long-term strategy for building professions, which will carry out a system-wide review of regulation competence and culture, including the creation of a new central oversight function. On 20 May, we launched a call for evidence on this. I encourage all those interested to respond by the deadline of 12 August.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Roe, talk about the engagement that has taken place with the industry, because I know this came out clearly in the committee’s report. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke about the quality of applications, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. We have worked very closely with industry, including through the Construction Leadership Council, to improve the quality of applications and strengthen that two-way engagement. As noble Lords have rightly said, this is a two-way process. Alongside this, the BSR has published a comprehensive suite of guidance, both directly and with industry partners, covering building control approvals, application requirements and key stages such as completion. This has been supported by wider resources including webinars and practical materials to help duty holders understand and meet their obligations. We think this is now driving significant improvement in the quality of remediation and new-build applications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke powerfully about the phasing of decision-making around less high-risk buildings and the noble Lord, Lord John, spoke about consistency in decision-making. The BSR is now taking a more structured and consistent approach to decision-making, including through that clearer guidance, stronger quality assurance and greater engagement with industry. This is improving the predictability of gateway decisions, which will be critical, and maintaining a robust and proportionate safety regime with a shared expectation that applications will meet the required standard.

On reporting transparency, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Taylor, raised issues about the BSR reaching its KPIs. The noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the BSR saying that it felt that it could not comply, in the early days. I hope we have moved on from that now.

Transparency and regular reporting are critical so that Parliament and the industry can track performance and understand how the regime is operating in practice. For this reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Roe, said, the Building Safety Regulator now publishes monthly data on building control approval applications, covering both new-build and remediation activity. That regular publication helps provide visibility of volumes, progress and trends, and supports scrutiny of improvements over time. The Building Safety Regulator is under a statutory duty to publish a strategic plan setting out its priorities, and, as a new arm’s-length body, it will also publish an annual report and accounts to provide transparent reporting on its performance.

A number of key issues were raised around construction products—an issue about which I personally feel extremely strongly. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Jamieson, all raised this issue. The committee was clear that long-standing weaknesses in the construction products regime must be addressed to close the regulatory gaps and restore confidence that the products we see on the market are safe. For that reason, we published a construction products White Paper in February this year, outlining proposals for ambitious, system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.

The systemic dishonesty in continuing to market the dangerous products we all know about now, when their failings were well known throughout the industry, was disgraceful. Confidence must now be restored. That cannot wait any longer; we have to tackle this product-related harm. The White Paper delivers: a path to implementing a new general safety requirement to bring unregulated products into scope more quickly; a step change in product information, testing standards, certification oversight and digitisation so that those installing and using products can rely on clear and trustworthy information; a coherent regulatory framework; and a system that incentivises safety while supporting innovation, enabling the industry to grow with confidence. The White Paper and general safety requirement consultations have now closed, and our reform proposals will help build renewed confidence and trust in the construction product sector for residents—and the industry, because working with unsafe products affects not just residents but the people who work in the industry.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Best, raised issues around under 11-metre buildings. Buildings that have fewer than five storeys or are below 11 metres are not within scope of the leaseholder protections introduced by the Building Safety Act, but we recognise the concerns raised by leaseholders who fall outside these protections. The Government are actively considering how we can go further to support those affected. In line with the remediation acceleration plan, we are committed to providing targeted funding in limited circumstances through a small fund for the remediation of cladding in buildings under 11 metres. Further details of the scheme design and how it will operate will be set out in July ahead of the Summer Recess.

I welcome the comments from the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, and others about the steps that have already been taken towards the single construction regulator. In December, we published the prospectus and the consultation. We are now analysing the responses to that consultation and will publish a response this summer. The Building Safety Regulator’s functions will form a key foundation of a single construction regulator, with changes carefully phased to avoid disruption. Primary legislation is required to implement several proposals; we will bring forward that necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, rightly raised the issue of the regulator’s costs. Detailed costs will be set out in due course as we finalise the design and funding model for the regulator. Our priority will be to ensure that it has the resources to be effective while keeping costs proportionate. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of a review of the new regulator to make sure that we do not end up with something that is not working being allowed to carry on. We are considering the responses to the consultation. We expect the regulator to be introduced on a phased basis, but I assure the Committee that we are aware of the need for an early assessment of how it is working; that will be put in place.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the pace of remediation and the delays in implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, rightly raised the issues around how this is taking effect in the social housing sector. Back in December 2024, we launched our remediation acceleration plan, and, in July 2025, we set out further steps, including the intention to bring forward primary legislation and more than £1 billion in new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing, giving social landlords equal access to government funding schemes with immediate effect. We are working with the BSR to establish a new remediation enforcement unit focused on buildings with unsafe cladding that are 18 metres and above. The noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Warwick, reminded us of the impact on leaseholders, which is certainly part of the Government’s considerations.

Since April 2024, we have also invested £39 million to strengthen regulatory capacity across local authorities, fire and rescue services and metro mayors, supporting the Building Safety Regulator to hold those responsible for remediation to account. Nearly nine years on from Grenfell, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. We will shortly bring forward the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill, which will drive forward cladding remediation and ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards fixing the problem they caused. We will introduce a new legal duty to remediate, requiring those responsible to assess their buildings and promptly fix unsafe cladding, or face criminal prosecution. When they do not, a new remediation backstop will allow a third party to step in and carry out the work. Every building made safe means fewer families left waiting and real progress towards helping people move on with their lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the cost of the building regime—an important issue that I will cover briefly. The committee raised concerns about the cost impacts of the building safety regime and the importance of ensuring that fees are fair, transparent and linked to improve performance. The Building Safety Regulator’s fees and charges are set in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance and operate on a cost-recovery basis. Any changes to fees would need to be considered carefully, alongside wider efforts to improve system capacity, efficiency and the consistency of decision-making. Should future changes be made, the Government will take into account the committee’s recommendations as part of their wider assessment of what the options might be.

I hope that I have covered the points made by noble Lords. In conclusion, the Government remain firmly committed to a building safety regime that is both robust and proportionate and which protects residents, maintains confidence and supports the delivery of safe homes. The committee’s recommendations have provided a valuable challenge and clear focus on what matters most: safety, consistency, transparency and delivery in practice. As I have set out today, we have already taken significant steps to strengthen the operation of the higher risk regime, and we will continue to refine it where necessary to make sure that it works effectively for residents and the sector.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for securing this debate, and to all noble Lords who have contributed, and I thank the committee for its very careful and constructive work. I look forward to continuing the dialogue as we work collectively to make sure that the building safety system delivers for residents and the wider sector for the long term.

Affordable Housing: Young People

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation, and young people will benefit from this. The £39 billion social and affordable homes programme aims to deliver around 300,000 new social and affordable homes, including at least 60% for social rent. For young people renting, the Renters’ Rights Act has capped rent in advance and ended unfair bidding wars and no-fault evictions. I am also working with the sector to simplify the buying and selling process and make that more accessible.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her positive response, but—and it is a big but—how does the £39 billion pot actually help if, on the one hand, as charities tell us, her departmental bidding processes and rules exclude, in effect, the smaller youth charities from actually applying for grants and building vital transitional and move-on accommodation for young people, but, on the other hand, the Government’s own planning guidance lacks the strength and clarity to allow planners to give permission for what is becoming known as the stepping-stone accommodation model, to enable the building of such accommodation? Please could the Minister look into both these obstacles, currently mentioned by the charities, to ensure that these smaller providers can actually deliver the affordable homes that young people need and can afford?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I welcomed the opportunity to speak to her on this matter during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act; I subsequently went to visit one of the schemes she had mentioned to me. The nationally described space standard sets minimum standards for internal floor space of new dwellings and is suitable for application across all tenures, but that standard is not mandatory, and it is at the discretion of local planning authorities to adopt it locally by reference to the standard in their local plan policies. As part of our consultation on updates to the National Planning Policy Framework, we have sought views on whether changes are needed to make sure that affordable fixed-term accommodation, such as stepping-stone accommodation, is better supported, with particular reference to space standards. We are in the process of analysing the responses to that and we will be confirming our response in due course.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely; I invite the noble Lord to speak.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with land plots for housing often exceeding the cost of home construction, does that factor alone not act as a real disincentive to the development of housing for sale at realistic, affordable prices? Why do we not establish a study into the relationship between land pricing and housing development costs? The study could consider proposals for building on land acquired at agricultural prices and sold under new forms of housing registration and land title arrangements, but which, at the same time, with other measures, could protect investment in existing freehold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. We continually look at issues around the viability of building and are working very closely, with both the development sector and our local authorities, to make sure that land pricing and other issues around viability are taken into account. The £39 billion we have put into social and affordable housing will make sure that we can give some support to those who are trying desperately to get some social housing built in the country; we continue to work with them on that. The bold planning reforms we have introduced will also assist with that process.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, young people are paying more in rent than they are on a mortgage, and so they would not need to join the queue for affordable housing if they had some help with a deposit. I put again to the Minister the question I posed to her in April, when she conceded that there was more work to be done. What progress has she been able to make in discussions with the developers, the financial institutions and the Treasury to bring forward a successor to the Help to Buy scheme, on which the then Government made a profit of £1.4 billion last time?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

A detailed analysis has been done of the Help to Buy scheme, and we will learn lessons from it. We will not reintroduce it as it was, but I agree with the noble Lord that, for many young people renting property, their rent is higher than a mortgage payment would be. Since I gave him my previous answer, I have been working with the sector. A wide variety of mortgage products are available in the UK, including a range of products available at a high loan-to-value ratio, such as 95% and even 100%. I met the Building Societies Association last week, and it is very keen to offer more innovative products that can help first-time buyers, including some that take account of a track record of paying rent, as they deal with a mortgage application. These are innovative systems. We know that many first-time buyers are not aware of the mortgage products that may help them, so we are working on a communications campaign. The Building Societies Association is doing its own, and the Government will also do something to make people aware of the steps they can take to get on to the housing ladder.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is now a brilliant new way of helping young people get the accommodation they need: intergenerational housing? Pioneered by the Phoenix Community Housing association in Lewisham, in schemes involving apartments for older people, a proportion are allocated to young people, who, in return for an affordable rent, provide social amenities, services and help with IT for the older people in the same scheme. Will she encourage Homes England to do more of these fantastic schemes that help both young and old together?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that such intergenerational schemes work exceptionally well, and I thank him for sharing the information on the initiative in Lewisham. The Government have committed to delivering this biggest boost to social and affordable housing, to make sure that everyone, including younger people, have access to safe, decent and affordable homes. To achieve that ambition, we will rely on both housing associations and councils across the country delivering the kind of ambition and innovation that the noble Lord discussed. I look forward to hearing about more schemes such as Phoenix Community Housing; it is great to have generations working together on their housing.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, young people under 35 who require support for their housing get only the shared accommodation rate of benefits, yet they are often disproportionately the people who have mental health concerns or other issues. Does the Minister agree that this needs looking into to ensure that the most vulnerable young people are not the ones who are pushed to the bottom of the housing situation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The allocation of funding for the DWP is a bit out of my housing remit, but I know that my noble friend who just answered the first Oral Question will have that in the forefront of her mind. As we deal with the situation around vulnerable young people, adequate housing is an absolutely fundamental building block of making sure that we set young people off on the right road from the very start. We will be working with colleagues in the DWP to make sure that we tackle the issues that prove to be barriers to young people entering housing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, where proceeds of right to buy are used to build a new social home, the council housing waiting list reduces and a family has the opportunity to have their own affordable social home. Does the Minister agree that the Government should support and encourage strategies that provide more homes and reduce council housing waiting lists?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It was right-to-buy policies over the last 14 years which diminished the stock of social housing. So, while I agree with the noble Lord, I do not think that the right solution was brought forward. The Social Housing Bill that is currently before the House will change the right-to-buy scheme so that we enable more of the funding for right to buy to go back into the properties. We have now allocated 100%, so that local authorities can have 100% of the funding, and we will reform the whole right-to-buy scheme to deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme. We want a scheme that will help long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we also need to protect much-need social housing stock and ensure that more homes are built than lost. That is what we are doing with the Bill. We will make sure that when a local authority builds a new house, it is exempted from right to buy for 35 years, so that councils have the confidence to invest for the future.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, speaking of innovation, Green Party-led Bristol City Council has had some success in creating housing for younger people by using ownership co-operatives and co-housing schemes. Is that something that the Government are looking into and perhaps encouraging in Labour-led councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are a number of successful co-operative housing schemes across the country. The commonhold and leasehold Bill, which we will bring forward later this year, will have steps in it to ensure that we make it easier for these kinds of innovative housing approaches to take place.

Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am very grateful to my friend and my noble friend Lord Forbes for securing the debate and to all noble Lords for some very powerful contributions this afternoon.

First, let me be absolutely clear that abuse and intimidation of local councillors, whether online or in person, are totally unacceptable. I am going to briefly outline some of my own experiences, because they are relevant. Throughout my time as a councillor, particularly as leader of the council, I experienced constant abuse on social media, as many other council leaders do. I had fictional accounts of meetings with me published online, which were very difficult to deal with, and online misinformation about members of my family, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to. While I will put up with a lot myself, I do not think families should have to put up with this kind of treatment.

Lastly, I was a victim of a terrible incident that resulted in a court case. I have mentioned that simply because this is not just about the standards system or the policing system; it is also about the criminal justice system. If you feel victimised again when you get into the criminal justice system, that system is not working properly. So be assured that this Government will crack down on abuse in whatever form it takes—whether directed at an elected representative, a candidate or a campaigner.

Examples of abhorrent behaviour that councillors have been subjected to were given powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Wilcox. The particularly excruciating examples of racism given by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, really strike home. The tales of terrible abuse on doorsteps given by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, are blood-curdling and chilling. All the cases that have recently been picked up by the media are so disturbing. We have some very brave people in local government who continue in their roles, in spite of what we hear about.

The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, in his March statement on the Defending Democracy Taskforce, has already put on record the Government’s view that

“we must challenge at every turn, the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life”.

Nor should we tolerate incitement to violence or normalise it as part of our political discourse. These actions, and those who choose to perpetrate them, fundamentally undermine our democracy, and we should not tolerate it. We have a clear responsibility to protect and strengthen our democracy. Local government is the grass roots of this democracy and will thrive if conditions are right for talented people to feel confident to come forward and stand for public office.

Of the 136 councils that held elections in May, 79 changed control. Many newly elected councillors have likely got their first taste of the cut and thrust of front-line political life—I hope it has not been a painful one for them. A robust exchange of views is one thing—democracy thrives on lively debate—but, given the evidence that online and in-person abuse is on the increase, we must ensure that the expression of strongly held views does not sink into divisive and toxic conflict, personal abuse, threats and intimidation. We stand shoulder to shoulder with local government on this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, we must not allow this toxic discourse to become normalised. As the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, outlined, these actions can have a fundamental and dangerous impact on decision-making, with people not wanting to take the decisions they know are right for fear of reprisals.

Let me move on to what the Government have done and will be doing in relation to my noble friend’s Question for Short Debate. I will try to address as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as time allows.

First, Operation Ford and the Defending Democracy Taskforce were discussed by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, the noble Lord, Lord Mott, and others. We have committed funding as part of the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol to Operation Ford. This places a dedicated elected official adviser in every police force to provide security briefings and work with local authorities to co-ordinate appropriate security support where a heightened risk is identified. We must make sure there is a consistent and reliable response. I will take this back and find out what measures are being taken to ensure that this is not a patchwork across the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, both raised different issues about how we ensure that we have free speech. Freedom of expression and the right to protest are fundamental parts of a healthy democracy, and they are protected under law. The measures we are pursuing apply only to criminal intimidation or harassment, not to legitimate disagreement, protest or campaigning. It is important that we make that distinction. We are determined to ensure that people are not put off from campaigning and standing for public office, and we will continue to safeguard the strong legal protections on freedom of speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others referred to the LGA survey, from which there was a very worrying and concerning set of outputs. I am pleased that, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, we have now put beyond doubt that a councillor’s home address should not be published by default. In practice, this means home addresses are not published unless the member requests it. This small but vital legislative change will help ensure that local councillors and their families can at least feel more secure in their homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others raised the issue of electoral reform. We are taking decisive action to tackle the harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners. We are changing the law so that those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff can be disqualified from seeking or holding elected office. This will bring electoral staff under the same protection already given to candidates, campaigners and elected representatives under the Elections Act 2022. The Representation of the People Bill will allow tougher sentences for those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. In addition, we will remove the requirement for election agents, including candidates acting as their own agents, to have home addresses published on the notice of election agents.

Local government standards reform is a key issue, which was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Wilcox. The Government will reform the local government standards and conduct framework. In my brief I have the civil servant phrase, “as soon as parliamentary time allows”, but please be assured, colleagues, that I understand the importance of this and will be championing it to get it as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, clearly illustrated the need for that in his very powerful contribution.

We consulted last year on a suite of proposals and published the response in November. The overarching aim of the reforms is to strengthen ethical standards in every type and tier of local government. We will also make sure that authorities have the right levers to deal with misconduct swiftly, fairly and transparently. I have very much taken on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the devolved Administrations. We will liaise with our colleagues on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, gave us the illustration of an experience in Basra; we need to act now to stop the slide into instability. I was with a group of planning officers this morning. If ever a group of council officers suffer this kind of harassment, it is our planning officers. That has to stop. They need to be able to do their job and their consultations without risking harassment and intimidation and be able to make decisions according to law and their professional expertise without fear of harassment.

In conclusion, I reassure the Committee that I and this Government are committed to doing all we can to prevent abusive, intimidatory and threatening behaviours. For democracy to thrive, we need to make sure that we attract the widest range of people to seek to serve their communities. They should be able to do so without fear of intimidation or abuse. This is a shared responsibility that we must all embrace. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said that serving as a councillor is the gateway to serving our community. I completely agree. As the Security Minister set out to the House on 12 March, we must draw a clear line together; by leading with respect, calling out unacceptable behaviour and working collectively, we can ensure that our politics remains open, resilient and worthy of public trust. I thank all noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions to this important debate. I look forward to working with them all as we move this forward.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Second Reading on the Social Housing Bill. I look forward to listening carefully to noble Lords’ contributions from across the House. I am particularly conscious that many in this Chamber bring deep experience of housing, local government, safeguarding and the realities facing communities. I therefore would like to begin by recognising the value that this experience brings to our debate and thanking noble Lords for giving the Bill the attention that it warrants.

Before I turn to the detail, I hope the House will allow me a brief personal reflection, because this Bill is really personal for me. This legislation is not abstract; I grew up in Stevenage in social housing. In those days, before everyone carried a phone in their pocket, before the internet shaped the world—I should add that not even every house had a phone; I am that old—and before cars were widely affordable, community was the bedrock of our lives. Part of the unwritten contract for my parents when they accepted the offer of a job and a home in Britain’s first post-war new town, which is 80 years old this year, was that their parents would be welcome when they retired and that their children could, if they wished, be housed as children of tenants.

One of the great strengths of living in Stevenage was the sense of continuity and belonging that it offered. Families put down roots, your parents could live nearby and, in time, you could imagine your own children building their lives in the same area with the possibility, if they needed it, of a secure, affordable home in the community they knew. That sense of security—that social housing could be there not only for you but for the next generation—is part of what social housing at its best can provide: stability, dignity and the foundation on which people can build a life.

Amidst the complexities of modern life and the cost of living crisis, retaining that sense of community is more important than ever. Yet for too many people, it is no longer something they can rely on. In Stevenage, the housing stock has fallen from around 32,000 homes in the 1980s to around 8,000 today, and many former council homes are now let to those on universal credit, costing the public purse more than double when compared with a council home and leaving over 2,000 families stranded on waiting lists. This is a picture that we see around the country.

Over time, social and affordable homes have become scarce. In many places, homes sold have not been replaced. The result is that families who could once have lived side by side, in the same town and neighbourhood, are now too often separated by necessity and forced to move far from the support networks they depend on. That is one of the reasons I care so deeply about this Bill. It is about restoring a sense of security and fairness for tenants today and for communities tomorrow. Everyone deserves to live somewhere decent, safe, secure and affordable, in a community where they feel at home.

That is why the social housing sector plays such a critical role in our system, providing a home to around 16% of all households in England and supporting many of the most vulnerable, including those on the lowest incomes and those living with long-term illness or disability. Yet, for many, that security is out of reach. Today, more than 1.3 million households are on local authority waiting lists for social housing and over 175,000 children are growing up without a stable home. Families are left with little prospect of secure housing in their community. They are forced instead into the increasingly expensive and insecure private rented sector or into temporary accommodation at significant personal cost and growing expense to the public purse.

This country has not built enough social and affordable housing for decades. While nearly one in three new homes in recent years has been social or affordable, overall delivery remains far below the historic highs of the 1950s and 1960s, when housing was delivered at a far greater scale. This decline reflects a combination of factors over recent years. including lower levels of public investment, constraints on providers’ ability to borrow and invest, and wider economic pressures, such as inflation, which have increased the cost of building and maintaining homes. At the same time, the steady and significant loss of social housing stock, particularly where homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced, has further undermined the ability and confidence of providers to invest in building the new homes that communities so urgently need.

The Government therefore placed social and affordable housing at the heart of our manifesto. We have been clear that addressing these long-standing challenges requires not just incremental change but a sustained programme of renewal, bringing together investment, reform and delivery across the sector. The priority of this Government remains to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The delivery of these commitments is well under way.

In 2025, we set out a clear five-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. First, we are delivering the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation through the £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme to support social housebuilding at scale. Secondly, we are rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest, supported by a stable 10-year rent settlement. Thirdly, we have established a more effective and stable regulatory regime by updating the decent homes standard, implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards, and the passing of Awaab’s law to drive up the safety and quality of homes for tenants. Fourthly, we are reinvigorating council housebuilding, which this Bill directly supports, recognising the central role of councils in social housing delivery. Fifthly and finally, we are strengthening our partnership with providers and investors to unlock capacity and accelerate delivery, and with tenants themselves to guide our reforms—including addressing the social housing stigma that tenants highlight as a key priority.

This Bill forms one targeted part of this wider programme of renewal, making the necessary legislative changes to underpin our reforms. We have already given social housing providers the long-term certainty and stability they need to dial up their housebuilding ambitions, through grant funding, long-term certainty about their incomes, clear and final quality standards, and specialised support for councils. We now need to deliver the parts of our decade of renewal plan which require primary legislation. The Bill will protect the number of social homes available to those in need and, in doing so, incentivise the building of more social rented homes. It will create a fairer system, with stronger protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clarify the statute book so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.

Taking each of these objectives in turn, I turn first to protecting homes and enabling new supply. Right to buy has long provided an important route into home ownership, helping many social housing tenants achieve greater security and a tangible stake in their community. Since its introduction, it has supported more than 2 million households to buy their homes and realise the benefits of home ownership. But—and this a very big “but”—too often the homes sold have not been replaced. This has led to a steady loss of social housing stock, reduced the availability of genuinely affordable homes, and weakened councils’ confidence and capacity to invest in new supply, particularly where homes are sold and do not return to the sector.

It cannot make sense for a council to invest in building a new home and then for a qualifying right-to-buy tenant to move in and purchase that home for significantly less than it cost to build. The Bill therefore builds on the existing tranche of reforms that the Government have already made to the right-to-buy scheme. The measures will continue the mission to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, one that continues to support long-standing tenants to buy while ensuring that councils can replace what is sold and better protect existing social homes to meet future housing need. We will increase the eligibility period from three years of tenancy to 10 years, which better reflects current practice and ensures that the scheme is targeted at those with a long-standing connection to their home. We will also better align discounts with cash caps and introduce a 35-year exemption for new-build homes, protecting new supply and giving councils the confidence to invest in homes for the long term.

Alongside this, the Bill introduces a new requirement for private providers of social housing to notify their local authority and other potential buyers before selling a home. This will maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector. Taken together, these reforms will shift the trajectory of the system from one where stock has been gradually depleted to one where it is protected and can begin to grow again. These measures are not about undermining aspiration but about ensuring that it is delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and sustainable, so that future generations have the same opportunities as those before them. They are designed to ensure that the sector is larger in the future, not smaller, and more capable of meeting need, not less.

Secondly, on the protection of tenants who are victims of domestic abuse, all tenants deserve safety and stability but those experiencing abuse face acute risks and, too often, must choose between staying in their home and continuing to suffer that abuse, or leaving and risking homelessness. The Bill strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports rather than frustrates a victim’s route to safety and recovery. This sits alongside wider government action to improve quality standards, strengthen tenant voice and ensure that the sector works in the interests of those it serves.

Thirdly, the Bill reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and clarifies the statute book, enabling councils and providers to invest with confidence. It repeals unimplemented and unworkable provisions from previous housing legislation, including requirements to sell high-value homes, impose fixed-term tenancies by default and charge higher rents to higher-income tenants. It also streamlines the outdated consents process so that councils can make more decisions about the management of their social homes without having to get approval first. These changes bring clarity and reduce barriers to delivery, setting up the social housing system for the ambitious future we are working towards.

Social housing is an essential part of a functioning housing system. It provides security for families, supports communities, reduces homelessness pressures and, when done well, represents good value for the taxpayer over the long term. This Bill is a vital part of our reforms, but legislation alone cannot deliver the decade of renewal we want to see across the quality and supply of social housing. As I have said, this Bill is one targeted part of a comprehensive and ambitious plan that the Government are already delivering through record investment into new social housing; through new modern and robust standards to improve housing quality and safety and to strengthen tenant engagement and landlord accountability; and through working with the regulator and the sector to ensure that the system is stable and investible. Ultimately, the Bill is grounded in the everyday reality of families who need secure homes, in the practical requirements of councils and providers that need certainty to build so that future tenants can access social homes, and in the principle that the state has a responsibility to ensure that safe, secure and affordable housing is available to those who need it.

In the course of this debate, I know that noble Lords will rightly scrutinise the detail—how reforms are implemented, how we safeguard fairness and how we ensure that the sector can deliver—and I welcome that scrutiny. But I hope that the House will also recognise the central purpose of this Bill: to strengthen tenant protections for victims of domestic abuse, to clear away barriers that prevent investment and delivery, and to protect and grow the social housing available across the country. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very thoughtful and constructive debate. As ever, there has been an incredibly wide range of experience and insight brought by this House, and I really welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill today. The debate has covered a varied range of issues, and I will do my best to respond to as many of those issues as I can in the time allowed—but I assure noble Lords that I will check Hansard at the end, and if there is anything I do not get the chance to respond to, I will reply in writing.

I want to give one piece of statistical information in relation to the impact of the Bill. Under the previous pre-reform baseline, the system was projected to deliver a net loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036 due to right-to-buy sales. By contrast, following implementation of the measures in the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period. I hope it will be many more than that, but the provisions in the Bill will deliver that.

Before turning to the specific points raised, I will make one general point. I was very keen to stress in my introduction that the Bill is a range of very specific measures in relation to right to buy, domestic abuse, and removing some of the bureaucracy around social housing. It does not cover all of the Government’s programme on social housing, because much of that programme does not need a legislative framework. In fact, we have already started to deliver much of it with a £39 billion investment. The social and affordable housing programme is already under way and will be delivering very soon. Many of the quality issues that were raised in the debate are also already being dealt with; there are extensive programmes to deliver them, and that reform is on its way already.

The Bill attempts to start easing some of the pressure on social housing, which is being caused by the specific issues contained within the Bill. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will sympathise when I say that if you bring an enormous Bill before this House—we went through the process of the levelling-up Bill together—you get criticised for doing a Christmas tree Bill. However, if you bring a narrow, tightly focused Bill like this one, you are criticised because you have not put everything in it. So as a Minister you are never going to win—but this is the right step to take at this point in time.

A considerable number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pinnock, Lady Shah, Lady Murphy, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Gill, Lady Young and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Lansley, Lord Babudu, Lord Sikka, Lord Bailey and Lord Bird, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—talked about housing supply and the ability to deliver increased social housing supply. The fact that so many noble Lords mentioned this highlights the great importance of that issue. The Bill strengthens our commitment to building more social rented homes and to delivering what we all want: the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about the Conservative legacy, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just repeated that theme. We would not be where we are now if we had not had 14 years when this problem was pushed under the carpet. In the time that the Labour Government have been in power, we have delivered the Renters’ Rights Act, tackling the problems that private rented sector tenants have in their tenancies. We have passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which has swept away some of the planning bureaucracies preventing housing being built. We are now approaching this Social Housing Bill, as well as empowering local councils and strategic authorities to deliver the infrastructure and the homes we need to grow our country. So I will not be taking any lectures from the other side of the House about their legacy, which has caused the housing crisis we are now trying to fix.

Our reforms to right to buy, notably the 35-year exemption for new-build social homes, will directly support our ambition by ensuring that councils have the confidence to deliver. The Bill’s changes will stop homes being sold before councils have recovered the costs of building them. Anyone who has been a council leader will know the pain of building homes and having them sold for less than they cost to build. Crucially, the Bill builds on the funding and regulatory certainty we have already given the sector to boost supply, including the £39 billion of investment—the biggest long-term investment in recent memory. The programme aims to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes, including at least 180,000 for social rent.

As other noble Lords have said, I have been somewhat disturbed by some of the comments about allocations to non-UK nationals. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa status means they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for an allocation of social housing. For all social housing, the overwhelming majority—88% of social housing lead tenants—are UK nationals, according to the 2024-25 English Housing Survey. It is not at all helpful to use some of the derogatory and mischaracterising tropes that often accompany discussions around social housing. That is just not helpful, and I hope we can avoid that in future discussions. Fraudulent tenancies are sometimes obtained, and where they are councils have very strong powers to deal with them. I hope that anyone listening to or watching this debate—including anyone in this Chamber—who is concerned about a fraudulent tenancy will do what they need to do: report it to the local authority concerned. I hope we can avoid comments like that during the rest of the discussions on the Bill.

Of course we have to support councils to build more homes. My noble friends Lady Shah, Lord Whitty and Lord Sahota, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Young and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Fuller, all spoke about that. In 2024-25, councils completed 10,480 homes, the highest number achieved in over 30 years. The Government are committed to reinvigorating council housebuilding, and councils are central to our efforts to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding. We have already taken decisive action to maximise councils’ engagement with our new social and affordable homes programme. Since April, for the first time, councils can mix right-to-buy receipts with grant funding, helping to improve the financial viability of their bids.

We have also allocated almost £9 million to 44 councils to support bid development through the council housebuilding support fund. This funding forms part of a £63 million four-year programme to support councils to improve their skills and capacity to build housing themselves. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I note that a great deal of work is going on with skills and capacity more generally in the construction sector. Finally, we are helping councils to borrow more cheaply to finance housebuilding by extending the preferential lending rate from the Public Works Loan Board for another year until March 2027.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, my noble friend Lord Sahota and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, clearly highlighted the need to provide support. Local authorities need to deliver programmes that are right for their areas. This is about the Government providing that support and funding and then letting local authorities implementing that in the right way for their local community.

We are all concerned about the safety and decency of social housing. There have been a number of mentions of Awaab’s law in our debate today. The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Babudu and Lord Stoneham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Jones, all highlighted these issues. Reforms are already under way which will deliver transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The newly updated decent homes standard will ensure that all rented homes in England are decent, safe and warm, designed with tenant safety at their core, while remaining proportionate and affordable for providers to deliver.

In addition, the Government have legislated on Awaab’s law, requiring social landlords to investigate and fix damp, mould and emergency hazards within strict timeframes. We have committed to bring forward regulations for further hazards using a test and learn approach. We will announce timings for the implementation of phase 2 in due course.

The Government have published a draft update to the national design planning practice guidance, which consolidates key existing guides and tools into one document. The updated guidance illustrates the Government’s priorities for well-designed places, helping local authorities to make planning decisions and developers and architects to submit planning applications to local planning authorities. It highlights that well-designed, liveable places should have a mix of house types and tenures to suit people of all ages and all stages of life, according to different needs, and integrated with other facilities. We are clear that this guidance should be applied across all housing sectors in this country, including social homes. A consultation seeking views on that guidance closed on 10 March, and we will publish a final version in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred to my spreadsheet about the quality of homes. I have just taken on this responsibility. I take it very seriously, and there is a lot of work to do.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to energy efficiency in social housing. We are committed to ensuring that every tenant has a decent, warm and comfortable home. We are implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards in the social rented sector, requiring all social homes to meet the new energy performance metrics. They will help make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants, reduce fuel poverty and make homes warmer, more comfortable and less susceptible to damp and mould.

We have also published the future homes standards, which will come into force in March 2027 for non-high-risk building work. All new homes will have excellent insulation, low-carbon heating systems and, in most cases, solar panels.

To answer my noble friend Lady Young—sorry, I should not call her that now, but she still is—social landlords will be required to meet one of the new energy performance certificate metrics. We have listened to the sector’s concerns about affordability and deliverability, and we have introduced two compliance dates to address these concerns, allowing providers to balance their time and financial capacity across other housing priorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a key issue around investment in social housing and mentioned additional ways to generate capital to support investment in social housing. We are open to hearing innovative ideas that meet our core principles—delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality and sustainable places—so my officials are very happy to follow up with the noble Lord on specific proposals, and I hope he will be happy to discuss those with us.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised an issue about Clause 9. Clause 9 will not affect the increased flexibilities we introduced in July 2025. Councils will continue to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, and those flexibilities will remain in place indefinitely. From 2026-27, councils will also, for the first time, be able to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes. The purpose of Clause 9 is to reduce administrative burdens for councils and central government because currently, whenever the rules on receipts change, the department must reissue retention agreements to every stockholding authority. Clause 9 will streamline this by allowing the Secretary of State to modify the requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements while maintaining oversight. It is a safeguard power rather than something that takes away the important retention of receipts.

The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Teather, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, mentioned the important issue of estate regeneration. We are clear that increasing supply and improving the quality of existing homes must go hand in hand. Too many tenants are living in homes that fall short of modern expectations, and we are determined to increase the number of social and affordable homes and to drive up standards across the homes that already exist. That is why the reforms that I have already mentioned are under way—to improve the quality and safety of social housing.

We are committed to supporting estate regeneration schemes to transform neighbourhoods and deliver well-designed housing with a better quality of life for tenants. The core strategic objective of the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is to maximise supply, but it will also support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in affordable homes.

The noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, among other Peers, all spoke on the right to buy. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government are not seeking to abolish the scheme. For many social tenants, it remains a crucial route into home ownership, opening the door to greater security and opportunity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord John, highlighted, we must also confront the reality before us. For too long, homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced at the rate needed, contributing to growing pressures on social housing supply and waiting lists across the country. That is why the Bill takes a balanced and responsible approach, retaining the opportunity for long-standing tenants to buy their homes, while protecting vital stock and ensuring councils can replace homes sold. So these are practical, necessary reforms that are designed to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme.

On the issues around home ownership and social mobility, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Gill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, the right to buy provides a pathway for social housing tenants to own their home. However, as I said, too many homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced. So we are reforming this, as we set out in our manifesto, but we are not shutting the door on home ownership; that pathway will remain for tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for a long time.

On the wider issue of home ownership, there is an extensive programme going on now with the sector to make the buying and selling of homes much less complicated and much easier for first-time buyers, so your Lordships will hear more about that in weeks to come.

The one-for-one replacement of homes was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Warwick, Lady Shah and Lady Neate. We are moving away from the previous one-for-one replacement target for homes because that was introduced when there was no wider expectation placed on councils to build. We know that the right to buy has acted as a strong disincentive to council housebuilding, which our reforms will unleash. We are calling on councils not just to replace homes sold but to go further and play a central role in delivering a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. That reflects our wider programme and objective. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery to make sure that this continues to be the case.

I want to speak briefly about the rural exemption, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Excluding rural areas from the right to buy reflects the very real and unique challenges of replacing social and affordable homes in those communities. Constraints on land, planning and supply mean that once homes are lost, they are often extremely difficult to replace. For that reason, we have taken the targeted decision to exempt designated rural areas from the scheme. We are not proposing to exempt any further areas from the scheme.

I have already spoken a bit about allocations, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was very concerned about these issues. The allocations framework is not included in the Bill, but work is going on with the sector to discuss further issues around allocations. The allocations framework gives priority to the groups who are most in need, and local councils have the freedom to manage their own waiting lists so they can develop solutions that make best use of their social housing stock. They are required by law to give priority to certain categories of people—for example, those who are homeless, as I know the noble Baroness will be very well aware—and we committed in our National Plan to End Homelessness to work with partners to update statutory guidance on social housing allocations to make sure that the framework is working effectively, and to support vulnerable households.

I will just briefly mention the mergers of housing associations, which was a common theme that came out during the debate. Housing associations of course play a vital role in delivering good quality homes and services, and landlords sometimes conclude that the best way to do this is through a merger with another housing association. Housing associations are independent organisations that make their own commercial decisions, and we do not direct how they run their business. However, all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards before and after any merger. In addition, under the transparency, influence and accountability standard set by the regulator, where a merger is being considered, tenants must be given the opportunity to influence and be involved in that process. A landlord must also be able to demonstrate to affected tenants how they have taken the outcome of the consultation into account when reaching a decision. I knew I was not going to get to all the points I wanted to make, but I will respond to noble Lords in writing on those I have missed.

Fundamentally, this Bill is key to ensuring that social housing continues to play the role it should in our society, not just for today but into the future. As I reflected at the beginning of this debate, social housing has long provided more than just a roof over people’s heads. It supports stable, connected communities, places where people can put down roots, build their lives and remain close to family and support networks. The Bill is a step towards restoring that stability—what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, called opportunity, security and comfort. Those were good words. It is protecting the homes we have, supporting the building of the homes we need and ensuring that the system works fairly for those who rely on it most. In doing so, it seeks to ensure that future generations can once again enjoy the security, opportunity and sense of belonging that I had growing up in Stevenage and that social housing has provided for so many in the past.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clause 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 20, Title.

Motion agreed.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to tighten the rules regarding donations to political parties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, foreign interference is a threat to our democracy. That is why we are currently legislating to tighten the rules on who can make political donations and strengthening checks on and the transparency of those donations. We are also acting on the recommendations of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into foreign financial interference. We are capping donations from overseas electors and bringing forward a moratorium on crypto asset donations. We will issue a full response to the Rycroft report in due course.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that really helpful Answer. I agree with everything that she has said. However, will she now consider tightening the rules on the expenditure of Short money which is allocated specifically to opposition parties at Westminster? If there is any misspending of that money, who is responsible for dealing with it? Is it the Public Accounts Committee or the Government? Does she agree with me that whoever it is should be dealing with it as a matter of urgency?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is important that any money spent from the public purse is spent in a way that commands the confidence of the public. It is critical that processes are in place to monitor that spending and to make sure that it is used for the purposes it is there for. It is critical that it is properly and legally audited, so that we can all be assured of that. One of the big problems we have in the political world is an undermining of confidence in the political system. That is not helped when people do not have confidence in the financial systems that surround it. Those things are really important, and we continue to keep them under review.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

If the Government consider making any changes to Short money, will the Minister make them retrospective for the last 10 years?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The allocation of Short money is beyond my ministerial brief, but all parties must think when they are in government about the proposals around Short money.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, under the Government’s current plans, Donald Trump could split ownership of a UK company between himself and his family members, keeping each individual share below the threshold that would trigger the significant control test in the Representation of the People Bill that is coming our way. That would then enable the company to legally donate to UK politicians or political parties, and indeed any foreign dictator or billionaire with family members could do exactly the same. Does the Minister agree that that is a dangerous and unwelcome loophole that needs to be closed?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not want to comment on such donations, particularly from the President of the United States’s family. However, we are taking immediate steps to implement Philip Rycroft’s recommendation for a cap on donations made by overseas electors. We will implement that through the Representation of the People Bill which is currently before Parliament—it is at Report stage in the Commons at the moment. We are committed to upholding and strengthening our democracy by protecting against this kind of foreign interference, improving political transparency and adding tougher checks for donations. However, it is the responsibility of receiving parties as well to carry out the necessary checks involved. I hope that all responsible parties will take their part in doing so.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, if we are concerned about preventing foreign interference and plugging loopholes, as I think we all are, will my noble friend the Minister consider personal donations—small change such as £5 million to a particular Member of Parliament, for example—and foreign money to UK think tanks that are really quite political in their activities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

With any donations, it is for those receiving them to make sure they are clear about where those donations come from and what they are for. There are investigations currently going on by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as we know, so it is probably best that I do not comment specifically on those. Everyone must stop and think about how these donations are used and donated. We need to make sure that the rules that are set for political donations apply to everybody involved in political life, and that there are no exemptions for anybody.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, while the independent Rycroft review consulted political parties on political donations, the Government have singularly failed to do so. Why did Ministers fail to consult the Parliamentary Parties Panel on these measures?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that there was extensive consultation with political parties during the course of the drawing up of the Bill. The Bill is being debated in Parliament now, and representations can still be made in Parliament. It will be debated in this House in due course.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, how are the Government going to get at the increasingly shadowy area of what the Minister has just called political life, where donations are not specifically to political parties but are being used to support particular causes? It is widely reported, for example, that Elon Musk is using Twitter to promote the Restore candidate in the forthcoming by-election and to support Restore altogether. Is that a political donation? At the Unite the Kingdom rally, Tommy Robinson specifically thanked two US donors who had helped to fund the rally. That is not, within the current terms, a political donation, but it is clearly financial interference in British political life. How are we going to get at that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord indicated, this is a complex area, but we must endeavour to make sure that, as we pass the legislation, we close loopholes that allow donations that are not subject to the usual checks and balances—they must be subject to those checks and balances. We intend to commence existing provisions in primary legislation that will require donors to declare any benefits or sources of funding connected to their donation and render them liable to criminal prosecution for false declarations. We need to go that far to make sure that we avoid the kind of circumstances that the noble Lord raised.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my friends in the Liberal Democrats talk about money from America. Unfortunately, we in Northern Ireland have been dealing with money from America for quite some time, which is coming to Sinn Féin through the Irish Republic. Will that be dealt with in the legislation? It gives an unfair advantage to Sinn Féin in elections in Northern Ireland, whether it is standing for the UK Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will probably be more aware than I am, donations from Ireland are permitted in some circumstances. I will take back the issue she raised. It is important that all donations to all political parties are subject to the same legal requirements, and that is what the Representation of the People Bill is seeking to achieve.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the present system has some controls during an election period but then, in a non-election period, there seems to be very little control, with one right-wing individual donating £10 million to one political party. Will the review deal with this issue?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are still assessing the Rycroft review, which comments extensively on the evolving threat posed by political interference to British democracy. We will publish a full response to the Rycroft review in due course, but we have taken immediate steps in the Bill to implement the recommendation for a cap on donations made by overseas electors.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

In the light of the various issues that have been raised today, can the Minister say whether the Government would reconsider, and possibly put some amendments to, the Bill?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would be a very strange Bill that came before this House without any amendments, in my experience. However, we have endeavoured to structure the Bill to deal with many of the issues around donations that have been raised over the past couple of years. I hope that, when it is debated here, Members will take the opportunity to see just how extensive this legislation is and how far it goes. If further issues are thrown up by the Rycroft review, we will endeavour to make sure that they are incorporated as quickly as possible.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the term political donations is misleading. This is really about political corruption. The donors are buying power and influence, subverting public choices, getting government contracts, et cetera. Simply capping it does not end political corruption. The only way forward is to criminalise the receipt and payment of political donations, because no ordinary person can play this game.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have said to my noble friend before that I do not always share his conspiracy-theory approach to life. However, the new legislation will introduce “know your donor” schemes, where recipients of donations over £11,180 will be required to consider the risk of those donations being from illegitimate sources, to prevent the risk of foreign interference. There are serious penalties where those laws are not followed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is exactly what the Representation of the People Bill will attempt to do; it will make sure that we are clear about how donations to political parties should work. We will debate this in due course and, I am sure, at great length in this House. It is important that the public can have confidence in how this system is working.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, immediately prior to the last general election, the then government party decided to increase the maximum expenditure by political parties standing in every seat in Great Britain by 80%, increasing the amount of money that could be spent from around £20 million to £36 million. It did not do it any good. Should we not now reverse that increase, which invites massive donations from sources that political parties find hard to check the origins of?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are introducing tougher rules on political donations to protect UK elections. The limits have changed because circumstances change. That is an important part of the system. We have to strike the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund election campaigns.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Further to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that those who make political donations should be criminalised, hundreds of thousands of people in this country subscribe to their political parties because they share their values. Surely that should be encouraged and not criminalised.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—and not for the first time. It is important that people are not only able to donate to a political party if it meets their values, principles and objectives for our country but that they can be absolutely reassured that that money is used in a legitimate way by political parties for their aims and can have confidence in the system that that is the case.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in favour of the legislation that we will be planning. Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to look at the PPERA and ensure that the rules are strict enough that every party’s accounts are properly audited and are accurate?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am sure that Mr Rycrotft, in his extensive review of the electoral system, took that into account. Having been a member of a political party for a long time, I know that the auditing process is an important part of the system. We all want to make sure that that works properly for political parties, as it should do in all parts of public life.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, suggested that those seeking to influence policy through donations are guilty of some sort of corruption. Does the Minister agree that that is an incorrect characterisation and that the law should apply equally, not just to private individuals and businesses but to unions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The law applies to all those who donate to political parties, and it is right and proper that it does. As I said, I do not agree with my noble friend’s characterisation that all donations are potentially corrupt. However, where they are corrupt, it is important that the system can deal with that effectively and has proper sanctions to make sure that we deter those who would try to use their own personal money to corrupt our democracy.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. That does now conclude the Private Notice Question.