Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. No food or drink is permitted during the sittings, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.

New Clause 36

Fiscal impact assessment

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the fiscal impact of this Act.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) any impact on local authority finances;

(b) an analysis of the extent to which social housing represents value for money for Government expenditure; and

(c) any changes to the financial ability of social housing tenants to access Right to Buy.”—(Gareth Bacon.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a fiscal impact assessment of the Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 54—Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership—

“(1) Within two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on the number of social housing tenants becoming homeowners in the previous year, relative to each of the preceding ten years.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—

(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,

(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and

(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,

in the calendar year prior to the review.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among social housing tenants.

New clause 59—Review of the impact of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the impact on the Act on—

(a) the supply and retention of social housing;

(b) the extent to which social housing tenants’ rights are protected by the provisions of the Act;

(c) the exercise of the right to buy; and,

(d) the exercise of the right to acquire.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of the Act on the supply and retention of social housing, tenants' rights, and Right to Buy and Right to Acquire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

Good morning, Mr Vickers. It is nice to resume our proceedings under your chairmanship.

The Bill will change how social housing is funded, how receipts are used and who can afford to buy their home. Understandably, that will create unhelpful uncertainty for local authorities and social housing providers and, by extension, for tenants. Local authorities are right to be anxious, because clause 10 hands the Secretary of State sweeping powers over capital receipts, and councils cannot plan if they do not know what they will lose or gain.

New clause 36 would simply require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a fiscal impact assessment. It must examine the effect on local authority finances, whether social housing offers value for money for the taxpayer and how the Bill changes tenants’ financial ability to use right to buy. If the Government are confident in their figures, they have nothing to fear from publishing them.

The Bill represents an assault on the aspiration of social housing tenants to own their own homes. It is an ideological attack on a policy that, for over 40 years, has given millions of people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder who might otherwise never have been able to do so. By extending the qualifying period and slashing discounts, the Government are effectively seeking to abolish people’s right to buy their own home, and to force residents into renting for longer and longer.

My new clause 54 would therefore require a review of the impact of the Bill on the rates of home ownership among social housing tenants. The impact assessment shows a dramatic projected decline in right-to-buy sales within the first two years of the Bill coming into force, with sales nearly halving. With little effort to support people on to the housing ladder, and with cuts to measures such as first-time buyer stamp duty relief, the Government are tearing up not only one of the most effective routes to home ownership for social housing tenants, but one of the only routes, full stop. That is why it is critical that we understand the Bill’s full impact and demonstrate the disaster that awaits social housing tenants who aspire not just to live in their own home, but to own it.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to new clause 59, which, in a similar spirit to the official Opposition’s new clauses 36 and 54, asks that the Secretary of State carry out a review. My new clause asks that the review takes place 12 months after Royal Assent.

We come at this with a different aspiration: I feel the Opposition amendments have been tabled to catch the Government out, whereas we support the objectives of the Bill. However, although we support the changes to right to buy and the tightening of stock disposal, it is only right that the House be able to see, via a review by the Secretary of State within 12 months, whether those objectives have indeed been met or whether we need to legislate further to continue to protect social housing stock, on which we are in full agreement with the Government.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I will speak to new clauses 36, 54 and 59. Members of the Committee will have heard my opinion of the merits of Opposition amendments that seek further statutory reviews in general, so they can guess where I am heading with some of these.

Although we share the aim of ensuring that the impact of our reforms is properly understood, the Government do not believe that further statutory review requirements are necessary or proportionate. We have already published an economic impact assessment. We have arrangements in place to monitor the effects of the Act. The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million.

New clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants’ rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the Bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. More broadly, the Government already publish comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right-to-buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority-level data. We will continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing datasets and established statistical releases. We therefore do not think that new clause 59 is warranted.

On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with hon. Members about the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act’s effects. The Government’s priority is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. For those reasons, I am afraid we cannot accept new clauses 36, 54 and 59.

[Gareth Bacon]

I have listened carefully to the Minister. In the light of what he says, we will withdraw new clause 36. However, when the time comes, we will press new clause 54 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Provision of social housing: foreign public office holders and associated persons

“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance concerning the provision of social housing by foreign public office holders.

(2) A local housing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning applications for social housing made by foreign public office holders and associated persons including—

(a) persons holding senior public office in a foreign state; and

(b) spouses or civil partners of such persons;

(3) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision relating to—

(a) public office holders subject to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom;

(b) disclosure requirements; and

(c) verification of overseas assets.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay any guidance issued under this section before Parliament.”—(Gareth Bacon.)

This new clause would require guidance relating to social housing eligibility for certain foreign public office holders and associated persons.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Every home that is illegally sublet is a home taken from a family who need it. With waiting lists as long as they are, that is nothing short of theft from the public. It is also unfair to the many tenants who play by the rules. We know that the problem exists, yet we have little idea of how well it is being tackled. How many prosecutions are brought? How many properties are actually recovered? What stops landlords and councils acting?

The new clause answers those questions. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. The Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to the new clause. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Tackling illegal subletting is an important element of that. We are clear that landlords should be taking action to clamp down on such unacceptable practices. I very much agree with the shadow Minister’s comments about how unacceptable they are; they are a misuse of social housing.

New clause 38 would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of enforcement activity relating to the illegal subletting of social housing. The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement.

As I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management that specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the stock management review will inform any future action; I can give the shadow Minister that assurance.

In addition, much of the information that the new clause seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value, while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers. The shadow Minister is a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, so I am again surprised that he is urging the Government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. In our view, they are not warranted; we think they would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery.

Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly, which may include taking legal action. The Government are already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes. Through the Cabinet Office’s national fraud initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered.

On 8 July, the Government also announced a new innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the PSFA within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for families who need them, not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the Government taking action on fraud. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Gareth Bacon]

On balance, I will accede to the Minister’s request. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 39

Standards relating to maintenance of social housing

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance relating to standards for the maintenance of social housing.

(2) Guidance under this section must include detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).

(3) Guidance under this section must also include provision relating to—

(a) damp and mould,

(b) electrical safety,

(c) response times for repairs, and

(d) tenant complaints procedures.

(4) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Gareth Bacon.)

This new clause would require the Government to issue guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 47—Social responsibilities of registered providers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance concerning the social responsibilities of registered providers of social housing.

(2) Guidance under this section must include consideration of—

(a) tenant wellbeing,

(b) estate management,

(c) anti-social behaviour,

(d) community engagement,

(e) neighbourhood quality, and

(f) support for vulnerable tenants.”

This new clause would require the Government to provide guidance on the wider social responsibilities of registered providers.

New clause 48—Review of registered providers of social housing: governance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the governance arrangements of registered providers of social housing.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) board composition;

(b) accountability to local communities;

(c) the role of elected representatives;

(d) tenant representation;

(e) transparency and scrutiny arrangements; and

(f) the publication of performance information.

(3) A report of the review must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

This probing new clause would require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing.

New clause 49—Social housing governance standards—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance on minimum governance standards for registered providers of social housing.

(2) Guidance under this section must include provision on

(a) financial transparency,

(b) tenant representation, and

(c) publication of performance criteria.”

This new clause seeks to strengthen governance and transparency among registered providers.

New clause 50—Attendance before local authority scrutiny committees—

“(1) A senior officer of a registered provider of social housing must attend a meeting of a local authority overview and scrutiny committee if—

(a) complaints have been made about the performance of the registered provider in relation to the quality or provision of social housing, and

(b) the registered provider is requested to attend the meeting by that authority.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where the registered provider owns or manages more than 10% of the social housing stock within the authority’s area.”

This new clause would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings.

New clause 51—Quarterly performance information—

“(1) Registered providers of social housing must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, publish quarterly performance information.

(2) The information published must include—

(a) repairs which are not completed within 6 months,

(b) complaints received and upheld,

(c) instances of antisocial behaviour,

(d) percentage of tenants satisfied with their housing service, and

(e) number of properties void for longer than three months.”

This new clause would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information.

New clause 61—Social housing quality standards—

“After section 92K (fundamental objectives), of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, insert—

‘923KA Quality standards

(1) In discharging the regulator’s objectives under subsection (3) of section 92K (fundamental objectives), the regulator must, within twelve months of the passing of the Social Housing Act 2027, publish—

(a) specific quality standards (the “Home and Place Standard”) for social housing; and

(b) a methodology for assessing providers against those standards.

(2) The Home and Place Standard published under this section must include provision on—

(a) the quality of—

(i) homes,

(ii) service to tenants, and

(iii) surrounding environment, including green space and access to transport links; and

(b) the long-term environmental sustainability of social housing developments.’”

This new clause would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish a new Home and Place Standard, along with plans to assess social housing providers against those standards.

[Gareth Bacon]

Every hon. Member will have heard from constituents living with damp, mould, faulty wiring or repairs that never arrive. The death of Awaab Ishak shamed this country, and we all promised that it would never happen again. Since then, the Government have introduced new housing regulations, but regulations alone do not help a landlord who is unsure what compliance looks like, or a tenant who does not know what to expect.

New clause 39 attempts to fill that gap. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State would be required to publish guidance including detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It would also cover damp, mould, electrical safety, response time for repairs and complaints procedures. Registered providers would have to have regard to it. Clear standards protect tenants and give good landlords certainty.

On new clause 47, social homes are safe havens for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Whether they face destitution, abuse or persecution, some of those with the greatest need in our society find their safety and peace in social housing, yet for too many residents, estates are poorly managed, antisocial behaviour is rife and tenants are unsupported. Residents must not bear the burden of poor management practices. My new clause 47 would therefore require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish guidance on the social responsibilities of providers.

Up and down the country, many providers already exercise good practice and due diligence and uphold their social responsibilities. However, there exists a small fraction within the system who do not fulfil their responsibilities as required. New clause 47 would strengthen the Government’s hand in ensuring and enforcing good practices and would give tenants greater protections against unscrupulous behaviours.

On new clause 48, social housing is not an issue that ends with the housing of vulnerable people; it begins with it. Once homes are found for those in need, it is vital that registered providers be properly managed, run and governed. At present, I believe that not enough is done to ensure that. My new clause 48, a probing clause, would therefore require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing. It should not be the case that, just because someone is vulnerable, they have little say in how their estate is run, who runs it or what agreements are being made. That is why new clause 48 has a specific focus on key points such as accountability to local communities. We want to see a fair and accountable social housing sector, and I call on the Minister to assure the Committee of that future here today.

On new clause 49, registered providers are responsible for nearly 3 million homes—about 63% of all the homes that make up the national social housing stock. In some parts of the country, housing association stock outweighs that of local authorities by huge margins. In the north-west, 86% of stock is owned by private registered providers. Tenants in such housing deserve nothing less than openness and clarity about how their estates are run. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, guidance on minimum governance standards, covering financial transparency, tenant representation and publication of performance criteria. New clause 49 is a probing amendment. It aims for clearer standards, not red tape. It makes a simple and straightforward ask, and I hope the Minister will give assurances on that point.

On new clause 50, social housing residents deserve accountability. Where life has dealt a weak hand, where the unexpected has created hardship or where vulnerabilities have led to inhibitions, social housing should be a fair, open and accountable backstop. That is why new clause 50 seeks to enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. For the most vulnerable in society, protections are essential, so it is necessary to scrutinise the performance of registered providers. As I say, the vast majority of providers are fair, efficient and honest, but it is unfair on tenants to assume that without checking. That is why I tabled new clause 50.

Finally, on new clause 51, across the public and private sectors it is good practice to evaluate and publicise the performance of any department, business or team. The same practice should apply to registered housing providers. That is why I tabled new clause 51, which would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including on vital indicators such as repairs left incomplete after six months, complaints, antisocial behaviour, levels of tenant satisfaction and void properties. Those are critical issues that cannot be left unsolved in an efficient and trustworthy social housing system.

[Mr Dillon]

I rise to speak in support of my new clause 61, which is a probing amendment. As the new clause outlines, a home and place standard would be a design and place-making framework for an organisation to enable the measurement of housing quality, to guide strategic investment and to shape resident wellbeing. The core pillars of such a standard should focus on customers, on homes and on the place. It should also make sure that social housing providers are part of a sustainable future.

Although it may not be appropriate to mandate in the Bill a standard on to private registered providers, I would be keen to hear from the Minister how his Department is shaping the future standards for the sector and encouraging those PRPs to go further: to think beyond just their bricks and mortar, and about where their homes are situated, about the role they play on an estate, about the role that they can play in a town, about encouraging sustainable transport into new developments and about having a holistic approach to what makes social housing so important and making it even more successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.

New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.

All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.

I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the Minister for his lengthy answer. I will accede to his wishes and will not press my new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 40

Fixed-term tenancies for social housing

“Nothing in this Act prevents a local housing authority or registered provider from granting a fixed-term tenancy for social housing in accordance with existing enactments.”—(Gareth Bacon.)

This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The most recent data available to us shows that the waiting list for social housing stands at a shocking and shameful 1.34 million people. However, that data, which comes from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publication from March 2025, is now well out of date. To understand one of the fundamental problems that we are here to rectify, which is how to get people off the streets, out of temporary accommodation and into social housing, we must understand the full scale of the issue before us.

My new clause 52 would therefore require housing register applications to be reviewed at least every three years to ensure that the waiting list remains accurate and up to date. Without that, it is impossible for resources to be properly distributed, stock to be efficiently allocated and decisions to be made promptly. Efficiency means more than people getting a roof over their head and a place to call home. That is why I believe the proposals in my new clause would make essential and much-needed changes to the system.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to this new clause. I am enjoying the irony of a shadow Minister who bemoans this Government’s, in his words, zealous overcentralisation and penchant for regulation, but who proposes a new clause that would impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to review their housing register at least once every three years—a new duty that would create additional administrative burdens—without any evidence that it would improve allocation decisions.

Local authorities take different approaches to managing their housing register. It is right that they have the flexibility to do what works best for their own local area. In addition, councils already reassess housing need both before a household joins a waiting list and again before allocating a social home, and thereby ensure that social homes go to those most in need.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, I hope the shadow Minister will consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Gareth Bacon]

On this occasion, I will respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation. I stand by my remarks. If we do not understand the scale of the problem, we cannot possibly tailor our solutions correctly. We seek to divide the Committee on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to make consequential provision

[Gareth Bacon]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 20, page 16, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the power to amend or repeal, by regulations, provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before or in the same session as this Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 81, in clause 20, page 16, line 15, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under Clause 20.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 78.

Clauses 21 to 23 stand part.

[Gareth Bacon]

Amendments 80 and 81 are about transparency and accountability. We believe that the Bill is unsuitable for its own stated purpose of making provision for social housing. Already on Second Reading, and here in Committee, we have seen an unwillingness from the Government to reshape the Bill into something that not only is fit for purpose but actually delivers provisions to benefit social housing tenants. If they cannot be trusted to deliver for tenants over the full process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would be unwise to let the Secretary of State alone make further changes to the system without the same level of oversight.

Let us be clear: clause 20, page 16, line 10 —subsection (2)—is a Henry VIII clause. It allows the Bill, after all the debate, analysis and scrutiny here and in the other place, to be selectively amended at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. It has been clear to date that the Government are misguided in their approach to reforming the social housing sector, so it would be unwise to let further reforms go unchecked in the future. That is why I have tabled amendment 80, which would ensure that Ministers cannot just use regulations to amend or repeal existing Acts.

On amendment 81, the Government have done their best to centralise power and avoid scrutiny throughout the last two years. The demolition of local democracy by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the cancellation of elections and now the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are just a few examples from this Department alone. It is critical that such power grabs do not go unchecked, and that is why I have tabled amendment 81, which would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 20.

I recognise that it is sometimes necessary to tackle less consequential points or issues in need of immediate response through secondary legislation, but that does not mean that Ministers have an excuse to avoid the watchful eye of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that all hon. Members will support amendments 80 and 81.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the shadow Minister made clear, amendments 80 and 81 concern the power in clause 20 to make consequential provision and the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should apply. I recognise that they seek to ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny, but as we have already discussed during our proceedings, the Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.

Amendment 80 would prevent consequential regulations from amending or repealing primary legislation. That could mean that any consequential changes identified following Royal Assent would require additional primary legislation. That would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time and could delay implementation. The power is expressly limited to provisions that are consequential to the Act. It cannot be used to pursue new policy objectives, whether related or not, to the legislation approved by Parliament in the Bill. Any regulations made beyond what is consequential on the Bill’s provisions would be open to legal challenges, as well as parliamentary scrutiny. Importantly, clause 20 already provides additional scrutiny where this power is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, with such regulations requiring the approval of both Houses.

Amendment 81 would go further by requiring all consequential regulations to be approved by both Houses. We do not consider that to be proportionate. Where regulations do not amend or repeal primary legislation, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny for more technical, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. The power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act and is intended to ensure its effective implementation and the maintenance of a coherent legislative framework. I therefore consider that clause 20 provides the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while avoiding unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. On that basic, I hope I have sufficiently reassured the shadow Minister, and I ask that he does not press amendments 80 and 81.

--- Later in debate ---

I also commend to the Committee Government amendment 78, which will make a consequential change to the Bill’s extent provisions. It is necessary as a result of new schedule 1, which makes amendments to the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and the Companies Act 2006. The amendment will ensure that the Bill’s extent provisions properly reflect those amendments. It is therefore a technical and consequential amendment.

[Gareth Bacon]

I wish to press Opposition amendments 80 and 81 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Vickers, and the other Chairs of the Committee? I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings, and my officials and private office for all their support in bringing forward this piece of legislation. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for their valuable insights.

I have had a spirited and constructive dialogue with the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I accept fully that there are principled points of disagreement, but I have valued their challenges and contributions. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

[Gareth Bacon]

I echo the Minister’s sentiments. Obviously, on a subject like this, there will be disagreements across the House, but they have been largely respectful and, at times, quite good-humoured. I thank the Minister, his officials, my hon. Friends from the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and all hon. Members on the Committee. I look forward to seeing you all on Report.

[Gideon Amos]

I repeat the thanks from the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to officials. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me, and the Minister for taking on board so many amendments—at least in spirit, if not in reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.