Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate that so many people have made important points in. I declare my interests as chair of Look Ahead, a social housing provider that works with homeless people and those with mental health problems, and as a previous non-executive director of Aster and Southern housing associations.

The Bill is designed to protect existing social housing stock and to respond to long-standing challenges in the number of homes available by reducing the number of social homes sold through the right-to-buy scheme and removing significant disincentives for councils to build new supply with receipts received from such sales. The Bill is also designed as a route to home ownership for eligible long-standing tenants.

All social housing stock, as other noble Lords have said, should provide safe, secure homes for individuals and families in which to live. As so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, evidence demonstrates that there is a significant relationship between people’s physical and mental health and the security of a well-maintained flat or house in which to live.

The new consumer standard for social housing is resulting in greater investment in many of our current homes, but that actually means that many housing associations are building fewer newer homes because of the investment in current stock.

As many other noble Lords have said, there have been opportunities for people to buy their social homes at a substantial discount. Though in principle an extremely good concept, we know that it has been open to abuse through individuals exercising the right to buy, then subletting and ultimately using the increase in property value to benefit other family members; or through some tenants even borrowing money from unscrupulous lenders to purchase their homes, then being held to ransom, in effect, and forced to sell their homes at less than market value to repay the debt to those lenders. This effectively makes the so-called purchasers homeless, or results in them having to move to a less suitable property, with any remaining funds they have available after such a transaction.

The new Bill will increase the minimum qualifying period for exercising the right to buy for secure tenants from the current three-year period to a 10-year tenancy. That may result in individuals who can do so saving a deposit and choosing to leave their social homes and buying independently or through a shared ownership arrangement, thus releasing social housing provision for those on the waiting list.

However, the proposed Act makes little mention of tenants dwelling under a shared ownership arrangement, except regarding disposals notification requirements. Can the Minister indicate whether His Majesty’s Government could consider an amendment to the Bill for people who have bought a percentage of their property through shared ownership and paid rent on the other element of their home for 10 years also to be granted a discount reduction of 5% on the remaining property value after the 10-year qualifying period?

Many shared ownership tenants, particularly single people, have gone down this route due to their inability to access rented social housing. A change to enable shared owners to be part of a discount scheme would include many essential workers, such as paramedics or teachers, who could then take advantage of the proposed scheme. Indeed, the optimist in me thinks that it may encourage young people in essential occupations to stay in expensive areas that are hard to recruit to, when they have purchased a shared ownership property, as they feel they could get a discount at a later date. Depending on the Minister’s response to this issue, I hope to work with others in this House on an amendment to reflect parity of discounts for shared ownership residents. I welcome the content of the Bill and passionately believe that it will result in fewer families in more expensive private rental accommodation or, in worst case scenarios, living in bed and breakfasts due to a lack of availability of social housing stock in the area in which they live.

Finally, can the Bill make provision for councils to consider purchasing additional social housing stock that is currently vacant? The latest data, to which I was so kindly referred by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—I received her note only this afternoon—states:

“The overall number of unsold units increased”,


by December of last year, “by 11%” from the previous quarter,

“to 7,313, with the number of units unsold for over six months … increasing … to 3,016 units, the highest number since December 2023”,

indicating the points that other noble Lords have made about the difficulty of selling stock at the moment. Is it not time that we bought this stock and put it into social ownership for rent? Further investigations could be done across England to understand the detail more fully. How can we allow such properties to remain vacant for prolonged periods after completion while families with children live in temporary accommodation? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester identified this challenge.

The Bill is welcomed, but let us swiftly try to improve its intentions, so that we genuinely increase the social housing stock at pace and make life happier and healthier for many of our population.

Home Ownership: First-Time Buyers

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can only repeat what I said: it is very important that we encourage our young people, and others looking to buy homes, to consider the wide range of options that are available. I mention two particular institutions that I have been talking to, Lloyds and Santander, which are already going out there with very extensive campaigns. I encourage anybody who is keen to buy a house to go and talk to a broker or lender, because there are options available for people.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister has mentioned shared ownership schemes, because the terms for new schemes are really very good, but many people are stuck on previous detrimental schemes. Following Grenfell and the requirements for them to pay for upgrading, they are absolutely stuck in their homes. Will the Minister say what she is going to do about that, so that people can move into homes where they can have families, because these are often one-bedroom flats? Secondly, will she consider asking the Government to increase the rent a room scheme allocation so that people whose mortgages are going up and are renting out a room can be to some extent compensated to stay in their current homes?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Shared ownership has a very important role to play in supporting households into home ownership that would otherwise struggle to purchase a property on the open market that meets their needs. We are aware, of course, that some people who have entered shared ownership have faced challenges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill to introduce the measures to help with that. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience. These include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability and increasing transparency and fairness on costs. Shared owners will also benefit from the wider leasehold and commonhold reforms in a variety ways. We will debate the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill in due course—but the Act of 2024 grants shared owners the right to statutory lease extensions and makes it easier for them to challenge unreasonable service charges.

National Policy Planning Framework: Housing

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I echo my noble friend’s points about Baroness Randerson’s work in Wales. He makes a valid point: a good reason for building social housing is that it saves expenditure on DWP funds. In my own area, a private rented property costs around £1,200 a month; a social rented property is about £600 a month. Even those with my maths skills can work out that that would be a saving. That is why it is so urgent that we get on with building the social homes that we need. There are social reasons for doing so, but also very good financial reasons.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that consideration will be given to ensuring that supported housing at social rents, particularly for older citizens, will be emphasised in the review? In the spirit of joined-up government, will the results be provided to inform the Casey review on social care, because the two are inextricably linked?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the topic of housing for older people and for those with particular needs. For example, we laid regulations to exempt all former members of the regular Armed Forces and victims of domestic abuse from any local connection tests. We are actively working on issues around older people’s housing; in fact, I met Anchor this morning to discuss that very topic. We will bring forward further policies in the spring to look at the need for older people’s housing and how to make better provision for it in the planning process.

Temporary Accommodation Costs

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that is within this Question. I will leave it to my noble friend to fight his corner on that one.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, many housing associations have been encouraged to develop homes for shared ownership, yet current trends illustrate that there has been a reduction in applications for this type of accommodation due to increases in mortgage rates and concerns regarding responsibility for maintenance—relating to the Grenfell Tower event. Can the Minister say whether capital could be made available for councils to purchase some of those empty properties and reduce temporary accommodation used for families?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through their powers, local authorities can look to purchase accommodation. In the last two Budgets, we have given special dispensation to local councils, first, on special borrowing and, secondly, on their moneys from the right to buy. It is up to local authorities to look at the ways they can provide those houses, but I will take that back to the department as an idea.

Leasehold Reform

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think my noble friend is probably talking about LEASE, which is a government-sponsored arm’s-length body. The Government provide £1.9 million of funding every year so that leaseholders and park home owners can get free information and advice. We recognise that these people face some parallel complexities and lack of control over some of their properties. We are looking at LEASE—a new chair is being recruited at the moment—and we are looking for it to be a little more impactful, customer friendly and cost effective into the future, as well as leading important work to ensure that the voices of leaseholders and park home owners are listened to.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the future legislation will take careful consideration of issues relating to retirement homes and villages?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry—somebody was talking behind me. Can the noble Baroness please repeat that?

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My question was about ensuring that the future legislation will take into consideration retirement villages and communities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Absolutely. It is extremely important; if the noble Baroness was in the Chamber last night she would have heard us talking about the planning system as well, making it clear that with an ageing population we need to consider homes of all types for older people in the future.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate and to recognise Baroness Boothroyd, who very soon after I got here took me out to a charity lunch as her guest and told me not to worry if I repeated things that other people had said, which was one of my concerns, because, she said, the men do it quite comfortably.

We have heard about the vital need to address the many challenges that women face globally, but this should not hamper us considering women in the UK more closely. I will highlight the crucial need to tackle discrimination that parents, particularly women, currently face regarding extortionate childcare costs and gender inequalities in our healthcare system.

The Childcare: Affordability and Availability debate in Parliament on 21 February this year highlighted that childcare costs in the UK are the second highest in the world, behind only Japan. In the debate, one Member of Parliament reported that the cost

“is driving a bulldozer through the last 100 years of progress on women playing an equal part in the workplace and in our economy.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/23; col. 26WH.]

The financial burden of childcare is usually borne by new mothers who are unable to return to work or forced to return part-time, thus hindering their career progression and exacerbating the gender pay gap. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that the number of women leaving the workforce for caring responsibilities—for both childcare and other family care—increased by 12.6% last year.

A national report into the childcare crisis released this month by Pregnant Then Screwed—rather than the other way around—revealed that 76% of mothers who pay for childcare say it no longer makes financial sense for them to work. The Coram report published yesterday also raises these issues. The Guardian reported that in the UK, 540,000 mothers have been prevented from working due to the lack of suitable childcare, and many have reduced their working hours for the same reason.

In addition, inflation has increased childcare fees by an average of 44% between 2010 and 2021, resulting in childcare costs being now at least the same as core domestic costs for three in five families; for lone parents, this rises to three in four. Unfortunately, salary increases have not matched the cost of living and some professions have experienced pay cuts. Health and social care staff, for example, have been subjected to real-term pay cuts totalling between 10% and 26% since 2008-09. We have invested in professional education for women, particularly, for example, in medicine, yet very few are able to work full-time, even if they want to—although I accept that some choose not to.

I highlight the case of a mother and sole carer of two children aged 8 and 9, working part-time as a higher trainee in psychiatry. She thought that childcare costs would decrease as her children went into full-time education and that her pay would comfortably cover the costs as she progressed to become a consultant psychiatrist. Currently, she is paying from a single salary for after-school clubs, childminders for late shifts and school holiday clubs, the monthly costs of which surpass her mortgage fees. She found the Government’s tax-free childcare system too complex and has shied away from claiming. Indeed, the recent childcare cost debate in the other House identified that £2.8 billion is sitting unclaimed in the Treasury. The Government need to address the complexity in the system and to consider childcare as part of infrastructure spending to retain women in the workforce. Should childcare costs be tax-deductible, for example, up to a certain level?

Dame Lesley Regan’s report Better for Women in 2019, already referred to, highlights the need to keep women in the workforce by embedding their health issues in workplace policies. Two common debilitating conditions mentioned are postnatal depression and the menopause, which can have significant physical and mental health consequences, making working life difficult. It is well known that work is a really important preventer of mental ill-health. A survey conducted by Wellbeing of Women found that nearly a quarter had considered leaving their jobs because of the menopause. A study for the Department for Work and Pensions estimated that if 0.6 million more postmenopausal women worked full-time, £20 billion could be added to GDP. Dame Lesley Regan’s report recommended that the UK Government introduce mandatory menopause workplace education, training and policies to help keep women in work and to break the stigma associated with menopause.

In Quebec, childcare is treated as critical infrastructure, like schools or roads, costing parents about £6 a day. Hence, 85% of women in Quebec aged 26 to 44 are part of the workforce, generating extra tax and reducing the cost of social benefits. In many of our neighbouring countries, state-funded childcare is provided to all preschool children, thus increasing women’s access to further education and employment and bringing the benefits of work in terms of mental health promotion, through social interaction and increased self-esteem, and economic empowerment. Enabling mothers to work the hours they want could, it is estimated, generate upwards of £9.4 billion in additional earnings a year—an additional economic output equivalent to 1% of GDP.

Therefore, please can the Minister explain the Government’s long-term intention to adequately fund childcare, early education costs and training in the workplace to increase women’s attendance at work?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today, and I draw attention to the issue of intergenerational fairness and housing that the latter speech covered. I declare my interests as outlined in the register. I broadly welcome the mission of the Bill, but like other noble Lords, I believe that constructive amendments are needed to improve the likelihood of it achieving its expected outcomes. In particular, the Bill could be strengthened through simplifying the devolution of power, including finance, to the local place-based organisations outlined.

I live in Devon, and in the 10 miles due south from my village, there is a reduction in life expectancy of one year for every mile—that is, 10 years. This disparity indicates that levelling up is not about the north of England and the south, but between neighbourhoods in cities and rural areas, where villages’ housing stock has become so expensive that local people cannot afford to remain. In turn, this puts huge demands on providing domiciliary support and care for the increasingly older populations of those expensive villages, but it also means that people are living there part-time, because the houses are used as holiday homes. Shelter has provided an excellent briefing on the Bill and highlights the need to strengthen it so that social rented housing plays a far more prominent role in the planning system.

Other noble Lords have argued many of the points I had intended to raise. At this time in the evening I will not repeat them, but I will say that I fully support the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Communities need not only healthy, safe, affordable social housing but schools, preschool nurseries, safe public transport—that comes more than twice a day, as in my village—health centres, step-down hospital facilities, hospital beds, effective domiciliary services and intergenerational hubs. All these things need to be considered to avoid loneliness and enable communities to work together, so that there is good infrastructure to develop the future for young people. Careful consideration needs to be given not only to access to nature—which where I live you can access in 20 seconds—but access to a shop, coffee shop or library, where you may be able to speak to somebody else during the day.

The centre needs to think about declaring a proportion of social housing that should be agreed across the whole country. I believe it should be a minimum of a third of all new housing.

I have read the Bill, though not every page. Absent from the majority of it is the importance of universities in the intangible development of patents, innovation and local jobs. We need to think carefully about how we get this right, as they tend not to serve wide areas.

Can the Minister comment on the evidence the Government have that investment in high-quality, affordable homes would reduce costs to the NHS, as outlined earlier by two previous leaders, and improve the educational prospects for children currently living in temporary accommodation and often moving from school to school? What will the Government’s responsibility be re housing? Will they simply devolve it, leaving local communities to get on with it and then blaming them, or will they set standards? For example, the current standard of renting a room enables you to get just over £7,000 a year, I believe, but some areas should be able to charge more. That could be really positive for housing, particularly for young people. I agree with what other noble Lords have said: the postcodes of our birth should not affect our life expectancy and chances, however we know that they do.

Finally, we seem to have removed the placeholder clause on vagrancy and begging. Could the Minister comment on whether this will be dealt with elsewhere, as it is an important issue?

Warm Hubs

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think the Government necessarily do, but local government certainly does. If you google them, you will see the number of village halls and parish councils in these small rural areas that are doing exactly what the more urban areas are doing. We have village halls all across the country, and they can use the energy scheme for businesses and the voluntary sector. Working with their local councils, they can also get small grants to support their local villages. Also, in most of our rural villages there is a church. Working together with faith communities and parish councils, you can deliver in rural areas.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a constructive suggestion in relation to rural areas; I wonder whether the Minister can help on this. We need a national campaign to encourage people in small villages, such as the one I live in, to welcome people into their homes for coffee or tea and to enable people to walk to a local warm hub, which could just be a local person who reaches out. I believe that many people would be committed to doing that. My anxiety is that we will end up with loads of people feeling that they need to go to a warm hub and sit still, which is not a solution either.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am more than happy to talk further with the noble Baroness. Some of these things are happening, but it is a matter of making sure that we keep them all together and that good practice is transferred across the country.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in social housing, in particular as the chair of Look Ahead, a small housing association in London. Like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill, which will support stronger and more proactive consumer regulations and the inclusion of further health and safety requirements in social housing to protect tenants.

The National Housing Federation provided a very useful briefing for today; it has been detailed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I particularly want to talk about its recommendations that the Government should seriously consider the potential costs of the ombudsman and regulator in taking on these new responsibilities, and ensure that there is effective funding so that they can conduct them properly. Can the Minister clarify what funding will be made available to ensure that the aims of the Bill can be achieved at pace within sound government structures?

In all the briefings received—including those from Shelter and Electrical Safety First, already referred to by other noble Lords—issues arise with the proposed electricity checks. Will such checks include appliances such as white goods, for example fridges, as well as main electrical installations for sockets and lights? We know—again, as other noble Lords have said—that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was linked to such an issue. New white goods are expensive. What will happen if tenants’ own white goods fail assessments for safety? Will they be removed? How will people afford replacements? These are really important issues for social tenants.

It is clear that social landlords will need sufficient powers to gain access to properties if they are truly to make sure that large buildings are fully assessed for electrical safety. Should safety checks cover leasehold properties in social housing blocks as well as homes that are rented out?

If the new proactive consumer regulation regime is adopted as outlined in the Bill, are the Government confident that the definition of “social rented sector” is sufficiently detailed? The statistics in the Library briefing suggest that the social rented sector provides homes for 4 million households, or, perhaps more importantly, one-sixth of all households. The Bill and briefings received appear to make no mention of shared ownership properties, which are a particular interest of mine, as the Minister knows. Many shared ownership households own only a quarter of their homes and pay social rent to housing associations on the remaining 75%. Is there a need for an amendment to the Bill to clarify the rights and responsibilities of both parties involved in shared ownership, particularly with regard to safety checks and the costs of putting things right? Under current legislation, I suggest that these will fall on the tenant, rather than the housing association, and I would welcome clarity on this.

Other noble Lords spoke eloquently about the positive aspects of the Bill, and it will certainly improve the lots of tenants if enacted. I look forward to working with the Minister and Members on all sides of this House to make revisions in areas where further definitions may improve the Bill, particularly with regard to the rights of shared ownership tenants, many of whom work in the public sector and are already suffering with the cost of inflation, before the mortgage element of their shared ownership increases.

Housing: Private Renters

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose I should always be very careful about giving data. In response in the other place, the Minister—who was driving forward with the 12-point plan—made it clear that we are seeing as many landlords leaving the sector as we are seeing entering the sector. I will go back and find the data that underpinned my remarks in the debate we had earlier this week.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem with the private rental sector is that many people in it would rather be in social housing at a fair rent, and that, because of a shortage in that housing, private landlords are often able to exploit some of the most vulnerable in our society? What could we do about that in the future, to increase social rented?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is important to recognise the balance of having more tenants who cannot afford renting in the private sector having social or affordable homes. That is why we have an £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme, and we are seeking to double the amount of social rented homes that we build to 32,000, because clearly, the housing benefit bill has been growing astronomically and we need to contain that over time.