Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord. I cannot see how this database will achieve anything more than create a bureaucratic nightmare. It will not improve the conditions of properties to let. It will not increase the numbers of them—indeed, it will reduce the number. What it will do is drive rogue landlords underground.

Furthermore, I understand the Government have been advised that the database, as it stands, runs the risk of being operationally unusable. The database will not, as currently designed, enable landlords and letting agents to view data to ensure the accuracy of information. Without this, it will become all but impossible for landlords and letting agents to check whether they are compliant and abiding by their legal obligations in relation to the database. It risks creating a system in which landlords are held accountable for compliance without being given the ability to verify registration details.

Larger landlords will not be able to bulk-upload property information on the database. This may mean writing individual letters for each property. Have the Government considered the ability to cope with approaching 5 million letters? Letting larger landlords bulk-upload would take some of this burden away.

Officials have said that the proposed model for the database would operate on a property-by-property basis, with agents receiving individual links for each property they help to register and manage. Surely the Government are competent enough to create a system which has a much greater degree of automation. As proposed, it will be time-consuming and cumbersome for letting agents to carry out registration on behalf of landlords. Why should this be any different from someone using a letting agent which already has a responsibility for complying with existing legislation? Agents should be able to comply with these regulations without going backwards and forwards to the principle.

The reason has been given that the system is created in such a way that landlords must bear the responsibility. As has already been said, in any other case of instructing professional advisers—for example, lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers et cetera—it is the person giving the instructions who has the ultimate responsibility. Is it different in this case or has it been created in order to add to the chaos?

A registration fee of £65 represents a substantial recurring cost. Many individual landlords will see income tax rates on rentals increase from April next year and the Government want landlords to pay up to £10,000 per property to meet their proposed energy efficiency standards. We should not see the fee to join the database in isolation from these other costs facing the sector—which, we have to remember, will ultimately be borne by the tenants in the form of higher rents. Can the Minister explain the breakdown of the £65 annual fee to join the database?

The impact assessment accompanying the then Renters’ Rights Bill assumed a database registration fee of £28.58 per property every three years. Now, £65 per property is proposed every year, as the property has to be reregistered every 12 months. How much will go to the local authorities and what will be ring-fenced to support enforcement activity? How much will be kept by central government and what will it be used for? What assurances are there that the funds will actually be used to support landlords and tenants?

I remind the Minister that there are approaching 5 million rented houses in this country, of which a very substantial number are owned by someone with no more than one or two properties. Many of them will find great difficulty in complying with the proposals. Larger landlords, as has already been commented, believe that the Government’s estimate of cost compliance is wildly underestimated.

Not wishing to burden your Lordships, I have not gone into as much detail and as many technical arguments as I would have liked to have done. Will the Minister consider meeting to explore in more detail how the database will operate in practice? Although I believe the whole exercise is pointless, we must at least make some attempt to make it work properly.

Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to the adverse comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, if the Minister allows me, I will just respond initially to a few comments that have been brought up already. Some good points have been made that I want to identify the Liberal Democrats with.

The double entry issue is really troubling councils and others, and that really needs addressing and answering. I think we all need some assurance on readiness. Perhaps my question is: was there a decision about piloting this initially to get out all the teething problems?

On property agents, my deep concern that I take from what the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Howard, just said is one that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me express: property agents are not regulated and they have no professional codes of conduct and so on, just simple guidance. To me, we are giving them an incredibly powerful tool, and I think this is a strong argument for moving on the professionalisation of property agents, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, first reported on in one of his reports. When was it?

[Lord Best (CB)]

It was in 2019.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Even the sector itself feels that it is overdue.

I supported the principle of a landlord database during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. Looking back at some of my comments, I feel that I was a little messianic about it, because I genuinely believe that this could be a real tool to improve standards, inform tenants and bring rogue landlords to heel. Good enforcement needs good information, tenants deserve transparency, councils need effective tools and rogue landlords should not be able to hide from scrutiny.

So the principle is not the problem; interestingly, many of the briefings that we have received have stated that very clearly up front. That is important. For me, the question is: will this database actually do what it says on the tin and what it sets out to do? As a former elected mayor, I have seen plenty of databases. Creating one is usually the easy bit; keeping it accurate, useful and up to date is the hard bit and can be a real, onerous burden on an institution.

My first question is: are we collecting the right information—that is, the most helpful and informative? There is plenty in here about registration, certificates, licences and compliance documents—all of which is good stuff—but are we creating a genuinely useful tool or simply a very efficient filing cabinet? If I were a tenant looking for somewhere to live, I would want to know whether a landlord had received improvement notices, civil penalties or other enforcement action; frankly, that would tell me a lot more than whether somebody had uploaded a document on time. So my second question is: who is the database really for? Is it mainly a tool for councils and regulators, or is it supposed to help tenants make informed choices? If transparency is one of the objectives, what will the tenants actually be able to see?

My third concern is around compliance. There are worryingly varying estimates of the levels of awareness with regard to this. What assessment have the Government made of awareness in the sector of what has to be done? The landlord most likely to register is the landlord who is already trying to do the right thing. The landlord most likely to pay the fee is the landlord who is already trying to follow the rules. However, the one we all worry about is the one who ignores the system altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, made a pertinent comment: there is a danger of us driving these people even further underground, because the problem is that they are already underground.

Regrettably, my real worry is that, due to the shortage of homes, the desperation of some tenants will always mean that these landlords find themselves suitable tenants. How will this scheme identify the landlord who simply chooses not to register? How will the information on the database be verified, rather than self-declared? As someone who has spent years in local government, like the Minister, I always get nervous when the answer to a problem seems to be another form. The reality is that we need more homes, more investment and, like it or not—as I discovered in my own council group—more larger, professionally managed housing providers that are investing in the sector.

One of the ways in which we are getting these things is through the growth of the build-to-rent sector. These developments often have one owner, one management structure and one set of compliance arrangements across an entire building. So I struggle with the logic here: if the same landlord is being asked, in essence, to submit the same information about the same building, over and over again, through hundreds of separate front doors, what problem is that solving? Does it make tenants safer? Does it give councils better intelligence? Does it improve enforcement? Or are we in danger of confusing more paperwork with better outcomes? Good regulation should be about outcomes, not processes, but this feels very process-driven at the moment. The aim should be better regulation, not simply more regulation.

As the Minister knows, I always approach these matters through the lens of delivery. Who will verify this information? Who will investigate non-compliance? Who will pursue the landlords who never register in the first place? What resources will local authorities receive to do so? How confident are the Government that councils are ready to go and have the capacity to do the job that we hope they will do? A database does not enforce itself, and a database on its own catches nobody.

My final questions are simple. How will the Government measure the success of this? How often will it be re-evaluated? Will it involve more records on the database, or will it lead—as I feel it should—to more rogue landlords being identified, more effective enforcement and, perhaps more importantly, better homes for tenants? Surely that is the test that will matter. Put simply, how will we know it has done the job that we all want it to do?

National Empty Homes Strategy

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am not particularly comfortable talking about my own experiences of homelessness, and I am not going to, but the comments we have heard today prove that it can happen to anybody. I am patron of a brilliant charity in Watford, New Hope, where we know that all too well. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for introducing this debate and for his lifelong persistence in keeping homelessness firmly on the agenda. I, too, start from a position of agreement and entirely share his aspirations behind the call for a national strategy. Like all of us, we also share your frustrations.

At a time when we have over 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation in England and councils are spending extraordinary sums simply managing the consequences of homelessness, it is entirely right that we look at homes standing empty. The costs are eye-watering. I am not usually one for statistics, because I can never remember them, but some figures are too striking to ignore. We are spending £2.29 billion a year on temporary accommodation, while more than 300,000 homes stand empty. Frankly, that is bonkers. We are paying a fortune to manage housing failure, while leaving one of the most obvious solutions gathering dust.

We are also reliably informed that for the public investment needed to deliver one new-build home, we could apparently bring 5.6 empty homes back into use. If any investor were offered that return on their money, they would snap it up without a second thought. Why are we not doing it?

There is also a human cost. For a family living in temporary accommodation, homelessness is not an abstract policy principle or problem. It is a child travelling miles to school or changing schools. It is a parent trying to hold down a job while living out of a suitcase or losing that job. Families are then cut off from the communities and support that they probably used to rely on. There is a neighbourhood cost, too, and you do not hear much about that. Empty properties become eyesores; they attract vandalism, fly tipping and anti-social value, and they certainly undermine pride in your neighbourhood. So, I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on the destination, but perhaps I disagree a little about the route—perhaps I am more in tune with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh.

In my former role as an elected mayor and now here, one of the lessons I have learned is that it always looks much simpler from Westminster than it does at the other end of the telescope. Bringing back empty homes sounds relatively simple and wonderful, and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made it feel that way. However, in practice, it does not work like that.

When I first entered local government, I assumed an empty home was an empty home, but years later I realised that it came with a back story—complications, all the things the noble Lord has said. Usually on some poor officer’s shelf there is a lever arch file several inches thick, and he is trying to wade through it. Properties can be tied down in probate. Owners cannot be traced. Buildings require extensive repairs and families disagree over inheritance. Councils can spend months and sometimes years untangling legal and practical obstacles before any progress is made, and that is where there is a real will. I am proud to say we took on this agenda and the flats above shops agenda from the noble Lord, Lord Young.

One instance comes to mind that really was a lightbulb moment for me. A housing officer spent nearly a year pursuing action against a long-term empty property. I had had a petition and everything about it. Notice had been served, everything had been followed but just as we got a court date, the owner, having been notified of the court date, returned. The utilities were off, the property was virtually uninhabitable, but he went round the neighbours, persuading them that he was going to come back and do it up. The judge was convinced—we were not—and the council’s action ground to a halt. I still remember the look of absolute disbelief and total disappointment on that officer’s face. It was very demoralising.

That experience taught me a lesson. The problem is not always lack of powers, as I believe was said; it is often the gap between having the powers and being able to use them effectively. We already have a range of powers, and it might be interesting to see what the noble Baroness feels about how we can beef those up. The problem is that they are slow, complex, resource intensive, and require a lot of evidence-gathering, legal processes and definitely officers’ time. Time is important, when councils are facing immense financial pressure, enforcement teams are often smaller than they once were and capacity is restricted, if there is any capacity at all.

At the same time, nobody should pretend that 300,000 empty homes are irrelevant to the housing crisis. We should be careful not to think that one more bit of legislation will do the trick. The noble Lord outlined very practically, I have to say, things we could do. I ask the Minister: first, could we make it easier for councils to identify and contact owners? Far too much time is spent on this. Secondly, could we look at speeding up the probate process, which seems very slow, particularly with homes getting trapped following bereavement? Thirdly, we should perhaps adopt a more use it or lose it approach. I am not advocating confiscation, but where a property has stood empty for years, owners should occupy it, rent it out or sell it, or at least demonstrate that they are making genuine progress towards this. A few nights on a camp bed should not be enough to undo many months of hard enforcement work. But fourthly, we need to help owners who genuinely want to do the right thing. Not every owner is a villain. Some have inherited property they cannot afford to repair, some are elderly, and some are simply overwhelmed by the costs involved. That is why I was interested to read the case studies from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and to learn about the work being undertaken in Greater Manchester. I think the common focus there has been practical delivery, working across a larger patch, and dedicated officers working alongside lease and repair schemes to bring homes back into use and, at the same time, reduce temporary accommodation. What appeals to me about that approach is that it is encouragement and enforcement. It is carrot and stick. Some owners need a helping hand; some, quite frankly, need a firm boot. Good councils know the difference.

Empty homes are not the whole answer to homelessness, of course not, but they are part of the answer. I support the noble Lord’s intentions wholeheartedly, but my plea to the Minister is: what can be done now to improve the effectiveness of the powers we already have?

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, my five minutes segue neatly and very nicely from what the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has just said.

If the Bill is about renewing our democracy, it should be not simply about widening participation, which it is appearing to do very well, but about deepening democracy, which is why I strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood; I agree with much of what he said and welcome him to this House.

Before entering politics, I was an assistant head teacher of a large comprehensive with what now would be called PSHE. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that teachers are asked to deal with far more controversial issues than why they have the values they have in joining a democratic political party.

As noble Lords can imagine, I got to know 15 and 16 year-olds rather well. I spent years trying to persuade teenagers that turning up on time was a good idea, that deadlines were not merely advisory and that adults occasionally knew what they were talking about. I regret to say that the results were mixed.

What I learned was that young people are curious, questioning and far more interested in the world around them than we often assume from their grunts from underneath their headphones. So, yes, let us give them the vote, but—and it is a big but from me—if we are extending democratic rights, we must also think seriously about democratic education, which has been mentioned by a few noble Lords. Citizenship education has been treated as an optional extra when it should be regarded as essential democratic infrastructure, and teachers are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said, often quite nervous about teaching about politics.

Young people should leave school understanding not only how to vote but how Parliament works, how local government works, how decisions are made, and, very importantly, how they can influence them. Yet, from my experience, I fear we approach such civic education with a certain nervousness.

During my years in politics, like many noble Lords, I was invited to speak to sixth-formers about my role. Almost invariably, before I began, someone would quietly whisper in my ear and say, “Don’t be too party political”, as if it is somehow a dirty secret that you are “a Liberal Democrat!” I understood the intention—schools should never be seen to promote a particular party—but there is a huge difference between party-political advocacy and teaching young people about politics itself. What I found quite excited me. They invariably wanted to talk about politics; they wanted to understand why we disagreed and why we reached different conclusions, and how different values and priorities shaped political policy. They also wanted to know what I earned—that was a common question. In other words, they wanted to understand democracy.

If we want young people to become active citizens, we should not sanitise politics; we should help them to understand it. Political parties competing in ideas, honest disagreement and freedom of speech are not embarrassing by-products of democratic life; they are its lifeblood.

My second point concerns representation. For all the progress we have made in politics, it remains a difficult environment, for some people more than others. Women know this only too well. Over the years, I have had the joy of rubbish dumped on my doorstep, lights smashed on my car and all manner of unpleasant things sent through the letterbox. I was even given the rather charming nickname of #wickedwitchofwestwatford. I was grateful it was not the whole of Watford.

Most women in public life have such stories of their own. We laugh about them and treat them as part of the job, but perhaps we should stop and ask why. Representation is not simply about whether people have the legal right to stand for office; it is about whether they feel able to do so. Every time I have spied a talented woman and they decided not to stand for election because “It’s not really for me”, and every time an elected representative leaves public life because the personal costs have become too high, our democracy loses talent, experience and perspective. Issues such as candidate safety, intimidation and abuse are therefore not peripheral concerns: they go to the heart of our democratic constitution.

I welcome the Bill and I give the Minister notice that I expect to bring forward amendments on citizenship, political literacy and the barriers that can still prevent full participation in public life.

Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her post. I support this Bill and, in doing so, I must first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pinnock. As our local government spokesperson, she has lived and breathed building safety for years. I, on the other hand, am the housing spokesman, which means that, while she does the heavy lifting and gets to grips with the complex technicalities, I get the distinct pleasure of standing up here and loudly agreeing with her.

Let us be honest: agreeing with my noble friend Lady Pinnock on this issue is probably the easiest job in Parliament today, because we on these Benches believe that she is entirely and profoundly right. We all have an interest in ensuring that any legislative framework is workable, of course, proportionate—and that takes into account what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said—and capable of being delivered.

Too many leaseholders continue to face uncertainty, financial hardship and lengthy delays while defects remain unresolved. Campaigners have argued that stronger protections and clearer obligations are required if confidence is to be restored and remediation accelerated. I noticed from some of the latest figures that sales of flats have stalled, and it is not surprising. This is a big sword of Damocles hanging over their construction. I strongly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding leaseholders and those in shared ownership, for whom he is a great champion. I can only do the nodding dog in the back of the car, but I welcome his expertise in this area.

There is much common ground between this Bill and the Government’s forthcoming remediation legislation. Both seek to ensure that unsafe buildings are remediated —tick—and that those responsible are held to account. The difference is largely one of emphasis. The Government’s Bill will, I expect, focus on getting buildings fixed as quickly as possible. My noble friend is focused on making sure that the people living in them are treated fairly while this happens. Frankly, we need both. A building can be remediated without a leaseholder being protected, but that would still leave an injustice unresolved. These two Bills are not rivals; they complement each other.

The Building Safety Act 2022 was a decent start, but it left behind gaps so wide you could drive a fire engine through them. The most glaring of these is the arbitrary 11-metre-high rule, which has been mentioned. I have spent a lot of time looking at housing, and I am still searching for the scientific evidence showing that smoke checks the height of a building before it decides to be dangerous. If you live in a flat that is 11.1 metres high, the law shields your wallet. If your flat is 10.9 metres high, in essence, the law says, “Best of luck, here’s a five-figure bill for repairs”. It is absurd. A building’s height should not dictate human safety. This Bill would sensibly strip that artificial barrier away.

We also have to talk about what counts as a defect. The current system seems to assume that, if the cladding is safe, the building is paradise. But leaseholders are routinely hit with massive bills for things such as rotting wooden balconies, faulty fire doors and internal wiring that looks like it was put together by an optimistic amateur. My noble friend’s Bill introduces the concept of systemic defects. It says quite simply that, if the developer builds it badly or wrong, the leaseholder should not have to pay to fix it. Imagine buying a brand new car and, several hundred miles down the road, it breaks down while you are in the driving seat, and you are told, “Well, it was a defect that was caused in the factory, but you’ve got to foot the bill to put it right”. I think you would, quite rightly, have a few choice words to say.

This is why I hope Ministers will look carefully at some of the strongest features of this Bill. Its wider protections for leaseholders, its broader approach to building safety defects and its challenge to the current height thresholds all have the potential to strengthen the Government’s legislation. Ministers have a wonderful opportunity here to stop tweaking at the edges, look at what we are proposing today and steel their nerves. They can absorb these provisions, scrap the height limits, expand the definition of “defects” and give their own upcoming legislation some real teeth. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, regarding leasehold tenure and look forward to working with her on the forthcoming Bill. I am delighted to support my noble friend, and I urge the Government to steal the best bits of this Bill as soon as possible.

Home Owners and Home Ownership

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for speaking in the gap, because it saved me from pouncing immediately on the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, whose comments were so provocative—I should know by now. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for securing this timely debate and introducing it with her customary experience and insight. I agreed with much of what she said, although obviously not all.

We have heard a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion from across the House. Coming at this point in the debate, I knew that noble Lords would have covered all the key aspects and asked all the main questions, so I am going to take a slightly different tack. I particularly enjoyed the thoughtful contributions from the noble Lords, Lord John of Southwark and Lord Gascoigne, and, interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I felt they had something slightly different to say and what I am going to say might chime with them.

We may have completely different perspectives, as was all too evident, but there is a striking degree of agreement about the scale of the challenges facing aspiring home owners today. We have heard contributions on housing supply, on planning, good or bad, on infrastructure—a real issue when we are trying to get people to agree to housing—on mortgage access, on rental costs, and on the wider functioning of the housing market. All noble Lords have posed detailed questions to the Minister, and I do not intend to repeat them.

Instead, I want to focus on two issues that have only been touched on: affordability and intergenerational fairness. As former Mayor of Watford, I met many people whose experiences illustrated why this issue matters. They were not looking for special treatment; they simply wanted the opportunity that previous generations often took for granted—the chance to buy a home, put down roots and build a future.

Several noble Lords have spoken about the need to build more homes, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, as a country, we have not built enough homes for many years, and certainly not enough social homes. I want to publicly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his use of the phrase “warehousing welfare”. My question is: where should the most vulnerable people in society live?

As today’s debate has demonstrated, supply alone does not explain everything. Of course more homes need to be built; I doubt anyone in this House would seriously disagree with that proposition, though some housing experts do. But perhaps we should be honest about the limitations of what building can do. Do we really believe that we can build our way to affordability alone? If so, over what timescale? Five years, 10 years, 20 years? Even if ambitious housing targets are reached, targets do not build houses; builders do. I get fed up of the “Our targets are higher than yours” kind of willy-waving that goes on where targets are concerned.

Even if they are achieved, are we confident, as somebody said, that homes will be built in the places where the demand is greatest, where the jobs are concentrated and where people want to live and work? These are not arguments against building more homes. They are arguments against believing that a complex problem has a simple answer: just keep building.

If affordability is the objective—and we on these Benches believe it should be—should we not be honest enough to say that building more homes is a means to an end and not an end in itself? Affordability lies at the heart of almost every aspect of housing policy. It determines whether young people can save for a deposit, whether families can afford mortgage repayments, whether people can move as their circumstances change and, ultimately, whether home ownership remains a realistic aspiration.

One of the difficulties in housing policies is that political debate, as evidenced today, often searches for a single cause and a single solution. We are told that housing would become more affordable if the planning rules were changed, if there were not all the extra taxes that we have to pay, if only interest rates were lower or if one element of the market behaved differently. The reality is far more complicated than that, and it is important to say that where we are now has been decades in the making, not just the past few years.

Housing affordability is shaped by supply, definitely by planning rules, by land values—an interesting one—but also by wages, interest rates, demographics, construction costs and wider economic conditions. It is also affected by how effectively people can move through the housing system at different stages of life and by the availability of supported and specialist housing. Now, no one mentioned that today, so I immediately look over and say, “Lord Best, where are you?” as that is something that he always reminds us of.

During my years in local government, I would encounter two very different conversations about housing. One resident would proudly tell me how much the value of their home had increased since they bought it, but another, a renter, would tell me they had all but given up hope of ever buying a home; sometimes, those conversations were on the very same street. This captures the dilemma at the heart of housing policy. Those seeking to enter the market understandably want greater affordability and, as we have heard a lot today, those who already own their own homes often see rising house prices as a source of security, which for many is an important component of their long-term financial planning. In truth, we celebrate affordability when we are trying to get on the ladder and rising house prices once we are on it. That is why housing remains one of the most politically difficult areas of public policy.

Almost everyone agrees there is a problem. The disagreement begins when we discuss who should bear the costs of solving it, because every serious solution creates winners and losers—and I am sure the Minister is very aware of that. More development can place pressure on existing communities and infrastructure. Lower house price inflation may be welcomed by aspiring home owners, but not necessarily by those whose wealth is tied up in their homes. Reforms to planning, taxation, land use and incentives involve trade-offs. The challenge is not that the choices are unknown but whether Governments are prepared to make them.

An equally important theme arising in today’s debate is intergenerational fairness—mentioned ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Paul, and I agree with her challenges. The reality for many young people is that they are attempting to enter a housing market that is fundamentally different from the one that we entered and that was entered by their parents and grandparents. Deposits take longer to save for, high rents consume the income that might otherwise have been used to build a deposit and mortgage affordability remains challenging. Increasingly, access to home ownership appears to depend not simply on work and saving but on whether someone has access to support from parents, grandparents or inheritance. That is a stark reality that I believe we on these Benches and the Government are trying to address. This is a question not of whether one generation has worked harder than another but of whether opportunities available to successive generations are broadly comparable. Increasingly, many people doubt that they are, and this should concern us all.

I hope the Minister will address two issues in particular. First, does she accept that affordability pressures are increasingly creating a housing market in which access to home ownership depends more heavily on parental wealth and inheritance? If so, what do the Government see as the answer to that challenge? Secondly, if affordability is the objective, how should success be measured? Is it by the number of homes built or whether a young person on an average income in 10 years finds it easier to buy a home than they do today? It will take that long.

We all know that home ownership should remain an aspiration achievable through work, savings and endeavour, not a consequence of inheritance. We know many of the drivers behind the affordability challenge and many of the potential solutions. The difficulty is not that the problem is misunderstood but that the solutions involve trade-offs, winners and losers, competing interests—some very powerful—and difficult political choices, with electoral consequences at the ballot box.

I will leave with a final question for the Minister. Does she believe the Government accept that the real obstacle is no longer understanding the problem of housing affordability but having the potential courage to confront the trade-offs required to solve it and to confront the consequences of what we already know?

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The criteria will be looked at as part of this review process. It is important that we take account of the legal advice—we are not going to publish it—and look at the impact on the future programme; it would be unwise not to do so.

On the issues around Cambridge, the noble Lord asked me about elections. Let me start with the October decision-making. We had said to colleagues in Cambridge and Peterborough—and indeed in West Sussex, where decisions had not been taken—that we would endeavour to have decisions in October. Both those areas will go into the review process, so those decisions will now be announced alongside the other areas that are being reviewed. I hope that that will not lead to too much further delay in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and West Sussex. Noble Lords will be aware that an important part of this process is the statutory instruments that have to go through both Houses. We were on a very tight timetable for all this anyway, so it is not likely that elections will be able to go ahead to the shadow authorities as planned in 2027. That is why we have said that elections will go ahead, but on the old boundaries.

On spatial planning, the devolution work can continue to look at planning and how that will work through in the devolution process.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches, then we will hear from the Labour Benches and the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, if the legal concerns were serious enough to halt the programme today, suddenly, with rapid action, can the Minister tell the House whether any similar concerns had been raised previously by officials, local authorities or external counsel? Will she place a letter in the Library with the chronology of the key decisions that led to the suspension of the programme, so that Parliament can understand how this arose?

To be a little more specific—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is on the same page as me in this—I am not asking the Minister to disclose privileged legal advice, but can she tell the House which aspect of the process is now considered potentially unlawful? Is it the criteria, the consultation, the decision-making or the implementation? How can Parliament scrutinise ministerial decision-making if Ministers are unwilling to explain the nature of a legal defect that has caused such extensive disruption and waste of public money?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will have a look at the chronology of the decision-making and talk to colleagues about it. Clearly, as I have said, very categorically, we will not be releasing the legal advice, but I appreciate that there is a chronology that takes account of the legal advice but does not divulge what it is. As to which aspects of the programme, I fear that that would be part of the privileged advice. We will look at any issues that have been raised as part of the programme of review. We will be clear and transparent about what we are doing in the review, so I hope that it will come out as part of the review process.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, I am grateful to Ellie, Hermione, Beatrice, Lucy, Alex, Liam and Victoria, who have worked on the Bill, alongside the policy teams, lawyers and, of course, my private office, without whom I would not be doing any of this. I also pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff—doorkeepers, clerks, security and the Public Bill Office—without whom none of us would be here. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

We on these Benches positively welcomed the Bill. Anything that preserves social housing is particularly welcome, so the right-to-buy proposals were indeed very valuable, as was the work to protect vulnerable tenants—those who were victims of domestic violence—and the tidying up and repealing of old legislation that, frankly, was never used because it was completely unworkable. With all that said, I think that, across the House, we were all disappointed with the very narrow scope of the Bill, and that was reflected in the number of amendments and the quality of the debate. I think we had wanted more but understood the Minister to say, “Yes, it is a narrowly focused Bill, but this is what it is doing”.

Therefore, we on these Benches seek reassurance on the two strands the Minister mentioned: the excellent work done by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on shared ownership, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on the plight of rural housing. Those came through so strongly that we feel we have to have some follow-up, and we will pursue and support that.

I thank the Minister for her willingness to engage with us; she was, and is always, very generous with her time. I also praise the constructive spirit of the newish Opposition Front Bench. It has to be said that, although we strongly disagreed with their stance on the eligibility of social housing and opposed their efforts to restrict it, we agreed on lots of other issues around transparency and accountability and on better than one-for-one replacement, and we shared their concerns about some RSLs, although not all—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best—around their effectiveness, particularly with regard to anti-social behaviour. These are all issues that I am sure we can visit in other ways. With that said, we are very pleased to see the Bill progress and thank everyone who had anything to do with it—I will not repeat a long list—and all noble Lords who took part in the debates.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, if I may intervene very briefly to follow up on what the noble Baroness has just said about shared ownership, the Minister will recall that the Government suffered a very significant defeat—by some 86 votes. It was the first defeat of the Burnham Administration, on the Monday before we rose, and was on the issue of shared ownership. The Minister was good enough to concede that we need improvements, but she was not able to go quite as far as the amendment in my name, supported by others, went. Will she agree to discussions before the Commons addresses the Bill to see whether we can find a way through on shared ownership, to try to bring this to a conclusion? If we are to do that, she will need to go a little bit further than she was able to in July. Is there some flexibility in the Government’s position?

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.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 81 and I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in their Amendments 83 and 84.

My amendment is trying to bring a bit of accountability back into housing associations. An issue that has been well described during various stages of the Bill is that housing associations are becoming enormous, with no connection to local areas. As a consequence, I thought—especially in line with the vibe of the new Prime Minister about devolution, local decision-making and people feeling involved—that it was time to get some democracy and democratically elected people back on these boards. Specifically, Amendment 81’s proposed new subsection (3) says:

“Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must ensure that no private registered provider’s board is comprised of a majority of elected local councillors”.


I anticipate that the Government will try to say, “This will put it back on the balance sheet”, but the answer is that it will not. The ONS—and I know this because there are some excellent officials over there; I have worked with some of them in the past—only puts things on the balance sheet because you have to have a majority. Control has to be with local government, which is why having a minority, not a majority, specifically in primary legislation, is key to that.

It feels that the direction of several housing associations is not going in the right way. The new Prime Minister has certainly been keen to talk about council housing—more so than social housing, although I appreciate that both will be in his mind—and that is where people would expect that, where there are special situations or a special kind of social housing or council housing, somehow there would be local involvement, not somebody who might be a couple of hundred miles away deciding what houses get sold, what get built and where they get built. For that reason, I hope the House may consider this during its consideration of the Bill.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might like to speak first to tell us about his amendments so that we could respond, but I will go first.

While they are all on the same theme, these amendments are all different so I will take each of them in turn. As usual, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sounds totally sensible, but I have checked this with three allocations officers in three different councils—so I have top trumped his single one—and the conclusion was that this is not an issue. Councils have the power to do what they wish with homes that have been adapted. They can leave them as voids, or they can rip out adaptations if they feel that they are too niche, but the reality is that they rarely have to do that because demand is so great. In fact, one officer said to me that the longest they have ever had to wait to re-let an adapted home is three weeks. I suppose I am saying that they would agree with the noble Lord that they care about protecting their precious adapted stock, and they do so.

My noble friend outlined the case for her Amendment 80. She said that many councils do this, but she is seeking to broaden our data about who accesses social housing, particularly veterans. The reason why that is important, as many of us know, is the high incidence of ex-military who end up homeless. My noble friend made a pertinent point about the wait that people have in order to get their adaptations. That is a far more serious point, and it could be to do with the availability of funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 87, in the names of my noble friends Lady O’Neill and Lord Jamieson. This is an issue on which I have had a long-standing interest. During my time in this House, I have sought to strengthen the powers available to tackle tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. I did so because social housing is a precious public asset and every home lost to fraud is a home denied to a family in genuine need. We frequently discuss the need to build more social housing, and of course new supply is important, but we should not overlook the importance of making the very best use of the stock we already have. That seems like the common-sense approach.

The legislation is already in place to tackle fraud. The question is whether it is being used effectively and consistently. Effective enforcement measures act as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to abuse the system. Before we ask taxpayers to fund even more housing, it is right to understand whether the homes we already have are being used for the purposes for which they were intended. This is why I support these amendments that are built on transparency, accountability and understanding.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding the loss of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, from the Front Bench.

Amendment 82 is a sound and compassionate amendment. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way that the exchange of data between the Prison Service and local authorities with regard to placing ex-offenders does not happen as it should. I felt that the noble Lord’s comment about all local authorities taking their share is particularly pertinent, as I found out from bitter experience. To cut a long story short, I noticed a spike in homelessness and offences in certain neighbourhoods. When I dug under those statistics and spoke to the Probation Service, it turned out it was to do with the lack of homes for ex-offenders. I said, “How come it’s all congregating here?”, and they said, “Well, Hertfordshire councils aren’t very co-operative”. I then found out that only two of the 10 authorities in Hertfordshire actually co-operated and tried to work with this group of people. I am pleased to say to the Minister that they were Watford and Stevenage.

However, I fear that Amendments 86, 87 and 88 confuse a lack of action with a lack of oversight. The social housing sector is not short of reviews, strategies or regulators; what it is short of is homes. On Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, was absolutely right that every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone in real housing need. We should tackle tenancy fraud whenever it occurs, but I am not persuaded that yet another review from Whitehall will tell us anything that landlords do not already know. In my experience, the challenge is not a lack of understanding but often a lack of capacity and resources.

My greatest concern is with Amendment 87. Of course we want fewer voids, faster reletting and better use of existing stock—yes, yes, yes—but this amendment seems to assume that nobody is already collecting the data, monitoring performance or holding providers to account, and I do not believe that this is true. We already have a Regulator of Social Housing overseeing governance, financial viability and consumer standards; we already have the Housing Ombudsman scrutinising landlord performance and identifying systemic failings through complaints; and housing associations and councils already operate under significant scrutiny and reporting requirements. The danger is that we mistake reporting for better performance. You really do not fatten a pig by continuing to weigh it. A national strategy will not relet an empty home and another set of metrics will not house a family; good management does that, as does investment and building more homes.

As for Amendment 88, we support strong governance, transparency and tenant representation, but those principles are already embedded in the existing regulatory framework. Housing associations are independent organisations, subject to robust oversight, not bodies waiting for Whitehall to tell them how to behave.

Therefore, while I support the objectives behind these amendments clearly and firmly, I cannot support the assumption behind them: that every challenge in housing requires another review, another strategy or another layer of central direction. The sector is already regulated, scrutinised and awash with data. What it needs is the freedom, capacity and investment to focus on what matters most: providing and managing good homes for the people who need them the most. For that reason, we oppose these amendments.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Farmer.

A common theme has run through this group: making better use of the social housing stock we already have. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Farmer addresses the important issue of prison leavers at risk of homelessness. Stable accommodation can play a crucial role in helping individuals rebuild their lives and in reducing the risk of reoffending. His amendment rightly seeks to improve co-ordination and information sharing between agencies, and I know that the House will have listened carefully to those arguments.

Amendments 87 and 88, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, are fundamentally about making the best use of the social housing stock we already have. We all hear calls for more social housing, but that conversation inevitably turns immediately to building more homes. As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, new supply is important, but it will not arrive overnight. Before we ask taxpayers to fund more homes, is it not reasonable to ask whether the homes we already have are being used as effectively as possible?

We need to make better use of the homes we already have. To do that, we need a more accurate view of how many we need. When an estimated 148,000 social homes may be fraudulently occupied, there is a strong case for a national strategy that tackles tenancy fraud, reduces void periods and improves re-letting performance. The Government themselves estimate that 5,800 social homes may be illegally sublet through short-term letting platforms. There could be a lot of people making a lot of money out of that. That demonstrates why tackling tenancy fraud must be part of any serious strategy for improving the use of social housing stock. Even if that figure proves to be overstated, it underlines the importance of having accurate data and a clearer understanding of the scale of the challenge.

Likewise, we need to understand how accurate housing waiting lists are and when they were last reviewed. Circumstances change, and it is only with a timely review that a more accurate and transparent assessment can be made of the number of dwellings actually needed, as well as ensuring that the list is assessing accurate prioritisation. Without that information, it is difficult to judge how many additional homes are genuinely required and how many could be made available through better stock management.

At a time when the demand for social housing continues to grow, it is not enough simply to talk about building new homes. We must ensure that the homes we already have are being managed as effectively as possible. Too often, concerns are raised about lengthy void periods, delays in re-letting, outdated waiting lists, tenancy fraud and unlawful subletting. Every property left empty unnecessarily is a missed opportunity for a family in need. Every home unlawfully sublet is a home denied to someone on a waiting list.

Our amendment would require the Government to produce a national strategy for improving the management and utilisation of existing housing stock. It would improve transparency, requiring key information to be published on void properties, re-let times, recovered properties and enforcement activity relating to unlawful subletting. It is not about creating additional bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that landlords, local authorities and government focus on making the best use of an extremely valuable and scarce public asset.

The related amendment on unlawful subletting seeks to better understand whether current enforcement powers are being used effectively and the barriers that might exist. Before calling for ever more supply, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the stock we already have is being managed as efficiently as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 92, the final amendment, and will be going ahead of my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench. To set it out pretty clearly, I hope that this finds favour with not only the Minister but the renewed Secretary of State, the right honourable Angela Rayner, who has been appointed. I also hope this finds favour with the Prime Minister.

Basically, one of the barriers for councils and others in trying to provide social housing is land. Homes England has tons of land. It has been given a lot of land by other government departments, with the very specific intent for homes to be built. But I am still awaiting—admittedly still within time—Answers to Questions about how many homes Homes England has built. I think that, at the moment, it is constrained by Treasury rules that it has to do this commercially. That is nonsense. We have an asset and there is a very clear intention by the Government to build many more homes, and, in particular, with this new Prime Minister, many more council homes. Why can we not just get on with it?

I appreciate that people go on about different aspects of finances, but the point is that this is in the Government’s hands. It is a bit like why the Conservatives brought in the right to buy initially. The property was there, and we knew that there were people wanting to buy those homes, to have and to invest in as they did, rather than them being an ongoing expense for the taxpayer. We have the same here. There is land all over the place that could become homes much more quickly if it was simply handed, for free, to the local council to get on and build.

For anybody who thinks that it is quite challenging to build homes, I remember that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and I were having dinner on The Cut. We saw the modular building right opposite the Old Vic. It is not a huge plot of land, but now there are four homes there—and it was all done within about two or three months. It is quite extraordinary. Where there is a will, there is a way, but land is the barrier. I encourage the Government to think that through.

I want to support Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I have long been a supporter of this. At the moment, there are 754,000 vacant properties in England, according to statistics published by the department last October. That has gone up by about a third in the last decade. That is not on; something needs to be done to try to get this moving. Quite often, these places are scruffy, and yet councils are not making use of their powers to force the owners of such properties to tidy them up and keep them looking nice. Much more needs to be done on this.

The proposed new clause headed “Long-term empty homes use: strategy and funding” is very sensible and the amendment is definitely needed. I expect the Minister will say, “It doesn’t need to be in law. We’re already doing something about it”, but the very fact that we are seeing an increase—I think it increased year on year—is a real scandal when, by the way, 105,000 of those empty homes are in Greater London.

I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has not indicated whether he intends to press his amendment. If he does, I would support him, but I hope the Government will consider it carefully and come forward with their own amendments by the time the Bill goes to the other end, particularly under the guise of the new Prime Minister and the renovated Secretary of State, in order to really make a difference here.

I know that the Prime Minister talked today about rough sleeping, which has often been a huge focus for a number of Governments, but it is actually a small number of people in this country compared with the people who are living in temporary accommodation. I hope that the Government will give this full force and back the intent of the Prime Minister not only on rough sleeping but, as he also mentioned, on making sure that people get their homes. That will be the basis on which they can have prosperous lives.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this is a group of interesting and different amendments. Nobody could fail to be moved by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, speaks to us, or to understand and feel his passion. He should not doubt for a minute that we share that; I think we all do.

My concern about Amendment 89 is that it would involve empty dwelling management orders. There is a real irony about those orders, as they are a power that councils rarely use. In fact, councils regard them as much more complex and difficult than CPOs—compulsory purchase orders—and have almost abandoned using them altogether. There were, in fact, no EDMOs used at all between 2023 and 2024, and only 200 in total since they were introduced in 2006.

I absolutely understand the intention of what has been said, but I am going to be cheeky and use this opportunity with the Minister to jump on one of my hobby horses, which is empty homes. This is really about the constraints and difficulties with compulsory purchase orders. It was said that councils should use their powers, but the trouble is that there are real barriers to councils using those powers. To start with, on money, councils lack dedicated funding to renovate properties, which is exacerbated by the costs of compensation to the owner and legal fees, so there are real money issues there.

It is absolutely accepted that the CPO process is overwhelmingly bureaucratic, complex and slow; it also requires government approval. If we are talking about the devolution of things, perhaps that is a power that councils could just get on with. On the six months, you want to say, “Of course that’s right”, but from my experience tracing the owners can, in reality, take far longer than six months. It is really frustrating watching officers try to progress these sorts of things. It is very challenging when there are so many absentee owners now. Some of the most difficult issues are about untangling complicated probate ownership.

Another big issue is the capacity in councils to do this work, when there is an ongoing concern that councils are constantly being asked to do more with less, particularly with regard to such issues and enforcement. But I understand why this amendment has been brought and the Government should look at removing some of those barriers to CPOs, which are well known and well evidenced. Councils are not using them for those reasons and some of those could be changed.

I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that I will say nice things about Amendment 91. He is feeling a bit bruised today. Of course, it is absolutely right. Where we disagree on this is that I have always believed that brownfield is at the top of the planning hierarchy—ever since John Prescott’s days. It is very clear that we should be developing on brownfield sites. The amendment says that there should be a stronger emphasis. The reason for this, I know from sensible discussions with the Conservative Front Bench, is that they deal regularly with councils that do not give planning permission for brownfield sites.

That is a very real concern. Developers will always develop green spaces over brownfield, so there is a case for talking about incentives to use brownfield sites, to get those more into action. But I guess it is also a challenge for the Minister’s inspectorate. If councils are regularly turning down suitable housing sites and not giving permission, presumably a developer will appeal and inspectors will do their job. So I totally agree that it is always preferable to use brownfield.

My authority is one where 98% is brownfield. We do not really have any green sites apart from scratty little bits of land, which we very quickly put social housing on if we can get ownership of them. I absolutely get where the noble Lord is coming from; I just believe that brownfield is at the top of the hierarchy and that councils that are not playing ball, not playing by the rules, should be brought to account regardless of what party they are run by.

I have to say publicly to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I find her amendments wonderfully quirky. She is really good at thinking outside the box. I am busy thinking, “Okay, this one actually sounds quite simple, coming from the noble Baroness, but I bet there are loads of really complicated reasons why it can’t happen”. What I will say is that she put it very simply: why can they not just give it for free? In our council we give the land for free. The only way we get social housing built is by giving the land for free. I guess it is about the principle of that, and I wholeheartedly endorse the principle. Public land is a public asset and should be used for the public good. It might amuse the noble Baroness to know that we have some very quirky policies on land use within our party. Land clearly is an issue for building and development. I will rest my words there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I support Amendment 89 and acknowledge the remarkable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to tackling homelessness over many years.

That challenge is particularly acute in rural communities. We know that rural housing is less affordable. Action with Communities in Rural England reports that the average home costs nearly nine times the average local earnings, compared with around seven and a half times in urban areas. Unsurprisingly, these pressures are reflected in rising levels of homelessness. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has found that homelessness in rural areas has increased year on year, with a 73% increase since 2018.

In such circumstances, many people find themselves unable to live in the communities where they work, have family connections and contribute to local life. When people can no longer afford to live near their work, communities lose not only vital skills and services but the continuity of relationships, local knowledge and a sense of shared responsibility. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community’s Coming Home report identified stability as one of the necessary building blocks of housing that supports people to flourish. At a time when homelessness is rising and affordable housing remains out of reach for many, the question, as many noble Lords have already mentioned, is not simply what more we can build but how well we are using what we already have.

Home Ownership: First-time Buyers

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for all the work he did on the Older People’s Housing Taskforce, which we will be producing our response to. The Government are committed to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market through freeing up other homes. The new home-buying and selling process will reduce the friction that sometimes occurs and creates barriers to moving. The better upfront information it provides will support households to ensure that the home meets accessibility needs, for example, and that hidden costs, which often really concern older buyers, will be transparent right from the start.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, shared ownership promised a real lifeline for first-time buyers to get them on to the property ladder, yet soaring service charges, crushing maintenance bills and toxic lease clauses are trapping families in unsaleable, unmortgageable nightmares: I exaggerate not. What urgent steps are the Government taking to rescue and reform this scheme and protect hard-working buyers from financial hardship?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right. The Government recognise that some people who entered shared ownership have faced real challenges. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience, which include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, making sure that there is greater transparency and fairness on costs, ensuring that fees do not generate a profit and giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for optional services, which often was not pointed out. We are continuing to consider what more can be done to improve that experience for all our shared owners.