Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister particularly for her very clear and personal introduction to the Bill. I feel I will be the first person to stand up and say that I was not brought up in a council house, but I looked with envy upon those who were. When we were evicted from our home in Wales, we came up north to my father’s family in Preston, where we lived in a house in which the sink was on bricks in the kitchen. It still had what I called Bunsen burners—gaslights—on the side, and there was no plumbed-in bath. There was the luxury of one toilet outside, just for us. I made friends with people at my primary school who lived on the Larches estate, which was a real exemplar of brilliant council housing at its peak. If we had had one of those houses, my father would have used the right to buy—I am absolutely convinced of that.

I am grateful to follow all the contributions. I started off making notes of what people were saying, because the seven minutes has given us time to get some detail and some quality. I will not make a list of everybody, but I will quickly go through some thoughts outside the scope of the Bill that are quite interesting. I will kick off by saying that I was quite troubled—I echo what the noble Baroness on the other side said—by some of the comments made in the Chamber, particularly around who the “true” people who need social housing are and about the most vulnerable people in society being “state dependent”. I want to register that that has made me feel really uncomfortable.

However, I was greatly enlivened by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who brought together housing injustice and poverty, and of course most poignantly by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. The connections between health, housing and poverty were ably brought out by my noble friend Lady Teather, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Babudu. They are inextricably linked, and as people in this world we absolutely know that.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Stoneham and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, brought out the importance of the regeneration of estates and neighbourhoods, which is totally missing from the Bill. I hope the Minister will tell us where it is because it is important that, when people open their front door, they feel they live in a safe, clean and green neighbourhood. I think we would all aspire to that.

Let us throw in rural issues—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others. This keeps coming up all the time, does it not? It is clearly an area that we are neglecting. Of course, on environmental issues, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Russell. I can see that this Christmas tree will have lots of baubles hung on it. The noble Lord is shaking his head—we will have to see how we go. But there was certainly real quality there.

As several colleagues have said, there are elements here that we on these Benches really welcome, particularly the provisions intended to strengthen protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse—the final comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, were really pertinent to that intention—and the steps to slow down the loss of much-needed social housing stock.

However, context is everything. The Bill sits within a wider and, in many respects, ambitious programme. The Government’s decade of renewal is backed by significant investment—the most for a long time—and a commitment to expand supply at scale, alongside reforms to the private rented sector and to housing quality and standards. So, to give credit where it is due, taken together this suggests a Government seeking to grapple seriously with the housing crisis, which has occurred over decades and under Governments of all stripes.

The crisis that we have heard expounded on by many is profound, with over 1 million households waiting for social housing, more than 134,000 in temporary accommodation, and the eye-watering cost of that to society. There have been decades of undersupply, combined with the steady depletion of social housing stock. I think we are very clear on these Benches that this is not a moment for incremental change; it is a moment that demands systemic delivery—that is going to be a word that I use a lot.

When we turn to the Bill itself, however, we encounter something a little bit more limited—some might say tame—and deliberately so, it would seem, from the Minister’s introduction. This at best is a fragment of a much larger cloth. The strategy, however, speaks of scale, delivery and renewal over a decade, and the Bill speaks largely of frameworks, adjustments and protections. These are relevant, but not sufficient to meet the challenge—and this was a theme that was echoed by many noble Lords, not least of all my friend Lady Pinnock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to name but a few. I would say that, even judged on its own terms, the Bill could and should be stronger.

We are not going to get a consensus on everything. Let us take right to buy. I was particularly struck by the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, of right to buy, which really nailed it. The times they have a-changed—and who was it who famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind”? That is absolutely what has happened with policy, and it is what noble Lords have been saying about how council housing has really changed from what it was to what it is—so we have to change our policies.

The reforms here are really sensible. They recognise the long-term damage done from the loss of social housing stock, with millions of homes sold and not replaced. Let us look at last year’s figures: 10,000 homes for social rent built, give or take a few, but a net loss of 4,000 after sales and demolition, against a recognised need of 90,000 a year. The core problem remains unresolved, which the Bill is genuinely trying to address. We have a system that allows homes to leave a sector in acute shortage without any reliable, enforceable guarantee of replacement.

The Local Government Association has said that the Bill could go further, so we want to strengthen this Bill in Committee by giving councils greater flexibility to exempt properties based on local need and with the tightening of the link between homes sold and homes replaced, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, moving much closer to a truer one-for-one requirement. Protecting stock must mean actually protecting it.

I totally agree on the domestic abuse provisions—time is flying, so I will be quick—and the intent here is welcome. However, as was said, we really need to listen to the people who work in this area, because there are things that we can do to make that even better.

But still, for us, the fundamental issue is that this Bill does not deliver any single home. The wider programme is focused on increasing supply, but this just protects it—it clarifies, it adjusts, but it does not build. That matters, because delivery depends not just on policy intent but on the capacity, capability and the workforce. I am surprised that nobody really went into today the fact that we are facing a serious skills shortage in construction, with tens of thousands of vacancies and a need for hundreds of thousands of additional workers. Without a credible skills pipeline, we simply will never deliver the houses that we have all said today that we need. I will be very interested in the Minister’s answer to that.

I loved the conversation about money, with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, having completely different perspectives; I am sure that we will go into that even further. There were recurring themes about the ability to deliver at pace and scale and for certain sections, most forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his usual inimitable style.

We do not oppose the Bill; it moves in the right direction and contains sensible provisions. I look forward to us getting into the detail in Committee. As we all know, it is the social housing blockage at that end of the housing crisis that we need to unblock to move people on. We will support the Government as far as possible, but, of course, we will push them to go faster and further, because that is our job.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

53: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authority registers of social housing stock change(1) Each local housing authority must maintain a register recording—(a) the number of dwellings sold by the authority under the right to buy in each financial year,(b) the number of new social housing dwellings provided by or on behalf of the authority in each financial year, and(c) the net change in the authority's social housing stock resulting from the figures in paragraphs (a) and (b).(2) A local housing authority must publish its register under this section annually and make it available to the public in such manner as the authority considers appropriate.(3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of the information contained in registers under this section across all local housing authorities in England.(4) The summary under subsection (3) must identify authorities where the number of dwellings sold under the right to buy exceeds the number of new social housing dwellings provided in the same period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires local housing authorities to maintain and publish annual registers recording dwellings sold under the right to buy against new social housing provided, enabling public scrutiny of whether authorities are failing to replenish lost stock.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I open this group—which is a considerably better position than we were in on Monday, when I thought I would be closing it—by proposing Amendment 53. This group goes to the heart of the Bill’s central test: whether we are serious about ensuring that right to buy does not continue to deplete our social housing stock faster than we can replace it. Amendment 53 is about the transparency and accountability of that process. It requires annual local authority reporting of homes sold under the right to buy against homes newly provided. We need to look particularly at net loss and net gain. This way both the public—and the public are important—and the Government can see a trend within a local authority over time.

I decided to table this amendment because I was recently asked to speak at a housing conference, and I tried to ascertain information about social homes in Hertfordshire. It was more difficult than it should have been. Data is not easy to obtain, nor is it cumulative, so we cannot see trends. Of course, there is also the dilemma of affordable versus social, which we discussed at length on Monday. If we do not have the quality data that tells us on an authority-by-authority basis what is going on, we cannot know whether a policy is working and, more importantly, the Government cannot determine when it is appropriate to intervene.

It is worth saying that it is very clear that all housing providers are now having to deal with those with far more complex needs, disabilities and mental illness. It is tough having to ration a scarce resource on a daily basis. Housing officers are unsung heroes, in my book.

We went through the statistics at length on Monday, so let us just say that, whichever estimates you look at, we are nowhere near building either the amount or the right type of social housing needed. It is evident that demands for social housing vary considerably from area to area, and that the challenges of meeting those varied needs, with increasing homelessness and families in temporary accommodation, are bringing more councils into a precarious financial position, while others remain relatively unaffected. We believe that the responsibility to meet those needs should be spread fairly, as much as is practically possible, and that every council should take its responsibility seriously. I regret that I do not believe that is the case, which is why Amendment 53 matters. If there is no clear, consistent public record of what is happening locally, it becomes impossible to monitor trends and to direct change.

I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. While I have some sympathy with Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, I believe it could possibly be unworkable in practice due to land availability, planning delays, and so on—all legitimate reasons for delay—so putting a time limit on it would not be helpful. We would prefer to encourage creative compliance than pinpoint an actual delivery date.

Clearly, Amendment 56 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is almost a duplication of my amendment; likewise their Amendment 58B. It is interesting that across both Committee days we are going to be looking at collective amendments that clamour for more data of one kind or another. Obviously, it is up to Ministers to know whether they have the data they need to inform policy and make judgments on whether or not a policy is working, and we need that same data to be able to scrutinise it. In my heart, I hope the Minister tells me, “Yes, the data’s actually there, Lady Thornhill, you just weren’t looking in the right place”, but if it is available somewhere, it is probably not publicly or easily.

On Amendment 55, I am interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has to say, but I hope the Government are more aspirational than one-for-one replacement, given the scale of need. But I say again that without knowing what each local authority is actually losing and delivering—hence my Amendment 92 on our first day in Committee regarding conflation of the terms “affordable” and “social” housing—we will not know what is happening on the ground. Trends over time are important, not just averages on a national level but over local authority areas, which, as we have also discussed previously, are going to get much larger. Accountability, in our view from these Benches, therefore needs to be stronger in these new mayoral authorities and the larger unitaries. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think the figures stated relate to what happens once we have enacted the Bill. As I have said many times, the ambition to deliver more social homes is not just about the replacement of right-to-buy homes. Right-to-buy sales may go down, but we still anticipate that the measures being taken in the Bill will result in a net increase of 18,000 homes over the period; whereas, because the sales were going up, we would have lost 26,000 homes. With the social and affordable homes programme adding to the overall total and the net increase in homes that we are seeing through the right-to-buy programme, which is 18,000 as opposed to a 26,000 loss, we will see an increase in social housebuilding.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, which was very much as I would have predicted. My main point to make to her was that it was not easy to find that data—on GOV.UK you have to look for a bit here and a bit there. Where is all this information on what is such a major plank for the Government, which we totally agree with? Where is it easy to see who is doing what? Where is the analysis and where is it drawn together? Who are the shirkers and who are the leaders? It is a challenging thing. Without meaningful, accurate and localised reporting, councils cannot be properly scrutinised, which is important, and policy failure is harder to challenge. For example, we actually had net losses last year. Again, you can google that and it will tell you, but it is not easy to see it within the mountain of data. In the meantime, I have to say the magic words: I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

This is not an attack on devolution; it is a defence of it. Devolution cannot mean power without responsibility. It cannot mean taking credit when things go well, which our current Mayor of London is very good at, but blaming others when it goes wrong, which he is also very good at. He never takes responsibility for what is going on. A Government with this power could force him to do so. London councils need help, not rhetoric. London workers need homes, not fancy words. I commend this amendment and will personally be supporting it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the cogent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Evans. It was his first contribution, but I hope it will be the first of many, and I mean that sincerely.

In principle, we welcome the intent behind this group of amendments because they speak to something that is all too often overlooked in housing debates: not just how many homes we have to build and targets but the condition and use of the homes that we already have. I will do my best to stick to the amendments in front of us, but I hope Conservative noble Lords will forgive me if I suggest there is a pattern running through this group and others today, and from Monday, which is pushing towards more centralisation and, ultimately, more regulation, which we would be instinctively against.

Take Amendment 57 on regeneration, which makes an important point. It asks the Government to bring forward proposals to support the regeneration of estates. There is no doubt that this is vital, but local authorities are already leading regeneration in so many areas, often very successfully. The best examples of those are councils that are not only working with their communities —which is absolutely essential; try doing it without it—but also attracting private sector investment to get a top-notch scheme. I know that it needs both government and local government to undertake such major work, not what is proposed in these amendments.

The regeneration of an older estate is a significant investment and a major project. It can, as the noble Baroness said, take years, and I have experience of that too. However, what I believe it does not need is direction from the centre, with a national strategy or proposal. In my experience, it is usually the other way round: the council saying to government, “Hey, this is what we want to do. We’ve got great plans, we’ve talked to our community, but—help, please”. That help can be with whatever obstacles are in the way, not just money. As I know also from experience, these can be many and varied, and very often local. You need government to act as Dyno-Rod to help you move things forward, as I am sure the Minister will know from her own experience of the regeneration of Stevenage town centre, on which she battled for many years.

Again, in my experience there are significant pots of money for regeneration to access, but they are often in too many different pots, their use is too restricted and nobody is looking holistically at what a council needs to achieve in total. You might get some money for this bit but not for the bit that would really make it add value. I know that work has been done on these aspects so I hope the Minister will update us, because I think the grant applications for regeneration are important.

Likewise, Amendment 83 would require a national audit of existing stock. Noble Lords will know from my other amendments that I believe better data is clearly helpful and necessary, but we should also recognise that councils already have a good understanding of their housing stock, as do registered social providers. They know where the problems lie. The real issue for them is that they have competing priorities at the moment—do they do the safety work? Do they have new build? Do they retrofit or improve existing homes? The real question is: how do we move from knowledge to funded action on the ground? Noble Lords will begin to see the drift of my theme on these and other amendments.

I will say a final word on Amendment 116, on empty homes, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. It is a particularly important issue, and I strongly support the ambition to bring more of these properties back into use. Councils have the powers to deal with this issue; there is no doubt about that. Again, the issue is not the lack of a five-year plan but other barriers to bringing these homes into use. These are well known. They are often around the capacity of the courts and the rights of the home owner, and how they can hold up the process through the courts and make getting one single house back into use take years.

That brings me to a wider point of capacity. After many years of financial pressure, local government is often operating in a space where it has to be reactive rather than proactive. I believe councils and all their partners would universally want to do more on regeneration, empty homes, illegal subletting—very well articulated by the noble Baroness—and enforcement on landlords in general. But that requires the capacity to get ahead of the problem and not just respond to it.

We respect the sincere intention behind these amendments but feel that the actions asked for are not going to make the significant difference that we would all like to see. Local government knows the issues, and it is often other measures that are needed, which are well out of the scope of the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of regenerating existing social housing estates and the potential this can have to improve housing quality, energy efficiency and the overall supply of housing. Following Second Reading, I sent a letter to noble Lords outlining the Government’s intentions in this area; I hope noble Lords have had a chance to look at that.

I will respond first to Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. While I appreciate the intention behind her amendment, we do not consider it appropriate to place a requirement of this nature in the Bill. As she will know only too well, estate regeneration is complex and highly place-specific. Decisions about funding, density and redevelopment are best taken through existing programmes and planning frameworks that can respond flexibly to local circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, it is very important that this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis at local level.

The amendment would also cut across existing policy development and spending decisions, including those taken through the spending review process, by mandating the production of proposals within a fixed timeframe, regardless of wider fiscal or delivery considerations. Therefore, while we share the objective of supporting effective and sensitive estate regeneration, we believe it is better taken forward through existing policy levers and funding mechanisms than through a new legislative duty.

I will make two further comments; first, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. The social and affordable housing programme supports regeneration where it delivers a net increase in social homes—which I set out some details of in the letter I sent out—as well as introducing wider reforms to standards, designs and quality. We can definitely support regeneration through that programme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to my efforts around regeneration—the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was incredibly helpful to me during that process, so I recognise his significant expertise in that area.

There was also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the housing action trusts. The noble Lord may be aware of the announcements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on Monday this week, on the right to manage and how we intend to extend it more widely and try to promote it to tenants, so that where a landlord is failing, they can exercise their right to manage. I know the Secretary of State is very keen to promote that. That said, I ask that Amendment 57 be withdrawn.

On Amendment 58 from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government are clear that supported housing has a vital role to play in supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society to live as independently as possible. We want to see the new supply of supported housing grow, which is why the social and affordable homes programme allows flexibility on grant rates, to help support accommodation where design and adaptation can result in higher costs.

In addition, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 places a new statutory duty on local housing authorities to develop supported housing strategies. That will include a delivery plan setting out clear, time-bound actions for implementation. Any new requirement to set out a national strategy on the provision of supported housing will be duplicative of something that—as I see it—sits within the remit of local supported housing strategies. It would lack the detailed understanding that our local authorities have of specific needs in their local areas. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendments 83 and 107, which both seek to improve the understanding, and strengthen the management, of existing social housing stock. On Amendment 83, a substantial amount of data is already published on the condition and use of social housing, including through the English Housing Survey and the Local Authority Housing Statistics, covering many of the issues raised in the amendment. More broadly, and relevant to both amendments, the Government have already launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are managing and making best use of their stock.

In response also to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, this work is examining underoccupation, overcrowding, long term voids, tenant mobility, and how landlords can maximise the use of the homes they manage. The review is already under way, and we will report its outcomes later this year. In light of that, the Government do not consider it appropriate to legislate now for a further national audit or a statutory strategy.

Turning to Amendment 75, I want to be clear that illegal subletting is unacceptable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, rightly said, it deprives those in genuine need of a social home and undermines confidence in the system. Tenants are responsible for fulfilling their obligations and complying with the terms of their tenancy agreement. They are also responsible for making sure that, when they apply for social housing in the first place, the information they give is accurate. Now that social landlords have much more access to online systems for checking applications on registers, I suspect that they are now rejecting far more applications where the information does not match up with the application concerned. Where a tenant has breached a term in their agreement, landlords may seek a possession order from the courts on the basis that there has been a breach of a term of the tenancy agreement, or housing fraud, or where one of the other statutory grounds for possession has been made out.

Where there are concerns about tenancy fraud, councils and landlords already have strong powers to investigate and take action—I believe that the noble Baroness opposite put those in place. We expect social landlords to manage their stock effectively, and anyone with evidence of a fraudulent tenancy should report it to the relevant local authority so that appropriate action can be taken. The Government are looking at this issue as part of the wider stock management review that I referred to. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked me how long properties are left vacant in between tenancies; I do not have that specific information to hand, but I will write to her on that point. We do not think that further legislation is needed here.

I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for Amendment 116 and his powerful advocacy for it. I fully recognise the strength of feeling around the need to bring empty homes back into use. We do not believe that placing a new statutory duty on all local authorities to produce a detailed five year plan on empty homes is the right approach. Local authorities already have powers to identify and acquire empty homes and to bring them back into use. Many are actively doing so through locally tailored strategies that reflect their housing markets and priorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, there are many reasons why that takes longer than it should, and we should look at those obstacles. As the noble Lord said, we should not have empty homes while families live in temporary accommodation, and we are working with our councils to make sure that that does not happen.

However, the amendment would risk duplicating the existing planning and reporting requirements and would impose a significant administrative burden, regardless of whether empty homes are a material issue in a particular area. We are clear that progress on empty homes is best delivered through local flexibility, supported by existing powers and funding, rather than through a one-size-fits-all statutory process.

--- Later in debate ---

I will make one final point to support the case—one which has not been made before. If you are on the housing waiting list, the number of new social homes is relevant, and the more the better. But someone in housing need is eight times more likely to be rehoused through a re-let than through a new build. Increasing the number of re-lets is a key ingredient for helping those in need, and a new re-let can be secured at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time of a new build. Focusing our social housing on those in greatest need, to use the Government’s own words, means a good, hard look at how social housing is used at the moment and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, asking whether life tenancies are the answer to a question from a different era.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I was busy trying to think of counterarguments; the noble Lord, Lord Young, has caught me there. We feel that what unites these amendments is an attempt to drag social housing policy backwards, and to revive a model of insecurity that simply did not work. We have heard this argument before—that fixed-term tenancies somehow make the system fairer or more efficient—but in reality they created uncertainty for tenants, instability for families and churning communities, without coming anywhere close to solving the real problem, which, as we all acknowledge, is a chronic shortage of social housing.

With the exception of Amendment 70, which we have not heard about yet, and while my brain is still thinking about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, these proposals feel less like a serious answer to today’s housing challenges and more like a re-run of policies that were already tested and found wanting. Take Clause 16, the power to give housing providers the right to raise rents as tenants get higher wages. I can imagine the dinner table conversation: “Great news: I’ve been promoted! I’m getting some extra money. We’ll get above ‘just about managing’. It might give us the cushion we need. But wait: won’t they put our rent up if they find out we’re earning more? Perhaps I won’t take that promotion”. We could not support a measure that would dampen self-improvement and aspiration, let alone the logistics of administering it. With regard to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, how does one logistically monitor those sorts of things within a tenancy?

As Liberal Democrats, we took a very different approach from the Conservative Benches in supporting the renters’ rights reform. We believe that people deserve a secure home, not a tenancy that comes with a built-in expiry date and the constant threat of upheaval. It cannot be right that, just as we strengthen security for private renters, we simultaneously ask social tenants—who, as has been amplified, are those in the greatest need of stability—to accept less.

Of course social housing must be used fairly and responsibly, and we are getting into that dialogue now, but fairness is achieved not by making tenancies more precarious but by building more homes and supporting tenants to move when it is right for them. I know that is tricky, but it can be done. One area where it needs to be done most is in the freeing up of family homes. Usually, this means a widow occupying a three-bedroom family house, when she could move down to a nice ground-floor, one-bedroom flat. This can be done, but we must ensure that the system works with people and not against them.

In our view, these amendments would take us in the wrong direction. They would revive a failed approach and undermine the progress that is trying to be made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that the people whom we now house are very different. The statistics support that many people in social housing receive benefits, even though they are working. Therefore, I am not sure about what the noble Lord says with regard to private sector rents and whether people’s lives would improve so much that they could pay them in the same area. The cohorts that we are housing now do not seem to bear that out.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond first to the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to oppose Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. I understand that this is a probing amendment seeking more detail on the Government’s rationale for repealing the powers. It is essential that local housing authorities have flexibility to manage their stock in a way that best enables them to meet the needs of their local communities. Clause 14 therefore removes provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that would have forced councils to sell their highest-value council homes whenever they became vacant. I say “would have forced” because these provisions were never implemented.

Even so, the presence of the provisions on the statute book had a very negative effect on local authorities’ spending plans, since they could not be certain of the income streams from these properties. The policy was intended to raise capital to supply new social homes but would ultimately have led to a net loss in social housing. The last Government chose never to implement these measures due to the negative impact they would have had on local authorities. We are now going one step further by repealing the provisions altogether. That time is now, and Clause 14 fulfils that commitment, so I commend it to the Committee.

I turn to Clause 15 and Amendments 66, 77 and 78. All these relate to the Government’s intention to repeal uncommenced provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required most new secure tenancies offered by local authorities to be fixed term. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has just said. The Government fundamentally believe that people, families and communities all benefit from secure homes. That is why we enabled this for private renters through the Renters’ Rights Act. It would be entirely counterintuitive to remove that security from social housing tenants.

The probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, explores alternatives to lifetime tenancies, and Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to clarify that social landlords can continue to grant fixed-term tenancies. Nothing in the Bill prevents local housing authorities from granting fixed-term tenancies where they consider it to be appropriate—for example, to support time-limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts. The Bill does not change that. Schedule 3, paragraph 1 repeals uncommenced provisions that would have required most new secure tenancies to be granted on a fixed-term basis. Those provisions were never brought into force, and we are removing them to provide clarity. We want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. It is not right to require that most new tenants be offered fixed-term tenancies, as this would reduce their security.

Amendment 78 would require a review of the provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 which would have replaced lifetime secure tenancies with fixed-term tenancies for new tenants. However, as we discussed, those provisions were never commenced, and the Bill repeals them. It is therefore not possible to review the measures. The Government already collect data on new social housing lettings, including tenancy type and length of fixed-term tenancies. We therefore already have an established source of information on how fixed-term tenancies are being used. The stock management review, which we are currently undertaking, is the right place to consider the issues highlighted for proposed review, rather than requiring a separate statutory review of provisions that were never brought into force. For those reasons, I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

Turning to Clause 16, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 80, which would allow higher rents to be charged to higher-income social housing tenants. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has set out her intention to oppose Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. The Government are reviewing both the statutory social housing allocations guidance and how social landlords are making effective use of their existing stock. Taken together, these amendments would, in effect, reintroduce the pay-to-stay policy, which was included in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 but never implemented. In fact, Amendment 80 would go even further than the current provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 by requiring registered providers, as well as local housing authorities, to charge higher rents to higher-income tenants.

As I previously noted, these pay-to-stay provisions were never implemented, and the original provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received strong objections from noble Lords during the passage of that legislation. Indeed, the previous Government chose not to commence them as the costs outweighed the benefits. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants, and it is right to maintain that approach. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said: we want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings, and avoid curtailing their aspirations and ambitions, through this process. For those reasons, these amendments are not necessary. I ask that they be withdrawn, and I commend Clause 16 to the Committee.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 70, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. This would require a social landlord to conduct a tenancy review where a tenant is engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour. During the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, I spoke about the challenges of tackling anti-social behaviour and drew on my 27 years of experience as a local councillor. No tenant should feel unsafe in their home as a result of the behaviour of others. Where behaviour is persistent and has a serious impact on neighbours and communities, landlords must be able to respond quickly and appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and I support all the amendments in this group, particularly those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lord Jackson, and those on the Front Bench, which support a review of policy and better information for making policy on politically sensitive matters such as immigration and narrowing the eligibility clause.

In seeking information on accessing social housing and the demand for it, such as that arising from net migration and temporary asylum, we should not forget the context in which these demands are made. It is a question at the centre of our national debate, one which has too often eroded trust in politics and democracies. That is not limited to the UK. Right across stable western systems such as France, Germany and Italy, this question is at the heart of the erosion of trust and the changing shape of democratic stability, which many are worried about. That is the wider context for the immigration amendments. We should not brush this issue, and the pressure it puts on the demand for social housing, under the carpet.

In considering immigration and asylum, we are looking at particularly significant demands, which might, in time, come to outweigh current pressures, if the figures we see today are to lead in any way to a demand for social housing. In the year ending September 2025, 58,148 people were granted protection and leave to remain at the initial decision. Where will they live? Will they add to the pressures and burdens on social housing? We need to know the evidence and the figures and not brush this question under the carpet. In addition, 46,497 illegal migrants were known to have arrived in the year ending December 2025. They may end up being granted leave to remain, given that the Government are trying to process many of them as asylum claims, which will pose additional demands.

Then we have the student visa question. Some 443,000 visas were granted last year. Analysis by a Sky journalist recently showed that, in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of asylum claims by people who had originally come on student visas was 14,800 out of a total of 111,000, meaning that student visa holders have been switching to being asylum seekers. For some, there may be good reason. They may have come from countries in which they would be persecuted and seek asylum when they get here. Having a student visa is the only way to get out. However, for others, such as the Indian nationals this report particularly mentions, a scam operated. In one case, the papers were filled in fraudulently for one member of the family—the lady—and she and her husband came on student visas. However, she had no intention of studying. As a family, they had no money—certainly not the bank account figures that were in the papers. The local authority discussed their case and awarded benefits because they simply could not afford to live, and they have now made their asylum claim.

These kinds of hard-luck stories—and nobody denies that they are hard-luck stories—are pushing up the claims and the demand for social housing. We need evidence so that we can have an open and fair debate. For these reasons, I support the proposed prohibition on granting social housing to anybody but UK citizens, as my noble friends’ various amendments propose.

Before closing, I want to comment on the amendments that seek better information on social housing access for veterans, the case for which was very well argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. I referred on Second Reading to the case of a homeless person at King’s Cross Station who lived hand to mouth and day to day because he was evicted from his council house when his daughter was run over by a cab driver, who was accused and convicted of dangerous driving. She was his sole carer. He had served in the Royal Marines for well over a decade, including in Afghanistan, and because of injuries sustained in serving, he had to be looked after all his life. They were in council housing, and he was evicted after his daughter died because she held the tenancy.

I support the amendments on greater information on offenders, who are some of the saddest cases we have. The literacy levels of as many as 56% of prisoners are less than the reading age of seven, meaning that they are excluded from any kind of literate society. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer’s excellent work for offenders, but I also agree that unless we insist that they be given housing priority, they will go back to a life of crime. As much of the evidence shows, they will go back to crime, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, explained, or to the people who were part of their previous crime network. They have been abandoned by their families—their husbands, wives, children—and others who looked after them. These are very good amendments and I support them.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My noble friends have outlined their cases themselves, so I will just clutch my pearls and resist having a ding-dong with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—which I could, for reasons that will become apparent in my speech.

I will speak carefully on this group, because I have real concerns. I am not going to go into the detail of the individual amendments, but my concerns are the direction and tone that they take when looked at together. Looked at as a whole, they approach access to social housing primarily through restriction and exclusion, with a strong emphasis on immigration status and migration pressures. I understand the political context in which these amendments are being brought forward, but I do not believe this is a helpful or responsible way to address the housing crisis or solve immigration matters. The fundamental driver of pressure on social housing is not who is applying for it; it is the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable homes. Framing access as a competition between groups risks obscuring that reality and diverting attention away from the real task of increasing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young-of Cookham, and also the sense behind Amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in shared ownership—all the costs but only half the uplift, if there is one. The risks include very large unexpected costs, which my noble friend raised and I do not intend to repeat. There is 100% of the costs, but only half the capital.

This has been sold to people who one might say, without patronising, are less financially sophisticated, as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs on the whole would be less than the rent they are paying on the half. It is not necessarily low cost at all; one might go far as to suggest that there has been a degree of mis-selling here.

So, I support Amendment 105, which calls for a review. We cannot carry on as we are. My experience in my own council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down. There is now very low take-up. It is possibly a tenure whose time has passed. But the review could reinvigorate it. There is a case for low-cost housing for people to establish and build capital in their society. With this review, which I support entirely, there is the opportunity to try to get it back on track.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, because the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young of Cookham, have done such a brilliant job of talking about shared ownership, I will scrap most of my speech. We on these Benches have brought up the vexed subject of shared ownership many times, and I know that the Minister understands and absolutely appreciates that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has been a stalwart campaigner for reform. That deserves to be recognised.

If shared ownership is a pathway to home ownership, it is a very rocky one. It is definitely a home owner’s dream that turned into their worst nightmare. I could wax lyrical about automated 1% staircasing, proportional maintenance and a 15% valuation cushion, but I will not. But I am interested in what the Minister has to say, because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I do not believe that this is something that has passed; in high-cost areas, it is essential. Therefore, we would really like to hear something about reform or at least a vision of how it might be reformed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for her amendments on shared ownership and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving them.

Shared ownership has an important role to play in supporting households into home ownership who would otherwise struggle to purchase a suitable property. We had extensive debates on this during the Renters’ Rights Bill and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work on this. That is why we have committed to continue supporting the delivery of shared ownership via the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Through the launch of the programme, we have introduced new measures to support the delivery of shared ownership and to set clear expectations for providers to improve the customer experience that we have heard about this evening.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on Amendment 7. It is important that rural social housing stands apart from the generality of the pool of this valuable resource.

My Amendment 24 is a repeat of an amendment I tabled in Committee. Quite simply, it seeks to ensure that, when a social home is sold, the proceeds are recycled locally within the same strategic housing market area. When I was the leader of a council for nearly 20 years, every single home lost to right to buy was replaced and more. It can be done if you are organised about it. We recycled all the proceeds of right to buy into new homes by adding extra money alongside. Social housing is not the finite resource that some people would tell you it is. One of its features is that it permits a mechanism to renew over time the stock of social homes. As one house is acquired and replaced, it modernises the pool and provides affordable homes for new families. It keeps the system up to date.

I welcome the principle set out in the Bill that the receipts received by a council can be recycled by that council in pursuance of that replacement principle, but I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one even if they are in the same housing market assessment area. In Committee, the Minister explained that it would be very difficult to define such areas, but I disagree. We have both been council leaders. When local councils, either individually or with their neighbours, plan for new homes under a local plan, there is a statutory duty to define the housing market area on which the plan will operate.

I remember very clearly devising a plan with two of our neighbours. Collectively, we set the target for how many social homes were required and that number was judged to be sound by an independent inspector. This is not something you just pluck out of the air. Later, when our neighbours in Norwich could not spend their right-to-buy receipts fast enough, they gave the money to us and we built new homes no more than a mile from the city boundary. It benefited everybody.

With that in mind, noble Lords might ask why we need my amendment. The answer is that we had to go through the rigmarole of applying for special dispensation from Norwich to lend or give the money to us to build a house no more than a mile from its boundary. That was crazy. If we are to devolve powers to local government, as the new Government installed only today intend, my amendment would speed that up and deliver more homes, more quickly.

I have spoken about councils. I now want to talk about RSLs, which are a significant part of the mix. They sit apart from councils and there is a whole panoply of RSLs that, having started small, are now in many cases huge concerns. In Committee, I explained that a local Victory Housing association close to where I live, which was originally spun out of North Norfolk District Council some 15 years ago, is now part of a huge combine where the shots are called in Gloucester, 200 miles away. The effect of my amendment would be to ensure that, if one of the old Victory homes was sold in Norfolk under right to buy, Victory would be compelled to replace that home close by rather than in other parts of the country. We must remember the principle that organisations such as Victory, now absorbed into Flagship, received those houses in trust from their predecessor bodies—for the most part, our councils. My amendment would ensure that the proceeds were recycled within the same area from which the home was originally seeded by those predecessor bodies.

We have a Social Housing Bill that purports to maintain the supply of local social housing. My amendment would give legal weight to that. Accepting it would mean that RSLs are required to replace the right to buys close by, not in other parts of the country miles away—in other counties or regions or even on the other side of the country where houses are possibly much cheaper to build but where the need is not necessarily there. It is as simple as that. My amendment recognises that the stock is not just a national numbers game; it is more local than that. If we accept it, it will make the Government’s stated objective of delivering more social homes much easier than it otherwise would be. I invite the Minister to agree.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in winding for these Benches on these amendments, I start by saying that I do not intend to give long speeches opposing amendments we do not agree with; I believe that is the Minister’s job. I intend to be concise when setting out where we stand on each group, partly because, as noble Lords can hear, I have a little bit of a throat.

In the view of these Benches, these amendments largely seek to turn back the clock on reforms to right to buy. At a time when thousands of families are waiting for a secure, affordable home, the answer is not to make it easier to lose social housing stock faster. That sums up our view.

We believe that Amendments 1 to 6 would dilute or remove these important reforms. On Amendment 7, I have some sympathy with the perseverance the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has shown throughout on rural issues. I believe his intentions with regard to social housing are genuine, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. But these amendments could weaken protections for newly built social homes by reducing the period during which they remain protected from sale, and that risks repeating one of the great mistakes of past housing policy: selling homes without replacing them. Two noble Lords have made much of how wonderful they were at replacing one for one and more, but we all know that that was not the reality and we do not want to repeat that.

On Amendments 9 to 12, of course we welcome transparency, but reports and reviews do not build houses. Our support is squarely behind the Government in increasing the supply of affordable, especially social homes, not creating additional reporting requirements. There are numerous amendments on Report that ask for more data and more reviews. I was grateful to the Minister for her letter this morning, albeit at the eleventh hour. There is a wealth of data there. It is sometimes difficult to pull it all together, but it is particularly informative.

Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is described as a probing amendment. I have some sympathy with it, but when I thought about it, I realised it would impose unnecessary restrictions on how receipts are recycled. I was left questioning how big a problem this is. How many councils have trouble spending their receipts? If they know they are running into danger with that, do they not chat to their neighbours and say, “This is going to happen. Can we spend this between us?”

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I do not deny that we talk about it neighbour to neighbour, but the example I gave showed that in order to give effect to the desirable outcome I think we both seek, we had to have special dispensation. That was a waste of time, it added cost, it imposed delay and it increased risk. My amendment would sweep away all those impediments and let us get on with building the social homes we need more quickly without interference from the Government, who, if they are in their right minds, would say yes anyway.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am not sure that it is quite as big, difficult and dramatic as that—we just did it.

We believe that the priority must be more social housing. We believe in better protections for existing stock and a housing system that works for those who need it most. We do not believe that these amendments help us to achieve that. I completely respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and his team on this. I believe this is a legitimate political difference and we are just not going to agree on it, hence my short but sweet contribution. I hope to continue in that vein throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening—but not too late into the evening, I hope.

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

My Lords, it is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for thanking our Secretary of State, Steve Reed, for his service to housing, local government and communities. He has worked tirelessly in his time to ensure that our places and the people in them can achieve their full potential. I wish him well for the future. I know he will continue to serve from the Back Benches, or wherever else he ends up in government. Thank you very much, Steve.

It is a great pleasure to bring the Report stage of the Social Housing Bill before the House today. My town was built to house people from war-torn London in 1946, and my passionate belief that good homes are the foundation for people and places achieving their potential comes from that. Our Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. In July 2025 we set out a plan for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing, including a reinvigoration of council house building, and we have since launched a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, with a focus on maximising delivery and increasing the supply of social rent homes.

The Bill supports councils to build more homes, alongside funding through the Council Housebuilding Support Fund, allowing councils to combine right to buy receipts with a social and affordable homes programme, extending preferential public works loan board borrowing and providing a 10-year rent settlement to give councils and providers greater certainty to invest in supply. Our new Prime Minister recently wrote:

“If you do not give people a good home, what chance have they got of having a good life?”,


which I agree with. His pledge this morning was not to end homelessness—although I am sure that is his ambition too—but to end rough sleeping, and I absolutely support that wish.

In Committee I stressed the narrow focus of the Bill on the three key issues that are its purpose: enabling local government to build new social housing while keeping alive the aspiration for those tenants who wish to do so to buy their home; supporting domestic abuse victims so that they are not re-victimised by the housing system; and removing some former social housing provisions that have never been enacted. I am grateful to noble Lords for discussions that have been broad and constructive, and, in order to assist your Lordships, I have provided details of two parallel pieces of work that I hope have assisted with the wider issues raised by Peers: the thoroughgoing review of statutory guidance on allocations, and the comprehensive review of stock management. I have also asked today for all sources of data on social housing to be circulated, which I understand has been done; I hope that those will be helpful.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, repeat amendments already made in Committee. As such, I have already set out the rationale for increasing the minimum eligibility period for right to buy and made it clear that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I have also confirmed that we have no intention of applying this clause only to new tenancies. These amendments would undermine the chief aim of our right to buy reforms, which is to preserve existing social housing stock while ensuring that long-standing tenants continue to be able to buy their homes.

Three years hardly represents a significant period of investing in a property through rental payments. In consultation there was strong support—from 81% of respondents—for increasing the eligibility period, and indeed 10 years is the average tenancy length for someone buying under the scheme currently. Excluding existing tenancies would mean that the existing rules continued to apply to the great majority of council housing tenants, and we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy was secured.

To respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about numbers, the reduced maximum cash discount levels still offer tenants significant financial support to buy their own home. Updated modelling suggests that a long-run average of around 1,500 council tenants annually will be able to buy their homes under the new discounts. Under the previous baseline, the system was projected to deliver a loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036. By contrast, following the reduction in maximum cash discounts in November 2024 and the implementation of the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same period. Taken together, this approach ensures that the scheme remains accessible and fair and delivers better value for the public while supporting tenants into home ownership. For these reasons, we oppose those amendments.

Amendment 4 seeks to retain the existing statutory timescales for processing right to buy applications by removing Clause 4 from the Bill. The Government do not support that. We have heard from social landlords that additional time is needed to process more complex cases—for example, in relation to valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Additional time will also help landlords to undertake appropriate checks and identify cases that may require further investigation before a sale can proceed. Importantly, these revised timescales are maximum periods, not targets. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as possible, and tenants will continue to benefit from the existing statutory protections where delays occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the shared ownership review proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, who have added their names.

In Committee, I drew attention to the asymmetry of powers and the imbalance in negotiating strength between the landlord and tenant in the case of shared ownership. I trod carefully when I characterised those who entered into these arrangements as financially unsophisticated, but the truth is that, in their natural desire to own at least part of their home, they have signed up to a situation with the certainty of all the costs but only the possibility of some of the uplifts if they happen. The terms of trade are stacked against them.

My noble friend Lord Young has raised several issues specific to shared ownership, which I will not repeat. Each is important in its own way. The Government feel that they are all independent of each other. The Government want to deal with them one at a time rather than all together, which is wrong. My noble friend concludes that the issues are harming, possibly irreparably, the case of shared ownership. I agree.

I am speaking in this debate because, after Committee, I was contacted by a shared ownership tenant, Lucy Hassall, who had heard what I had to say. She is sitting below the Bar of the House today. I want to use her case to prove the need for a fundamental review to reinvigorate the case for a fair and reasonable shared ownership system that works for families and helps them to build a stake in society.

Let us break down Lucy’s case to demonstrate why a fundamental review is needed. She spent a sum of money on a 99-year lease on a two-bed flat in 2005. Now, 20 years later, it is worth a little bit less—it happens. Last year, she wanted to move and inquired of her RSL about the process to sell. The landlord replied, stating that there were about 80 years left. In fact, there were under 80 years left. At that stage, they could have entered into a lease extension at no marriage value charge at all. The RSL manager, whom I will not name but who styled herself as an adviser, did not disclose that any delay could crystallise that marriage value. That was sharp practice and far from the social purpose that the National Housing Federation tells us is the golden thread that runs through all RSLs. Time apparently was not of the essence when indeed it was. Quite simply, Lucy and her husband were misadvised by their landlord, who was acting as a privateer, advancing their own pecuniary interests over the interests of their tenant.

A year later, Lucy inquired again about selling and was quoted £12,000 for the marriage value, plus £600 to confirm the cost of the leasehold extension, another £800 to cover some legal fees—her own legal fees—and another grand for the RICS to do an independent property value. This was all plus VAT—let us say £16,000 out of taxed income for a system that is available by law only to people on limited incomes. This was all in addition to the service charges and estate charges that were referred to by my noble friend Lord Young. I have received the same pleas from members of the public. This morning, a lady wrote to me saying that if only she could give away her 50% share in her shared ownership home for nothing she would be satisfied, but even at zero cost the landlord will not take it back. Why did the Hassalls’ RSL not write proactively to warn them of the marriage value jeopardy as the line approached? They did the reverse.

Now I look at the marriage value claim of £12,000. There is a helpful GOV.UK web page that helps people to assess what the marriage value might be. It is £11,000 to £12,000, but that is for 100% of the value and the Hassalls have only 50%. Had they been correctly advised 12 months ago, they would have owed nothing. This is a case of gross overcharging and further sharp practice. If shared ownership is to be the joint enterprise that it purports to be and that Parliament intended then there should be a degree of equity in the apportionment of these charges. The basic terms of these agreements are unfair. The tenant cops the lot and the landlord gets off scot free. That is not fair to people earning less than £80,000 a year, who are the only people who qualify for this. It is an abuse.

I have not tabled my social purpose amendment on Report, as I did in Committee, but perhaps I should have done. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me about the issues in the Hassall case. I do not blame her for the disappointing reply. She just stated the law as it is. However, it proves that the law needs to change. She explained that the issue is down to the Hassalls because they have chosen to move.

Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government purport to support the victims of the social housing system. However, the Minister’s letter just perpetuates victim-blaming of those people who have purchased a shared ownership home and were suckered in on unfair terms that I will not repeat. We must have this review to correct the asymmetry of risk and reward and of market and pricing power, and to constrain the RSLs that are acting with a predatory and pecuniary advantage and obvious conflicts of interest. We must review the cost apportionment between the landlord and tenant, and ensure that there is proactive information for people who have been financially unsophisticated and suckered into these basic terms. I concede that the Minister has advised us on the selling of 99-year leases that it will be 990 years in future, but the marriage value is a further punch in the guts. That is the reality of the situation.

Lucy says that she has been left with an unsellable property and considers herself misadvised and mis-sold. I agree. A review is essential, otherwise shared ownership as a tenure is finished. That would be a shame, for it should be part of the mix. This Bill is before us. The moment to sort it out is now.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the joys of following the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller; I will be less hyperbolic but sincere and completely agree with what has been said.

The Minister will not be surprised that we on these Benches strongly support these amendments. She has been very generous with her time and commitment to this issue. However, we have reached a crunch point, which is why we will support these amendments and why we were pleased that they have been brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has outlined everything clearly. I would go so far as to say that I do not really want another review; the facts are already known. Much work has already been done and some of the things that are wrong need urgent remediation, not waiting and waiting for a review, an outcome and the rest of it, but we are where we are.

Buyback and staircasing are the two main issue. Just imagine the horror. It is Kafkaesque to be unsellable and unmortgaged. Just think about that. I am certain that this would prey on anybody’s mental health. We need urgent action. Shared ownership is supposed to provide a route into homeownership. We on these Benches believe that it is a legitimate route for those who cannot afford to buy outright, especially in areas with high housing costs. We have all been contacted by very real people in very real circumstances; you do not want to be there. There does not seem to be a way out. I found the Minister’s letter very clear and compassionate, but it felt like she too was trapped, like the many people whom we are talking about.

This happens to people through no fault of their own. They have spent years being unable to sell or remortgage because of building safety. I would be really interested to know where we were on that—especially the failure of the external wall standard and being unable to staircase to 100% ownership due to rising property values, higher mortgage costs and additional fears. Many people who are unable to move on have become accidental landlords. We had one case where someone said that it is costing them hundreds of pounds a month to be an accidental landlord. When you are on low incomes, which you must be to be in this model, that is a hell of a lot of money every month. How do you deal with that? It is not what the scheme was designed to deliver and not what we would hope for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 77, in my name, is similar to Amendment 66, which we debated in Committee. It would require local authorities to review secure tenancies every five years to see whether there are other options available to the tenant which might free up social housing for others in desperate need. After inflicting the first defeat on the new Burnham Administration with my Amendment 25, I do not propose to try again.

The case for this amendment was actually made by the Minister in the letter she sent to all of us on 14 May when she introduced the Bill. She said:

“Yet too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists”.


She was right. At the end of last year, there were more than 175,000 children living in temporary accommodation, with the figure going up for each of the last three years. Some 20% have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years. This is no way to spend one’s childhood.

Building more social rented homes is part of the answer, but that programme is behind target. Last year, just over 12,000 new social rent homes were built, but—and this goes to the heart of my amendment—there were a quarter of a million social housing re-lets. On those figures, those on the waiting list are 20 times more likely to get a social home through a re-let rather than through a new build—hence the imperative to see what might be done through generating more re-lets, at a fraction of the time and cost of new builds.

I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Bird, previously. He said of social housing that

“the bar has been raised by local authorities and now it takes only the most desperate, largely, whereas in the good old days it was a reflection of the working class, the upper working class and even the lower middle class”.—[Official Report, 1/6/26; cols. 722-23.]

Access to social housing has now become a safety net, and a safety net of limited capacity. Just look at the guidance issued by the Government on 10 July 2025:

“The government has made clear that we expect social homes to go to people who genuinely need and deserve them … priority for social housing continues to be given to those in the greatest housing need”.


Today, the “greatest housing need” probably means the statutory duty to rehouse a family in emergency accommodation—for instance, in a bed and breakfast—or a family granted asylum who are now living in a hotel. It could be a mother and children fleeing domestic violence or a family whose illegal HMO has been cancelled by the local authority and closed. There is not enough social housing even for all of them.

You get social housing today because you are in the greatest need, to quote the government circular. The question then arises about what happens if you are allocated a tenancy because you were in the greatest need and then, with the help of that tenancy and perhaps wider support, you put your life together and have the ability to move on. Should you not then make way for someone who is now in the same desperate position as you were and give them the opportunity to rebuild their life in the same way? That is the question behind my amendment. It should be seriously considered by any party that claims to look after the most vulnerable.

The point was well made in an article in the Times on Saturday, headed:

“More than 100,000 households in social housing are in richest 20%”.


It went on to say:

“Andy Burnham’s promise to embark on the biggest expansion of social housing for a generation will not solve the housing crisis unless the politically toxic question of who should be entitled to subsidised homes is tackled, experts say”.


It pointed out that 389,000 social tenancies were

“under-occupying their homes by at least two bedrooms”.

So, today, you currently get a lifelong tenancy because of your vulnerability at one point in time, and, crucially, it is never reassessed. Tackling homelessness is not just about increasing supply; it has to be about allocation if it is to be serious. My amendment encourages a dialogue between the tenant and landlord to outline the options once it is clear that a family can afford to move. They may include shared ownership, help with a deposit, or help with the cost of moving.

I do not think the Minister, in her response to my amendment in Committee, did justice to the case I made or the seriousness of the current position. She said:

“Nothing in the Bill prevents local housing authorities from granting fixed-term tenancies where they consider it to be appropriate—for example, to support time-limited resettlement schemes for Afghan and other refugee cohorts”.


But my amendment is not about fixed-term tenancies in certain limited circumstances; it is about reviewing a secure tenancy every five years to see whether it is still appropriate. Further, as proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment makes clear, the secure tenancy can be confirmed.

The Minister went on to say:

“We want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies because they provide stability and security for tenants and help people put down roots in their communities. It is not right to require that most new tenants be offered fixed-term tenancies, as this would reduce their security”.—[Official Report, 17/6/26; cols. 292-93.]


But that is to duck the tough decision that Housing Ministers should now take: weighing the need for security and stability for one tenant, who may well be able to replicate that security and stability with another form of tenure, against the need for a decent home for someone in a bed and breakfast, who deserves the same chance that the first tenant had a few years ago. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am very disappointed to say that we oppose Amendments 77 and 78, but those who heard my comments in Committee will not be surprised. I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concerns and analysis, but I disagree with his solution. We believe that these amendments send exactly the wrong message to people in social housing: work hard, get promoted, earn a little more and improve your family’s prospects and your rent for your home may come under review and increase, or you may be asked to leave. To us, that is not fairness; it is a penalty on aspiration. Social housing should be a foundation for opportunity, not a ceiling on ambition. Families should not have to think twice about taking on extra hours, accepting a promotion or starting a small business because they fear it could jeopardise the security of their home. Many social housing tenants are in receipt of some sort of benefit, which indicates that they would not be able to leap forward into other forms of housing.

Let us not ignore the sheer bureaucracy of these proposals. Frankly, they would be quite unworkable. Who is going to monitor the incomes, carry out the reviews, process the appeals and reassess thousands of tenancies? Housing officers are already stretched to breaking point; in the middle of a housing crisis, should they be helping people into homes or policing pay rises? It is obvious which we would prefer. Let us also be clear that the housing crisis is not caused by social tenants doing a bit better than when they went into the social home; it is caused by decades of failing to build enough homes. The answer is more social housing, not more scrutiny of the lives of the people who live in it.

We believe that a secure home should give people the confidence to get on in life. We should be building opportunity, not bureaucracy, and rewarding ambition, not regulating it. These amendments do the opposite. For that reason, we cannot support them.